Talk:John MacArthur (American pastor)

Correction of his academic record

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)

Sonship

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)

Anti-Catholicism

I've moved the Anti-Catholicism section later, but I wonder if it truly warrants as much space as it is given. It seems like it could be condensed to the text, and leave the user to read the cited page, or just one or two quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwhitten (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

i cleaned it up and took care of the vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.174.52 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is too lengthy for this article. The quotes should be summarized into a few brief statements which sum up his view about Roman Catholicism. I tried to do this earlier, but it got reverted. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your history and it appears that when you modified the page before like you said you deleted the whole section. So are you saying that you would like the section removed? I do not know why you consider long length to be an issue, by any standard this is a short section.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would contend this should not be an entire section, just as there should not be an "Anti-Islam" section, or an "Anti-Free-Grace" section. If you look at my edits[1], they condensed this down to paragraph form as follows:

MacArthur does not believe that Roman Catholics are a part of the Christian community and has been vocally outspoken against their inclusion, referring to the priesthood as "a Satanic religious system that wants to engulf the earth." Regarding celibacy in the Catholic/Orthodox Church, he has stated, "...Scripture associates celibacy with Satan, and I really believe that is true. I believe Satan has managed to take control of the Catholic system. In a number of ways this is manifest, but in clearer terms one of the ways he has demonstrated his presence in it is the forbidding of marriage."

Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Scripture associates celibacy with Satan". JESUS WAS CELIBATE JESUS WAS CELIBATE JESUS WAS CELIBATE JESUS WAS CELIBATE. For a movement that supposedly has a very high regard for Scripture, fundamentalists in the USA seem to distort Scripture, read things into it that aren't there, etc., more often than they brush their teeth in many cases. I'm a Christian, yet people like this guy disgust me. They certainly don't speak for me, let alone for Christ or the church. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you say that this does not deserve a section, would you now explain why. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:UNDUE, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. MacArthur's viewpoint on Roman Catholicism, or specifically on the priesthood is not by any stretch of the imagination the primary reason for which he is notable. Each of his distinctive theological perspectives should be given prominence in the article according to their significance.

By way of illustration, I would invite you to Google "John MacArthur" (in quotes), and then do a page search (using "Ctrl-F") for the word "catholic". Given the level of prominence that you seem to want to place on this in the wiki article, you would expect to find something on that first page of hits. Instead, what you find are things related to Bible Exposition and Preaching, for which he is primarily known. I propose a restoration of the paragraph above, into the section on Theological views. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism is a large part of MacArthur's life. The majority of his church's "aid" goes to catholic, in reality it is money to proselytize them. Half of his church is made up of former catholics. Perhaps 100% of the missionaries form his church go to catholic countries (look at his website). He calls catholicism a satanic religious system that wants to engulf the earth. From what you say this isnt worthy of a section?Peppermintschnapps (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you read my response? MacArthur's views on Roman Catholicism are equally worthy of their own section in this article as his views on what has been called "Easy-Believism" (for which he is most notable within evangelicalism), on the role of psychology in counseling (for which he has received the most media attention), on the "Seeker Friendly" movement, on Charismatic and so-called sign gifts, on creationism, on gay marriage, and so on. Where are your sources that say Catholicism is a large part of his life? There is one sermon (perhaps a two-part series) quoted. His expository preaching and Bible study notes, as well the rest of his corpus of writing, are far more notable than his views on Catholicism. In addition, if the article were expanded, and if his views on these other areas which have been cited by reliable third party sources are also given individual sections, then the title should by no means be called "Anti-Catholicism". I'd like to hear others weigh in, but I think you'll find little support for giving such WP:UNDUE weight to this one small facet of his belief system. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the original commenter in this discussion, this material should remain condensed to just the text. Additional quotes may be appropriate for Wikiquote, but seem excessive for this article. HokieRNB 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

referring to the priesthood as "a Satanic religious system that wants to engulf the earth. this is wrong, the word priesthood should be catholicismPeppermintschnapps (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the sermon quoted from, and it is entirely focused on the priesthood. Even if that statement is true of Catholicism in general, the context in which MacArthur was preaching is clearly the priesthood. I would leave it alone. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He never said that, its not a quote. stop whitewashing this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying? It is a quote; it's directly quoted from The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood. There is no mistaking that his sermon is focused on (another quote) "the priesthood itself as the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church." Ἀλήθεια (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i concede that i was wrong on the quote, i had read it previously and remembered it differently. Who cares what the sermon is focused on? Peppermintschnapps (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"People ask me if the Pope is saved. I answer them, "Is the Pope Catholic?" "Some think that it is another Denomination, (Catholicism). It's not, it's another religion!" - Pastor John MacArthur Kind of important subject considering his recent sermon, "Are Catholics Saved?," (name of the sermon on YouTube - His answer is No!Easeltine (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Correct title, "The Pope and the Papacy," Exact source, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-291/The-Pope-and-the-PapacyEaseltine (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Extraordinarily long book list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After two weeks of silence, there appears to be no momentum toward merging this content. Consensus and precedence lean toward inclusion for lists of works by notable authors when (a) some or all of the works are inherently notable, (b) the list is sufficiently long or bulky

---

Do you think it's possible that the list could be turned into "Selected publications", and include only a dozen or so of his most notable, significant, or popular works? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created a list of works by John MacArthur, so this can now be weeded out. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think he is a sufficiently important author for this, so I have reverted. This is something usually done only for authors of major significance , not those with many minor publications of this sort. I think you;d need to show multiple reviews form any of the works in order to justify this, but I see almost nothing unconnected with his own church, except an specialized denominational award for two books only. The list then needs to be abridged, of course. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. He is one of the most widely-regarded, widely-published, and widely-read authors in modern evangelicalism. He has well over 100 publications, by multiple significant publishers (not connected with his church). His commentaries are used in graduate level seminary courses. Several of his books have been the center of significant controversy (e.g. The Gospel According to Jesus and Charismatic Chaos, to name two). Aside from his book awards, he has also sold more than 500,000 copies of multiple books, and more than a million of others. There are other publications which could be added to the list if you include works to which he contributed. What would you suggest for a threshold of significance? There are plenty of reviews for dozens of his books, if that's all you want. But shouldn't you have asked for that on the talk page of the new article? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

staying within this subject area, Knox, or Bunyan, or Calvin, or Luther, or Wesley, or Jonathan Edwards. It is not number of works, that makes a writer important. It's how well they are known in their special field, and also out of it. We have no formal criterion for this, but I think the informal one we have maintained by consensus for a separate list of works is "famous". Yes, I recognize some of the publishers as significant--that's why he is notable. But merely "one of the most widely-regarded, widely-published, and widely-read authors in modern evangelicalism." is much too weak a criterion for a separate list.-- it could apply to many people equally. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the separate book list, based on the precedence that has been set in multiple other places. Consider, for instance, the list of books by John Piper or bibliography of C. S. Lewis. In addition, consider the philosophically related Category:Discographies. This book list takes up well over half of the article, and is yet incomplete. If you still believe that it doesn't deserve its own article, then please discuss in the proper channels, rather than reverting and remerging into this article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That analogy is very telling. CS Lewis is a world-famous author, with many best selling books translated into 30 languages, multiple films made from his work, dozens of books written about him. on theology and other subjects--including some of the greatest children's books ever. You cannot really say that McArthur is equal, either in importance as an author, or, for that matter, in impact upon Christianity (I think most people would consider Lewis the best known of the 20th century apologists.)

As for Piper, thanks for calling attention to it. This holds equally for him. I've put it on my list of articles needing attention & flagged it.

Discographies are considered differently here from books--they are split very frequently and in any case, I deal only with books, not popular musics, about which I am ignorant.

As for the proper channels to discuss this particular pair of articles, the talk page of the article proposed to be merged to is the proper channel. If we cannot agree, the procedure is to ask others to have a look at it -- see Help:Merging. I have replaced the merge tag -- it stays up until consensus has been reached. BTW, looking more carefully at this article, i think we will need to discuss it also. This is a biography, not a place to describe his views in full detail with explanatory quotes--I consider that more promotional than informative; I think the balance needs some looking to. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see I omitted explaining something--the place to discuss is the talk p. of the article to be merged to, on the assumption that more people will have been watching it.

• Disagree with merging. While I agree that C.S. Lewis wrote some excellent children's literature, MacArthur's works are far more significant in theological circles. The list of works by John MacArthur should be expanded (and perhaps annotated), not merged into this biographical page. Are his contributions to multi-author works even included in the list? What about the works that have been published into electronic libraries? Surely this is notable. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

are they truly as significant in theological circles as Lewis's books in children's literature? How many languages, for example, have they been translated into? BTW, can you provide 3rd party sources for the claims you made about his importance? Are they notable to Christians generally world-wide, or primarily within the particular denomination of modern evangelicalism in the US? . You say "one of the most famous authors" Who would you say , from you view of the field, which is undoubtedly much more extensive than mine, are the 2 or 3 most famous? (BTW I am not in particular opposed to lists of works by theologians, but to separate lists for less-than-famous authors in any field. I'd support an article on a list of books by Luther, or Wesley, or Bunyan) DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to his bibliography, MacArthur's books have been translated into a bunch of other languages. The most often translated works include The Charismatics (11 languages), Why One Way, The Gospel According to Jesus (7 languages each); The Murder of Jesus, How to Meet the Enemy, Successful Christian Parenting, Ashamed of the Gospel, and Found: God's Will (6 languages each). There are a dozen more books that have been translated into 4 or 5 different languages. I think that speaks to some sort of "global notability" (which is not a threshhold that I'm aware of). To be sure, his significance is notable primarily within Evangelical Christianity (which is still sufficiently notable).

It also sounds like you are asking my opinion on "the 2 or 3 most famous" Evangelical Christian authors. That's hardly admissible in this discussion, but I'm glad to share. Currently? John Piper, Max Lucado, Chuck Swindoll. 20th Century? C.S. Lewis, A.W. Tozer, Francis Schaeffer. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I have previously stated, I am opposed to the merge on the basis that John MacArthur's writings are inherently notable. In 2005, The Barna Group conducted a survey regarding "The Books and Authors That Have Most Influenced Pastors", and concluded that MacArthur was among a group of six authors "who had the greatest number of influential books listed by pastors." (link) In 2001, Duke Divinity School’s Pulpit & Pew project surveyed pastors regarding "...what three authors do you read most often...?" and concluded that MacArthur was among the top twelve for Conservative Protestants. (link) Would it help the case for the list to include this research? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with helping the content of the article. Although summarizing his theological views is helpful, especially in areas where he has drawn criticism, some editors want to drag it out into unnecessary detail. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I have listed it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to get other opinion. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• My response to the "most famous" question - I never made that assertion! I believe my words were: "one of the most widely-regarded, widely-published, and widely-read authors in modern evangelicalism." As to who (in that field) is most famous, I would have to list people like James Dobson ("Focus on the Family"), Tim LaHaye (Left Behind), Bruce Wilkinson (Prayer of Jabez), Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life). Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• My response to the "as significant" question - you focused on the wrong comparison. Clearly MacArthur's contributions do not rival the significance of Lewis's impact on children's literature. I was referring specifically to "in theological circles". Lewis is extremely well-known for the wildly influential book Mere Christianity. However, on the strength of his commentaries alone, MacArthur is on the level of (evangelical) household names like Spurgeon, Scofield, and Calvin. How many other living expositors have sold a million copies of a study Bible bearing their name? Ryrie is the only one that comes to mind. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It really doesn't matter if he is more "famous", only if his books are sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. That said, I think it's safe to say that the body of his work is more significant than that of C.S.Lewis in theology. I would also argue that several of his books are notable in their own right and should have Wikipedia articles. Regarding study Bibles, how about Charles Stanley, Max Lucado, Richard Blackaby, Joyce Meyers, to name a few? Although their names aren't in the titles, Swindoll and Wiersbe have also published their own study Bibles. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• question: by Calvin, did you mean John Calvin? Are you seriously asserting equal or even simlar importance? DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • reponse: I believe, if you read carefully, you'll see that the context is "on the strength of his commentaries alone, MacArthur is on the level of (evangelical) household names like..." Is MacArthur as a man as significant as the man Calvin? No. (At least not yet, and not likely to change that significantly in whatever remaining years he has left.) Are his published works comparable on a level of significance? I think that's a reasonable comparison. Ἀλήθεια 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

conservative Baptist and Calvinist is a contradiction

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)

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)

It is a fact that very few Baptists are 5 Point TULIP Calvinists. Most are probably 2 Point - Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints. When using the term Calvinists most people are thinking of the Hyper-Predestination ideas, and most Baptist believe that one can choose to receive Jesus Christ as LORD of their lives, and they do not believe God chooses who to damn to hell. I have listened to enough of his teachings to know that Pastor MacArthur believes in all 5 Points of the TULIP, although, his Lordship Salvation idea for the "P" is different than some. In the regard of Predestination John MacArthur is more Reformed theology than most Baptist.

The group, "Conservative Baptist Association of America," do not reflect a "Hyper-Calvinistic", (way article explains), on Predestination, although they do believe in Eternal Security. According to the groups Statement of Faith, (and personal experience with their teachers), their idea of Eternal Security is that one must be changed and have fruits of repentance. That is similar to P. MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation" ideas. That is in contrast to OSAS w/o Repentance that people who believe more in Arminianism, (including Catholics and Orthodox), find heretical.Easeltine (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

"No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin There is a point of view that John Calvin contradicts 3 points of TULIP by this statement, so the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.Easeltine (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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) Pastor MacArthur defines himself as a "Reformed Baptist," which Wikipedia numbers 16,000 out of the 100 Million Baptists worldwide. Almost all of the rest are not 5 Point Calvinists.Easeltine (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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)) Reformed Theology contradicts Baptist Theology, Reformed Theology believes in Infant Baptism. That is part of the point he is trying to make.Easeltine (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ssMusGfmhg Jacob PraschEaseltine (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is GCC/MC a cult?

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)

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)

Date of BBN Dumping

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)

Original research?

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)

For those interested in Pastor John MacArthur's viewpoints on Catholics, and anyone using Modern Sign Gifts check out the sermons, "Are Catholics Saved?," and "The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," on YouTube. One doesn't have to "cherry-pick" it is consistent on how he believes throughout those clips.Easeltine (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC) One can also get the sermons in a written form on the Internet through GTY.Easeltine (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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))

Primary Sources like his actual words from the sermon, "The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," "The Pope and the Papacy," aka "Are Catholics Saved," the actual words of Pastor MacArthur from the 2013 Strange Fire Conference, (like his presentation of 1 John 4:1-6, his words against Chuck Smith/Maranatha Music, and Q&A Session 2)?Easeltine (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Censorship of proposed "controversial beliefs" section

I proposed a "controversial" section including of beliefs that he holds that can be found in this edit. Just to restate what I mentioned - Christian Post reports: According to MacArthur, the Charismatic movement is an "alien movement" whose roots can be traced back to 1966 when the hippies of San Francisco moved to Orange County and joined Calvary Chapel and the "barefoot, drug-induced young people told the church how the church should act." he said. "Hymns and suits went out. For the first time in the history of the church, the conduct of the church was conformed to a sub-culture that was born of LSD and marijuana."

The reversion that was made was by "CPsoper" states "Talk pages not for comment alone". I'm not commenting. I'm proposing a "controversial" section, similar to the one on the Pat Robertson page entitled "Controversies and criticisms".

John MacArthur has created an entire movement, the "Strange Fire" conference, based on this belief that the church was "drug-induced" and "born of LSD and marijuana". I think it counts as notable mate ;) 182.255.99.214 (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't generally have separate "controversy" sections - see WP:CSECTION. Also, the CP article doesn't say that the claim that the charismatic movement was drug-induced was controversial. You would need a reliable source stating that this is the heart of the controversy. And the CP article seems to be the only one around. StAnselm (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, essentially, the article states that John MacArthur has stated that the "charismatic movement was drug-induced". However, the article doesn't state that this is a controversial statement. This is my own personal insight into the statement - that it is ridiculous to suggest that the charismatic movement was induced by drugs. I now understand why this was viewed as a "comment" originally. However, your statement that Wikipedia doesn't generally have "controversy" sections is incorrect. Just look at the Pat Robertson page. Note even this entire page dedicated to Pat Robertson controversies. Just wondering if you are applying the same standards to a cessationist (John MacArthur) and a charismatic (Pat Robertson). It's alright to have rules - but these rules must be equitably applied; not based on the whim that you don't like Pat Robertson so dedicate an entire page to controversies; yet not apply that same standard to John MacArthur. McArthur has clearly been rejected even by most of mainstream Christianity in America with his controversial views on the charismatic movement; think even John Piper 182.255.99.214 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the quote from MacArthur (found at http://www.gty.org.uk/resources/sermons/TM13-18/an-appeal-to-charismatic-friends) and his exact words were "But you have to understand, this other stream of evangelicalism goes back about to 1966, 1966, when the hippies came out of San Francisco, showed up in Orange County, joined Calvary Chapel, and we had the launch of an informal, barefoot, beach, drug-induced kind of young people that told the church how the church should happen, how it should act. Hymns went out. Suits went out. For the first time in the history of the church, the conduct of the church was conformed to a sub-culture that was born in LSD and marijuana in San Francisco, migrated to Southern California. " That's not saying the charismatic movement is "drug-induced" or "born in LSD...", although he is claiming that the church was controlled by drug-induced people and conformed to the hippie culture. But MacArthur's claims are highly dubious - he is focussing on Calvary Chapel and ignoring other aspects of the charismatic movement. It is generally accepted that the charismatic movement began in 1960 with Dennis Bennett, and other influential people are Harald Bredesen and Graham Pulkingham.

But, for our purposes, what matters is that we have reliable sources for what the article says, and I would encourage you to to look for these to improve it.

"Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit Through Counterfeit Worship," one can get from the book, the above comment, and some of the comments at the Strange Fire Conference that Calvary Chapel, and other churches that practice Contemporary Christian music in their worship service have been thrown in with the Charismatic Movement. It becomes more then Cessationism vs. Continuationism, rather Hymns, Suits and Ties vs. Contemporary Christian Music and Casual Clothes to church.Easeltine (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Pat Robertson, I think he has a somewhat higher public profile than MacArthur, and so his statements have attracted more attention from outside the church, hence the controversies page. SmilingFace (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A conference is not a movement, and MacArthur's activism in this area is part of the Cessationism versus Continuationism dispute that has been running since Pentecostalism began over 100 years ago. For example B. B. Warfield wrote "Counterfeit Miracles" in 1918.SmilingFace (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also, MacArthur is a theologian, not a scientist. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What makes you say in this case it is? StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A creationist talking about "the lies of evolution", which is clearly a pseudoscience view. Lipsquid (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not necessarily pseudoscience at all - anti-science, yes, but not automatically pseudoscience. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Further Reading

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Section - Other Christian Movements and other religions / Generalization Comments

"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) "WhattheBibleTeaches," website, 1896, By the First Dean of BIOLA, that Pastor MacArthur graduated from, R.A. Torrey, disagrees with many ideas of Pastor John MacArthur on the Baptism With the Holy Spirit as a secondary experience, and Gifts of the Holy Spirit still being in operation.Easeltine (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Grace Graduate School

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)

Controversies, suicide paragraph

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)

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)

Un-American activities

Religious freedom

In 2021, MacArthur preached that democracy and freedom of religion are against the Bible. He stated "I don’t even support religious freedom. Religious freedom is what sends people to hell."

This has been deleted from the article, bringing it here for discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Of course, merely saying "Jesus is Lord" could be construed as an unAmerican activity. StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, acting against freedom and democracy is Un-American. He followed a path of radicalization till he no longer buys into those. And I basically agree that the Bible supports his stance, since it is a handbook of theocratic statecraft from the Antiquity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. A preacher who believes the Bible. Is that surprising? StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Like jihadists believe in their own holy book. Their excuse is that their societies did not have the Enlightenment.

Bloom, Allan (1987). "The Student and the University". The Closing of the American Mind (Pbk ed.). New York: SIMON & SCHUSTER PAPERBACKS. pp. 374–375. ISBN 0-671-65715-1. Retrieved 18 August 2010. I am distinguishing two related but different problems here. The contents of the classic books have become particularly difficult to defend in modern times, and the professors who teach them do not care to defend them, are not interested in their truth. One can most clearly see the latter in the case of the Bible. To include it in the humanities is already a blasphemy, a denial of its own claims. There it is almost inevitably treated in one of two ways: It is subjected to modern "scientific" analysis, called the Higher Criticism, where it is dismantled, to show how "sacred" books are put together, and they are not what they claim to be. It is useful as a mosaic in which one finds the footprints of many dead civilizations. Or else the Bible is used in courses of comparative religion as one expression of the need for the "sacred" and as a contribution to the very modern, very scientific study of the structure of "myths". (Here one can join up with the anthropologists and really be alive.) A teacher who treated the Bible naively, taking at its word, or Word, would be accused of scientific incompetence and lack of sophistication. Moreover, he might rock the boat and start the religious wars all over again, as well as a quarrel within the university between reason and revelation, which would upset comfortable arrangements and wind up by being humiliating to the humanities. Here one sees the traces of the Enlightenment's political project, which wanted precisely to render the Bible, and other old books, undangerous. This project is one of the underlying causes of the impotence of the humanities. The best that can be done, it appears, is to teach "The Bible as Literature," as opposed to "as Revelation," which it claims to be. In this way it can be read somewhat independently of deforming scholarly apparatus, as we read, for example, Pride and Prejudice. Thus the few professors who feel that there is something wrong with the other approaches tend to their consciences. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If this was a Christian editor writing that an atheist author is anti-American, they would be blocked from editing for POV pushing. Guess "POV pushing" only applies to religious people. JimboBuckets99 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken

Most Christians in USA support freedom and democracy. If an atheist opposes freedom and democracy, they would be un-American, too. Commies were not un-American because of supporting the rights of the poor, but for seeking to impose a totalitarian system. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your whole argument above is that those Christians are inconsistent. Again, if someone made the argument that atheists that are for morality, for example, are not consistent, they would be accused of POV pushing. You are not, because of double standards JimboBuckets99 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken

Views on trans and homosexuality

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)

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)

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)

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)

Eternal Sonship answered from above

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous User 2603:80A0:109:5597:A17F:9F6D:9F98:538A

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)