In a comment reminiscent of his “Go home” quip to Beth Moore, John MacArthur recently told a female YouTuber critical of Calvinism “to keep her thoughts to herself” and instead listen to him.
MacArthur made his comments during an interview posted to YouTube with Josh Buice, founder and president of G3 Ministries. Though MacArthur doesn’t mention the name of the woman he’s addressing, it appears he’s referring to Alana Lagares, a popular YouTuber who’s discussed her journey away from Calvinism on her channel.
Calvinism is a theological system based on the teachings of Reformer John Calvin that emphasizes the sovereignty of God, depravity of mankind, and the doctrine of predestination. The opposite system, called Arminianism, is based on the teachings of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius and emphasizes mankind’s free will.
After discussing how he’s refined and tested his understanding of Calvinism over decades of study and exposition, MacArthur stated:
I was looking at the Internet the other day, and some wistful girl said, ‘How I became a Calvinist and left Calvinism.’ Well, the sophomoric comment like that from somebody, who should keep her thoughts to herself because she has no idea what she’s talking about, is to be measured against someone who for 50 years, has taken every text of the Bible and, and put doctrine into that text and see if it survives. And I can say that it has.
Lagares responded to MacArthur’s comments on a podcast posted yesterday to YouTube, called Soteriology 101 with apologist Leighton Flowers.
Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Jesus v. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement” by Constantine Campbell. To donate, click here.
“I think my jaw dropped and I was just like, ‘Hector!’ and I got like my husband. ‘You need to see this! Can this possibly be me?’” she said.
Lagares added that she’s been listening to MacArthur for 21 years and is “very, very fond of him” and has a “sisterly in Christ affection for the man. . . .
“But when I separate that, and hear the words that he’s saying, I’m like, ‘Man, that’s rude. That’s proud. That’s like, totally disregarding a fellow sister in the Lord—her thoughts, her findings, the way the Lord’s working in her life, and kind of just like taking away all credibility, so no one will go listen to her. ‘Shut her up. Silence her. She is beneath me,’ you know?”
In his podcast, Flowers questioned whether MacArthur would have made the same comments he made about Lagares to a man. He also questioned whether MacArthur would have said the same things had Lagares been coming out of Arminianism into Calvinism.
“I think the obvious answer, probably to both those questions is probably no,” Flowers said.
Flowers also criticized MacArthur for urging Lagares to do the opposite of what the apostle Paul commended the Bereans for doing in Acts 17. The passage says Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.
“So, I would just say to you, Elena . . . you’re being noble minded, by going to the Scripture and holding up what MacArthur has been teaching and what he has taught up next to the Scriptures, and then coming to a conclusion.”
Flowers added, “The priesthood of every believer says that you have every right to go to the throne room, to study the Scriptures for yourself, and not to make the mistakes that we saw the Catholic Church make during the time of the Reformation of ultimately saying, ‘We are the authorities. We tell you what the Bible says. You don’t even need to read the Bible for yourselves because we will tell you what it says.’”
Lagare noted that when she supported Calvinist teachings on her channel, no one seemed to have a problem with her discussing theology. But since she’s started questioning Calvinism, she’s been subject to harsh criticism and the suggestion that as a woman, she shouldn’t teach.
“My Channel’s never been an issue until I started to talk about Calvinism,” Lagare said. “And then all of a sudden, ‘Repent! You’re taking the teacher role. You need to de-platform. You’re in grave danger’—all this stuff. And it’s only because . . . it’s speaking against what you what you believe.”
Lagare said the experience has been “very hard,” even though she’s also heard from many people who have expressed how her critiques of Calvinism have helped them come to similar convictions.
“But man, it’s just a long, difficult road,” she said. “And so, the gaslighting—it’s still there, even though I’m not necessarily in contact with people. It’s just like in my brain, you know, the old messages are still there. So, it’s just hard to know, like, ‘Lord help me just listen to you,’ you know. And what I keep coming back to is, stories are powerful. . . . And my main message is what you just said, go to the Scriptures. Go to the Scriptures.”
72 thoughts on “John MacArthur Tells Female YouTuber to ‘Keep Her Thoughts to Herself’ and Listen to Him”
I wonder whether Mr. MacArthur personally searches YouTube regularly for Calvinist-critical content, or if he has an employee whose job is to look for content for Mr. MacArthur to be offended or outraged by.
Congratulations, Julie, you got MacArthur back on the upper left of your page. Drawing those comments and eyes for your otherwise unbusy website.”Probably talking about her,…. would never say this to a man..” Have you SEEN what he’s said about male false teachers, the Governor of California? It’s almost like women are super sensitive. Which is good, but not for feminizing Christianity. Feelings are not truth.
And callousness is not love.
Feelings are not the truth? Hmmm.
Have you ever stubbed your toe, accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer, or been hurt by someone you love? For most of the human population those sort of events lead to pretty strong feelings, which I believe are truthful. Not quite understand how feelings are the truth. Perhaps I’m missing something here.
Reading the story, and your comments, fills me with a sense of gratitude. I’m so thankful to live in a country where I have the freedom to decide who I listen to. That choice gives us the option to not allow the likes of John MacArthur any more relevant than he needs to be.
Hi Tony, just to add to the conversation… I think that although feelings are the final say when it comes to discerning the truth, they are an important way (among other things like Scripture; reason, etc.) that God has given us to discern truth. God feels!
I just wish the guy would stop doing terrible things, so Julie wouldn’t have to keep a light shining on the terrible things he does.
believe me when I say I LOVE to forget about John MacArthure forever, but I appreciate Julie Roys for not letting the harm he does to fester in secret, but shining a light on it.
David Willard, that’s the point… we have all seen what he (JM) has said about men, the governor, and anyone he disagrees with. He’s rude and arrogant, not becoming of a humble servant and follower of Jesus Christ. This isn’t about “sensitive feelings”, it’s about godly character—or lack there of. Why is this so hard for some Christians to get? Sir, your comment to Julie personally and in reference to the woman in this article is of poor character as well. Your gaslighting tactics reveal what you value.
“Feminizing Christianity”? What does that even mean? Please thoughtfully reconsider your comments. For Christ’s sake.
Newsom has it coming, though.
He’s a much worse tyrant than MacArthur.
Here’s a news flash: Calvinism is not truth either
Mike Moore: Question: Did Jesus Christ die for everbody in the world ?
No. feelings are not truth. But demeaning women and telling them to shut up is not truth either. It’s his view of women being applied to someone who disagreed with Calvinism.
You’ve mentioned “feminizing Christianity.” If I’m inferring this correctly, you’re relating this concept to emotionalism. Is that right? I’ve heard others speak of this as well, but generally these comments seem to take for granted the meaning so I am genuinely curious as to how Christianity is perceived to be feminized.
Your comment about the website, however is discourteous at best. I thought it worth pointing out that the comment you take exception to ie. “never [saying] this to a man” is quoting the podcast host, not Julie Roys, who you are directing your comments to.
When John MacArthur made that comment were his feelings truth?
Big Cheeses generally believe their feelings and opinions are The Truth. Often, they have employees and followers and fans who encourage this belief.
“Feelings are not truth.”
Nor are thoughts.
Now watch as Christian men jump on here to mansplain how Christian women appear, should feel, and invalidate their efforts, devalue their contributions, etc. It is almost as if a certain level of patriarchal misogyny is built into The System. Some dude-bros just can’t help themselves when they dismiss the thoughts and concerns of fellow believers who happen to have an X chromosome where they have a Y.
Right on Brent!! LOL! I’ve referred to the XX and XY chromosome distinction for some time. “If women are in a second class to men, then why are 3 of the sex chromosomes X’s?!
I have also inquired that we apply the principles of understanding Scripture such as looking at historical and cultural context, original language, etc. but not where women are concerned.
A Calvinist pastor in a very large church in Charleston, SC once told his congregation that some members of the royal family were “just losers;” I was there in person when he said it…really caught me off guard to hear a minister in a church say that. Turns out my mom was watching online, called him the next day, and told him pastors shouldn’t be saying things like this during a sermon or anywhere. The pastor apologized.
Lagares is a middle-aged woman, not a girl.
Good observation. Patronizing women by calling one a “girl” says a lot.
And a ” wistful” girl at that.
I’ve become so used to the callous rudeness of MacArthur and his ilk that this just passed me right by without notice. MacArthur has no problem calling a woman “Some wistful girl”. One wonders if he would call a man “some frivolous boy”.
Ugh. I grow so tired of the evangelical adoration of these graceless, tactless, mean-spirited men and those who support them.
Yep I’m 40, and my name is ALANA not Elena:)
Correct. I’m 40…aaand my name is ALANA not Elena. I wonder how they decided to spell that in this article. It says it in the interview screen. :/
The “just listen to me” response from MacArthur doesn’t surprise me in the least. Sounds very cultish.
Hard to imagine how anyone could do more damage to a significant legacy than J Mac has accomplished himself; it’s been more noticeable since the run-up to the 2020 election, but the significant issues go back much further. How is it possible to emphasize and teach on grace so much, and practice it so little?
Johnny Mac deserves waaaaasy more respect than he’s getting. This brother has accomplished over a fifty year ministry what Many preachers NEVER do. He has preached through the ENTIRE NT verse by verse. That is no small feat. So when he comments on a woman’s failed efforts at explaining a theological position, we should listen up.
Respect is never deserved, it is always earned. While he is a great preacher and convincing orator it’s doesn’t equate to him deserving respect ….especially when is not being respectful of women.
Pastor Chuck Smith and J Vernon McGee each preached through the whole Bible verse-by-verse several times during their ministry and they didn’t teach the false doctrine of Calvinism.
You can preach through the entire Bible letter by letter for a hundred years and still be wrong. John MacArthur may be able to draw a crowd, but I’m not feeling the love
See 1 Corinthians 13:1.
Todd, you are really really really missing the point here. John MacArthur has a propensity of rubbing his “biblical knowledge and position as a preacher” in people’s faces. Not only that but he sits in the seat of inerrancy and will slice you and dice you in a moments notice if you disagree with him. That is not the character and mindset of a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the character of cold, calculating, narcissistic man who thinks he is the only one who has a hardwire connection to God. As I have said many many times before John MacArthur does not belong in the pulpit, nor anyone like him. Down with narcissistic, proud and arrogant preachers. Up with humble, approachable and kind preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Johnny Mac already gets waaaay more respect than he deserves for the many writings and commentary passages falsely attributed to his name. American Evangelicalism will be a cleaner house when we shake his dust from our feet.
“He has preached through the ENTIRE NT verse by verse. That is no small feat.”
It certainly shows diligent effort.
If I correctly understand the meaning of “preached through,” Mr. MacArthur has offered his opinion on the meaning of each verse in the New Testament. Others have done this as well, I understand.
If Mr. MacArthur’s interpretations are the same as those of every other preach-through preacher, what is the need for anyone, ever, to do this after the first guy? If the interpretations do not agree, by what authority does any of the men contend that he is right, while the others are wrong, about any individual verse or the whole New Testament?
the fruit of his “labor” is gross and rotten. he himself is prideful, condescending, and a deceiver- this is also what is consistently produced in his followers. he is at best a clanging gong, and more likely leading thousands upon thousands away from the way of Christ into destruction. He’s a goat if I’ve ever seen one, and Jesus will say “depart I never knew you” based on the way he treats people he views as beneath him (which is, you know, the whole point of Matthew 25- he should have paid more attention to it when he was preaching it verse by verse)
Listen. Maybe, but good Bereans listen but then verify (with the Bible). In good faith, I did that as have many others, and Calvinism doesn’t stand the Truth-test in my honest opinion.
Are you implying that the more accomplishments one has, the more right they have to be disrespectful?
John MacArthur claimed to be a New Testament preacher. He spent 50 years ignoring the Old Testament, the Scriptures Jesus knew, loved and lived. Such lopsided teaching was a massive error. It makes sense that he can also dismiss and ignore the precepts and commands to treat others with love, compassion and kindness.
50 years of reading the bible to confirm what you already believe does not make you more faithful than people who read the bible with an open mind and heart, willing to follow where it leads even if it’s uncomfortable.
it’s unsurprising that MacArthur has spent 50 years “confirming” calvinism- that belief system keeps him firmly in the seat of power, and allows him allllll of the authority. Why would he question it? That might require him to humbly submit and serve instead of smugly insulting anyone who disagrees with him.
““It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Jen, I LOVE
“50 years of reading the bible to confirm what you already believe does not make you more faithful than people who read the bible with an open mind and heart, willing to follow where it leads even if it’s uncomfortable.”
This is the exact reason why I have said in previous posts that I don’t care how good of a preacher or how many people have come to saving faith in the Lord as a result of John MacArthur’s ministry. John MacArthur and those of like mind and character do not, I repeat do not belong in the pulpit. They are narcissistic, proud, arrogant, high-minded and selfish to the bone. And how this man even has a congregation and a church governess that stands with him is far and away beyond my comprehension. Stay on it Julie! You’re doing a marvelous job.
New International Version
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”
The Gospel is powerful. The messenger is secondary.
I am a staunch Calvinist but in no way am I a fan of John MacArthur. The lady is misled about scripture and needs guidance in her study but his insensitive remark was arrogant not helpful.
He didn’t make any attempts to engage with any of her arguments. All he says is that she was a calvinist and she stopped being one, which apparently is inherently “sophomoric,” at least when coming from “girls” that he perceives as “wistful.” I am pretty sure she would be open to critique of her theology, but this is not what he is offering.
yeah, those darn woman always annoying us men. especially when they give birth. OMG they complain about the pain and sometimes it goes on for hours. and what about when men leave the family to go do good noble things and the woman stick around to raise the kids while the husband is off somewhere doing something wonderful. Wow JMAC is right, keep your thoughts to yourself especially if your husband is abusing you (it’s so they can eventually come to the lord) or hurting the kids. who are WE to challenge the greatness, the almighty, the godly JMAC and loving kind and humble bromancing compatriots of his. Oh, we men have it sooooooo rough. thank you JMAC for freeing me from the tyranny of the XX types of humans. It’s not like woman are the primary care giver and role model for girls to grow up as ladies and men to grow up as gentlemen.
John MacArthur, warts and all, represents much more than himself. It may then be misleading to set him up as an influential teacher open to negative critique. The broader implications are, that the thinking and acting that he does and offers, represent significant constituencies in Calvinism specifically and Christianity generally, that he ends speaking for and representing in some material sense.
If we take the warts, what is being claimed by critics as the unacceptable face of Christianity, then those warts are anchored in (as he says) 50 years of deriving understanding from reading of the scriptures. Such that these warts are grounded in and fed by, aspects of how those scriptures have been written.
Focusing on claimed aspects of the man, is arguably small potatoes, if and as focus should be on risks inherent in how the scriptures have been written.
Colin, Calvinism is not the issue. 50 years of reading and preaching the Scriptures is not the issue. Warts and all is not the issue. The issue is this is a man is so blinded by his perceived position as a preacher of the gospel and self-appointed Bible scholar and chief theologian to the evangelical church, will not and I believe now cannot treat people in a manner that is consistent with Christlike behavior. And it seems to me, especially to women. Humility? All things said in love? Kindness? Meekness? Approachable? Christlike love even with those with whom we disagree? These attributes plainly seen in John MacArthur? Dig real deep. You will not find them. He doesn’t belong in the pulpit.
Salvatore. The issue I spoke to in my post, was: the way “scriptures have been written”; where some of those who view John as ‘speaking for them’, make use of the same scripture harvested resources as does John.
Yes the Bible also contains much to do with Christ-cleaving behaviours and characteristics, just as you cite; but even in the New Testament there is so much to do with calling out those deemed spiritually false, and it those parts of scripture that so many Christians take recourse to in their doctrinal bun-fights.
I’m not arguing against how anyone else views John. All I’m suggesting is that the John problem may sit in a larger scriptural context. So, yes, see the man; but don’t let the sound and fury of that, blind you to what might be wider issues.
Thank you for replying. Being responded to is always a positive.
Colin, to what wider issues are you referring? Regardless and again I say regardless of John MacArthur’s scriptural expertise or how many years he has taken to acquire it, his character, his demeanor, is not and is not and is not (how many times must I say it) Christlike in any angle that you look at him. This alone disqualifies him as a preacher of the gospel. How do you preach something that you do not exemplify? His very words and the posture that he directs at people who may be on the other side of a debatable issue and especially if it’s a woman, are self convicting of his disqualification from ministry. Again, John MacArthur and those of like mind and character do not belong in the pulpit.
Beware of any teacher who criticizes you for asking questions. If MacArthur is concerned about false teachings that are actually deceiving Christians, YouTube is full of false NAR prophets to choose from, male and female. Mrs. Lagares isn’t attempting to preach from his pulpit and isn’t a pastor. Her channel isn’t just about theology but is a lifestyle channel aimed at women. MacArthur is misapplying Paul’s instructions about women keeping silent in church to women everywhere and in all media. In addition, Mrs. Lagares is a married woman. She isn’t under MacArthur’s authority as a pastor or a husband. He has overstepped his bounds. Again.
MacArthur is increasingly out of touch with other human beings, and therefore with the Son who God sent to save human beings. He outright states that he’s pulling rank on others based on 50 years of actively searching Scriptures, and that they would do well to sit down and shut up. I suppose I could, but I don’t take the opposite tack: i.e., claim he’s just losing it due to his advanced age. I suppose I could, but I don’t claim it’s time for him to retire, i.e., because he is increasingly out of touch with how to shepherd God’s sheep and identify and tend to their daily needs.
Rather, I would point out that MacArthur is not employed by the railroad or the airlines (and if he were, he’d be long retired by now just based on age). Fifty years in God’s eyes doesn’t count for more than the faith of others and the Holy Spirit working in the world through others. And in God’s time, a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day. MacArthur’s earthly time preaching and teaching is nothing.
I’m no theologian, and I was but a child when he began his long career. But I do know that his doctrinal certainty and his smug self-assurance smacks of Pharisees and love of long phylacteries. And his complete lack of humility smacks of the man who prayed to God, “Thank you, God, that I am not like these other sinners! I do everything by the book.”
. “50 years”
I am no theologian, but I fell hopelessly in love with Christ 52 years ago and have been studying His Word ever since… and I can say that in my humble opinion, TULIP is definitely not supported by Scripture….
It’s difficult for a person to get continual praise and not let it go to his head. It’s also difficult when criticized a lot (and leaders are always criticized), not to become immune to the criticism. The truly great leaders recognize this, leading to humility; lesser leaders do not. JM may think criticism is divinely determined. I don’t think so. It’s just the way it is.
Still not too late for JohnnyMac to take a Dale Carnegie Course!
So, to put it like John Podhoretz might, the MacArthur Method of apologetics and pastoral care comes down to, “Shut up, he explained.”
A couple semantic quibbles with the author:
1. As a former Free Methodist who is still a convinced non-Calvinist, I take exception to the notion that Arminianism is the “opposite” of Calvinism, which is a very Calvinist way of summing up the differences.
2. The notion that Arminianism “emphasizes” human free will is misleading. No self-described Arminian (if only one could be found outside a seminary these days) has ever told me they thought we could save ourselves. Some classical Wesleyan types, across the applicable denominations and movements, might have some pie-in-the-sky ideas about achievable holiness and perfected faith this side of eternity. But my memory of the self-aware corners of this theological camp is that, however we want to talk about human free will as part of God’s creation, God is still sovereign and Jesus is still our only hope.
Dave Willard, Are you aware your quote was not said by Julie Roys but by Flowers on his podcast? Julie R leaves it to us to decide as you can see by the 30 comments or thoughts on here ahead of mine.
I hope J MacArthur does the same about whatever true or false teachers he talks about.
“Go to the Scriptures” – that’s worked well in the Protestant world over the past 500 years, has it?
The fact is that Scripture has to be interpreted. Who will interpret it for you – some currently famous person like John MacArthur (who had the audacity to name a Bible after himself!) or someone from a long time ago like John Calvin? Even Calvinists have their disagreements. How do you know whose teaching is true? Just because someone has a big following doesn’t mean he is right. Arius was very familiar with Scripture but he was dead wrong. The Arians even had their own “contemporary” worship music. Imagine that.
How many readers here are familiar with St. John Chrysostom’s homilies? Go to https://www.oca.org/fs/sermons/the-paschal-sermon
and read his Paschal homily, the homily that we Eastern Orthodox hear at Pascha (what we call Easter) every year. Then read what else he had to say elsewhere. This might be an antidote to the bickering that goes on and on in these blogs between Christians. There was no TULIP in St. John’s time. There wasn’t a need for it.
I’m not a woman but let’s see if anyone tells me to shut up, anyway.
I’m not a fan of John MacArthur, but , to be fair, a lot of work went into the MacArthur Study Bible, and he’s earned the right to have his name on it. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly big deal, at least not when I can look at my bookshelf and find The David Jeremiah Study Bible, The Criswell Study Bible and The Ryrie Study Bible. Nobody complained when these men did it,, in fact, considering everything else that could be said about him, it’s a lot like criticizing the late Saddam Hussein for putting pineapple on his pizzas.
Being rude, disrespectful, dangerous, and dismissive toward women can hardly be compared to putting pineapple on pizza. Good grief.
I never said it was.
My objection was to Richard Mohr’s post criticizing John MacArthur for putting his name on the MacArthur Study Bible when he has been accused of doing so much worse. I pointed out specifically that a) John MacArthur did or directed the bulk of the work involved in producing the study bible and deserved to have his name on it, and b) such evangelical lights as David Jermiah, Charles Ryrie and W.A. Criswell put their own names on their own study Bibles, a practice going back at least to the publication of Thompson Chain Reference Bible in 1908. Calling him out on that point is both trivial and unwarranted. It does not excuse the catalog of bad behavior that is now emerging.
The comparison with Saddam Hussein was with taking a brutal dictator to task over perhaps the one thing that he did that was relatively harmless (I don’t know whether he ever saw a pizza: the reference was intentionally hyperbolic).
Great answer and anybody that makes excuses for evil is why so many young people are turned off by the church. Not Christians but churches
I believe the question is whether he actually did all the work. And the only “named” study bible I have is the Thompson Chain- for the sake of the cross-references. I don’t like “name” merchandise in general; the quality is usually poor. No John Wayne rifle or Beatles stereo for me.
Frankly, I don’t believe any man has “earned the right” to have his name emblazoned in gold lettering on the Word of God.
In a perfect world, maybe. But in the world we actually live in, if a person directs or writes the commentary and notes in a study Bible, if he and/or she isn’t allowed to put his and/or her nae on it, it’s going to be awfully hard to tell one study Bible from another.
Except there is ample evidence that John MacArthur did not actually write the MacArthur Study Bible, members of the staff at TMS and TMU did a great deal of the work on it. There is an interview with Julie Roys and Dennis Swanson on her podcast that lays out the fact that in earlier editions those staff members were credited with work, then in subsequent editions their contributions were not credited.
ERIC EDWARDS That’s as may be. It’s an open question how much of the actual work product in any celebrity study Bible is attributable to the person whose name appears on the cover,, particularly in posthumous editions. Maybe he didn’t have any more to do with the MacArthur Study Bible than Aunt Jemimah had with pancake syrup. That’s not the point. But I’ll leave it there.
“Well, the sophomoric comment like that from somebody, who should keep her thoughts to herself because she has no idea what she’s talking about, is to be measured against someone who for 50 years, has taken every text of the Bible and, and put doctrine into that text and see if it survives.”
Yeah! I agree false teachers and such need to be shut down. I bet the medical and scientific community says the same thing to him regarding covid: Stop talking about that which you know nothing about and trust those who have dedicated their lives to studying of the subject.
MacArthur wants to make sure that his theological dog wags the biblical tail.
The best part? JM clearly is unfamiliar with the Streisand Effect.
Yes, that is exactly what has happened.
Did a word search in the Bible. The only J.C. in the Bible is Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. However those who responded to the 5 points of “Arminianism” were responding to heresies. “Those” the Calvinists otherwise known under the garb of Calvinism (known as the Doctrines of Grace). I believe Arminianism and Calvinism as culturally understood as idolatry. Watching the tenor of MacArthur’s ministry and life… This article and the reactions do not adequately convey the intent of his comments. I can see why those who dislike Ihim would think differently. Some articles on MacArthur are newsworthy and others are meh. Meh! This can only be responded from our subjective perspective. Not by our objective value. I know some who worship every word of Johnny Mac and others who have a distain. Think for yourself.
Today, on “Love Worth Finding” with Adrian Rogers, he talks about the Pharisees , which is relevant to John “Caiaphas” MacAccuser and the actions of the rest of the American Sanhedrin.
MacArrogant seems to have no ability to NOT cast accusations at any and all. When he was interviewed at the Shepherds Conference, he was coming off of heart surgery, had fallen at home and injured his face and right wrist/hand, yet he still had to fire off negative comments about other Christians.
There is simply one reason why he and others do this: GUILT. They have a guilty conscience and so they try to assuage it and feel better about themselves by CONSTANTLY accusing others.
What other well known pastor does this like MacA does? I can’t think of any.
I LOVE the fact that a woman is bringing all of MacA’s sins to light.
The Roys Report seeks to foster thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Toward that end, the site requires that people use their full name when commenting. Also, any comments with profanity, name-calling, and/or a nasty tone will be deleted.
Comments are limited to 300 words.