False Teachers in our own Ranks

Maybe he's not altogether a wolf in sheep's clothes just because he may be wrong on this issue. Wolves in the church maliciously prey on the innocent after knowingly beguiling them. Wrong as he may be on this issue and others I just don't see him as a wolf lying in wait to devour. That's all.

Just because a man espouses an erroneous eschatological view such as dispensationalism, doesn't make him a wolf by necessity.

If that were so, there are whole packs of them surrounding the camp of the saints. You'd be entertaining wolves often, and unaware of it.

Pray for the peace of all those who are jews inwardly by faith in the Messiah, Jesus. Amen.

Here's an excellent sermon by Carter Conlon titled, "Wolves"
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=2158&commentView=itemComments

I disagree with a lot of John MacArthur's eschatological view. I also disagree with things that other people on this forum have said--things that I believe are very plain in the scripture. Are they all wolves? Who here has perfect doctrinal understanding? Who in here has attained all there is to know in Christ through His Word. No one.

There are thing my pastor has said that I find very wrong--but he does bear fruit and he does love the brethren and he does follow Jesus. He is not a wolf but we do not see eye to eye.

What do you have that you have not received. Why do you boast as if you have not received it? Why are we holding people to a standard that you yourself have not attained. It makes no sense. Even prominent people in the faith still have things to learn.

Can we PLEASE stop all this nonsense and only speak that which is necessary for edification? I don't feel edified reading things like this. Only discouraged because we keep drawing dividing line over dividing line over dividing line.

Think of how much more we would grow in Christ if we did that. Think of how much more our hearts would be set on Christ if we did that. Would we not be far more prepped for revival and serving Christ if we did that?

Thanks for the message Lysa.

Its a good checkpoint to see if you have any wolf tendencies. We should check ourselves.

havok20x....There are things my pastor has said that I find very wrong--but he does bear fruit and he does love the brethren and he does follow Jesus. He is not a wolf but we do not see eye to eye.

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"

Most people here who have objected a bit to labeling Dr. MacArthur as a wolf in sheep's clothing have also said that there are points that they disagree with him on. So Dr. MacArthur is not bring handed a blank check of approval. Posting and forcefully saying things like the American church has forfeited its right to heaven because they voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton is not sound either as far as correct doctrine versus error goes. Dr. MacArthur, not being given a blank check, never had said anything along those preposterous lines. How one is saved is not something of secondary importance either. So we all perhaps need to pay closer attention to what we say or teach. If a person is wrong on certain points we still don't need to see them after the flesh.

Peace. No need to build a fire here.

As an aside

Hey Blaine,

Do you still have my email address? Can you write to me? You no longer have your email under your profile.

Got a question about AR.

Thanks.

It is only an issue if it is a literal mark. If its not there is no issue.

Is there any other place in scripture where a person who does something is forever damned with no hope of redemption? I am not talking about rejecting the Lord until they die- I am talking about someone doing something and the action itself damns them for all eternity?

The worst sins imaginable were committed in the pages of scripture by various individuals who ultimately found forgiveness when they repented.

That is why I have a hard time believing that the action of taking a literal mark is an automatic stamp of damnation.

Now, if the mark is simply symbolic of an acquiescence to an evil world system and persistent refusal to side with God, it makes much more sense.

Some respected commentators from the past felt that the acceptance of the mark was throwing in ones lot with roman catholicism and the popes. They may very well be right.

And Bear, why does it really matter what JMac believes on this topic? As you know there are an embarrassingly large number of different end times views; are all those that propose views that differ from yours false teachers or wolves in sheep clothing? Of course not. I don't agree with the end times view of the church I attend- at all. I just get over it. I don't think the pastor is a wolf in disguise.

Brother Blaine,

I am far from perfect. You'll have to forgive me of being so forceful in the distant past. I, like every child of God, am being renewed and transformed day by day.

John MacArthur is indeed one of my own. He is a brother in Christ. You are also one of my own--a brother in Christ.. I don't agree with him on this point, but he has yet to enter glory either. He only knows in part right now, just like the rest of us.

I am not asking that we don't discuss these issues, but why malign anyone along the way. Does it matter who thinks what so much as we learn the truth?

What would be more effective for the body of Christ? Calling out every false prophet one by one, issue by issue or teaching the truth and allowing us to discern all teachings and all spirits?

So what type of persons would be included in the following:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

It seems this was of great concern for the Apostles as there are many such references in the scriptures....
If we can identify the areas that are nonnegotiable then perhaps we could reconcile this issue?

Reading over the posts, there are many aspects that I can readily agree to tho brother Bear does make a valid point that there is an inconsistency in our overall application of discernment. Some get a pass, others the benefit of the doubt, while others get no margin for error due to their reputation or the reputation of their church family or denomination.... this doesn't seem to be as clearly demarcated by Holy Spirit as it was for Peter, Paul, etc...
I mean we are all partakers of the same bread so why are we so inconsistent in these matters?
It's like we all have differing places where we break fellowship, some are tight and some are loose which means we aren't on the same page and yet in the Acts church they were of one accord... is it not incumbent upon us all to submit to Holy Spirits direction? And surely He isn't acting inconsistently in His watch over us.... so what gives?

All who are led by the same spirit should come to the same conclusion, no?

Well, the bible is crystal clear about this matter.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=mark+of+the+beast&qs_version=KJV

Warning to McArthur and Co. better take this serious

Revelation 22:18-20 (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

RE : /// This goes against what the historic church has believed and taught.///

I have not found any continuity concerning eschatological beliefs of any kind in and through Church History.

As far as the early writings, did they not believe that there was a correlation with Nero ?

https://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/666-old.html

Just to take us down a side track, without offending any teacher or their followers :)

I am by no means a master of Revelation revelation, if you get my drift?
I usually read it with awe and wonder, amazement and joy for the privilege of knowing such an awesome God and Savior.

However, just a thought: Does this mark, received (seemingly not forced) not refer us back to Jesus words, that you cannot serve both God and Mammon (either you serve God wholeheartedly and receive His reward, or money, world system and receive its reward:judgement)

See Elliot's Commentary below, short and sweet, and makes sense to me:
"Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(9) And the third angel . .””Better, And another angel, a third, followed them, saying in a loud voice, If any man worship the wild beast and his image, and a mark upon his forehead or upon his hand, he also himself shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled pure (in full strength, undiluted, e.g., "He shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy,” James 2:13) in the cup of his indignation, and shall be tormented in fire, &c., &c. This third angel naturally follows the other two, which describe the powers which are in conflict: the word of God, and the Babylon of the world; the gospel will triumph; Babylon is doomed; hence comes the warning that men should not identify themselves with the city of worldliness, falsehood, and sin. The reference to the wild beast, the image, and the mark, carries us back to the last chapter, and shows us that Babylon is only another aspect of the work of God’s enemies: it is the city of the world-power. The warning not to receive the mark is a declaration that man, individual man, is responsible: there is no necessity for his receiving the mark, the hall-mark of a cowardly connivance at wrong-doing, or for setting his judgments by the fashions of the world."

//I have not found any continuity concerning eschatological beliefs of any kind in and through Church History.//

Which is why I have called it "embarrassing." Think about it- evangelicals claim to follow a book inspired by the living God but when it comes to end times seemingly no one can agree on what it means. That's pretty embarrassing.

I think the reason there is no agreement is that the EXACT DETAILS are not meant to be understood and each person tries to force their own literal meaning onto symbolic or hidden imagery.

If we could simply approach the end times with a sincere reverence for Jesus and do what he says, and then take a "wait and see" approach to how it will all play out, there would be a lot more unity in the Church.

The disunity in the church over eschatological matters arose when Israel was replaced in the thinking of the church. People can't even agree today that Christ will return to Jerusalem from whence He left and returned. In prophecy in many quarters Jerusalem now means the church or something. Anything but a real Jerusalem. When a literal Israel was replaced there was no alternative but to develop a over reliance on the symbolic and allegorical.

I wasn't even thinking of the Israel issue- I was just thinking in general about the plethora of end time scenarios out there.

We have disagreements over every scintilla of scripture that supposedly has anything to do with future events.