JOHN MACARTHUR'S DUBIOUS LEGACY

 John MacArthur, Reformed Expositor with Tainted Legacy, Has Died

John MacArthur has been dubbed "the world's premier expository preacher"  by his own organisation.1 Although he was highly revered within his own echo chamber, he was not so revered outside his collection of sycophants. MacArthur's serious theological issues and his obdurate refusal to apologize or ever admit any wrongdoing or error were extremely concerning. There are undoubtedly former members, and in all likelihood current members of GTY, who have been damaged, particularly by MacArthur's attitude towards women and children and his mishandling of abuse cases. 

MacArthur has been accused of repeatedly shaming or ignoring abuse survivors and enabling abusers, leaving vulnerable women and children without support and at risk. In 2003, Hohn Cho, a lawyer and former elder at GCC, accused the church of "awful patterns" of siding with abusers and endangering victims.2  GCC's wall of silence on past and current abuse allegations is deafening!

In 2001, Eileen Gray turned to the elders of GCC for support, in a desperate attempt to protect her children from her husband, David Gray, a teacher at the church, who was physically and emotionally abusing them. Later, it emerged that he was also sexually abusing them. When Eileen refused to submit to their "advice" to return to her marriage and remove a restraining order, they wrote formal letters accusing her of ruining her family. GCC: “We strongly believe that it is time for you to remove the restraining order and return to end the separation from your husband,” they warned. “There are no longer sufficient reasons for the two of you to stay apart. We therefore are requesting that you forgive David, allow him to move back home, and once again follow his leadership as the Scripture teaches.” GCC followed up with further letters instructing her to "repent" for her failure to submit to their demands. On August 18, 2002, MacArthur announced publicly to the entire congregation of 8,000 that Eileen Gray had violated Matthew 18, that she refused to repent of her wickedness, that she was being subjected to church discipline, and that the entire church ought to essentially shun her and treat her like an unbeliever. Just four years later, in 2005, David Gray was convicted on multiple counts of sexual and physical abuse of children. He is currently serving 21 years to life for his crimes.3  Incredibly, MacArthur subsequently endorsed David Gray's "prison ministry".

Earlier this month, former member Lorraine Zielinski sued GCC for maliciously sharing and misrepresenting confidential information relating to her marriage. Zielinski advised GCC counselors she was afraid for her safety and also the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. However, the counselors advised her to drop her request for a legal separation. When Zeilinski attempted to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors, and threatened that if she refused, confidential details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation.4 These are not good people on any level! (Matthew 7:20).

MacArthur's theology was a kind of pick and mix position between Calvinism and dispensational pretrib rapture eschatology, both of which are extremely problematic. 

MacArthur's patriarchal views went far beyond the scriptural mandate not to appoint women pastors. (1 Timothy 2:12). According to MacArthur, women shouldn't teach or publicly discuss theological issues at all! 5 Similarly, his stand against charismatic NAR false prophets and teachers was tainted by cessationism and a complete denial of any gifts of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

One of the most shocking episodes was MacArthur's claim that believers can take the mark of the beast during the "seven-year tribulation"* and be saved. There is a powerful warning in scripture not to take the mark of the beast, but MacArthur simply doubled down when he was challenged.6

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, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”(Revelation 14:9-11).

MacArthur's denial of the blood of Christ was another example of his aberrant understanding of the scriptures. MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Hebrews, published in 1983 by Moody Press: "It is possible to become morbid about Christ's sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood.." (emphasis mine)7

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9).

..according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:2).

..and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood. (Revelation 1:5).

MacArthurs Masonic Connections

MacArthur never repudiated his family connection to Freemasonry; in fact, on one occasion, in 2009, he even boasted about it. During a sermon on the parable of the four soils (Mark 4:1-20), MacArthur spoke of his ministry as the “explosion of spiritual fruit and the harvest” of the ministry of his great-grandfather, Rev. Thomas Fraser Fullerton, who was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of PEI.8 

“The good news is, when the soil is prepared by God, there’s going to be an explosion of spiritual fruit and the harvest will go on and on and on and on and on. A nice young man in our church was recently in Prince Edward Island and I had said in the church service that my great-grandfather was a pastor of St. James Kirk Presbyterian Kirk in Prince Edward Island back in the 1800’s. So when he was up there, he started digging around and found all kinds of things about my great-grandfather. Thomas Fullerton was his name and he was pastor there at the main church in Charlottetown for about twenty-eight years. He was a chaplain in the Canadian Military and he went to the Boer War in South Africa and fought and did ministry among the troops. And you look back and that and you say, ‘Okay, there’s a...his father was also a pastor who had been in Scotland and then gone to Australia and come there and at some point the Lord plowed the heart of that family and it just kept going and it just kept going and it kept going and it came down through my...from my great-grandfather to my grandmother, his daughter, and then through her to my father and then through me and this is the explosion and we’re all in this process somewhere. All of our lives intersect and that’s the...that’s the good news in the story and the disciples needed to hear that because it all basically looked like it wasn’t going anywhere.” (A Diagnosis of the Soils)

Those currently paying tribute to MacArthur desperately need a reality check; we should question their motives and/or their discernment. (1 John 4:1).  

1. The Expositor | The MacArthur Center for Expository Preaching
2. Grace Community Church Rejected Elder’s Calls to ‘Do Justice’ in Abuse Case - Christianity Today
3. Navigating Grace & Truth: Addressing John MacArthur’s Legacy.
4. Former Member Sues John MacArthur’s Megachurch for Public Shaming
5. MacArthur Says Not to Speak at Events With Women, Even Though He Has
6. (272) John MacArthur Shock Claim: Take the mark of the beast and go to heaven! - YouTube
7. (272) "We are not saved by Jesus' blood!" Reaction to John MacArthur #bibleline #jmac #salvation - YouTube
8. John MacArthur’s Masonic Heritage – The Watchman Wakes

* WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION FALLACY

ACBC removes Grace Community Church pastor from approved list | Church & Ministries

LARRY WESSELS (CANSWERSTV) RABID CALVINISM VS CROOKED TV EVANGELISTS

Why People Don't Want What the Bible Says But Prefer Money Grubbing TV Evangelists Who Lie Instead.

This video appears to consist of excerpts from a 2009 debate between Steve McCalip and Larry Wessels in which Wessels' views are shown exclusively.1 A debate is a discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward. I have never watched a "debate" where we do not get to hear the opposing arguments!

Pitting Calvinism against TV evangelists is something of a misnomer. Many Christians who reject Calvinism, including myself, also reject the ministries of Billy Graham, CS Lewis, and the ecumenical NAR Word-faith TV evangelists. Given the plethora of false teachings circulating within various denominations, it may seem right to run to Calvinism as a place of safety. However, to put one's faith into the teachings of John Calvin is to lunge from one false teaching to another. The "true gospel" minus the distortions of Calvinism can only be found in the scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16). 

Wessels: "Did Jesus die for everybody who ever lived?" (in contrast to "limited atonement")

..even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (ἀντὶ πολλῶν).” (Matthew 20:28 cf. Matthew 26:28; John 10:15; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cornithians 5:14-15, Hebrews 2:9).  

Meyer: "ΠΟΛΛῶΝ] The vicarious death of Jesus may be described as having taken place for all (Romans 5:18; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2), or for many (so also Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:28), according as we regard it as an objective fact (that fact being: Jesus has given His life a ransom for all men), or look at it in relation to the subjective appropriation of its results on the part of individuals (which happens only in the case of believers). So in the present case, where, accordingly, πολλῶν is to be understood as meaning all who believe now and will believe hereafter. (John 17:20)."2 

Wessels: "Due to their carnal pride, men naturally object to God's power and sovereignty.. especially in the area of salvation.. and (they) try to say that God loves everybody equally and God wants everybody to be saved."

Many Old Testament passages teach that God hates sinners or evil and wicked people. (e.g. Leviticus 20:23; Psalm 11:5; 26:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; 16:5; Hosea 9:10-15 and Malachi 1:2-3.) Nevertheless, God rescued the wicked city of Nineveh when the people repented. (Jonah 3:6-10). The New Testament asserts that God loves the world and that Jesus died for the sins of the world. (e.g. John 3:16; Romans 5:8;1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:10). The denial that repentance and faith are the key factors that take sinners from the status of God's enemies to his beloved children is perverse. There are many examples in the scriptures where repentance and faith are required as a condition of salvation. (Romans 5:10).

   

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.. (1 Timothy 2:1-6).

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

Wessels: "It is the sinner, not God, who secures salvation...God offers everyone a chance as if he owed it to everyone or anyone, leaving the sinner the work of saving himself by 'accepting Christ'. From this theory, God does not save anyone in particular, just anyone who will have Him. ..This would then make God a respecter of persons, choosing people to be saved based on their own efforts to attain salvation..  Does God choose people to be saved on their own efforts.. 

The idea that repentance and faith are works is often touted by Calvinists. However, the scriptures are unequivocal: God commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30). The New Testament affirms that we are saved by grace through faith.. not by works. (Ephesians 2:8-9). Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. Salvation involves deep conviction and revulsion of sin and requires faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 4:5 debunks the false assumption that faith is a work: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

The argument that "God is a respecter of persons" because He accepts repentant sinners is totally perverse and wicked. God gives everyone the opportunity to repent, taking no account of status or anything else. The saying, "God is no man's debtor" is based on Romans 11:35. God is sovereign and self-sufficient. He does not rely on humanity for anything, and he has no obligation to save us. Salvation is based on God's grace and unmerited favour. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16). Because of His love, God has reached out to humanity with the gospel. Nevertheless, He requires a response. For some twisted reason, Calvinists equate human response to the gospel with works. But that view goes against the scriptures. (Acts 3:19,20:21,26:20; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Mark 1:15; Revelation 9:21; Luke 5:32,13:3, 24:47; Matthew 3:2 etc.)

Wessels: "If this theory is true, then John the Baptist must have 'accepted Christ' in the womb."

..for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:15,41,44).

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are distributed according to God's will. (Hebrews 2:4). In other words, John did not make a conscious decision to leap in his mother's womb in recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; rather, the Holy Spirit came upon John in a specific way when Mary greeted Elizabeth. The pre-birth filling of John the Baptist is unparalleled, indicating John's pivotal role in preparing the way for Jesus Christ. (Malachi 4:5-6; Isaiah 40:3). The Holy Spirit subsequently filled Elizabeth and Mary, both of whom prophesied. We should understand that the conception, birth, and life of John the Baptist was anything but normative. John's recognition of Jesus came by divine revelation when he was baptizing: Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and resting on Him. I myself did not know Him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” John 1:32-34).

Wessel's insistence that God's offer of salvation to all/everyone does not mean all/everyone (contingent upon repentance and faith) is profoundly dishonoring to God and, in my view, is a blasphemous misuse of His name! (Exodus 20:7).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21).

1. McCalip/Wessels Debate on Calvinism's Limited Atonement Part 1 of 24
2. Matthew 20:28 Commentaries: just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

JOHN MACARTHUR'S DEFECTIVE ESCHATOLOGY

Rapture at the Door: Final Sign Revealed | John MacArthur

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. (1Thessalonians 4:16-17).

MacArthur: "We are not waiting for the Antichrist, we are not waiting for the tribulation, we are waiting for Christ. Now, what is the final sign? The answer may surprise you. It is not a blood moon, it is not political upheaval, it is not digital currency or microchips.. So, what is the final sign?" 

MacArthur goes on to quote the first half of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and identifies "the final sign before the rapture" as apostasy or falling away (apostasia).. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first..   

In quoting only the first half of 1 Thessalonians 2:3, MacArthur deceptively excludes the very issue he seeks to avoid, i.e., information concerning the revelation of the Antichrist (the man of lawlessness) and the ultimate rebellion that will occur at the end of the age. The increasing apostasy that we are witnessing in many churches at this time is a precursor to the final unprecedented escalation of rebellion against God. 

   

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (apostasia) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

MacArthur's skewed eschatology 

MacArthur:"You are responsible to God to get your eschatology right."1 I concur wholeheartedly with that admonition, but I do not concur with MacArthur's teaching. MacArthur's theology and eschatology are extremely questionable, not least his denial of the blood of Christ. MacArthur's commentary on the Book of Hebrews, published in 1983 by Moody Press: "It is possible to become morbid about Christ's sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood.." (emphasis mine)2 

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9).

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1:2).

..and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood. (Revelation 1:5).

MacArthur claims that eschatology is an easy subject to understand. However, his own understanding of eschatology is a perversion of the scriptures and is woefully defective. MacArthur is very highly esteemed within Calvinism. His supporters refuse to question him, to the point that, even when he stated that Christians can take the mark of the beast during the "seven-year tribulation"* and be saved, no one within his echo chamber challenged him!3 There is a powerful warning in scripture not to take the mark of the beast, but MacArthur thinks he knows better. I see such pride in many leaders today who refuse to be corrected. They would rather let the people of God be misled and even damned rather than humble themselves and repent of false teaching. 

 

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, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”(Revelation 14:9-11).

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep (τηρέω) what is written in it, for the time is near. (Revelation 1:3). 

τηρέω is to keep watch and to guard: "From teros (a watch; perhaps akin to theoreo); to guard (from loss or injury.."4 

The admonition to those who think to change the words of the Book of Revelation is ignored by false teachers at their own peril.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19).

In the end, Bible teachers will answer to an audience of ONE, and their reputation in this world will mean nothing. (Matthew 12:36-37; James 3:1).

1. Is the Israel-Iran Conflict an END TIMES sign? | John MacArthur, RC Sproul on Eschatology
2. (272) "We are not saved by Jesus' blood!" Reaction to John MacArthur #bibleline #jmac #salvation - YouTube
3. (272) John MacArthur Shock Claim: Take the mark of the beast and go to heaven! - YouTube
4. Strong's Greek: 5083. τηρέω (téreó) -- To keep, to guard, to observe, to watch over.

* WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION FALLACY

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)

CANSWERS TV: JAMES WHITE'S REPONSE TO LEIGHTON (FLAKY) FLOWERS

Pelagianism 101 By Leighton Flowers: Do It Yourself Salvation With Your Free Will & No Power of God

Hardcore Calvinists Rob Zins and Larry Wessels (CAnswersTV) cannot string together any kind of sound theological argument for their aberrant soteriology. In a previous post, I demonstrated that Zins' eisegesis of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is blatantly unsound.1 Wessels has resorted to airing heavyweight James White's response to Leighton Flowers. 

I agree with White that the biblical gospel and the "gospel" of Calvinism (Reformed theology) are different gospels. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Despite my horror of Calvinism, I have to admit that White does have some valid points to make against Flowers, and frankly, in this video, he makes mincemeat out of him. Flowers' analogy of "sovereign choice meats" is nonsensical. Calvinists themselves do not claim to know the reason why some people are allegedly chosen for salvation and others are rejected, and the verb choose ἐκλέγω is definitely not an adjective. Accuracy is everything.

I also agree with White that Flowers flirts with open theists. Monergism: "Leighton Flowers, in advocating for the inclusion of Open Theists within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and local church membership, suggests that we should sympathize with their philosophical struggles and treat them as fellow believers grappling with complex theological issues."2 Flowers gives a platform to false teacher Warren McGrew (Idol Killer), which, in my view, is extremely foolish and dangerous. McGrew and Flowers supposedly disagree on the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, Flowers is apparently willing to collaborate with anyone who will join him in what he sees as his epic fight against Calvinism. Apart from these concerning issues, I have heard Flowers openly admit that he is ecumenical! As such, I have rejected Flowers' ministry, and I regard him as intolerably flaky. His lengthy videos are only of interest to those with the time and stamina to sit through hours of interminable rhetoric, some of it as nonsensical as the above. Flower's syrupy policy of being "charitable" and his ready acceptance of those who should be marked and avoided is unbiblical. (Romans 16:17). Flowers doesn't seem to grasp that Christians are required to contend for the faith and shun heretics after the second warning. (Jude 1:3; Titus 3:10).  

White correctly calls out Flowers on his "so too" parallelism. Flowers: "..mankind as represented by Adam in the garden didn't need a fallen sin nature to choose to sin. So too, fallen people don't need God to miraculously give them a new nature in order for them to respond positively to his own appeals to be reconciled through the gospel." 

 
I am struggling to find a meaningful parallel between Adam's choice to sin without a fallen nature and the choice of fallen people to respond positively to the gospel. Both parties make a choice, but there the similarity ends. The obvious parallel is between the entrance of sin through one man, Adam, and the sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12-20). However, these verses do not justify Flowers' statement regarding human choice. Adam was free to make his own choice to sin in the garden. (Genesis 3:6). In contrast, fallen humanity is born into sin, i.e., prior to conversion, people are resistant to the gospel; as White points out, they are "dead in sin.. slaves to sin".

The divine initiative in salvation is obvious in the scriptures. Flowers' statement appears to circumvent the conviction of the Holy Spirit, leading sinners (hopefully) to the point of accepting the gospel. ..because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. (1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Romans 1:16; John 16:8; Acts 2:37,16:14). God the Father is actively at work in people's lives before they are converted. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44). 

My fundamental difference with the Calvinist position is my understanding that being "dead in sin" refers to the separation from God of unregenerate people. Being "dead in sin" means that people are unable to obey God, reform their lives, or do anything meritorious regarding salvation; it does not mean that they cannot believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Faith is an aspect of the will that resides in the human soul. Romans 4:5 debunks the false assumption that faith is a work: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..

Strongs: "a. (spiritually dead, i. e.) 'destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right': John 5:25; Romans 6:13; Ephesians 5:14; Revelation 3:1; with τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (the dative of cause (cf. Winer's Grammar, 412 (384f))) added, Ephesians 2:1, 5; ἐν (but T Tr WH omit ἐν) τοῖς παραπτοις Colossians 2:13; in the pointed saying ἄφες τούς νεκρούς θάψαι τούς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, leave those who are indifferent to the salvation offered them in the gospel, to bury thee bodies of their own dead, Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60."3

Bible Hub: "The Divine Decree is a profound theological concept that underscores God's sovereignty, eternal purpose, and the intricate relationship between divine governance and human agency. It invites believers to trust in God's ultimate plan while recognizing their role in the unfolding of history. Understanding this doctrine can provide comfort and assurance of God's control over all aspects of life and creation."4 

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CALVINISTS ROB ZINS AND LARRY WESSELS UTTER INCOMPETENCE (CANSWERSTV)
2. Rebuttal of Open Theism and Its Inclusion in the SBC by Leighton Flowers |
Monergism Leighton Flowers Says Southern Baptists Were Wrong to Exclude Open Theists
3. Strong's Greek: 3498. νεκρός (nekros) -- Dead, deceased
4. Topical Bible: Divine Decree

CALVINISTS ROB ZINS AND LARRY WESSELS UTTER INCOMPETENCE (CANSWERSTV)

Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The Biblical God No One Wants To Know

In this follow-up post, I will expose some of the horrible beliefs of hardcore Calvinists Larry Wessels and Rob Zins that portray God as a monster. In my last post, I demonstrated that Zins' teaching regarding 2 Peter 3:8-9 is incompetent and misrepresents the scriptures. (1 John 4:1). Despite boasting of their thirty-four-year tenure hosting CAnswersTV as "biblical experts, in reality, they have yet to grasp the basics of Koine Greek, elementary hermeneutics and the importance of honest research. Zins proposed that 2 Peter 3:8-9 was addressed to "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing. In other words, Peter was telling the "reading community" that God was not willing for them to perish (ἀπόλλυμι). This is an absurd interpretation of the passage since ἀπόλλυμι implies permanent (absolute) destruction. Below is an excerpt from my previous post exposing Zins' mistranslation of the verb boúlomai as "a command that can be disobeyed".

"Note: Not willing that any should perish; rather, not wishing or desiring (μὴ βουλόμενος). Zins throws an unnecessary spanner into the works by suggesting that boúlomai could mean either 'God's eternal decree' or 'the will of God's command'. In the New Testament, 'entolé' refers to a commandment or directive, often of divine origin. Zins cites 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as an example of God's 'will of command' aka God's 'perceptive will'. For this is the will (θέλημα) of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; Note that Paul used the noun θέλημα in this verse, not the verb boúlomai. 'θέλημα  = will, desire, purpose.'9 The lexical interpretation of boúlomai is '..to plan with full resolve (determination). Strong's 1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.10 The interpretation of boúlomai should be obvious to any competent bible teacher. (2 Timothy 2:15).. boúlomai refers to God's decretive will, i.e., it is not a command that can be disobeyed.."1 

The obvious qualification for bible teachers and debaters is that they have sound doctrine and are able to teach. (Titus 1:9; 1 Timothy 3:2,4:2-3). However, Calvinism (Reformed theology) is demonstrably a different gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Limited atonement is a message of utter hopelessness to the majority of humanity. Calvinism twists the scriptures so that all/everone/any/the world/every creature does not actually mean what it says. Those who teach this wicked doctrine often have an appearance of superior wisdom, while in reality, they deny the universal application of the gospel itself. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1). Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is an inclusive invitation directed towards all sinners in the world who are willing to repent and put their faith in Him. (1 Timothy 1:15).

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent (μετανοειτε) for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”(Matthew 4:17 cf. Mark 1:15; Luke 5:32). Jesus used the imperative; in other words, He commanded all to repent.

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.. (Acts 3:19).

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:23).

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." (Ezekiel 18:32 cf. Job 36:9-12; Proverbs 1:23-33; Isaiah 1:19-20; Jeremiah 7:23-24; Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Ezekiel 18:30-32).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16).

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.. (Titus 2:11).

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37).

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Revelation 22:17).

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2).

Wessels' horrible theology

Wessels seems to relish his perverted doctrine of limited atonement: "God hates the wicked.. he abhors them..  but he has a love for some that he has put his mercy on..." (41:00 mark). The horror of Wessels' theology is that he teaches that God puts His mercy on very few people (the elect) arbitrarily, but that the vast majority of humanity cannot be saved because they are not granted repentance. In Calvinism, repentance is considered a "work". However, Romans 4:5 debunks this false assumption: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..

Wessels: "God sends evil spirits to men.."  

h

In Calvinism, a reprobate is a sinner who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation. Wessels fails to take the two examples of Saul and Ahab in context. These two kings became apostate by degree, their final condition being reprobation. 

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is an eschatological passage concerning the day of the Lord. Note that Paul speaks of "the rebellion" and the appearance of "the man of lawlessness" (the Antichrist). The reason for their rejection could not be clearer; they "refused to love the truth and be saved.. they did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

False teachers like Zins and Wessels are unteachable. Their agenda is to press on regardless with their own perverted version of the scriptures in willful ignorance. (Proverbs 12:1,16:18). Those who claim to have superior knowledge while teaching gross error are, like the Pharisees, at severe risk of being abandoned to judicial hardening. (John 9:41).

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: MY RESPONSE TO HARDCORE CALVINISTS ROB ZINS & LARRY WESSELS

MY RESPONSE TO HARDCORE CALVINISTS ROB ZINS & LARRY WESSELS

Rob Zins & Larry Wessels of Christian Answers Are Accused of Being False Prophets For 2 Peter 3:8-9

In the above video, Rob Zins and Larry Wessels spend the best part of an hour and a half insulting me in their failed attempt to destroy my critique of their teaching on 2 Peter 3:9: "God Is Not Willing That Any Should Perish," Who Is God Talking About In 2 Peter 3:9? All Or Some?

My Response: WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: ROB ZINS' CALVINIST TAKE ON 2 PETER 3:9: "GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH". 

Zins/Wessels' bizarre assumptions and scripture twisting

* Zins and Wessels attempt to justify themselves by pointing out that they have been producing videos together for thirty-four years. During this time, they claim they have taught "pretty much what the Bible says." This is a logical fallacy. Millions of views and 120 videos are meaningless if they do not teach the truth. Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's, and many other false denominations have disseminated videos and written material over hundreds of years.. Does that make them right? 

* My brief description of Arminianism and Calvinism (Reformed Theology) was for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the subject. I don't assume I have anything to teach Zins and Wessels about theological issues per se. My problem is with their distorted interpretation of the scriptures through a Calvinist lens.

* Wessels: "If Calvinism is not true, Jesus' mission failed because so few people are saved." (paraphrased) Jesus' mission did not fail! He knew very well that few would be saved. (Matthew 7:13-14).

Bible Hub:".. and only a few find it.. This phrase underscores the reality that not everyone will choose the path of righteousness. The use of 'few' indicates that true discipleship is rare and requires a conscious decision to follow Christ. This reflects the biblical theme of the remnant, a faithful minority who remain true to God amidst widespread unbelief (Romans 11:5). It also serves as a warning and a call to evangelism, urging believers to guide others toward the narrow way."1 

* Zins' claim that "Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholics" believe in Open Theism is incorrect. Zins: ".. does God know all things because He looks down and adds them to his knowledge base? It is a universal and consistent theme of Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholic theology that God arrives at knowledge." 

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Predestination (Latin præ, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see DIVINE PROVIDENCE)."2 

Catholic Answers: "God’s knowledge of our future follows necessarily from his perfection. If God didn’t know our future, then he would lack knowledge. But God can’t lack knowledge because he is absolutely perfect, the fullness of being itself (ipsum esse subsisten–subsistent being itself). Therefore, God must know the future.."3 

Again, I do not doubt Zins's knowledge and competence in refuting Roman Catholicism. However, his statement concerning RC foreknowledge contradicts their official doctrine i.e., "God has appointed and ordained all events occurring in time.." Open Theism was rejected by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) around twenty years ago and they still officially hold that position.4 Open Theism was adopted by false "Apostle" C Peter Wagner and his view been accepted by many New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) leaders.5 The current status of Open Theism is that it is a minority position widely rejected by mainstream evangelicals. I bring this up, not because I think I have anything to teach Zins, but because he has demonstrably misrepresented both the RCC and mainstream Evangelicals. Again, I am not an apologist for the RCC, but to misrepresent an adversary in any debate is disingenuous. Rather than embarking on a rant against me for calling him out, Zins should have corrected this false statement. (Proverbs 12:17).

* While I have quoted Spurgeon occasionally, I do not endorse Calvinism, no matter who teaches it. I was never truly comfortable about quoting Calvinist or Lutheran sources, and I occasionally included a proviso. In fact, one of my readers challenged me about this some time ago. As a result, I no longer reference those who teach a mixture of truth and error. (1 John 4:6). 

* The false accusation that I have made ad hominem attacks against Zins and Wessels is unfounded. I submitted a critique of Zins' teaching and my horror of Calvinism. However, I did not launch a personal attack against either of these men. Unfortunately, they did not show me the same courtesy!

* I stand corrected. Zins said "regeneration precedes faith", whereas I quoted him as saying "regeneration precedes salvation". I have corrected this error in my original post. Nevertheless, the argument stands. For all the scriptures Zins quotes allegedly supporting the proposition that regeneration precedes faith, several scriptures suggest that faith precedes regeneration. (e.g. John 1:12, 3:15-16; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 21,11:18,16:31; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 1:21). 

* In 2000, I wrote a paper on Free Will and Determinism, in which I compared the conflicting views of Luther and Erasmus. I purchased Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Erasmus' Discourse in Free Will, and my research took some months to complete. I came to the conclusion: 'In His sovereignty, God created human beings with free will.' This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but I found that when I considered one view, there was an equally good argument from the other side. After wrestling with the problem for some time, I felt that the two rigid options, free will or determinism, fail to adequately answer the question, and that it is not an either/or choice. (Psalm 139:6). Tozer: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil." Calvin presents us with a cautionary example of a prideful man operating in the flesh who presumed that it was within his remit to impose his own (heavily influenced by Augustine) understanding onto the scriptures. The aftermath has resulted in grievous divisions within the Body of Christ that should never have arisen. The fact that Calvin was a despot who persecuted and even murdered his detractors reveals what spirit he was of.6  

* For Zins to state that I know nothing about Calvinism is defamatory. While I do not claim to be an expert, I have studied Calvinism in some depth, as demonstrated by my previous posts on the subject. I do not claim to have the same in-house knowledge as hardcore Calvinists Zins and Wessels, who have been entrenched in the heresy for many years. 

* Zins denies human autonomy and shifts the focus onto human responsibility. Once again, he regresses into a logical fallacy. How can human beings be held responsible if they do not have free will? In contrast, those who oppose Calvinism argue that people have a responsibility to believe and repent. Although humanity is in bondage to sin, people have the capacity to willingly admit that they are in bondage to sin and in need of God's help. This is facilitated by God's revelation through the law (a tutor) and the appeal of the gospel (grace).    

* But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing (βουλόμενος) that any should perish (ἀπολέσθαι), but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8-10).

He is patient toward you (ὑμᾶς, plural). (2 Peter 3:9). Zins' interpretation of this verse is that Peter directed this phrase to "the reading community" whom he addressed as "Beloved" earlier in the chapter. (2 Peter 3:1). The question arises: Was Peter addressing this specific group of believers (in this case, predominantly Jewish believers), or was he including everyone in the world in these statements? The obvious problem with Zins' interpretation is that it makes no logical sense for God to say to "the elect" that he is not willing for any of them to perish. In other words, why would God say that He is not willing for any believers to perish if, according to Calvinism, "the elect" cannot perish? If Peter was referring to "repentance within salvation", it is highly unlikely that he would have used the term ἀπόλλυμι which implies "permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); 'to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction' (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end. consequences."7 Zins seems to be suggesting that "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing could perish i.e. lose their salvation. Zins' deficient interpretation is fairly typical of the reductio ad absurdum that Calvinists resort to in order to manipulate the scriptures. The orthodox non-Calvinist interpretation is that God is patient and delays judgement because he desires all men everywhere to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 17:30; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Earlier in the chapter, scoffers refer to "the promise of His coming" when they ask, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:4). "His promise" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers back to, and addresses the accusation on the lips of the scoffers. In other words, these verses are not directed exclusively to the "reading community". The context and grammar of this passage indicate that God is patient with everyone.. not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9).  

Meyer: "εἰς ὑμᾶς] not: 'towards mankind called of free grace' (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in ὑμᾶς the readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general reference to the others being understood as a matter of course.."8  

Note: Not willing that any should perish; rather, not wishing or desiring (μὴ βουλόμενος). Zins throws an unnecessary spanner into the works by suggesting that boúlomai could mean either "God's eternal decree" or "the will of God's command". In the New Testament, "entolé" refers to a commandment or directive, often of divine origin. Zins cites 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as an example of God's "will of command" aka God's "perceptive will". For this is the will (θέλημα) of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; Note that Paul used the noun θέλημα in this verse, not the verb boúlomai. "θέλημα  = will, desire, purpose."9 The lexical interpretation of boúlomai is "..to plan with full resolve (determination). Strong's 1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.10 The interpretation of boúlomai should be obvious to any competent bible teacher. (2 Timothy 2:15).. boúlomai refers to God's decretive will, i.e., it is not a command that can be disobeyed. Ironically, Zins says that I should be embarrassed by my non-Calvinist interpretation of this passage! Well, I guess these guys had their moment of hollow victory while they laughed, scorned, and ridiculed me as an ignoramus and a heretic! Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot! 

Zins' asinine interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-9 and his barrage of insults against me are unconscionable. Zins: "She is not a very good Bible expositor, and she is probably running on high emotion most of the time. She understands a little bit of Arminianism, a little bit of Pelagianism, and a whole lot of nothing about Calvinism." If it is "emotional" to trust the Lord and to believe that Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of the whole world, then I stand guilty as charged! (John 3:16).

Extreme doctrine that goes beyond what is written inevitably results in those who indulge in such foolishness rejecting those outside their own elitist group as being non-Christian and devoid of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:6). This is precisely where Zins and Wessels are at. They even go so far as to reject believers outside the Calvinist echo chamber as unbelievers. (Acts 11:9).  

Disclaimer: I do not promote or agree with Open Theism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Provisionism, Universalism, Synergism, Monergism, or any other philosophical label falsely applied by many Calvinists with the intention of misrepresenting their detractors. 

Recommended Links

 - Joel Korytko. Korytko has made a significant impact on the debate. In particular, I recommend his verse-by-verse analysis of the Old Testament in Romans 9. How Romans 9 Doesn't Support Calvinism

- Jordan Hatfield (Great Light Studios). (383) Answering Calvinism (Non-Calvinist Teaching Resources) - YouTube

- Kevin Thompson (Beyond The Fundamentals). Thompson's videos on stealth Calvinism are very revealing. Paul's Conversion Disproves Calvinism

- Alana Lagares. 19-year former Calvinist.. (383) Leaving Calvinism After 19 Years | With Alana L - YouTube 

- Dave Hunt. I regarded Dave Hunt as a good bible teacher. However, it should be noted that I do not endorse the pretribulation rapture. (415) Dave Hunt - What Love is This? (Calvinism's misrepresentation of God) - YouTube

1. Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.  

2. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Predestination

3. Why God's Foreknowledge Doesn't Negate Free Will | Catholic Answers Q&A

4. Evangelical Theological Society rejects 'open theism,' affirms God's foreknowledge | Baptist Press 

5. Open Theism & NAR Theology — Richard P. Moore 

6. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CALVINISM: THE HORRIBLE DECREE

7. Strong's Greek: 622. ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) -- To destroy, to perish, to lose 

8. 2 Peter 3:9 Commentaries: The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

9. Strong's Greek: 2307. θέλημα (theléma) -- Will, desire, purpose.  

10. Strong's Greek: 1014. βούλομαι (boulomai) -- to will, to wish, to desire, to intend. 

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (7)

Jesus Saved us from God? - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the seventh and final episode in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.  

The first fifteen PSA claims (see previous posts).

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Anselm)
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Anselm)
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Anslem)
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)
6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (false claim)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)

16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)

Vendredi: "Claim 16 was not found in the medieval system of atonement, but it is something that the modern exponents of the atonement teach.. Aquinas briefly touches upon this in the Law Section of the Summa Theologica and he offers a surprisingly weak defense of this."

PSA is not limited to "modern exponents of the atonement". It can be demonstrated unequivocally that the Church Fathers affirmed PSA.

Vendredi's objection re "literal sin" Claim 14. (8:00 mark) The false doctrine that Christ became "literal sin" is a minority view and is unrepresentative of the "Atonement School".  RC Sproul's grotesque depiction of Jesus on the cross goes beyond the scriptures. (Proverbs 30:6). In a controversial sermon, false teacher and scam artist Todd White voiced some equally blasphemous depictions of Jesus, claiming that He "became every terrible sin in the world" during His crucifixion. (2 Corinthians 5:21).1  There was widespread condemnation of White's "sermon" across the board.

Vendredi's objection (9:00 mark): Vendredi challenges the common belief that Christ fulfills the Old Testament scapegoat ritual. (Leviticus 16:7ff.). Vendredi: "Wrong day and wrong animal! Passover is not Yom Kippur and sheep are not goats." 

 

Vendredi: "Christ fulfills the Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). He does not fulfill the sacrifices that were instituted after the golden calf incident in Exodus 32. He fulfills the pre-golden calf sacrifices, specifically the iconoclastic sacrifice of the Passover Lamb."   

Vendredi's isolated claim that Jesus does not fulfill Yom Kippur is contrary to Orthodox Christianity. His argument goes as follows: The people who offered up the sacrifices are the Aaronic Order. To qualify to offer sacrifices it was necessary to be from the tribe of Levi, the clan of Kohath, the family of Aaron. If Jesus represents the animals offered by the Levites he would be born into that tribe. However, Jesus is the Lion of Judah and comes from the tribe of Judah. (Revelation 5:5). Vendredi answers his own question: Jesus is after the Order of Melchizedek, He is not of the Levitical Order. (Hebrews 7:11). To summarize Vendredi's argument: Melchizedek offered up bread and wine, he did not offer up an animal sacrifice when he met Abram at the Valley of Shaveh. (Genesis 14:17-18). Jesus instituted the sacrifice of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Therefore Jesus rejected the temple sacrifices and disassociated himself from animal sacrifices.. (16:00 mark) Response: Melchizedek did not bring an offering; he "brought out" bread and wine for the refreshment of Abram and his soldiers as a friendly gesture. (Genesis 14:18).2 

Keil and Delitzsc: "Melchizedek brings bread and wine from Salem 'to supply the exhausted warriors with food and drink, but more especially as a mark of gratitude to Abram, who had conquered for them peace, freedom, and prosperity.' (Delitzsch)."2 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "Bread and wine; not for sacrifice to God; for then he had brought forth beasts to be slain, which were the usual and best sacrifices: but partly to show the respect which he bore to Abram, and principally to refresh his weary and hungry army, according to the manner of those times. See Deu 23:3,4 25:18 Judges 8:5,6,15 1 Samuel 17:17.2     

Vendredi's proposal: Animal sacrifices were rejected by Jesus due to the disruption He caused during the cleansing of the temple, allegedly on three separate occasions, i.e. three years running, when animal sacrifices were prevented. (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:13-16). This proposal is highly speculative and unrealistic. Firstly, the suggestion that Jesus cleansed the temple three years running is conjecture. Secondly, Jesus' actions were not a rejection of animal sacrifices, he condemned the unethical practices of the sellers. (John 2:16). Furthermore, the scriptures indicate that the cleansing of the temple was an isolated incident. It is not likely that Jesus prevented the sellers from trading for an extended period. It is possible that the sellers recovered and returned to the temple courts, or alternatively they withdrew and continued their trade outside the temple courts. We simply do not have the information and Vendredi's eiesgesis clutches at straws.   

The Orthodox view is that all the Old Testament sacrifices typified Jesus Christ. The primary representation of Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. (John 1:29). Expositors agree that both the Passover and Yom Kippur are distinct events that foreshadow Jesus Christ. This position is corroborated by the Church Fathers.

The Epistle of Barnabus - Chapter VII - Fasting, And The Goat Sent Away, Were Types Of Christ.

"Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins. And what should they do with the other? "Accursed," says He, "is the one." Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out."3  

Justin Martyr - Chapter XL - Dialogue With Trypho

"And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [goat], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ.."4 

Tertullian - Chapter XIV - Conclusion. Clue To The Error Of The Jews.

"So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day. Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come?"5

17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)

Proof texts for this claim: Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28;1 Timothy 2:5-6.

Cambridge Bible: "45. and to give his life] We have here one of the early intimations of the mysterious purport of the Passion, that the Redeemer was about to give His life as a ransom for many (1 Timothy 2:6). The word translated 'ransom' only occurs here and in the parallel, Matthew 20:28. Wyclif renders it “and yyue his soule, or lyf, redempcioun, or ayen-biyng, for manye.” The three great circles of images, which the Scriptures employ when they represent to us the purport of the death of Christ, are (a) a sin-offering, or propitiation (1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10); (b) reconciliation (= at-one-ment) with an offended friend (Romans 5:11; Romans 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19); (c), as here, redemption from slavery (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14)." 6 

Vendredi: "To whom is the ransom paid?  There are three candidates: death, Satan or God." 

Vendredi proposes "None of the above". He presents a little-known definition of "ransom" based on the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus. Vendredi: "The word ransom (lutron) is not being used in the lexical sense. It is being used in a stipulative sense to mean rescue. God says that He will redeem Israel from Egypt. (Exodus 6:6) The word redeem in the Septuagint is the Greek word lutrosome (?) which is the verbal form of the word lutron. I am unable to determine where Vendredi sourced this form of lutron. The forms and transliterations of λύτρον are: λύτρα λύτροις λυτρον λύτρον λύτρου λύτρων lutron lytron lýtron. Gregory of Nazianzus' writings are extensive, and unfortunately, Vendredi did not give a specific reference.7 In any event this is an obscure citation that does not correspond to lexical definitions.

Thayers Greek Lexicon: "λύτρον, λύτρου, τό (λύω), the Sept. passim for כֹּפֶר, גְּאֻלָּה, פִּדְיון, etc.; the price for redeeming, ransom (paid for slaves, Leviticus 19:20; for captives, Isaiah 45:13; for the ransom of a life, Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31f): ἀντί πολλῶν, to liberate many from the misery and penalty of their sins, Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45. (Pindar, Aeschylus, Xenophon, Plato, others.)"8 

Go, speak to the children of Israel, saying, I am the Lord; and I will lead you forth from the tyranny of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from bondage, and I will ransom (וְגָאַלְתִּ֤י ve·ga·'al·ti) you with a high arm, and great judgment. (Exodus 6:6). (Brenton's Septuagint Translation)

In response to Vendredi's "rescue from Egypt view", the Hebrew gâ’al encompasses considerably more than the idea of rescue, gâ’al is to resume a lapsed claim or right.9

Cambridge Bible: "redeem] The proper sense of the Heb. gâ’al is to resume a claim or right which has lapsed, to reclaim, re-vindicate: it is thus used Leviticus 25:25ff. of the ‘redemption’ of a house or field, after it has been sold (cf. Jeremiah 32:7-8), and in the expression, the ‘avenger (gô’çl) of blood,’ properly the one who vindicates the rights of a murdered man: it is also often used metaphorically of deliverance from oppression, trouble, death, &c., as here, Exodus 15:13, Genesis 48:16, Hosea 13:14, Psalm 103:4, and especially in II Isaiah, of Yahweh’s reclaiming His people from exile in Babylon, Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:1, &c. On the syn. pâdâh, see on Exodus 13:13."10

The overwhelming consensus is that Christ offered Himself to God as a ransom. 

The Old Testament sacrifices were types of Jesus' sacrifice and were offerings to God. (Exodus 30:11-12; Numbers 8:12; Jeremiah 31:10-11; Hosea 13:14; Isaiah 53:10-11 etc.)

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:12-15).

Vendredi attempts to convince his audience that the second-century document The Epistle to Diognetus also refers to "rescue". The context of the passage is self-evident and needs no further comment!

The Epistle to Diognetus - Chapter 9

"But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"11

Vendredi has given it his best shot, but ultimately he has failed to obliterate the doctrine of PSA. His utilization of unrepresentative examples, spurious claims, selective information, obscure references and illogical argumentation is rife throughout this series. Vendredi's arguments fail the test of both the scriptures and the requirements of scholarly research. Initially, I was willing to give Warren McGrew the benefit of the doubt. However, as I progressed through this series my impression was that he played the part of a useful idiot rather than someone genuinely seeking after truth. (1 John 4:1; Romans 16:17).

1. Todd White Jesus Became EVERY Filthy Sin on the Cross Including... (youtube.com)
2. Genesis 14:18 Commentaries: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. (biblehub.com)
3. The Epistle of Barnabas (translation Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
4. Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
5. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
6. Mark 10:45 Commentaries: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (biblehub.com)
7. NEW ADVENT: Search
8. Thayer's Greek: 3083. λύτρον (lutron) -- a ransom (biblehub.com)
9. Strong's Hebrew: 1350. גָּאַל (gaal) -- to redeem, act as kinsman (biblehub.com)
10. Exodus 6 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (biblehub.com)
11. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (6)

Most Sinful Man In The Universe - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the sixth in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.  

The first twelve PSA claims (see previous posts).

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Anselm)
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Anselm)
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Anslem)
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm) 6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. 
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of willing it.. (false claim)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)

13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment. (Appeasement School)  

The primary proof text for claim 13 is Isaiah 53:4-6.

Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:1-12).

Isaiah 53:4 is cited in Matthew 8:17. Vendredi takes the limited view that the entire passage refers to the Restored-Icon Model. While Isaiah 53:4 refers to Jesus' healing ministry, verses 5-6 cannot refer to anything other than the crucifixion. 

And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases. (Matthew 8:14-17). 

Meyer: Matthew 8:17. This expelling of demons and healing of diseases were intended, in pursuance of the divine purposes, to be a fulfilment of the prediction in Isaiah 53:4. Observe that this prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus in another sense also, viz. by His atoning death (John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:24). 

Barnes: "The word translated 'griefs' in Isaiah, and 'infirmities' in Matthew, means properly, in the Hebrew and Greek, 'diseases of the body.' In neither does it refer to the disease of the mind, or to sin. To bear those griefs is clearly to bear them away, or to remove them. This was done by his miraculous power in healing the sick. The word rendered 'sorrows' in Isaiah, and 'sicknesses' in Matthew, means 'pain, grief, or anguish of mind.' To 'carry' these is to sympathize with the sufferers; to make provision for alleviating those sorrows, and to take them away. This he did by his precepts and by his example; and the cause of all sorrows - 'sin' - he removed by the atonement."

Vincent Word Studies: "Bare (ἐβάστασεν) This translation is correct. The word does not mean 'he took away,' but 'he bore,' as a burden laid upon him.1 

     

Isaiah 53 is also cited in 1 Peter 2:19-25. Vendredi claims this passage refers to the Moral Exemplar Model (the Moral-Example Theory proposed by Pelagius). Pelagius (354-420 AD) was condemned as a heretic due to his alleged denial of the sinful condition of mankind and his assertion that sinless perfection was attainable. Jesus' suffering did of course leave us a powerful example. However, the Moral-Example Theory, taken in isolation is inadequate and fails to acknowledge the vicarious aspect of Jesus' death. The death of Jesus Christ has far deeper significance. A moral exemplar cannot die for our sins. (Mathew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). 

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:19-25).

Vendredi: "It is an abomination for the righteous to suffer for the unrighteous. (Proverbs 17:15,26,24:24)." Ultimately God's mercy prevails over judgement. (James 2:13). Jesus laid down His own life voluntarily, it was not taken from Him. (John 10:18). The heart of the gospel is the call for sinners to repent and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. (1 Peter 3:18; John 15:13). Without the cross there is no mechanism for the remission of sin because sin cannot go unpunished. The Book of Proverbs embodies practical and speculative wisdom about the world. Proverbs does not address God's solution for the deep sin problem that plagues humanity.

14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)

It is important to note that there are different understandings of PSA within Western Christianity. No doubt we all agree with the main tenets of PSA: Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he bore the punishment that we deserve. However, there are differences in specifics even within the Reformed camp itself. 

Vendredi's objection: Given the testimony of the scriptures, it is impossible to reconcile God's holy and unchanging nature with the assertion that Jesus became a literal curse and literal sin. (Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 13:8). 

All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law, however, is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:10-14; cf Deuteronomy 21:23).

Having become a curse for us: Jesus became cursed on our behalf; He stood in our place and took upon Himself the curse we deserved. 

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The teaching that Jesus became "literal sin" is promoted by RC Sproul, John MacArthur and others. However, a number of expositors take a different view. Expressions such as: Jesus was clothed with mankind's sin; mankind's sin was imputed to Him; Jesus identified with man's sin; Jesus was the representative of sin; sin-bearer (vicariously); Jesus became sin in the abstract i.e. the penalties of sin were laid on Christ on our behalf.2

Cambridge: "He made Him to be sin, i.e. appointed Him to be the representative of sin and sinners, treated Him as sin and sinners are treated (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15). He took on Himself to be the representative of Humanity in its aspect of sinfulness (cf. Romans 8:3; Php 2:7) and to bear the burden of sin in all its completeness. Hence He won the right to represent Humanity in all respects, and hence we are entitled to be regarded as God’s righteousness (which He was) not in ourselves, but in Him as our representative in all things."2

Ellicott: forensic theories of the atonement, of various types, might be and have been developed. It is characteristic of St. Paul that he does not so develop it. Christ identified with man’s sin: mankind identified with Christ’s righteousness—that is the truth, simple and yet unfathomable, in which he is content to rest.2

Vincent Word Studies: "Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring 'the contradiction of sinners against Himself' Hebrews 12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross."2

Problematically, those who over-develop Galatians 3:13 go too far and end up with grotesque portrayals of Jesus Christ such as those depicted in the RC Sproul clips presented by Vendredi. (18:00 mark)

15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. (Matthew 27:45-50 cf. Psalm 22:1).

Matthew 27:46 is a quotation from Psalm 22:1. The entire psalm speaks of unequaled spiritual struggle and is a clear reference to the crucifixion. Based on Psalm 22:24, it is difficult to agree with MacArthur and others who teach the doctrine of divine abandonment i.e. the doctrine that God the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross.3  ..and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Immediately afterward, Jesus cried out what are believed to be His last words: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46). If the Father had intervened and delivered Jesus from the cross, then the entire plan of salvation would have been compromised. I do not doubt that the crucifixion was unimaginably painful not only for the Son, but also for the Father, who held back and allowed His Son to suffer.  

The arguments presented by Vendredi and McGrew against PSA are a direct attack on the gospel. McGrew describes Idol Killer as "A ministry dedicated to the cause of destroying sacred cows for the cause of Christ". As I have progressed through this series I have become increasingly convinced that Idol Killer is a ministry dedicated to destroying the gospel!

1. Matthew 8:17 Commentaries: This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES." (biblehub.com)
2. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Commentaries: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (biblehub.com)
3. The Doctrine of Divine Abandonment (gty.org)