Responding to the recent John MacArthur controversy.

I have yet to see anyone bothered because you questioned MacArthur's positions. I've seen a lot of people bothered that you didn't come close to accurately or charitably representing his positions though. Interestingly, it seems you're now misrepresenting the strong pushback that you're receiving.

Would you like to see the posts and comments claiming I attacked him? You claimed I slandered him. And that it made you cry. No. I didn't misrepresent that. Respectfully, your overreaction and mischaracterization is an example of exactly what I was responding to, sister. I encourage you to do more due diligence in the future.

It did indeed bring tears to my eyes, and I am entirely unashamed of that. MacArthur was a spiritual father to me, and when you love people, you care when they are uncharitably or inaccurately portrayed. MacArthur is a faithful man worthy of honor, and we should not speak of faithful men of God with sarcasm and disrespect as you did. You did not accurately represent his positions at all, as you've heard scores of times now from many people, and you certainly did not set an honorable example for how to respectfully present the views of others with whom we hold theological disagreements.

I did accurately represent him. Perhaps, you didn't listen to him yourself, sister (or to my actual program). "We lose down here! Get it?!" That's in context with his eschatology. It is not out of context. It's what brother John believed. I encourage you to listen to the full show. May I ask? Did you listen to it before offering public comments? Further, did you listen to the full video above before commenting here?

I listened up to the point of the video where you were responding to MacArthur's sermon by saying things like "Why? That’s the kingdom of the world stuff, John…pay no mind to that…this is just that world stuff…so like, why? Also, we lose down here, so what’s the point of voting for righteousness?...What's the point?...But we lose. Vote that way, but just know that we lose," and I listened to when you said he wasn't making sense and that he had one foot in Scripture and one in pessimism and tradition and so on... Listening any further to that sort of demeaning and sarcastic treatment of MacArthur's deeply held biblical convictions was not going to help my soul in any way, so yes, I turned it off at that point. Plus, my husband was commenting from the other room on how arrogant you sounded and asking why I continued to listen, so there's that too.

Thank you for this admission. You didn't listen to what I actually said in full. That's not a good standard. "I didn't listen to your program and your position. However, I'll confidently make public accusations after ignoring what you said." Would you like others to treat you in the same way, sister? Or, is this a practice you reserve only for others? How would you feel if I had treated John in the same manner? I promise you I didn't. I actually listened to the entire sermon at least 4 times before I offered any critique. Just a loving and respectful nudge to you to not practice what you did here.

@BiblicalBeauty "You have to eat an entire plate of garbage to be allowed to tell anyone it was garbage" is an idiotic position, and exactly the type of thing a garbage peddler would demand.

Especially when I’m not commenting on what I did not hear him say, but what I heard him repeatedly say. No amount of additional commentary would change the statements that I objected to.

The fact that 90% of the commenters on your YT channel are saying some variation of “I like you Jeff but you’re misrepresenting/ being unfair about MacArthur” with the same 90% negative ratios and feedback on X, this might be a sign not to do the whole:

Reformed Voices Who Saw a Future for Israel Spurgeon was not standing alone. Across the Reformed and Puritan traditions, respected theologians understood Romans 11 to teach that Israel’s present hardening is partial and temporary, not final. John Owen anticipated a future turning of the Jewish nation to Messiah, accompanied by deliverance, restoration to their land, and a flourishing condition there. Thomas Boston likewise wrote that he was inclined to believe the Jewish people would again possess their own land. James Durham expected the restoration of a national and civil state of Israel. Charles Hodge taught that Israel’s national rejection was neither total nor permanent. Because God’s covenant calling cannot be revoked, Israel would one day be grafted in again, fulfilling Paul’s declaration that “all Israel shall be saved.” Hodge affirmed a future national turning of Israel, though he did not embrace every claim made concerning a distinct political restoration. Spurgeon spoke even more explicitly: “Israel’s full restoration is yet to be accomplished.” He explained that the people would be gathered from their national graves, placed in their own land, and brought to recognize that the Lord had spoken and performed His promise. These men differed significantly concerning the millennium, the timing of prophetic events, and Israel’s precise role in the coming age. But they shared an important conviction: God has not finished with Israel. Israel’s continuing identity and future awakening are not modern inventions. They arise naturally from the covenant faithfulness of God and the plain expectation of Romans 11: “Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.” Romans 11:25–26 The Church must never boast against the natural branches. The God who preserved Israel through centuries of dispersion is fully able to graft them in again. Israel’s present condition is not the conclusion of Israel’s story.

I listened to the entire episode. You completely misrepresented his position. Straw men, appeal to emotion, presumption and zero exegesis is what characterized that talk

Your understanding of the Great Commission differs from that of MacArthur (and of early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, for that matter). The Great Commission, as seen by most of the church throughout church history, is not a call to render the *nations* themselves into a discipled state, no more than it was a command to figure out how to baptize the nations as such. Rather, it's a call to make disciples *from among* every nation. You falsely accused MacArthur of teaching that all our efforts toward missions and evangelism are doomed to failure. That is categorically false, and it's disappointing that your follow-up is to bemoan the injustice of people calling you on it. MacArthur's entire life was a testimony to just how effective a life devoted to that calling can be. As for the OT prophecies you cited, they were of course fully affirmed by MacArthur—he simply didn't hold to the Great Commission as the primary vehicle (which, again, lands him squarely in the majority position throughout most of church history). To be clear, uour view on the Great Commission isn't unique to you. But it is, nonetheless, a minority position outside of postmil camps. You're free to champion your interpretation, but it's unfortunate that you would choose to do it by means of disparaging remarks about a decreased brother in Christ.

Here’s the rest of what you took out of context to make it what you want it to mean.

Thank you for proving (once again) that you didn't even bother watching the episode. I played that. And everyone who actually watched it knows. However, thank you for proving my point in the video above. Truly grateful.

“I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.” Thank you for your humble gratitude expressed in your reply, pastor.

Most of those passages describe the Millennial Kingdom. Isaiah 65. Also, New Heavens/New Earth. Repeated in Scripture this place is not our home. So yes, MacArthur was right, we lose in the sense that this place is passing away. We won't "Christianize" the world.

Dude, face it ... your eschatology sucks. AND, your soteriology sucks. At lease Jmac got one of those right.

Both of you are arguing from two extremes. “We lose down here” doesn’t mean the gospel doesn’t save great multitudes throughout history and that we shouldn’t vote for righteous leaders, etc. The verses you mentioned also don’t mean the world as a whole will be Christianized (post mil error), rather that the gospel will go forth in power (it has). I’m not dispy, I abominate that view, but your critique of JMac I thought missed the mark.

It doesn't ever matter how much you praise the "great man," the people who revere their favorite preacher are usually cult-worshippers of him. Trust me, I escaped Mormonism and the reformed world behaves the same way. MacArthur was simply wrong. Christ **IS** King, and He allows His followers to WIN down here.

Thank you pastor Jeff

Im not watching all this. All I want to know if you've repented of lying about dispensationalist/ism? If not, Ill just keep assuming you're a snake.

I would caution you against saying things like "Pastor John has achieved greater things and is a greater pastor than I'll ever be (paraphrase)." When speaking truth, do not give an inch. I love MacArthur. Doesn't matter. Truth transcends all things. Truth is Christ.

If you or anyone could point me to a good video or two teaching postmillenialism from the scriptures and explaining how the great commission was eventually going to lead to all nations becoming basically Christian… the majority of the world regenerated before Christ’s return I’m guessing is what is being implied here? Would be nice to see how this is explained. I’ve been under the impression that the world gets basically worse until Christ’s return and that there are few who find the way of life. Love you and Dr White’s teaching and you’ve both sharpened my Bible knowledge. MacArthur has been a huge teacher for me as well. “But know this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, without gentleness, without love for good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, but having denied its power. Keep away from such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and take captive weak women weighed down with sins, being led on by various desires, always learning and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:1–7 LSB) “For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14 LSB)

It's not MacArthur controversy. It's you slandering someone who is in glory by taking his words out of context...all because you felt your eschatology was besmirched. Weak.

Jeff, I have only been following you for a short time so this is a genuine question: did you ever question/criticize John while he was alive and able to directly engage with you?

Yes. I did. I even addressed this one when he originally said it. :)

You actually critiqued these same statements before he passed to crickets, but now, all of a sudden, it’s a controversy. Looks a lot like you touched many people’s idols.

The thing you did where you mockingly addressed your questions directly to a dead man by name was kinda disgusting. In future, it's better to say "what he/John said here was not logically consistent because..." rather than "why not, John?" or "Why would you say that, John?"

Jeff all this bickering is the inevitable rotten fruit of Supersessionism. Origin, Augustine, etc… it festers with pride. Continue on by all means if you want to join Tucker and Owens on their podcasts.

I agree with you, but i just think it would have better to get a clear answer from John MacArthur when he was still on earth. I don't think John MacArthur would say that without clarification and answering the question.

You have publicly disagreed with Jmac on his eschatology before, and it never seemed to bother anyone. I think you guys just got a little careless with words by saying things like “the great commission was just a pipe dream for John”, which was a little over the top and not fair.

There are no John MacArthur controversies. He was one of the all time best teachers of scripture.

You DID misrepresent MacArthur’s position, but that doesn’t mean it was nefarious. I think you represented it as well as you know how, but you ARE wrong, likely the same way I would be if I tried to represent your position. When you aren’t living the theology, you lack insight.

All the Saint John MacArthur cult members are really upset.

Damage control, Brother. I listened to the episode. You attacked a Godly and faithful Pastor. Stating his view as “ultimately destructive to the life and mission of the church”. Caution Exhibiting being “puffed up “ As in the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor 4:6

How to burn your ministry to the ground in one easy step. Kudos.

MacArthur believed in the full harvest of all the elect from among the ta ethne, properly understood as ethnic people groups, not geopolitical entities. Your different interpretation of ta ethne causes you to project error onto MacArthur that he is not guilty of.

These people made him and many others their idol. It’s really like a cult. You’re not allowed to critique their pastors that they idolize. John McArthur was a great Pastor, but he was human, and not perfect. I’ve never seen anything like this . God bless Pastor Jeff

And so it begins, the perverse start to eat their own. Calvinism is a damnable perversion of the gospel of the grace of God that paints the God of the Bible as an unjust tyrant. Rightly dividing the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV), recognizing the mid-Acts revelation of the mystery given to Paul (Ephesians 3:1-9; Colossians 1:25-27), and standing in the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:2), exposes it as a system that blasphemes God’s character and corrupts the free offer of salvation by grace through faith alone. The Core Heresy Calvinism’s TULIP—especially Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement—declares that God, from eternity past, arbitrarily chose a fixed number for heaven and the rest for everlasting torment by secret decree alone. He provided atonement only for the elect. The rest of humanity was created to be damned to display His “glory.” This is not the God revealed in the Scriptures committed to Paul for this age. • God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). • Christ “gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6). • God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). • “God so loved the world” (John 3:16—the same world Calvinism claims He refused to love unto salvation). Calvinism makes God a respecter of persons in the most vicious way: He creates billions of souls, withholds any genuine possibility of salvation, and punishes them eternally for the unbelief He ordained. That is not justice or love. That is not the “kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man” that appeared in the dispensation of grace (Titus 3:4). It is a monstrous caricature that turns the God who “commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8) into a cosmic puppet-master who authors both the sin and the damnation. Limited Atonement assaults the finished work of Christ. Paul declares Christ “died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15), is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Timothy 4:10), and provided reconciliation for the world (2 Corinthians 5:19). Calvinism shrinks the cross to fit its decree and insults the sufficiency of Christ’s blood. Irresistible Grace follows the same logic: man is a puppet, faith is forced on the elect, and the gospel is no genuine free offer but a tool to gather the pre-selected. This opposes the pure grace message Paul preached: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31)—an open invitation to every sinner without distinction. This response Is Not Arminianism Rejecting Calvinism does not place anyone in the Arminian camp or any other Protestant system of works-tinged free-willism. Arminianism operates under the same undivided, covenant-mixing framework that produced Calvinism. Both fail to rightly divide. Both import kingdom principles into the body of Christ and treat the church as a continuation of Israel. A right divider simply takes Paul at his word: salvation in this dispensation is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9), offered freely to all, received by simple belief in Christ’s finished work, and secured by the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14). No secret decrees. No limited blood. No forced faith. No mixture of law and grace. Just the pure gospel of the uncircumcision committed to Paul (Galatians 2:7). Calvinism is not “high orthodoxy.” It is a complete perversion that maligns God’s character, truncates the cross, and turns free grace into a deterministic lottery. Those who contend against it are not joining any “false camp.” They are obeying 2 Timothy 2:15—rightly dividing the word of truth in the dispensation of the grace of God.

John MacArthur was a false teacher. Calvinism is not Biblical.

You should be ashamed. Saying he knows he was wrong now that he is in heaven…absolutely disgusting. You should be avoided.

Sad how many MacArthur followers act as New IFB Andersonites, who who whenever someone disagrees with, responds to, or refutes Steven Anderson, immediately say: "They are attacking him!" Yet, MacArthur slanderously misrepresented Postmillenialism as "garbage prosperity gospel"...

Not familiar w/ @PastorNinja but I have listened to MacArthur for decades. Based on Pastor MacArthur's ministry, it seems pretty clear that he would exhort us all to test and contest his teaching against the Scriptures. Sproul even praised MacArthur for this humble trait.

The responses to your video over J Mac honestly seem idolatrous. Like he is untouchable. Very bizarre.