What have I ignored in the Scriptures? I agree with the words of Jesus. False teachers should be judged publicly and strong words are no problem. Perhaps you have simply misread.

Yes I have judged you. As I said, I don’t have a problem with judgment. We have to to be obedient. I don’t know if you have lied. I think what you have said here is misleading, but that’s not a lie necessarily. You could simply be wrong. Being wrong and lying are not the same thing.

I don’t know that you have not ripped off sheep for monetary gain. I have no reason to think you have, nor any reason to think MacArthur has. I don’t know that that charge has ever been credibly leveled against him, but perhaps it has. I would have to see some sort of argument for that.

You will find me to be a honest conversation partner who picks words carefully even if we disagree. So please use my actual words to demonstrate your point. Don’t assume things. Many have done that here and found out it doesn’t work with me.

Again, you ignore the scriptures and Jesus Himself and are simply doing what you are claiming me to be doing. You are every bit as judgmental as anyone else. By your logic, you should be laughing at yourself and questioning the righteousness of what you are writing. I am certainly willing to be judged by Jesus’ standard. I have not lied nor have I attempted to rip off sheep for monetary gain. Again, you would be the one laughing at Jesus for the words I posted because He has such questionable judgment. You have the markings of someone who cannot look at the mirror to see a hypocrite looking back and that is troubling…

What is the misunderstanding? I think we agree that MacArthur is responsible for his teaching. Whether or not it is disgraceful can only be determined by comparing it to Scripture. But that discussion would have to be had. You probably understand why we don’t just take your word for it, right?

I am unclear what you mean by “understand” and “teach” so there might be more than one way to teach it (e.g., public message, private conversation, book, letter, email, etc.). There is more than one way to understand it, though that is a rather unfortunate and awkward way to put it. It is better to talk perhaps of facets of the gospel (e.g., redemption, expiation, propitiation).

But the gospel is most certainly not whatever each person reads into it. It is the good news that God became man, lived a perfect life, died a substitutionary death, rose again, was seen by over 500 people, and is returning in glory as a victorious king to destroy evil and reign in righteousness. There are many implications of that, but only one understanding of it.

But none of that applies here. Surely we can all agree there is a race problem while disagreeing about the exact nature of it, cause of it, and solution for it.

Duplicate that didn’t show up at first.

You claim there is more than one way to address race and racial problems, yet you appear to be entirely unaware that there is more than one way to understand and teach the gospel. Isn’t the gospel whatever each person reads into it?

I don’t think you want to beat your head against that particular brick wall of doctrine with him.

No, I have never said anything of the sort. I am not bothered by judgment. We have to judge in order to be obedient. I am perfectly fine with it. We have to judge by a proper standard–righteous judgment–and we have to be willing to be judged by the same standard that we judge others. But there is nothing wrong with judgment in principle. But I said nothing about any of that.

I was pointing out the humor and irony of your post: You seem the type who is bothered by the fundamentalistic judgment of MacArthur and yet, like so many who complain about it, you have no problem doing it.

I think it is fine to do it, though I am not sure your judgment is righteous. But that wasn’t my point at all. My point is the humor that so many who hate judgmental fundamentalists are judgmental fundamentatlists. They simply have different fundamentals. But the mindset is the same.

I am constantly amazed by the ignorance of the comments suggesting that the only injury to African Americans was ended 160 years ago. As if abject slavery weren’t enough, we used institutional social ostracism, the law and personal violence to oppress them en mass for over a century after slavery was ended. To this day we have plenty who try to maintain the spirit, if not the reality of those days. I heard a couple of people babbling about this in public just the other day. Their attitude towards African Americans would have fit nicely 100 years ago.

It is convenient for the oppressor to be able to think that all is in the past, but for the oppressed that is just one more injury. Perhaps it is also the last straw.

It’s a rare occasion, but I have to agree with you. If it is a case of judging someone by their own beliefs, then LT fails. Then again, his entire discourse here has a foundation of passive-aggressiveness, which is basically just hatred presented under deception.