Talk:John MacArthur (American pastor)

message: The article had John F. MacArthur listed as having honorary doctorates from Grace Graduate School and Talbot Theological Seminary (the full name of the aforementioned institution is now given in full). The biographical information pertaining to John MacArthur's academic record was amended to reflect the fact that one of the two doctorates mentioned in the prior record was in point of fact earned. I am also rather certain that he possesses at least one if not two more honorary degrees. Relative to the earned doctorate, MacArthur is known with certainty to have written a dissertation on the subject of Judas Iscariot.
:John F. MacArthur has two honorary doctorates. He has no earned degrees higher than M.Div. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.171.245 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 July 2008 
::Without citing a source, it seems unwise to contradict his published biography from TMS. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of his academic record 

message: Perhaps someone in the know could mention how his views have changed on this important issue. 82.4.38.108 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonship

message: It seems to me that to call John MacArthur a conservative Baptist is a direct contradiction to saying he is a Calvinist.
:Calvinist theology is completely compatible with Baptist theology.  It would not be correct to say that he would fall into the camp of "General Baptists" but he is much more aligned with "Particular Baptists", or even "Reformed Baptists". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of Baptists who are Calvinists.  There are some popular ones, too.  Check out John Piper. Mikepope (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Your initial assertion is completely false. It is an incontrovertible fact that many Baptists are 5 Point TULIP Calvinists. In fact, there are many high profile Baptists who are Calvinist. Here are just a few: Albert Mohler, D. A. Carson, Mark Dever, John Piper (theologian), Matt Chandler (pastor), J. D. Greear, and Thomas Ascol. Historically, Calvinist Baptists included: Charles Spurgeon, William Carey (missionary), James Petigru Boyce, and Carl F. H. Henry. Additionally, your idea that people who refer to "Calvinism" are typically referring to the idea that God chooses who to condemn to hell is also totally off-base. Calvinists believe that all people are condemned to hell based on their own personal choice to reject God, except for the intervening grace of God. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: While I think it's obvious that many Baptists are (and have been at least since the mid-1600s) Calvinists, what is not clear to me is the evidence for calling MacArthur a Baptist. He probably was one in his early years. Bob Jones University is certainly Baptist of a stripe. But neither Azusa Pacific nor Biola/Talbot is specifically Baptist, and the church he has pastored for over 40 years is non-denominational. --Haruo (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Title of this thread shows ignorance about "baptists."  The term baptist means very little except that usually the group opposes infant baptism.  Almost anything else could be the doctrinal position of the many, many congregations and individuals in this local church autonomous movement.  There must be over 200 baptist denominations.  People with this designation could be Arminian, Calvinistic, conservative, liberal, even out-right unbelievers.  The very title shows that the writer isn't hip, as he should have titled it babtist.  (EnochBethany (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  conservative Baptist and Calvinist is a contradiction 

message: Grace Community Church/Master's College has many characteristics of a destructive cult:
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,76955,76955
Something to consider for improvement.  Jasonc65 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also consider using WP:RS for statements. If reliable sources agree it has many characteristics of a destructive cult, then we will include it. However, I doubt you can find reliable sources which agree on this statement. Jesanj (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is GCC/MC a cult? 

message: The 1989-90 date seems much too early for BBN's decision to drop Grace to You.  I heard the program on BBN weeknights at 8:00 p.m. US ET well into the 2000's.  While I'm not completely sure, I think the switch to Dr. Stephen Davey occurred around 2004.  Can anyone else verify this?
74.176.66.116 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of BBN Dumping 

message: There seems to be several places in this article where there are not reliable external sources discussing MacArthur's views. I have tried to tag these, particularly where the statements rely on edited YouTube videos of MacArthur's preaching.  Taken completely out of context, you could probably make any number of untrue statements about his beliefs.  While I have no good reason to doubt that MacArthur truly holds these views, it would make the article much better if we could find reliable sources that actually discuss that fact, rather than cherry-pick out of his own teaching materials. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed a couple OR tags as unwarranted. To tag the statement  that the  books, "The Charismatics," "Charismatic Chaos" and "Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship," are three books against the Charismatic & Pentecostal Movements as being original  research, is like citing a statement that Gore's "an inconvenient truth" opposes AGW is OR. And for another, i do not think referenced youtube videos  should not be considered OR, but i added web pages.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 05:32, 28 December (UTC)
Thank you.  I do not usually write in the article itself, so lack expertise.Easeltine (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Just IMHO:  In the case of a living man like John MacArthur who has written so much and made so many tapes & videos, any particular statement about his theology should be based on both secondary and primary (the horse's mouth) sources; that is, if you care anything about the truth. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: The young earth creationism section makes a claim against science and requires per WP:PSCI that we give due weight and make it clear that this belief is pseudoscience.  Either that or delete the scientific claim.  Per WP:PSCI
"..While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such" Lipsquid (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for starting a talk page discussion. The consensus here is that we describe "creation science" as pseudoscience, but not "young earth creationism" per se. MacArthur may well be an advocate of creation science as well, but that needs a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry young earth creationism is in category creation science, which is in category pseudoscience and sub categories inherit, so YEC is definitely category pseudoscience. Lipsquid (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: YEC seems to refer to the theological side of the view, while Creation Science refers to the scientific side of it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, MacArthur is a theologian, not a scientist. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reasonable, remove the anti-science claim Speaking about evolutionary theory, he writes that Christians "ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them vigorously." and he can be anything he wants and it stays religious not scientific. Otherwise, we have to call out the view as pseudoscience per WP:PSCI.  Lipsquid (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But the anti-science bit is highly relevant. Don't forget, "anti-science" is not the same as "pseudoscientific". StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, anti-science is not always pseudoscience, but in this case it is.  Per WP:PSCI what we need to do in this case is very clear. Lipsquid (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you say in this case it is? StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A creationist talking about "the lies of evolution", which is clearly a pseudoscience view.  Lipsquid (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not necessarily pseudoscience at all - anti-science, yes, but not automatically pseudoscience. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Earth Creationism 

message: The final entry "John MacArthur: Mainstreaming Paganism in the Church" is reported as a critical review and while scholarly in presentation lacks the conventions of a true critique of the man or his teachings. Specific citations for references are not given nor is the author listed. The accusations of MacArthur being a Druid and a Freemason, while potentially embarrassing and even scandalous if they were proven true, are from neither a neutral nor an objective point of view. Plenty of opposing views from more reliable sources are cited in specific controversies such as Cessationism and Young Earth Creationism. This reference should be removed or replaced. Greyfalcon33 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on John F. MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20091112230937/http://www.ecpa.org/gold-past-comp.php to http://www.ecpa.org/gold-past-comp.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822003059/http://www.tms.edu/FacultyIntroduction.aspx?FacultyID=5 to http://www.tms.edu/FacultyIntroduction.aspx?FacultyID=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205235106/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521051745/http://calvarychapel.com/series/living-water/view/strange-fire to http://calvarychapel.com/series/living-water/view/strange-fire/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130221195746/http://hackthyself.net/2013/01/06/psychology-the-study-of-the-mind-or-the-study-of-the-soul/ to http://hackthyself.net/2013/01/06/psychology-the-study-of-the-mind-or-the-study-of-the-soul/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "And secondly, the reality that these people are lost in this system and throwing the word “Jesus” all over the place.  They don’t know the gospel.  They don’t understand the gospel." - https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-11  This quotation is a generalization by Pastor John MacArthur, and is found in the Strange Fire Conference Q & A Session #1.  I could quote a large number of reliable people that had been very Pro Pastor John MacArthur theology, until this statement is said.  Taken into account the overall subject of the Strange Fire Conference the generalized statement would include ALL Christians that believe in Continuationism, (Roman Catholic, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants), and any Christian groups, like Calvary Chapels, that worships in what Pastor John MacArthur judges as Contemporary Christian Worship Music. Despite his statement at the Conference about Bethel Worship Music, (Hillsong Music included), not being found in Reformed Churches, there are many Reformed Churches near his church that worship with this music every Sunday. The article correctly quotes the line from Pastor John MacArthur's sermon, "The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," stating that ALL Sign Gifts from 100 AD are, (or 70 AD, End of the Apostolic Age, completion of the Text of the Canon), "Are all False, All Lies, All Deception," and fails to mention a line from the following paragraph, "The leaders of Israel committed the unpardonable sin, and what was that unpardonable sin?  It was attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit.  Remember that?  It was attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 12:31-32." The statement is really strange when almost all Christians consider Salvation itself a Sign Gift of the Holy Spirit. If any Sign Gift has taken place by God the Holy Spirit from 100 AD until now what conclusion does that statement draw? https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-415/the-modern-blasphemy-of-the-holy-spirit.  Several years ago, above, a person suggested a Cult section in the article for GTY, and the reply was that one could not get reliable sources agreeing to this idea. Now, that has changed, one can now gather up enough reliable Christian sources with research to create a section like this.Easeltine (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section - Other Christian Movements and other religions / Generalization Comments 

message: When checking the honorary doctorates sentence, I could not find any info on "Grace Graduate School" which apparently gave him one in 1976. One would expect a wikipedia article so did it change name?  Or is it subsumed under a larger school? --Erp (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grace Graduate School 

message: The paragraph on MacArthur's views on suicide is almost impossible to read; I can't make heads or tails of it Rpward (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the addition. As well as being unclear, it was unsourced, which is not acceptable in a "controversy"section. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies, suicide paragraph 

message: MacArthur said in a recent interview "no homosexual will ever enter the kingdom of heaven".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EsVTSVOaJk
I think it is worth mentioning this as his current theological view. I also think it is part of the controversy because this issue is controversial even among Christians.
Kissingby (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting a discussion here. For his views, especially things deemed "controversial", we need reliable secondary sources. As a preacher, he says so many things - speaking publicly for at least an hour a week - so why would we single this out? StAnselm (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary source (his own website): https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY89 He also said exactly this sentence on TV in the Larry King Show (min 37:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNQLhj1nzBA Why single this out? Because he has said so repeatedly, and not every Christian holds this view.--Kissingby (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what we mean by a secondary source - an interview on GTY is still a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on trans and homosexuality 

message: Pastor John MacArthur did not believe in the doctrine of Eternal Sonship until 1999. http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/02/john-macarthur-christs-eternal-sonship_08.html
:The actual doctrine of Eternal Sonship is necessary in order for one to be a Christian.  It can be summed up by this quote from Bishop Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop who excommunicated Arius, and was the moderator at the Council of Nicaea, "It is necessary to say that the Father is always the Father.  He is the Father, since the Son is always with Him, on account of whom He is called the Father." The Christians:  There First Two Thousand Years, Third Volume pg. 227
:The essential need to believe in Eternal Sonship is part of the logic that the Son of God, the LORD God Almighty, Jesus Christ as being One with God the Father is a neccesity as per "The Nicene Creed," and "The Athanasian Creed."Easeltine (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal Sonship answered from above 

message: This user appears to exist only to edit according to an agenda of sorts and may compromise the integrity of the article Recommend to review all edits made by them.
Special:Contributions/2603:80A0:109:5597:A17F:9F6D:9F98:538A 155.93.173.227 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous User 2603:80A0:109:5597:A17F:9F6D:9F98:538A