And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(2 Thess 2:11-12)
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.(Revelation 14:9-11)
A few days ago, in a blog article I commented upon the trend among many among Evangelicals and Pentecostals of succumbing to evil in so many current controversial issues. If these religious leaders can find ways to unite with Islam (Chrislam) and can seek to be reconciled with unrepentant and practicing Sodomites, (N.A.L.T.) in the face of the clear New Testament warnings, What else remains of the Christian faith is there to deny?
I then posited that the next thing we knew there would be those among us who would rise up to assure Christians that it would be alright to take the Mark of the Beast.
I am appalled to have to report to you that in the responses to my last article, I was informed that this is already happening, there are already prominent Christian teachers on record who do advise that it is possible to take the Mark of the Beast and yet to be saved after having done so!
Here is a Link to a discussion between Brannon Howse, Jimmy Deyoung, about a teaching Q/A by John MacArthur, in which all agree that it is possible to take the Mark of the Beast and still be saved! Outrage;John MacArthur
I have long respected MacArthur, and hope that he will soon retract his rash and irresponsible teaching on this point. It is shocking that a minister who is otherwise so well-known for his respectful treatment of scripture and his bold stand for Jesus would be teaching this!* MacArthur has long taught through scripture and his Grace to You program has been a source of feeding for hundreds of thousands of God’s sheep.
To be fair to MacArthur, he isn’t cavalier about taking the Mark. He merely denies that taking the Mark is an irrevocable and unforgivable action. Here is GTY’s official response to those who object to MacArthur’s teaching on the Mark,
Unforgivable? by Phil Johnson
Several years ago in a live Q&A session, someone asked John MacArthur if taking the mark of the Beast during the Great Tribulation would be an unpardonable sin. His answer, in short, was no. Though there is a stern warning against taking the mark of the Beast in Revelation 14, the sin is not categorically said to be unpardonable. (That would contradict Matthew 12:31.) The point of the severe language in Revelation 14 is to make clear what an utterly reprehensible sin it will be to swear an oath of willful loyalty to Antichrist… (click link for the rest of the statement).
What are we to make of this confusion about something so seemingly so clearly taught in scripture?
* We must be very near the time of the test warned of in Revelation 13, the imposition of the Religio/Political/Economic system which will impose on all, the Mark of the Beast.
This is what christians have been conditioned for in the countless accommodations by so many leaders to other things clearly rejected in scripture, such as union with false religion and accommodation by the church of sexual perversions, or they dare to lead congregations to reject things emphatically taught in scripture, such as Hell and final judgment..
But bold pseudo leaders leaders rise up and decide (for all of us) that the time for our (the church’s) ignorance, and prejudice is over, it is time to be responsible and for the church to get with the times, and accommodate what scripture clearly forbids.
Acceptance of the Mark of the Beast is just the last in a long line of this kind of leadership.
* We need to be clear about the Mark of the Beast, we can’t afford to allow any confusion about it.
God so wants us to be aware of the danger of accepting the Mark, He will commission Angels in the last days, to warn people of the eternal and irrevocable danger to all who would take the Mark of the Beast.
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.( Revelation 14:9-11)
How could God be any clearer? There will be astonishing pressures upon people; buying and selling in the conventional way will become impossible without the Mark, therefore people will look about for any kind of justification for violating this clear Word of scripture, just as some churches found ways to justify rejecting the Biblical teachings on Hell, Homosexuality, and prohibitions of interfaith unity.
Perhaps this is why the Lord resorts to such etra-ordinary means, Angelic Heralds flying through the sky , warning of the everlasting punishment on all those who took the Mark of the Beast.
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.(Revelation 20:4)
*The Mark of the Beast is something to Overcome…
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.(Revelation 15:2)
Prepare now to reject the Mark with all of your being! There are some things worse than death, such as everlasting judgment.
The scripture talks about “receiving the Mark”, thus it is not imposed on anyone, all are given a clear choice to accept or reject it. The Mark of the Beast is the final watershed, man’s last chance to take God’s side or the devil’s. I hope and pray this encourages much conversation and prayer.
*(As a Pentecostal I have always realized that on the subject of the gifts of the Spirit and Pentecostalism, MacArthur has allowed his biases against the antics of the pseudo pentecostal money preachers to taint his teaching, but I never held that against him).
Pastor Bill Randles Blog 
Pingback: Be Clear About The Mark of The Beast | BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN !
Do you think it is possible for an unbeliever to take the mark, and then later become a Christian?
no Glenn, I don’t.That is why the Angels are sent forth to counter the “Mark” Policy. what do you think?
Well, my understanding of what MacArthur was saying, had to do with that possibility – not that a Christian could take the mark.
So what you’re saying is that once the mark is being taken, no one will become a Christan – the only Christians will be those who came to Christ before the mark became the thing.
No th only Christians will be those who “overcame the mark(see Rev 15:2) , his number and his name! God bless you Glenn-Pas bill
Okay, Rev 15:2 just says those who overcame the mark. Couldn’t that apply to an unbeliever who took the mark and THEN heard the gospel and placed his faith in Christ? I mean, aren’t all sins forgiven once a person places their faith in Christ?
So unless the time of the mark ends all gospel teaching, and no one becomes a believer after the mark is required, then there should still be people coming to the Lord.
Here’s an example. In 1st Cor. 6:9-10 Paul lists a group of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, i.e, who will suffer God’s wrath. HOWEVER, he also says that’s what some people WERE. So just saying that these people won’t inherit the kingdom does not mean everyone of these people won’t inherit the kingdom unless they choose Christ and leave it behind. In the same way, a person who is an unbeliever and under that statement about not being saved because he took the mark, could come to Christ and then be what he WAS, and by accepting Christ as savior would no longer be in that group.
I know this is all hypothetical, but I don’t think the passage about those who take the mark is any more final than Paul’s statement about his list of people who will not be saved; it all depends on whether one repents and turns to Jesus.
And my understanding of what MacArthur was saying falls into this argument.
Even if we are wrong about this understanding, I think it is really erroneous and downright wrong to say that a person who has this understanding is therefore a false teacher, as so many on the ‘net have been calling MacArthur.
Thanks Glenn, this is really good food for thought. Am new to this whole argument, because it is only recently that I have been aware that there is even a consideration that one could take the Mark and still be saved. I confess that the Wording of Revelation 14, (the warning of the Angel) seems so strong and final to me that I have never questioned that it is a final and irrevocable warning.
“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
This is a bit different warning, than 1 Corinthians 6 in my view, for example he says,”The same shall drink the wine of the wrath of God….”. Why should anyone teach that one could be saved after receiving the MArk, in the face of warnings like thisl. BTW I am concerned for John MacArthur, but am not prepared to call him a falseteacher. Another thing to remember Glenn, that the Antichrist will not completely control the whole world, Passages such as Daniel 11 tell us that there will be peoples and nations who successfully resist him. I leave it to the readers to consider, study and debate, but if I am right, and the MArk is an irrevocable sin unto death, I wouldn’t want to encourage anyone before it even comes out, that it would be possible to accpt it and then be saved. God bless you Glenn,your input is a blessing-Pas Bill
Thanks for making that very clear. How sad that so many “popular” evangelists are saying otherwise and deceiving people. Le’s stay in God’s Word.
Pastor Bill, I forgot to let you know that is the same video my sister sent that I couldn’t find in my emails, Your article that I last commented about this is also gone. Do you have a way to resend it to me as I always pass them on to a friend.
Am I right in understanding that you believe that a Christian, someone with the Spirit of God living in them (as opposed to someone who just chooses Christianity as their religion), can lose their salvation?
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)
Why make things more complicated than they have to be?
“It is the duty of every theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches.”
— Charles Hodge
Why make things more complicated than they have to be?
Unless, of course, you are just one of the many looking for a way to take a jab at MacArthur.
I actually respect Mac Arthur quite a bit, but am concerned that some might take the mark under pressure,(cause they heard someone as respected as JM) and possibly damn their own souls. I don’t see what you mean by complicating this, it seems pretty straightforward to me.Your friend-Pas Bill
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)
He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6)
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11)
I find it clear from Scripture, (these and all of it), that those who belong to Him have been saved from damnation. Salvation is of the Lord. We are to be faithful in proclaiming His Word. Evangelism is necessary. Warnings are necessary. God is sovereign.
(Maybe I am wrong, but I sensed that your theology is more complicated than this.)
I understand and agree with the need to warn of false teaching.
I don’t see anything here from JM that warrants that. Especially considering the official response from GTY that you included.
I applaud you for warning people about what the Bible says about taking the mark. People need to know. I just find it unfortunate that you had to take a jab at JM to do it.
I have been subscribed to your blog for a few years. I think this is the first time I have commented. Thanks for interacting.
Eric
Eric, far be it from me to take a jab at John Mac Arthur, and thanks for your clarification. There are many people who think they are saved and are not, this is unfortunate but true. Jesus warned,” Many will say to me in that day,Lord,Lord….” but will be syunned to hear the words, “Depart from me you worker of iniquity”. Much of my writing is dedicated to those decieved ones upon whom the night is fast falling. Thanks for writing, and know that I am praying for MacArthur etal. Pas Bill
Dear Pastor Bill,
The following shows that worryingly John MacArthur does seem a bit confused – because he gets things right in this GTY sermon from 1993:
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/66-48 — a sermon from Oct. 31, 1993 where MacArthur teaches correctly. Excerpt:
“But this will be the mark that men and women have to have or else they cannot eat, they cannot live, surely they will die. So we see the person, the power, and the program of the false prophet. There’s a last point, it’s not in the chapter, but I have to give it to you, it’s his punishment…his punishment. His person, his power, his program, finally his punishment. For this we go to chapter 14 verse 9, and we’ll look in this section in more detail coming up. But in verse 9, “Another angel, a third one, followed them saying with a loud voice, `If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he will also drink of the wine of the wrath of God.’ And when it comes it will be mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.’”
So here’s a warning to the whole world, you take that mark and you are going to receive the wrath of God. Now you can make your choice, you can refuse the mark and get the wrath of the Antichrist, or you can take the mark and get the wrath of God. The wrath of God means torment with fire and brimstone and it says in verse 11, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image and whoever receives the mark of his name.” You take it and you will suffer torment forever.”
One wonders what ever is going on Pastor Bill?
sister Liz thank You.I will gladly publicize this if I can find evidence that this is his last Position. And I don’t know what is going on, I think the trial is not far off.Thanks for writing-Pas Bill
Preach it LOUD and CLEAR brother!
If the Scripture says it, you had best believe it and act on it!
The warning in Revelation 14 is CRYSTAL CLEAR. It is s-p-e-l-l-e-d O-U-T for any who doubt or are uncertain.
This is true no matter who claims differently. Don’t risk it!
God bless you, faithful brother!
-Gordon Wood
BTW, I don’t limit how far God’s grace can reach. But I DARE NOT presume or assume anything when Scripture is clear.
In his book, Because the Time is Near,(copyright 2007) MacArthur intimates that those who take the mark of the beast can repent and so escape the wrath of God.
“The third angel’s dire warning is addressed to anyone who ‘worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand.’ The angel warns that a terrible fate awaits those who persist in worshiping the Antichrist. Once again, God graciously calls on sinners to repent in the final hour.”
First, this isn’t a warning for those who have taken the mark to repent and believe the gospel, but rather a warning against taking the mark and worshiping the beast. This can be proven by continuing in Revelation chapter 14 and into chapter 15. I will highlight the salient verses.
Here is the patience of the saints; her are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.'” “Yes, says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them.” Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. And another angel come out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. Revelation 14:12-16
This passage has to do with the death of the saints who die because of their testimony of Jesus Christ and obedience to the commandments of God. Who refuse to take the mark of the beast and worship him. This is seen by the first four verses in Revelation 15:
Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image, and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested.” Revelation 15:1-4
Before the wrath of God is poured out upon the Antichrist and his kingdom (Revelation 16:1-21), the saints of God are harvested through their martyrdom and given rest to worship God for His faithfulness to them and His judgment upon the evil wicked world of unbelievers. Those who take the mark will be judged for eternity, “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day of night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” Revelation 14:11
Second, not all of humanity will be destroyed at the Second Coming of Jess Christ, only those who received the mark of the beast and worshiped him will for sure be consumed at His return. Many will refuse the mark, but not believe in Jesus Christ. The will populate the earth during the 1000 years. If everyone who survives and populates the earth are believers, then how can there be a great rebellion when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ upon the earth? The ones who survive the judgments of God upon the earth, and did not take the mark of the beast, will go into the millennial kingdom.
John MacArthur is directly contradicting the written Word of God and so proves himself unfaithful in the things of God. This is really vital since so many are giving heed to doctrines of demons. Only those who hold fast to the Word of God and believe and obey it through their faith in Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit will be kept from this great deception in the last days. May we be faithful and reject the teachings of men that contradict the sure Word of God. God bless you:)
I have never even entertained taking the “mark”, but with all the deception going on with all of scripture in our churches in the last days, I think a good reference to scripture thorought the Bible is in order, so that I “we” will be able to teach others from our grounding in the Word, rightly dividing the word……this is all future prophesy….but I still need to read and learn. Like you, I have always believed that if the mark is taken we will be kept from eternity with our Lord, but all that I read says the mark and worshiping the beast…..can they be separated? to mean either or , or always to mean both?
thanks Karen, you are right, we need to prepare ourselves to join the Angels in warning others, by really studying this. I have always read from Revelation 14,that taking the Mark, for whatever reason, would be an act of Worship, much as the annual “pinch of incense” offered to Caesar, something which Christians recognized was an act of worship and refused to do, in the face of Martyrdom.
Can you clarify your stance for me please. From your article and the responses in the comment section it sound as if you believe that the Mark is a soon to be reality and that we who are in Christ now will be around when it happens. Which sounds to me that; A: you believe in post-trib rapture and B: that the Tribulation spoken of is already here. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but that seems to be the implications.
Sure John I will gladly do so. I have always hovered between pretrib and a Prewrath rapture position. I do believe we are very near the time of the end,and that the precondition for the tribulation are falling into place. Grace and Peace=-Ps Bill
By the way, Pastor Randles, although I am not a Pentecostal/Charismatic/Continuationist, I do appreciate the fact that there is voice within the movement that is speaking out against the falsehood within it. Do not grow weary.
We must remember that John MacArthur is a Calvinist who believes in predestination and election unto salvation. That explains why he can say such a totally unbiblical thing. What he means is that the elect will be able to take the mark of the beast and still be saved because no-one (not even God who chose them unto salvation before the foundation of the world) can thwart their salvation. Of course, the non-elect who take the mark of the beast will be forever damned because they had been forever damned before the foundation of the world in any case.
So, as you can see the elect will be safe when taking the mark of the beast while the rest will be damned.
I can’t understand why people become so outraged when someone like John MacArthur says things like this and are not outraged when he says things like “God sent his Son to love and die only for the elect.” John Mac Arthur is not saved and needs to repent before it’s too late.
Tom Lessing,
So now you can judge MacArthur’s salvation?!? Does MacArthur confess Jesus as Lord? Yes. Does he believe that he was raised from the dead? Yes. According to Rom.10:9 he is saved. Seems to me you are adding perfect doctrine to salvation requirements. There are a lot of solid believers who don’t have all their ducks in a row when it comes to doctrine, but they are still saved.
I think Calvinism is almost as bad as Romanism, yet there are Catholics who are indeed saved in spite of the Church’s teachings because they can indeed find the truth among the chaff of Catholic dogma.
Amen Glenn!
To confess Jesus as Lord means nothing. Zilch, nada, zero.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Mat 7:22-23).
Perfect salvific doctrine, my dear, is the only doctrine that saves.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn 1:9).
Would you say that the doctrine of Christ is perfect or is it also a mixture of truth and chaff? Jesus said:
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:38)
Did you notice the phrase “as Scripture hath said?” You seem to believe that the chaff mixed with so-called truth in Romanism and Calvinism are doctrines “as Scripture hath said.”
Would you drink a glass of water mixed with a tiny drop of poison in it? By all means go ahead, You seem to think that Jesus died on the cross so that people like John MacArthur and Roman Catholics may mix his doctrine with chaff and still be saved. If John MacArtrhur is saved then he is one of the most dangerous pastors there is because he is misleading others byu telling them that God loves and died only for the elect.
Please read verse 10 together with Romans 10:9. It says the following:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:10)
Calvinists (including John MacArthur) deny that man is capable of believing unto righteousness. MacArthur says that man is unable to believe because of his Total Depravity (Total Inability) and that God needs to sovereignly and monergistically regenerate only the elect (without faith) and then grant them faith as a gift AFTER their monergistic regeneration. Would you say this is a kind of faith that saves?
Pastor Bill, I heard many of your sermons while you were in South Africa but must say that I am deeply disappointed in you.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (Joh 3:10)
Tom,
I am very, very familiar with Calvinism, as I am with Roman Catholicism. I have studied Christian apologetics for over 30 years, which means I have studied these belief systems among my studies of all false teachings.
The point is, YOU are adding requirements for salvation. I do not doubt the salvation of John MacArthur, yet you profess to know his heart. While Calvinism and Romanism have both added traditions of man to their belief systems, the gospel is still there for those who are looking for it.
Calvinism really only disagrees with the interpretation of “predestination.” They believe that Christ died for our sins and rose again from the dead proving that God accepted the sacrifice. They believe that faith alone is the basis of salvation. Their difference is how that is arrived at. That doesn’t make them heretics or unsaved.
There are many Christians who are mixed up in their doctrinal understandings, yet in the one essential doctrine — that of faith in Christ for atonement of sin — they are solid believers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to have full understanding of all doctrines to be saved.
You are behaving as a Pharisee.
Hi Glenn,
I invite you to read this article.
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/02/27/calvinism-greatest-god-sent-delusion-time/
Are Roman Catholics saved despite the chaff of Catholic dogma. Don;t believe me because I am a layman. I’m sure you would rather take heed what one of the most learned apologists of our time, Dave Hunt, has to say.
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/are-roman-catholics-saved
You;re quite right: Calvinism is as bad as Roman Catholicism and even worse.
Tom,
Calvinism is NOT worse than Romanism because the truth is easier to find in Calvinism than in Romanism, and Calvinism doesn’t burden its followers with as much man-made legalistic traditions.
And you, nor anyone else, can judge a person’s heart. I’ve known many Romanists who were indeed saved because they understood the real gospel underneath the chaff. If you’d ever communicate with Romanists and Calvinists you might just be able to understand how one can be saved while still following deception. There are indeed many testimonies available from ex-Catholics about their salvation within the RCC and their final decision to leave it. Many will stay with the RCC for family reasons, even though they have become saved.
You are a Pharisee for your legalistic requirements for salvation above and beyond what the Scripture says. Challenge the teaching and that is fine. Challenge the individual as to whether he is saved and you are on dangerous ground. You cannot know their heart. If they demonstrate an understanding of the truth, they can have all sorts of baggage of other misunderstood doctrine, but the Bible doesn’t say that disqualifies them from salvation.
Mr. Lessing,
Do you pray for the salvation of anyone?
If so:
Imagine for a moment that God is not sovereign in grace, that salvation ultimately depends on the sinner’s own choice. How then should we pray?
Do we say: “Dear Lord, I realize that there may not be much that You can do about this, but if there is, please help my friend somehow to become a Christian”?
Of course no one actually prays this way; the very idea is absurd. But what makes it so absurd is that, deep down, every Christian believes in the sovereignty of God’s grace. When we pray for sinners to be converted, therefore, we ask God to do something for them that we know they are utterly incapable of doing for themselves.
We ask God to invade their minds, change their hearts, and bend their wills so that they will come to Him in faith and repentance. In short, in our intercession we depend on God to save them.
Have a good day and God bless.
Eric Beagles
If lost sinners were utterly incapable of doing anything Jesus would never extended the following invitation.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Mat 11:28-30)
Calvinists believe that sinners are utterly incapable to come to Christ and therefore must be sovereignly and monergistically drawn to Him (John 6:44). What they forget is that God draws all people to his Son (John 12:32). Will everyone be saved? Of course not. However, unlike Calvinists who believe that only the so-called elect are drawn to Him and are the only ones to be saved, Matthew 11:29-30 distinctly says that only those who realize and acknowledge that they are heavy laden with their sins and desperately need a Saviour, will come to Him. That’s why Jesus also said:
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. (Luk 5:31)
Calvinists cannot do this because they believe they are as dead as a corpse in sins and trespasses and therefore are void of a free-will. Consequently they first need their minds to be invaded (this is totally unbiblical because God never invades anyone’s mind. Satan invades minds), their hearts changed and their will bent before they can come to repentance. Might I remind you that a changed heart means that the person is already saved. So, what you are saying in effect is that the elect must first be regenerated (saved) before they can come to Him in faith and repentance. That’s putting the horse before the cart.
You said:
“Do we say: “Dear Lord, I realize that there may not be much that You can do about this, but if there is, please help my friend somehow to become a Christian”?
Indeed, God cannot do much for a lost sinner who refuses to believe in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross,
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6)
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6)
Praying for you lost friend will only benefit him until he himself calls on the Name of the Lord.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:13)
Please note the word “whosoever.” It debunks the idea that God only chose a few to be saved and the rest He sends to hell. There is no such thing as election unto salvation.
As you can see, you can pray for your lost friend until you are blue in your face, unless he comes to the Lord, realizing that he is a lost sinner and on his way to hell and calls on the Lord himself before he can be saved. Believe me, election unto salvation is NOT the Gospel. It is another Gospel.
Mr. Lessing,
Please answer the question, sir. How do you pray for someone’s salvation?
There is no need for you to continue to rant against Calvinism or to use the Scriptures to defend your position. You have made it clear.
How do you pray for someone’s salvation?
I know, I know, it’s much easier to be argumentative and “prove” that other people are wrong than it is to answer that question, but could you please try and give it a shot.
(If you reply with another diatribe, I’ll take that to mean you either don’t pray for others to be saved or that you are unable to answer the question in a way that supports your view.)
beags8
I gather that you never pray for anyone’s salvation. Why would you when God sovereignly chose the elects’ salvation before the foundation of the earth and nothing can thwart or hinder their salvation? Would He have chosen them and then not save them? Therefore, prayer for the salvation of the elect is unnecessary and a vain exercise.
The fact that you loath it when I quote from Scripture proves to me that something is desperately wrong. If I had made it clear to you from Scripture that Calvinism is not of God, why are you so obstinate?
Of course I pray for the salvation of others. How do I do it? I remind God of his promises in Scripture (You see God reverences his Word more than you do – Psalm 138:2).
Here are some of his promises I bring before Him when I pray for others.
Ezekiel 33:11
2 Peter 3:9
John 3:16
1 John 2:2
But then again I shouldn’t refer you to Scripture because you don;t like it.
Wow, how stiff-necked and full of pride you are.
We are to pray for the salvation of others and evangelize out of obedience.
Yes, there is something desperately wrong with how you use Scripture. I always loath it when people misuse Scripture to “prove” false beliefs.
I’m not a Calvinist and never claimed to be. I believed what the Bible teaches before I ever even heard of Calvinism.
I’ll pray for you and “remind God of His promise” to give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26;Romans 8:9); that He cause you to be born again (John 3:3;1Peter 1:23), so that you are born of God (1 John); so that Ephesians 2:1-9 be about you too.
Glen wrote:
“You are behaving as a Pharisee.”
Your’e wrong. This is how a Pharisee behaves.
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” (Luk 18:11)
Compare this with John MacArthur’s testimony.
“PHIL: “So you’re saying, are you saying it would be difficult for you to put your finger on when your conversion took place?”
JOHN: “Yeah. I’ve never been able to do that. And it doesn’t bother me. I think I’m one of those kids. I was one of those kids that NEVER REBELLED AND ALWAYS BELIEVED. And so, when God did His saving work in my heart, IT WAS NOT DISCERNIBLE TO ME. I went away to high school and for all I knew, I loved Christ, I was part of the ministry of the church. I went away to college and I wanted to serve the Lord and honor the Lord. I was certainly immature. But at some point along the line, I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart, but I think it may have been to some degree imperceptible to me, because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time, I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe. And I guess that’s, in some ways that’s a grace act on God’s part. So that all that wonderful training found some level of fertile soil in my heart and none of it was wasted.”
He always believed and never rebelled and when he was saved he was unable to perceive it? Really? If he always believed, then he had no need of the Holy Spirit to convict him of sin, righteousness and judgment. “Of sin, because they believe not on me.” Who is lying – Jesus Christ who said the Holy Spirit convicts lost sinners that they do not believe on Hom or John MacArtrhur who says he always believed?
Charles Spurgeon had a similar Pharisaic testimony.
“CHARLES: I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free will; I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace! Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude, that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone and had not touched me by His Grace, what a great sinner I would have been! I would have run to the utmost lengths of sin, and dived into the very depths of evil! Nor would I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me; I feel that I would have been a very king of sinners if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine Grace. If I am at this moment with Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His Glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty Grace has saved me from going down into the pit of Hell!”
God didn’t seem to be that interested in restraining Adam and Eve from sinning, did He? Why? Because He wanted to see whether they would love and obey Him from a willing heart. There can be no genuine love without a free-will. Imagine a woman’s mind being bent, her heart and mind changed against her will by a man so that she may marry him. That’s not love. It’s coercion.
The only requirement for salvation is faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross. John MacArthur does not believe this.
John MacArthur put it this way: “From the standpoint of reason, regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance. But the saving transaction is a single, instantaneous event.” Regeneration is seen as a sovereign act of God by which He causes a person who is spiritually dead to become spiritually alive. We sometimes call this “monergism.” This act is not in anyway dependent upon man. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema puts it this way: “Regeneration must be understood, not as an act in which God and man work together, but as the work of God alone.”
Like Hoekema,, MacArthur excludes faith as a precondition for salvation. They believe that faith is given to the elect only AFTER their regeneration.
What does the Bible say.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6).
As you can see from this, the Spirit of God has not need to convict the elect of sin, righteousness and judgment because it is impossible to convict a corpse (dead in sins and trespasses). Therefore, God first has to regenerate an elect before he/she can believe.
Glenn wrote:
“Calvinism really only disagrees with the interpretation of “predestination.” They believe that Christ died for our sins and rose again from the dead proving that God accepted the sacrifice.”
You say you studied apologetics for 30 years and yet you don;t know what Calvinists believe? Calvinists DO NOT believe that Christ died and rose again from the dead for the entire world (humankind as a whole), MacArthur for one, believes that He died and rose again only for the elect. Their reasoning is fatally wrong because they say that if Jesus died and rose again from the dead for the whole of humankind, then every single person would be saved. Their belief that Jesus was born and died only for the elect is a partial denial of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. If He was not incarnated and died for the non-elect, it is nothing than a partial denial of Christ’s incarnation. Who is the one who denies (albeit a partial denial) the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Yep! ANTICHRIST!
Tom,
I DO KNOW what Calvinists believe – every single part of TULIP. It still isn’t heresy. It is YOU who lying when you say they partially deny the incarnation. You apply what you believe the result of their system is and then claim that is what they teach.
Glenn,
TULIP is not heresy? Really??? You must be kidding.
The “L” (Limited Atonement) alone is rank heresy, let alone the rest of the acronym. If God limited his atonement to the elect only it means that Jesus did not become flesh, die on the cross and rose from the dead for the non-elect. It denies the basic tenet of the Gospel contained in Jesus’ claim that He came to seek and to find the lost (Luke 19:10). Who are the lost – only the elect or the entire human race? Their denial that he did not come to seek and to find the non-elect is an outright denial that He was born, died and rose from the dead for the non-elect, which in turn equals a “partial” denial that He came in the flesh for the non-elect. It’s as simple as that.
To make is simpler allow me to dramatize it for you.
ELECT: God sovereignly chose, from before the foundation of the world, to save only a certain group of people called the elect. It means that He sent his Son to be born of a virgin, die on a cross and rise from the dead only for the elect.
NON–ELECT: Do you mean that Jesus was not incarnated, died on a cross and rose from the dead for me because I am not a Calvinist and therefore a non-elect reprobate whom He did not choose from before the foundation of the world?
ELECT: Yes!
NON-ELECT: : Well, if that’s the case, it means that his incarnation, death and resurrection only benefits a small part of the human race. Would that not make Him guilty of being partial in respect to persons? James tells us that it is a sin to be partial (James 2:9). Are you saying that God is guilty of the sin of partiality? (Romans 2:11).
ELECT: No! I am merely saying that Jesus was NOT born, died on the cross and rose from the dead in behalf of the non-elect (the reprobate).
Tom,
Look, I told I am very familiar with Calvinism and its teachings. You choose to continue acting as if I’m ignorant and want to be my teacher.
You are not going to change your mind, and will continue to judge the heart of every Calvinist. I am not going to bother with you any longer; I have more important things to do in my life.
I had left this conversation because I noticed I was getting emotionally involved in defending a man and not Scripture and I was not arguing clearly…
Yet I have watched the interaction on here and I have to jump back in on this conversation for the sole reason that Tom is assigning many people to hell when he begins labeling what they believe in regards to soteriology as heretical. For a heresy by biblical definition has to do with “the faith once delivered to the saints.” So if he is right, then Calvinists are nothing more than Roman Catholics believing in a false gospel. (Please note that there are hypers, hyper-calvinist and hyper-arminians, and both have anathematized the others soteriology.)
Also, many are still failing to even attempt to understand what MacArthur was saying.
The accusation seems to go that he is saying “if you end up going through the Tribulation, go ahead and take the Mark and you will be fine.”
Yet that can’t be farther from what he is saying. Especially considering MacArthur’s view on teaching that if you are a Christian your life will demonstrate it by baring good fruit. He denounces the thought that you can “practice” sin and still be a Christian. (yes there is a huge difference between a Christian sinning and a Christian “practicing” sin).
Another thing, MacArthur is a premill, so he believes the rapture will be before the Tribulation even begins. As such, when asked, “can someone still be saved after taking the Mark?” we are given the answer we have.
Many in here (even myself for many years) assumed that once you take the Mark, your done, no more chances. But then that should lead to three questions. And if we are truly honest we will allow the Word of God to inform our thinking and not our thinking to inform Scripture.
What are those three questions? There are many more that we need ask to ensure faithful understanding, but for the sake of space I will ask these three for now.
First- Though the tribulation period will be a time dramatically different in regards to widespread persecution and darkness, does that mean that the Grace of God will operate differently?
As I said, if we honestly look at the WHOLE council of Scripture, and not just snippets, what will our answer be?
Secondly- What do we do with Jesus’ own words in Mark 3:28-29
28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—
Thirdly- For what sins did Jesus die for? Was it only for certain categorical sins? And to tie this to the first question, does the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross end once the Tribulation starts?
I will post another comment dealing with the original Greek to show that we must be careful of cutting off forgiveness for sins based off of faulty (yes I am saying your thinking is faulty) reading of Scripture. But then again, when people just use proof text to prove their points then all sorts of tragic things happen.
John Cochrane wrote:
Yet I have watched the interaction on here and I have to jump back in on this conversation for the sole reason that Tom is assigning many people to hell when he begins labeling what they believe in regards to soteriology as heretical. For a heresy by biblical definition has to do with “the faith once delivered to the saints.” So if he is right, then Calvinists are nothing more than Roman Catholics believing in a false gospel. (Please note that there are hypers, hyper-calvinist and hyper-arminians, and both have anathematized the others soteriology.)
Whether your statement “So if he (Tom Lessing) is right, then Calvinists are nothing than Roman Catholics believing a false Gospel” is just a random shot in the dark or whether it is based on solid research, I can’t really say but you have touched on something that can be verified from authentic documents and statements by some of the most revered scholars.
B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”
C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.”
Calvin himself said: “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.”
Pope John Paul II in his 1986 celebration of the 1600th anniversary of Augustine’s conversion, said: Augustine’s legacy . . . is the theological methods to which he remained absolutely faithful . . . full adherence to the authority of the faith . . . revealed through Scripture, Tradition and the Church . . . Likewise the profound sense of mystery—“for it is better,” he exclaims, “to have a faithful ignorance than a presumptuous knowledge….” I express once again my fervent desire…that the authoritative teaching of such a great doctor and pastor may flourish ever more happily in the Church. . . .
Vance reminds us that Augustine was “one of Catholicism’s original four ‘Doctors of the Church’ [with] a feast day [dedicated to him] in the Catholic Church on August 28, the day of his death.” Pope John Paul II has called Augustine “the common father of our Christian civilization.” William P. Grady, on the other hand, writes, “The deluded Augustine (354–430) went so far as to announce (through his book, The City of God) that Rome had been privileged to usher in the millennial kingdom (otherwise known as the ‘Dark Ages’).”
McGrath writes, “Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.” Wendel concedes, “Upon points of doctrine he borrows from St. Augustine with both hands.” Vance writes: Howbeit, to prove conclusively that Calvin was a disciple of Augustine, we need look no further than Calvin himself. One can’t read five pages in Calvin’s Institutes without seeing the name of Augustine. Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as “holy man” and “holy father.”
From these quotes it is evident that Calvinism is indeed based on the heretical teachings of one of the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church
Cochrane wrote:
Also, many are still failing to even attempt to understand what MacArthur was saying.
The accusation seems to go that he is saying “if you end up going through the Tribulation, go ahead and take the Mark and you will be fine.”
Yet that can’t be farther from what he is saying. Especially considering MacArthur’s view on teaching that if you are a Christian your life will demonstrate it by baring good fruit. He denounces the thought that you can “practice” sin and still be a Christian. (yes there is a huge difference between a Christian sinning and a Christian “practicing” sin).
I really think you are underestimating my intelligence and that all the other folk who are shocked by MacArthur’s statement. Revelation 14:9-11 is pretty straight forward and cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way than what it explicitly says. I will deal with your interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 a bit later.
Moreover, your effort to defend MacArthur’s statement with reference to his view on teaching that if you are a Christian your life will demonstrate it by bearing good fruit is rather farfetched. What has that got to do with the mark of the beast? In fact, it is clear from Scripture that no true born again Christian in the Tribulation will even think of taking the mark of the beast and rather die than pay allegiance to the antichrist. How do I know this? Well, John gives the answer in Revelation 12 “And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” (verse 11). The one’s following and worshiping antichrist by taking his mark will not be true Christians but false Christians who follow a false Christ. I can’t see how you can associate their lives with good fruit.
Ah, but in your next post you try to differentiate between “Christians” having taken the mark of the beast in the past and “Christians” who will be worshiping the beast (present active tense) when Christ returns. Lest I misrepresent you let me quote you verbatim: “What we see is that those who will be thrown into the Lake of Fire are those characterized by receiving the mark (past tense) and worshipping (present active). So yes, they received the mark, in the past, but, and here is the big but, they are continuing in their worship of someone other than God. And so we see, that at the end, when God’s forbearance has ended, and His judgment comes down, it is those who are actively participating in the worship, not those who had done it in the past that are judged.”
First of all it is not merely their adoration of Antichrist that will damn them; it is the taking of his mark that seals their fate. The mark itself is a sign that they are defiantly worshiping Antichrist (Satan personified) as the only true God, in spite of their acute knowledge that Jesus Christ’s Second Advent to judge the nations is imminent and that his Kingdom is at the door. Hence the phrase “and his image.” Where is his image? In the most holy sanctuary in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
Since the tribulation is primarily a time for the Jews to repent and receive Jesus Christ as their Saviour (Jeremiah 30:7), the message preached by God’s servants (144 000 sealed Jews) to the entire world during the tribulation will be the same John the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples preached at the beginning of Matthew: “Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” The message preached today and the message proclaimed in the tribulation calls for a turning to the only Saviour. However, in the tribulation the message will stress the coming of the Kingdom, and those who then turn to the Saviour for salvation will be allowed entrance into the kingdom. The worship of antichrist and his image as well as the taking of his mark is a deliberate, rebellious and obstinate refusal to prepare for Christ’s Kingdom through repentance and faith. And this is exactly why God’s wrath will be poured out on them without them ever desiring or wanting to repent.
“O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.” (Jeremiah 5:3)
And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. (Rev 16:1-9)
I am sure you must have noticed that those who refuse to repent are the culprits who worship the beast and his image and have taken his mark. Therefore, it is not that they cannot repent but because they refuse to repent that leads to their imminent judgment.
This is so plain that even a child can understand it and yet MacArthur and you believe that some of those who worship the beast and his image and take his mark will repent of their heinous deeds and receive Jesus as their Saviour. The Bible actually teaches the very opposite.
Cochrane then asks three questions to underline his view that some among the beast worshipers will repent and receive Jesus as their Saviour.
“First- Though the tribulation period will be a time dramatically different in regards to widespread persecution and darkness, does that mean that the Grace of God will operate differently?”
It depends on what he means by grace. If he’s referring to the Calvinistic “Irresistible Grace,” then, yes some of those who worship the beast and his image and take is mark may indeed be saved. All that needs to be done is for God to irresistibly zap them into regeneration without them having to believe in order to be saved. And this, I think is why MacArthur maintains that some beast worshipers will be saved.
“Secondly- What do we do with Jesus’ own words in Mark 3:28-29?”
One of the main traits of sinning against the Holy Spirit is to stubbornly, rebelliously and persistently shun his conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment and that’s exactly what the beast worshipers are going to do – refuse point blank to repent. (Revelation 16:1-9).
“Thirdly- For what sins did Jesus die for? Was it only for certain categorical sins? And to tie this to the first question, does the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross end once the Tribulation starts?”
The question should not be “for what sins did Jesus die.” The question should be “when and how are sins forgiven.” Once again, it is glaringly evident that the beast worshipers can be forgiven but they don’t want to be forgiven, unless, of course Revelation 16:1-9 is a lie.
The rest will follow later.
Please forgive the long post.
John Cochrane wrote,
“Yet I have watched the interaction on here and I have to jump back in on this conversation for the sole reason that Tom is assigning many people to hell when he begins labeling what they believe in regards to soteriology as heretical.”
Would you say the following are the same as assigning people to hell?
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”. (Gal 1:8-9)
John Calvin himself could not have been saved according to the Bible.
“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (1 Jn 3:15)
Calvin did not only hate Servetus but orchestrated his murder (burning at the stake) as well as many others who did not agree with him.
Indeed, like Calvin, John MacArthur and everyone who holds to the so called Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) are assigning people to hell. Their own words prove that they are assigning people to hell.
The Canon of Dort declares: ““For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that . . . the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect . . . all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation . . . he purchased by his death.”
In other words, the rest also known as the reprobate or non-elect are summarily assigned to hell.
John MacArthur says:
“Why did God choose not to love everyone like that? I’ll give you a good guess, and maybe not a guess. The reason God did not choose to love everyone savingly, is because the love of God is qualified by his glory, by his glory.”
When a child asked him why God did not choose everyone to be saved, he said the following:
“Why didn’t God choose everyone to be saved? You know something, honey? I don’t know. I don’t know. But, I’ll give you a basic answer, OK? And the basic answer–and I hope you can understand this–the basic answer is: because He got more glory for his own name by doing it the way He did it. God does what He does for His glory. And somehow, in some way, God is glorified in what He did, and that’s why He did it.”
MacArthur does not only assign the reprobate to hell; he says it gives God more glory.
So next time, Mr. Cochrane before you blame me for assigning people to hell, listen carefully to the way your friends assign people to hell. By the way, if you agree with Calvin and MacArthur, you too are assigning people to hell.
I merely compared MacArthur’s testimony to that of the Pharisee. What was the end result?
“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luk 18:14)
MacArthur exalts himself when he claims that he has always believed and never rebelled against God.
My next contention is with your statement “We must remember that John MacArthur is a Calvinist who believes in predestination and election unto salvation. That explains why he can say such a totally unbiblical thing.”
You declare it as unbiblical, yet you fail to start with Scripture to show why. All you do is show your presupposition that since John MacArthur is a Calvinist, it is only natural that he would get this wrong.
First, though he holds to the Doctrines of Grace, as I have pointed out prior, he does not ascribe to the amillennial eschatology that most “reformed” individuals do.
Next, if I may. Let us look at one of the passages in question and see if it merely is because MacArthur is a heretic, as you have established in other comments.
Bear with me as this will be long, but it is necessary.
Revelation 14:9 “And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,”
Rev 14:9 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ εἴ τις προσκυνεῖ τὸ θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ λαμβάνει χάραγμα ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ
The word I would like to highlight is
προσκυνεῖ- Proskyneō- worships
What I want to point out is that this is what is called a “present active indicative”.
Knowledge of the tense of a verb can sometimes be critical for accurate interpretation.
For example read the following verse…
1Jn 3:9: “No one who is born of God practices (present tense) sin (noun), because His seed(God’s) abides in him and he cannot sin (verb), because he is born of God.”
Look at the verb sin. At first glance the verse seems to imply that one who is “born of God” can never commit a sin and yet all genuine believers know that this is not a reality (cf 1Jn 1:8, 2Chr 6:36, Ec 7:20, Jas 3:2). When you understand that the verb sin is in the present tense, it becomes clear that John is saying that one who is born of God cannot habitually commit sins as their general pattern of life. The verb “practices” is also present tense and conveys the same thought. All believers commit sins but not habitually or as their lifestyle. Application: if one’s lifestyle is that of continual sinning in conjunction with no desire for holiness (cf He 12:14), these individuals need to examine whether they are genuinely new creatures in Christ (2Cor 5:17-note) born from above (Jn 3:3, 5, 2Co 13:5-note). And so one can see that in 1Jn 3:9 (as in most of chapter 3 of first John) the accurate interpretation of the passage is aided by a proper understanding of the verb tense.
Depending on the context, the following adverbs may be useful to “amplify” the meaning of a verb in the present tense:
“Continuously, constantly, habitually”.
Present Tense with the indicative mood represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or future. In moods other than in the indicative mood, it refers only to continuous or repeated action.
Now if we follow that understanding then when we look back at Revelation 14:9, we are dealing with a continual state of being.
The same holds with Revelation 19:20
19:20 “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.”
What we see is that those who will be thrown into the Lake of Fire are those characterized by receiving the mark (past tense) and worshipping (present active). So yes, they received the mark, in the past, but, and here is the big but, they are continuing in their worship of someone other than God. And so we see, that at the end, when God’s forbearance has ended, and His judgment comes down, it is those who are actively participating in the worship, not those who had done it in the past that are judged.
Let me add this must be a disclaimer. In order for them to escape the judgment they must accept the glorious Gospel of the Grace of God to be saved. It is still not enough to just stop worshipping the beast, but they must place their trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
So don’t accuse me of saying they don’t need to believe the Gospel to be saved.
John Cochrane wrote:
“My next contention is with your statement “We must remember that John MacArthur is a Calvinist who believes in predestination and election unto salvation. That explains why he can say such a totally unbiblical thing.”
You declare it as unbiblical, yet you fail to start with Scripture to show why. All you do is show your presupposition that since John MacArthur is a Calvinist, it is only natural that he would get this wrong.”
I did not deem it necessary to start with Scripture because I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. John MacArthur, being a staunch Calvinist, believes in the absolute sovereignty of God, albeit a distorted interpretation of God’s sovereignty. As such MacArthur asserts that, because God is sovereign and does as He pleases, and because monergism (and not synergism) forms the basis of His redemption, He is free to save whom He wants and to damn whom He wants. Therefore, his contention that someone who has taken the mark of the beast is not irretrievably lost and can still be saved, stems from the premise that God is sovereign and saves whom He pleases – even some of those who had taken the mark of the beast. The only proviso for them to be saved is that they must be elect persons who by virtue of deception had taken the mark of the beast and, as Calvinists usually argue, we don’t know who the elect are. They can even be among the culprits who had taken the mask of the beast.
MacArthur’s reasoning may be summed up as follows: The view that those who had taken the mark of the beast are irretrievably lost (can never be saved) seriously compromises God sovereignty and as such it undermines the Doctrines of Grace entrenched in TULIP.
Let us now turn to your interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 in which you highlighted the word “προσκυνεῖ, Proskyneō – worships, to affirm that the tense (present active indicative) determines the destiny of those who had taken the mark of the beast, i.e. that the habitual or persistent worship of the beast determines the hell-bound destiny of sinners in the tribulation and not the fact that they had taken the mark of the beast in the past. Once again I must quote you verbatim lest I misrepresent you.
You said: “1 Jn 3:9: “No one who is born of God practices (present tense) sin (noun), because His seed(God’s) abides in him and he cannot sin (verb), because he is born of God.”
Look at the verb sin. At first glance the verse seems to imply that one who is “born of God” can never commit a sin and yet all genuine believers know that this is not a reality (cf 1Jn 1:8, 2Chr 6:36, Ec 7:20, Jas 3:2). When you understand that the verb sin is in the present tense, it becomes clear that John is saying that one who is born of God cannot habitually commit sins as their general pattern of life. The verb “practices” is also present tense and conveys the same thought. All believers commit sins but not habitually or as their lifestyle.
Application: if one’s lifestyle is that of continual sinning in conjunction with no desire for holiness (cf He 12:14), these individuals need to examine whether they are genuinely new creatures in Christ (2Cor 5:17-note) born from above (Jn 3:3, 5, 2Co 13:5-note). And so one can see that in 1Jn 3:9 (as in most of chapter 3 of first John) the accurate interpretation of the passage is aided by a proper understanding of the verb tense.
The fact of the matter is that your explanation of 1 John 3:9 is based on the corrupt translation of the NIV’s rendering: “No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him.” The notion that it conveys the idea of habitual sin is alien to the Greek language. In fact, the Greek text has no words to represent phrases such as “keeps on” or “continues to” or “habitually.” There’s not a single example in the New Testament that the present tense can convey this kind of meaning without the assistance of other words. The very meaning of “habitual” is subjective. What constitutes habitual sin and when can the believer be sure that he is no longer sinning habitually? Never forget what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” The moment you begin to think you are no longer sinning habitually, that’s the moment when you fall. The very thought of not sinning habitually is the very sin that brings you to a fall. In fact it IS the fall.
Think of it this way. Am I always doing the will of God perfectly or do I fail to do his will most of the time in word, thought and deed? Sin is not only what you do; it is also what you fail to do and I can assure you that the failure to do what He expects me to do is usually habitual. Why? Because we are usually unaware of the things we ought to do. This usually flows from a lack of knowledge and understanding and the failure to discern what proceeds from God and what not (Hosea 4:6). The moment we allow ourselves to be deceived – in disobedience to Christ’s command that we should take heed that no man deceive us – and continue in that deception, we make ourselves guilty of habitual sin.
Again we must ask what habitual sin is. Does it mean we do not sin today or for a whole week but next week or the week thereafter we sin again? 1 John 1:8 and 10 distinctly says that he who says he has no sin is deceived and makes God a liar and the truth in not in him. This seems to say that we are never without sin whether it be known or unknown.
The reason why I am emphasizing the fact that we are never without sin – known or unknown – proves that 1 John 3:9 cannot possibly refer to habitual sin because in essence we are all habitual sinners and will remain habitual sinners unto the day we die. You cannot say because I sin once a month that I am not a habitual sinner. The routinely once a month sin is already habitual. Unless of course you deny that you sin at least once a month in which case you would be a liar and the truth is not in you.
If 1 John 3:9 does not speak of habitual sin, what does it refer to? We find the answer in Paul’s lament in Romans 7. “Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it but it is sin LIVING in me that does it.” (Romans 7:20). Paul had a real battle to overcome habitual sin. He didn’t want to do it but found himself completely incapable and powerless to overcome the heredity sin principle LIVING in him. Victory became a reality for him only when he realized that it was not stopping to sin but stopping to live that really mattered. (Gal 2:20). “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” With this magnanimous statement we come to the real meaning of 1 John 3:9. The new man (or new self; Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) is an absolutely new creation. If Christ really lives and not only dwells in your innermost being, there is no place for sin because His life is sinless. Therefore, the key to a correct understanding of 1 John 3:9-11 is that because the child of God is sinless at the core of his being, Satan (the father of sin) can never be manifest through sin as can a child of the devil.6
Having proved that your view that 1 John 3:9-11 describes habitual sin is wrong, your attempt to link habitual sin to Revelation 14:9 and 19:20 must therefore also be wrong.
Glenn E, Chatfield
Please read this article.
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/05/24/verge-apostasy/
Tom,
Thanks for calling me a “her” and “she” when you cite me. Very good eisegesis on my name.
Your article said absolutely nothing but it practiced much eisegesis also on what I wrote. You demonstrated your bigotry and/or total ignorance. Try studying the Romanist dogma and doctrines and you will indeed see that they worship the Jesus of the Bible, the God of the Bible; they also say that one is saved by faith in Christ’s work. Then they add tons of stuff. AH, but if you stop there and realize that was the truth before the added stuff, then perhaps you would realize people become Christians in the RCC. Of course to deny that, you are calling lots of ex-Catholics liars. You have decided for yourself that God can’t work in the heart of those seeking him when they are at the same time being deceive. You are omniscient and just know all those in the RCC are unsaved and you just know those who left the RCC and said they found the truth while in the RCC are nothing but liars.
YOU arrogant PHARISEE! You disgust me.
Unfortunately I am not a prophet who can know the sex of a person without them telling me what they are.
Are we talking about ex-Cahtolics who had come to realize that the RCC is a false church or are we talking about the chaff in the Roman Catholic Church itself? Make up your mind.
You are not only ignorant of Calvinism and Roman docrtine, you are also ignorant of the fact that there are many false Jesuses, gospels and holy spirits. Are you unable to discern between the genuine Jesus of the Bible and the many false ones?
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
You will have to decide in which Jesus you want to believe – the real one or the false ones.
And by the way your ad hominem attacks do not impress me in the very least. Believing on a false Jesus DISGUSTS the God of the Bible.
Sorry, I just couldn’t let this one go because it made me laugh at your foolishness.
Unfortunately I am not a prophet who can know the sex of a person without them telling me what they are.
Gee, the name “Glenn” was confusing as to male and female?
You are not only ignorant of Calvinism and Roman docrtine, [sic]
Sorry, no I’m not. Try looking at my articles about Romanism, and even my article about why I’m not a Calvinist. Ah, but you want to be omniscient and believe you know what others know and are thinking.
I do indeed believe in and teach the true Christ.
If you know so much about Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, then STOP telling people they can find the truth among their chaff. You are misleading people and will have to give an account to God one day for your downright impertenence
Glenn Close is an actress, whose real name is probably different.
THat is the only female named Glenn I have heard in my entire life. You are grasping as straws with your foolishness, especially since all you had to do was click on my name. Oh, but then you would have come to my blog and read my articles about Catholicism and Calvinism and discovered that I really do know about them! And quit saying that people can’t find the truth in faiths rooted in Christianity – by doing so you are saying all those who HAVE found the truth are nothing but liars.
I’m not telling people to join such faiths because they can find the truth there; I’m stating the FACT that people in those faiths HAVE FOUND the truth there!
Get a life.
Isn’t once enough to prove that Glenn is not only used for males but also females?
Yeah, clicking on your name takes you to a cul de sac “Blog not found. Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name watchmansbagipes is available to register!” Nice articles on Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
Your view that people in those faiths HAVE FOUND the truth there is akin to saying, “:Jesus plus those ‘truth’s in Calvinism and Roman Catholicism save people.”. You are saying that Jesus is not sufficient and efficient.
I never said “Glenn” could never be used for females. My point is that the extreme rarity of such a think should be sufficient for normal people to know the name is normally associated with males. I could probably ask 100 people if it was a male or female and none of them would say male. Admit it – if you are going to talk about someone, you should at least know their gender and something about them.
I don’t know what it is with the linking. The earlier links to my name go to my apologetics blog, a couple later ones go to my “Thought Provoker” blog (a new one) and that last link goes to weird as you noted. I don’t get why that is happening.
I never said anything but Jesus was sufficient for salvation, nor will you find anything even hinting at that, so quite misrepresenting me. I stated that the truth about Jesus, the gospel message, can be found among Calvinism and Catholicism; not their teaching PLUS Jesus. I happen to trust those who have been there and done that and are Christians now. They are the ones with the testimonies, but you’d prefer to say they are all liars.
If those who have since been saved were redeemed because of the chaff they heard in Roman Catholicism and Calvinism they would definitely NOT have abandoned and left the RCC or Calvinism. Why would they want to leave when both these institutions offer salvation through their chaff? If chaff can lead sinners to salvation, then God Himself must approve the chaff. Does He?
“Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff (in the RCC and Calvinism) he will burn with fire unquenchable.” (Luke 3:17)
Chaff breeds chaff.
Would you leave after you;d been saved through the chaff in Calvinism or the Roman Catholic Church? To believe that anyone can be saved through the chaff in the RCC and Calvinism is to say that Jesus used the chaff to save them. Therefore, to leave any of the two institutions would be like leaving Jesus Himself after He’d saved them.
The only other alternative is that those who left the RCC and Calvinism did so NOT because they were saved because of the chaff but because they no longer could stomach the chaff. Ex-Catholics and ex-Calvinists have left because it was the chaff that made them feel uneasy.
So as you can see, I never said or even suggested that ex-Catholics and ex-Calvinists are liars. You are the one who wants too attribute their salvation to the chaff while they were still in those institutions. You are the one who wants them to give credit to the very thing (the chaff) that cause them to leave the RCC and Calvinism.
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back (to the chaff he has left behind), is fit for the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:62)
Tom,
Try paying attention instead of ascribing to me things I never said. Those who were saved while in Romanism, SDA, etc, were saved because they found the WHEAT among the chaff of those false belief systems. They wheat is there because they started history with the wheat and later added all the chaff. Jesus used the wheat to save them, not the chaff.
Okay Tom, you are right. Everyone else is wrong. All those who have testimonies contrary to your belief are evidently deceiving themselves or are outright liars.
I’m done here.
Relate to me one single testimony of someone who was saved because they found the truth mixed with the chaff in Roman Catholicism and Calvinism.
Glenn E. Chatfield wrote
“You are a Pharisee for your legalistic requirements for salvation above and beyond what the Scripture says. Challenge the teaching and that is fine. Challenge the individual as to whether he is saved and you are on dangerous ground. You cannot know their heart. If they demonstrate an understanding of the truth, they can have all sorts of baggage of other misunderstood doctrine, but the Bible doesn’t say that disqualifies them from salvation.”
If faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross is the only requirement for sinners to be saved, is legalism then I am legalistic. You boast that you know so much about Calvinism but you continually flaunt your ignorance in public about their doctrines. They too believe that faith is necessary but it is a faith that is granted to the elect only subsequent to their monergistic regeneration. That is pure legalism for it requires one to be an elect before God can grant them faith as a gift. The Roman Catholic Church is even more legalistic than Calvinism and you should know that. And yet you call me a legalistic Pharisee?
Would you say that the Pharisee in Luke 18 was saved? John MacArthur’s testimony that he was always a believer and never rebelled corresponds 100% to that of the Pharisee in Luke 18. Listen to what Jesus said of him.
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:11-14)
Was Jesus a legalistic Pharisee when He said that the Pharisee was not saved?
Glenn wrote:
“And you, nor anyone else, can judge a person’s heart. I’ve known many Romanists who were indeed saved because they understood the real gospel underneath the chaff. If you’d ever communicate with Romanists and Calvinists you might just be able to understand how one can be saved while still following deception. There are indeed many testimonies available from ex-Catholics about their salvation within the RCC and their final decision to leave it. Many will stay with the RCC for family reasons, even though they have become saved.”
Why do you think Jesus warned “Take heed that no man deceive you?” He didn’t say “You can find the truth among the chaff. You must only look for it.” Indeed,, there are many ex-Catholics and ex-Calvinists who are now saved. However, they weren’t saved because they found the truth among the chaff. They got saved when they realized the chaff was taking them to hell. There is no such thing that you can find the truth among the chaff. Then you may as well say that the chaff in Buddhism, Hinduism and any other religion can also lead sinners to salivation in Christ. That’s pure blasphemy. A thing is either the truth or a lie and you cannot use the lie (chaff) to lead sinners to Christ. That’s nonsense! It is the Truth that sets one free and not the chaff (lies).
Tom,
You don’t know what I know, so you are a presumptuous fool to continue to declare that I don’t know Calvinist teachings. You want to force YOUR ideology on everyone else or they can’t be saved. You want to make YOUR interpretation of what people give as testimonies for being saved out of deception, rather than accept what they testify to. You are so omniscient in your ability to know their thoughts.
While the truth can be found in the RCC, and the SDA, et al, who don’t teach perfect doctrine while at the same time use the Bible and have some of the foundational teachings, there is not an iota of Bible or any Christian teachings in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, and to compare them is foolishness.
YOU are also requiring perfect doctrinal understanding for salvation, and THAT is adding legalizing requirements.
I find you to be unteachable, and therefore am washing my hands of you. I have better things to do with my time than demonstrate how foolish you continue to be with your claims of knowing what knowledge people have and what they are really thinking.
Glenn E. Chatfield,
Would you mind giving me some examples of the chaff in the doctrines of Catholicism and Calvinism that can lead anyone to a biblical faith and repentance toward God?
Perhaps you could also tell me what this passage in Scripture means.
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9).
Why do you refuse to answer my question on Luke 18?
Can’t you discern what people are thinking when they tell you what they are thinking? Surely you have the know-how to discern that MacArthur’s testimony is completely at variance with God’s requirement for salvation. especially when Jesus Himself said that the Pharisee who had a similar testimony was not justified. Don’t you believe what Jesus said? If not, then you have a huge problem. Can’t you discern that taking the mark of the beast is the end for those who take it and will burn in hell for all eternity?
Or have you always been a believer and never rebelled against God in your entire life, just like John MacArthur?
I am prepared to listen and to be taught by you but please don’t expect me to listen to you when you believe the TRUTH can be found among the chaff of Romans Catholicm and Calvinism. That’s just plain heresy.
Are the better things you have to do the duty to tell others they can find the truth among the chaff of Roman Catholicisn abd Calvinism. If so, carry on regardless, please.
Glenn wrote:
“While the truth can be found in the RCC, and the SDA, et al, who don’t teach perfect doctrine while at the same time use the Bible and have some of the foundational teachings, there is not an iota of Bible or any Christian teachings in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, and to compare them is foolishness.”
Oh so. now the truth can also be found in the SDA as well? Remember, turth can only be truth when it is not miuxed with lies. Truth mixed with lies are still lies. The SDA does not believe in the existence of hell. Nice truth, heh? They believe that God offered Satan salvation after his fall but he refused. Nice truth, heh? They bveliueve that Satan bore our sins. Nice truth, heh?
Tom,
You really are being obtuse. Truth is truth whether or not lies surround it. If I say the earth is round an then make statements about the universe being imaginary, is not the statement about the earth being round still true?
I never even intimated that the SDA was anything other than a cult. My point was that there is truth to be found in the SDA as well as Roman Catholicism. That is why you can read hundreds of testimonies from people who came out of these groups about how the truth that WAS there enabled them to seek further and come to know the whole truth.
There are many true teachings in the SDA as there are in Romanism. Lies mixed in with the doctrine may hide the truth, but it cannot negate the truth.
One example: both the SDA and Rome teach the Trinity. Does the Trinity then become a lie because it is taught among false teachings? Both teach that Jesus is God incarnate; does that become a lie because it is among false teachings?
There are enough authentic biblical teachings among the chaff of Romanism and the SDA that many, many, many people have come to salvation by finding the truths. And then they leave the organizations (usually, anyway. I’ve known some Catholics who will stay in the organization for benefit of family peace but do not participate in the Mass or other unbiblical teachings).
Try to not be so judgmental. God can use anything for those who truly seek him.
I thought that the mark of the beast was considered to be satan’s seal because he counterfeits everything God does. God will put His name on the foreheads of His people rev.22:4 the beast when he is revealed will cause people to receive his mark on there forehead or right hand.
Perhaps John MacArthur has been compromised? I also respected him as a solid Bible teacher, but if Billy Graham could be compromised who couldn’t.
I believe there are people who will be made to take the mark against their will. The antichrist will “cause” them to take the mark. Think of the implementation of Obama Care for example. People are caused to buy into it. The antichrist will “cause” people to take the mark by making it a legal requirement and those who refuse won’t be able to do any kind of commerce. Also, mkultra individuals who have been chipped against their will are getting saved. My point is that there are people being chipped/implanted against their will, many times without their knowledge, can they be saved?
If it is against your will you are not responsible for it in my humble opinion…
Bill, I am a little confused. Are you saying that those who are going to take the mark of the beast against their will, won’t be responsible for their actions and may even be saved after they had allegedly been forced to take the mark of the beast? The Antichrist causes men to take his mark but he cannot force them. Those under the altar who had been slain (beheaded) for the faith in Jesus Christ (Rev 6:9), prove beyond any doubt that Antichrist will not be able to force anyone to take his mark. To “Cause” and to “force” are not the same. – See more at: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/05/26/copy-verge-apostasy/#comment-419105
So the mark of the beast is only during the tribulation right? Does that mean no one can accept it now?
Correct, the Mark has not been administered yet Matt
Hi Pastor Bill. The book of Revelation is a prophecy of what is to come isn’t it? If that’s the case then wouldn’t Rev 14:9-11 be simply stating the prophetic fact that in the future if anyone takes the Mark then they WILL come under the wrath of God. Repentance then wouldn’t actually come into it. What do you think? 😀
Exactly right dear sister. The taking of the mark is the final expression of apostasy and is irreversible. Please give your hubby and daughter my affectionate greetings-Pas Bill
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Pastor Bill Randles Blog wrote:
>
I sure will, thanks Pst Bill. I hope all your family is well. God bless 😀