So You Don’t Like John MacArthur’s View of “The Mark of The Beast”…

ernestbass….Where exactly do you go from here?

Shortly before the Strange Fire conference, maybe a week or so, I was directed to this absurd video. It was put up by some anonymous outfit called the Ephesians 5:11 blog.

Now. Let me pause here just a moment and give everyone a solid rule of thumb about that kind of stuff you may find on the internet. IF the person making such-and-such a wild-eyed, crackpot claim is anonymous and when pressed, refuses to tell you who he is or where he goes to church (if at all), you can confidently concluded that 10 times out of 10, the person is probably a wacko and can be safely ignored.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this particular individual is more than likely Bob Johnson, or perhaps a minion of his, who was notorious for standing out in front of Grace Church warning us how Al Mohler was a Jesuit, U.N. spy who was sent to infiltrate the church to usher in the new world order. I document my dealings with Bob HERE.

(Amusingly, on the “rebuttal” to Phil’s article posted at GTY [I’ll get to that in a moment] our anonymous champion of orthodoxy points out how Phil wrote it, not John. As if that is some sort of smoking gun signal of dastardly deeds at work. All the while remaining anonymous.  He even misspelled John’s last name, so kudos for maintaining that unhinged stereotype we have all come to love about those kind of folks. But I digress.)

At any rate, the person could be just some tin-foil hat style KJVO loon for all I know. Whatever the case, going into the Strange Fire conference, I was seeing talk about the video on Facebook and figured I’d get questions about it.

And sure enough, on the last day of the conference, I had a long discussion with some precious folks about the video that led us into some terrific fellowship. If anything else, I have to say the one good thing about that video was the fact that I met some wonderful people who are now some acquaintances on Facebook who I look forward to fellowshipping with in person in the future.

When I spoke with Phil about the video, he said we’d revisit it sometime after the conference. Well, it just so happens the Monday morning following Strange Fire, John came out to GTY to do some recording and we all had a chance to bring up the video with him. His first response was, “Oh yeah. Someone asked me about that after one of the sessions.” We asked him how he would respond now and whether or not his view had changed since he had preached through the book of Revelation, and to my surprise, he basically affirmed what he said in that Q&A some 30-plus years ago.

That being, that during the seven year tribulation, when people are deceived by the Antichrist to take his mark in order to survive in his “society” (Revelation 13:16,17), but then later, upon hearing the Gospel preaching of the 144,00 and the call of repentance as heralded by the three angels (Revelation 14:1-13), many of those people who took the mark can and do repent and follow Christ, and thus are saved. By the way, a lot of this assumes the “mark” is some physical thing a person can take to himself. Say for example, a microchip or a barcoded tattoo.

So in John’s view, the taking of the mark during the tribulation is not a final, absolute certainty of damnation that seals and fixes the eternal destination of the person.  In fact, if one were to read Revelation 15:2, the idea of victory over the mark of the Beast is clearly implied, And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God.

imageCouldn’t that “victory” spoken about be those who may take the mark, repent upon hearing the Gospel, and will then be saved? And, according to the verse, it seems to suggest that they are executed for their actions of rejecting the mark thus becoming martyrs. So the idea of what John is saying is not far-fetched and without warrant from the biblical text as those wack-a-doodles suggest in their video when they write OUTRAGEOUS! It certainly exposes the fact that they are merely haters and haven’t even thought through what is being taught in Revelation.

Well, once John gave his affirmation, Phil wrote up a response affirming what he originally stated and explaining his view a bit more and providing an “official” statement to all those folks out there wondering what he thinks about that video.

Okay, so with that being said. Where do you go from here?

Granted, there are a number of folks out there who are still uncertain what to think about John’s view. You’re sitting at your desk, you have your finger under your chin while you stare out your window thinking to yourself, “Hmmm…. I don’t know? That sounds kinda weird?”

Now I certainly can’t make any appeal to the makers of that video. Those are individuals who are the modern day equivalent of Ishmael with their hand against every man (Genesis 16:12). They live in a fever swamp of conspiracy and foggy theology where no rational thought can even dare bubble up to the surface. There will always be people who are so OCDed against John MacArthur like Bob Johnson and fake pastor-teacher, Joel Taylor, that anything he will say or do will be declared heretical.  Those people cannot be reached.

Now for the rest of you all out there who have actually benefited from John’s preaching over the years, are you prepared to throw John’s ministry under the bus because of an idiot video on Youtube and conclude all of that blessing you experienced was a sham? Really?

Think about it: John has had 50 years of solid, Bible teaching ministry that has reached around the globe. I’ve met people from the farthest reaches in the world who testify how they were in a rural rice patty in Vietnam or some tundra landscape in northern Russia listening to John MacArthur tapes on a walkman or Grace to You on a handheld radio and it was in those circumstances God brought them to salvation by the preaching of the Gospel and the consistent teaching of God’s word.

His study Bible has been translated into Arabic, the only genuine Study Bible to have been so; and the Chinese version is coming sometime in the next year. John was the guy on Larry King Live who irritated to no end Deep-pockets Chopra when he told him there was only one way to God through Jesus Christ alone and that the NT was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic.

So along comes a crank with a Youtube video that says that everything John has ever done or ever preached over the last four decades is totally worthless, just because he has an out the ordinary view on a speculative understanding of the mark of the Beast.

It is at this point where people need to stop and determine if they are going to dismiss such moon-battery. Seriously. Please don’t join the Ernest T. Bass’s of the internet with hurling rocks through church windows.

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “So You Don’t Like John MacArthur’s View of “The Mark of The Beast”…

  1. Fred while I certainly don’t hold to MacArthur’s eschatology what that loon has published on his blog is so out there I think you need a different category than tin foil hat maybe aluminum siding hat, or something similar. It is a sad state of affairs that a man like John MacArthur who has consistently taught the word of God should be the target of anonymous nutcases who hide in the sewers of the internet with the sole purpose of besmirching good teachers. Ok enough ranting thanks for being a stand up guy and pointing toward the truth.

  2. I think Dr. MacArtur’s take on the mark of the beast is dead wrong. Does that make him a bad teacher? No. He’s a faithful preacher of God’s word and I esteem him highly.

  3. Hey Stan,
    I don’t want to come across as a blind defender of John. I really don’t care about his view one way or the other because there is a bit of subjectivity to it, but how do you understand Rev. 15:2 like I noted in the post? What does it mean that they got victory over his mark? Just curious, not trying to pick a fight or anything.

  4. I have enjoyed John’s teachings for about 30 years and I will continue too, but scripture is clear, if you take the mark your damned, period. Rev 14:9-11.

    It doesn’t matter what John thinks, scripture is clear and anything that is said that changes what Rev 14:9-11 says is wrong.

    It doesn’t matter how much someone may rationalize it for sentimental reason or what not, we conform to scripture not the other way around.

    Scripture is also clear and shows a contrast in those who didn’t take the mark, Rev 20:4 compared to the ones that did, Rev 14:9-11, Rev 16:2, 10-11

    Plus, scripture is also clear that there will be people going into the 1000 year reign that do not take the mark, the 144,000 Jews and the sheep from the Goat and Sheep judgment, so John’s logic is flawed.

    I think any one who falls for this aberrant teaching are relying on human sentimentality and human logic and are afraid to tell people the hard true, you take the mark your damned, if you don’t you will be killed or you will be a sheep at the sheep and goat judgment.

    The answer to Rev 15:2 above is Rev 20:4.

    Grace to you

    Troy

  5. Troy. It does say that if you take the mark a person is damned. John has not argued otherwise. His position is that those who are deceived to take the mark can repent of that action and thus be saved. No where does the Bible say that once you take the mark it is undoable and your eternal fate is sealed. No repentance, no salvation.

    But the hard fact of the matter is, if you are born into the world you are a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-4). Taking the mark doesn’t seal your fate, because, every man is damned. In fact, if those who don’t take the mark during the tribulation, yet are still unrepentant to the gospel message, would they not be just as equally damned? Well of course.

    I take it that you probably reject the doctrine of man’s total depravity? Maybe despise the doctrines of Grace? How one understands the falleness of man plays heavily into how one deals with the relevant passages on this matter.

    BTW, Revelation 20:4 doesn’t really explain 15:2. Those in 15:2 get victory over the mark. What exactly does that expression mean? In your thinking, it means they never take it to begin with, but the verse seems to imply they had it and overcame it in some fashion. Which makes me wonder if the mark is really a microchip.

  6. “His position is that those who are deceived to take the mark can repent of that action and thus be saved”

    I understand what your saying, but that’s just conjecture and opinionated, scripture does not support this idea.

    The idea that being deceived means that we can still repent is false when compared to 2 Thess 2:9–12 and other verses that say God is sovereign in the affairs of men and hardens whom He wills.

    There is no distinction in scripture with the way one gets the mark, you either take it or you don’t.

    “No where does the Bible say that once you take the mark it is undoable and your eternal fate is sealed. No repentance, no salvation.”

    Then you are not reading Rev 14:9-11 well enough.

    You are mistaken, I am a five point calvinist and have been for a while. This issue has to do with what scripture says about the tribulation (I’m guessing) and what the tradition of pre-trib teaches about the tribulation.

    Rev 20:4 does explain 15:2, 20:4 says – And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who had been beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of God, and those [u]who had not worshiped the Beast or his image, and they did not receive the mark on their forehead or on their hand. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for the thousand years.[/u]

    Along with Rev 14:12 – Here is the [u]endurance of the saints;[/u] those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

    Even Gill suggests that in Rev 15:2 their victory is because they endured / were overcomer’s – “the beast first overcame the saints, by slaying of them; and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, by preaching and professing the Gospel, by their close and constant adherence to it, and by dying for it”

    In other words, their victory is that they endured unto death.

    No where in scripture does it suggest that one can repent after taking the mark, actually quite opposite and your implying the mark was taken in vs 2, not Rev 15:2

    Grace to you

    Troy

  7. John MacArthur has been the most important and influential Bible teacher in my life. His eschatology is dispensational and this fact makes me understand that even most earnest and thoughtful teachers can be caught up in tradition (even if Disps. are only 200 years old). This is simply another impossible logical problem with this system. If JM is true to his literal hermeneutic then he must take Rev 14:9-11 for what it says. Fortunately it doesn’t mean what he thinks it does at all. BUT considering his system and beliefs on the subject he can’t have it both ways and not be compromising his system of beliefs.

  8. Wow, there’s some really weird people out there, you get that vibe just by an initial look at there page and what it has to say about the new world order, it’s so eccentric…

  9. I think the controversy over John’s view on this issue is way overblown. Even if one disagrees, to claim he is now a flaming heretic gleefully damning people the world over to hell is patently absurd.

    As far as Rev. 15:2 goes, the NASB reads: “And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God.”

    The ESV also reads: “And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.”

    Is the “mark” inclusion in Rev 15:2 a textual variant of some kind?

    Aside from that issue, I think the ultimate question here is if it will be impossible for someone to repent after taking the mark or if it is the unforgivable sin. Since we’re told that only one sin is forgivable, it certainly can’t be unforgivable and I see no textual reason to say that it would be impossible for someone to repent after they have taken the mark (whatever it may be).

    P.S. After writing the above, I did a bit of research and found:

    εκ του χαραγματος αυτου και (“from his mark and”) is inserted in some textual witnesses before ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ (“from the number of his name”) under the influence of 13:17, where the two phrases occur together in the same order (so 051 𝔐A).

    Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: a Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999. Print. New International Greek Testament Commentary.

    Anyways, I think we all know larger issues are behind the attacks on John over this comment. I’m sure that those who are so rabidly on the attack here would find another reason to cry out even if he never held this view.

  10. Bro John has brought me from a theology of easy believeism (Armenianism) to the truth of the Bible. That being Reformed theology. I once believed man could go against God’s plans for his creation. I now know man’s “free will” is only free to the extent God allows.

    That being said I know from scripture that God the Father has predestined a people before the foundation of the world as a love gift to God the Son. In these people he is displaying his salvific love, mercy and grace to bring them to salvation. The elect person will not be able to do anything to foil that decree. If you are Armenian you can struggle with these issues. If you are Reformed you can spend your time worshiping God in spirit and truth and trusting in Him. He will draw His elect to Christ and Jesus Christ has stated He will loose none.

    To me fussing about these kinds of issues is a waste of time.

  11. Troy. You didn’t really answer my second paragraph. Are those who don’t take the mark of the beast (again, assuming it is a physical “mark” one takes upon him or her self), yet do not repent of their sin as equally condemned and judged as those who do?

  12. Agree with others here: the question of the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12) is irrelevant to this particular issue. This issue is clearly dealt with in several passages — Revelation 13-14, Rev. 20:4, and especially 2 Thess. 2. As has also been pointed out here and elsewhere, there is a difference between every-day circumstances and people being innocently deceived and then later realizing their mistake, and *this particular* situation: their being deceived is the hardening they receive AS God’s judgment because they refuse to love the truth and be saved.

    This has nothing to do with the question of God’s sovereignty in election (Calvinist soteriology), as though people who disagree with MacArthur on this issue are not 5 point Calvinists. This does indeed seem to be the result of sentimentality about giving everyone the opportunity to be saved, and we can certainly respect and appreciate MacArthur’s ministry while recognizing that even the best of teachers can be, and in some cases are, wrong about particular texts. The connection of this issue to all the tin foil hat nuts out there, all the “MacArthur haters,” is also a separate issue as well — those individuals balk at pretty much anything John MacArthur says.

    God’s word is quite clear regarding who He hardens, and regarding what is going on in this issue, per 2 Thess. 2 and what is brought out in Revelation 13, 14, and even the explicit statement mentioned in Rev. 20:4. Whether *everyone* who is damned and lost at the end time ALSO takes the mark of the beast, is irrelevant. All throughout history people many people have been lost and damned to eternal destruction, who did not take the mark of the beast, for the obvious reason that this event did not happen in their lifetime. Scripture sets forth many different judgments of different groups of unbelievers. Not every unbeliever during the Great Trib will be present at the Battle of Armageddon scene, for instance. Those who are present there and who took the mark, clearly are condemned (Rev. 19:20-21). The Sheep and Goats judgment comes later, prior to establishment of the kingdom yet involving two groups of people who were not present at the battle of Armageddon. It’s not stated but certainly implied from the sheep & goats judgment, that none of those people took the mark: either the God-fearing (yet possibly not yet believers before Christ’s return) sheep or the professing-in-name only goats; yet the goats also receive their judgment. Other Old Testament scriptures talk about specific judgments given to national Israel as well as to the Gentile nations around Israel, at Christ’s return — and these too are not necessarily inclusive of EVERY single person who took the mark of the beast, but in addition to those who experience the ‘mark of the beast’ judgment. Of course all the lost people who died throughout the ages before the Great Trib, all who were not alive at the end of the Great Trib, receive their judgment at the Great White Throne, the second resurrection at the end of the 1000 years.

    We really do not even know for certain, from what we’re given in scripture, the full global extent of AntiChrist’s power, whether every single person living in the world at that time will have to make the decision to take or not take the mark of the beast. AntiChrist’s power will certainly encompass the ancient Roman world, and perhaps most or all of the developed world at that time. Personally I think it will include at least most of the developed world, but I have read good scriptural arguments from other futurist premillennialists who argue for a somewhat limited scope of AntiChrist’s power to only Europe and the Middle East. These are details we don’t know with 100% certainty. But nothing in the Bible says with certainty that AntiChrist will have that power over every single person living somewhere on the earth at that time. Certainly the language in the Bible regarding past judgments and Christ’s first coming was global in nature, and affecting every type/class of people, yet did not affect every single person alive on the planet.

  13. Rev 15:2 is referring to God’s people, namely those who do not take the mark of the beast, who persevere till the end. Rev 14:11 is pretty clear regarding “whoever receives the mark of (the beast’s) name” that “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.” As such, they will not be among the redeemed.

  14. Yes, they are condemned. They may end up being a goat in that judgement or die some other way.

    On a side note: In the sheep and goat judgement the sheep enter the 1000 reign but they enter because they helped the saints, no where does it say that they repented.

  15. Follow-up to the above, in case it wasn’t clear enough: the fact that the mark of the beast is taken by SOME (but not ALL) of the unbelievers during the end times events, does not invalidate the FACT of that judgment on those who DO take the mark. All unbelievers experience final judgment, it’s just that some of them experience the mark of the beast judgment while others experience another judgment. Multiple judgments are involved that affect different groups of unbelievers living at the time of Christ’s return. But to say that because only some unbelievers take the mark, means that the mark of the beast doesn’t have any bearing on the issue and doesn’t seal one’s fate, does not follow from the texts. This isn’t related to how people are saved, a soteriology issue, but to the doctrine of eschatology and the judgments related to Christ’s Second Coming.

    Those who experience the mark of the beast judgment are those who refused to love the truth and be saved, and so God sent them a powerful delusion so that they would be deceived and believe the lie. Not all unbelievers during this time are so hardened as per 2 Thess. 2: as for instance the God-fearing sheep sympathetic to the plight of those being persecuted, and the in-name-only professing believers (goats); or perhaps they may not be geographically located such that they must take the mark or starve.

    Yes, the text never says that the sheep who enter the kingdom are believers, and it is possible to understand them as God fearers sympathetic to the believers, and then after Christ returns they do come to saving faith, similar to the case of the Jews alive at the end of the Great Trib, who come to faith after they see Christ in His visible, manifest return to the earth.

  16. It’s a moot point to me because those who have died in Christ and those believers who are alive when the Rapture happens won’t be here to decide should I or should I not take the Mark. As far as maligning John McArthur for his opinion, that is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  17. Good thoughts Fred. I’m with you on this one. The mark isn’t done RFID chip, but rather adhering to the religion of the beast. All Christians who get saved in the tribulation will overcome the mark and reject it for the mark of the lamb.

    Seeing that you were helping herd chickens on my blog, I wanted to let you know that you weren’t forgotten!

  18. This is too funny. So MacArtur has an unusual view of the mark. So what? If I dismiss him, I’d also have to dismiss everyone who is a partial preterist or amillenial. I don’t think his interpretation is far fetched. I think it is one of several reasonable interpretations of a very difficult text.

    This is such a non-issue. But some people are obsessed with the mark of the beast as if somehow they could be deceived into taking it.

  19. Agree with your post. But the traditional dispensational view of the mark isn’t that there is an unpardonable sin committed but that God simply will not quicken (move to saving faith) those who have taken the mark.

  20. I am very disappointed that the Pastor has changed his view on the MARK. I do not believe this is a secondary issue. Most pastors teach you will forfeit you salvation. You must be ready to DIE for your belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And facing starvation or the mark I will pick starvation.

  21. Ah yes. The Dispensationalism conspiracy theorists. Strange how none exist for covenant theology and preterism, both systems being relatively “new” in church history, but oh well.

    I saw Alan’s post. I believe he is wrong. He’s sort of parroting Dave McPherson’s ridiculous conspiracy about Margaret MacDonald, who it wouldn’t surprise me, never existed. There is no proof that Darby, the five-point Reformed Calvinist, was influenced by Edward Irving in regards to the rapture and Tom Ice does a fabulous job debunking that myth here, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-Part2-MythsoftheOrig.pdf

  22. He is fooling you and you are praising him for it. How terrible, the Bible is so clearly on that and it just shows how far we are as a church. we think we can see and we are BLIND! Many here at least… :-/

  23. Just like blaspheming the Holy Spirit by calling a thing of God as evil,
    This is the same sort by calling evil as a thing of God

  24. I do believe that the popping up of the subject just before the Strange Fire Conference is not just a coincidence for a statement as old as 30 years. As for the matter discussed here, even if somebody would take it from a dispensational point of view, I would say that MacArthur was more willing to make a theological error on escathology than to give up defending the sovereignty of God in salvation. If you look at his statement from this perspective, then I guess things are cleared up.
    Thanks Fred for this post.
    God bless!

  25. I’ll make you a tin foil hat. How much yeast of the pharisees does it take to spoil the bread? Repent in the name of The Lord.

  26. To take the mark, is to deny Christ, to deny Christ is the unpardonable sin. There is no gray area.

  27. A few thoughts here, Bill. Do you believe the “mark” is some physical identification, like for example, a micro-chip, etc.? I don’t necessarily.

    Next, Jesus told us what the unpardonable sin is in Matthew 12, attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. He also clarifies that sin as being something that can be only committed in the presence of Jesus himself, or at least he suggests it.

    People deny Christ everyday, and those who do are later saved. Atheists deny Christ, but I know a lot of former, harden atheists who now love the Lord and follow Him. According to you, you are suggesting that they are still unpardoned.

  28. Many of the elected will be deceived.JOHN MacArthur is wrong on the mark of the beast.100% we pray for him to change his mind.I love all his sermons.He is a great preacher apart from his view On the mark of the beast.He’s got it wrong.

  29. Bill, you say to deny Christ is the unpardonable sin? Wrong. Peter did it three times in one day and is in heaven. Who’s to say what the mark even is, and to flatly state one cannot repent for it is presumptuous.

  30. When a brother fist shared with me John MacArthur’s eschatological view on the mark of the beast, I was devestated. John’s sermons have been such great teachings and still are. However, it spurred me on to study Scripture deeper. What I concluded for my walk with the Lord is that dispensationalism as a whole is a mistaken premise which is leading to deceptive conclusions. It is perplexing now to listen to this great pastor-teacher knowing that he and I cannot agree on all things. I believe a post-tribulation, second coming – resurrection – rapture is the truth.

  31. My whole Christian walk I have been under the understanding that taking the mark meant unforgivable. I never gave it a second thought until John spoke up about it. And then the only reason I gave it another thought is because he’s been a solid teacher in any other area I’ve seen him preach in. That’s not to say he’s above human error, he’s certainly not. So with that in mind I have to ask… Does the idea that taking the mark means that you can not be forgiven by Christ indicate that this is blasphemy of the holy spirit, or that taking the mark is a second unforgivable sin? If this is not blaspheming then we have two unforgivable sins, and we need to figure out what to do with Matthew 12:31-32.

  32. “That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2Thess.2:12 I am convinced scriptures like these in 2Thess 2 are quite clear that there is a cutoff point for unbelievers when the “man of sin” is revealed and his MARK is initiated. There is a “strong delusion” on those who go into the Tribulation week having rejected “the truth” and had pleasure or desired not to receive the truth of the Gospel of Christ and enjoy being unsaved. This tells me they were convicted about it but said NO. At this stage I see a “point of no return”. Once the delusion hits them, which is part of the receiving of the MARK no doubt they are eternally lost. I do not see how anyone can get around this truth in scripture. I do not understand why J. MacArthur has taken this position but his explanation just don’t add up either. Those defending his words are doing so out of emotional attachments to the man rather than biblical veracity as I read the comments. There needs to be more backbone among believers instead of bending to everything our favorite teacher throws at us. It is sad that believers will go down in flames for a “man” and leave the Word of God in the dust to be a faithful follower of tradition and false teaching. I have seen many churches defend sin and fail to do the right thing when a leader go astray, especially when he refuses to aknowledge what God says. I have learned a long time ago men will fail you and you will fail men. Trust in God and do good.

  33. If the MARK is not something physical, why would it require the “forehead” or the “right hand” to place it in? I think it is dangerous teaching to say the MARK is something that can be taken and then “repented of later”. I do not see receiving of the MARK as something that you can be fooled into taking. There must be a conscious, deliberate act involved, yet under the “strong delusion” to believe the lie. You may be “deluded” by you made your chioce well before this when you rejected the Lord Jesus as Savior. There is a cut-off point for every God rejector sometime, when opportunities are continually refused; “My spirit shall not always strive (plead) with man.” Gen. 6:3 We are not just talking about “everyday” we are talking about the days of God’s wrath when satan brings on his strong delusion and those who have refused Christ must finally face the consequences.

  34. When people today reject Christ there may or may not be be future opportunity to “change your mind”. The difference is in the day of wrath, when the MARK is initiated, you simply don’t just reject Christ; simultaniously you make a conscious decision to “receive” the ant-christ and his worhip! “That they all might be damned who belived not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2Thess 2:12. This is the only time in history when “they A L L migtht be damned” that received not the truth”. Today people may have future opportunities to be saved, but then–they will ALL be damned.

  35. You make some very good points. I am reminded of the scripture in James 4:17. “Therefore to him that knweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin”. People who are unbelievers who have never been given specific opportunity to believe on Christ but have not received the MARK are certainly going to get a chance to “know” Christ when he ascends from heaven. “knowledge” is the determining factor. If there is no “understanding” there is no sin imputed. When Jesus arrives “all will know”.

  36. Rev 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

    If we read this verse the same way 14:9-11 are read, with the same level of interpretation, then these sins also place a person in hell.. Period.

    So what makes the sins 21:8 forgivable, but not 14:9-11?

  37. Dave, this isn’t a matter of a second chance after death. Surely you are not saying that none of those sins are unforgivable? Certainly, before a person dies and is judged, they can receive salvation and forgiveness of their sins, which often includes lying and sexual immorality. However, once they have reached the point of judgment, and do not repent, they are judged and unforgiven and cast into the lake of fire.

    The MoB falls into the same category. (Assuming of course it is a physical micro chip or some bar-code thing most end-times sensationalists insist it to be). Can a person repent of that sin while he has opportunity? John says yes. However, once final judgment comes, he can’t.

  38. At the pint where Rev. 21:8 is situated, those sins are just a notation they have rejected Christ and eternity has already sealed them and that is what they will continue to be. Thank God I am saved! To think I have committed some of those sins and have been washed in the BLOOD of the Lamb. It pays to be prompt when God convicts you and you see your need to believe on Jesus Christ–all GLORY TO HIM!

  39. NO ONE, I mean NO ONE loves John more than I do. I’ve known, respected, loved, and have listened to, studied the Word from his teachings, have written many papers resulting from John’s faithful teaching, served in the prison ministry at Grace for 11 years, served as an usher for twelve years at Grace, and one day John (if our Lord tarries) will go down in history as one of the “Old Dead Guys>” Simply, John ranks among God’s very best. And, I plan (Lord willing) to watch our Lord hand John a bundle of crowns. All this to say, I disagree with his view on the Mark of the Beast and I say…”So what.” John was, and will always be my pastor teacher. I’m now 86 and will be there to greet this great man (soul) when he arrives in heaven. I haven’t any idea as to whether Jesus will let me kiss John on the cheek, but if He will I will.

  40. This is so disturbing to me– The near worship of man among ‘christians’ of the last days is scary. I would suggest you turn such sentiments away from a man and learn to worship the Lord Jesus with ALL of your heart, soul, and mind. Be it far from me to rob you of your sentiments towards a ‘man’ you feel is right as rain, but this is premature accolades. You say “so what”? This is a salvation issue! What sort of doctrine says God’s Word must take second place to my view on eternity and “what must I do to be saved”! You may kiss J.M. toe in heaven AFTER God has passed his works through the fire of testing! 1Cor. 3:11-16 1Cor 4:4-6

  41. Dear sir. I fear you are assuming a fact not in evidence. My wife and I were saved (by the Holy Spirit) at Grace via John’s teachings. I said I love him and that’s a fact. I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, NOR WILL I EVER WORSHIP JOHN. You have made accusations and have no idea as to my beliefs. I thought this was a forum of honest and faithful Christians but find you attack responders. Please be kind and remove my name from your site. Thank you.

  42. What I said was not meant as an attack against you or your wife. We lift up men too high, which Paul rebuked the Corinthian believers about. This is simply wrong, as the Lord Jesus warned about also Matt. 23:10-11. I have to be honest and faithful to the Word fo God before anything else. I never agreed with J.M. on Lordship salvation or his calvinist teachings which I feel are heretical teachings ON SALVATION. I am sorry to have offended you, but please understand that God says we should not lift up men like that.

  43. Personally I am much more disturbed by the increasing number of pseudo-intellectual Christians who deem any esteem of learned biblical scholars to be “worship” of them. I know another so-called “Christian” who on his blog even trumpets the fact that he does not attend church and is not a member of any church because he refuses to sit under the leadership of “mere men”, and takes the “Jesus only” path. What this really translates to is that they accept Jesus, but reject his church.

    Which bible passages tell us that the pastoring of great men of God like Dr. MacArthur is to be rebuked because they have not yet “passed through the fire of God’s testing” as hrgreenjr posits?

  44. Okay folks. I’m closing the comments, because they are getting repetitive and kind of mean-spirited. Thanks for stopping by and playing.

  45. Pingback: My 2014 Blogging Year in Review | hipandthigh

Comments are closed.