Thread: John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing !!!

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:

This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

T4G 2008 | Together for the Gospel (T4G)

Originally Posted by Mayflower

The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

Honest question: was there any doubt about MacArthur's position on the Doctrines of Grace? I thought it was pretty clear and well-known for many years now.

He is also a Dispy so he gets grace 1/2 wrong. There is an innate equivocation on the term "grace" in dispensationalism.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Originally Posted by Mayflower

The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

Honest question: was there any doubt about MacArthur's position on the Doctrines of Grace? I thought it was pretty clear and well-known for many years now.

Of course and you are right and i know this also for many years, but again this great message made it so clear!

Originally Posted by Mayflower

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:

This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

T4G 2008 | Together for the Gospel (T4G)

No, he isn't. He gets many things right, but he gets some things very wrong. His teachings should be listened to only with great discernment.

Yes, Dr. MacArthur is a dear brother with an extraordinary teaching ability and a passion for teaching God's word. Many of us have benefited from his teaching.

He's come to a full "five points" (doctrines of grace) position "the hard way," by starting without a confession of faith or time-tested historic systematic theology. So, he has got there through persevering through many deep truths of Scripture on his own.

While he is solidly "Calvinist" in his soteriology, and has been for a long time, he describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist." He has not absorbed the full import of reformed theology but has even imported a couple into his dispensational framework. He has been in error about a few things in other areas, as well.

This illustrates the benefit of having a confession of faith- a systematic theology such as the Westminster Standards that gives one an overall framework for interpreting the whole of Scripture in many of its important details, rather than relying on one person gradually developing his own views, and following that.

Reformed theology is, at minimum:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession of faith

Being solid on the doctrines of grace, incorporating a couple parts of covenant theology into dispensationalism (which is internally inconsistent, by the way), and not having a written, defined confession of faith defining one's systematic theology does not make one "reformed."

It makes one headed that way, used by God in some ways, but not there yet.

I am not and apologist for Dr. MacArthur, but I will say that he has been a faithful servant of Christ in his public ministry. His advocacy of biblical eldership has helped steer many churches away from heavy handed spiritual leadership. He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air. I disagree with Dr. MacArthur's dispensationalism, but I praise God for the work He has done for Christ's church.

You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.

He's paid a dear price for much of his work. And, to a point, it's taken a toll. In his more candid moments he comments on this. Even the effort of putting out so much material has a price. He commented once that doing the Study Bible was something he never fully recovered from.

Originally Posted by Mayflower

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:

This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

T4G 2008 | Together for the Gospel (T4G)

His fellow pastor and book editor, Phil Johnson, was instrumental in winning him over to Particular Redemption. I appreciate much about MacArthur but he really put his foot in his mouth in the past year by trashing Amils.

Originally Posted by Herald

He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air.

I remember once when I went back to one of the churches I was pastor of. The present pastor had MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" sitting on his desk. I picked up and starting reading it, knowing that the pastor didn't agree with MacArthur. He said, "What do you think of THAT book! I told him that I thought it was great and agreed with MacArthur. Others in the room were incredulous. "How could you agree with that stuff!"

Anyway, I stated my case. Didn't win anybody over, but they still let me preach there!

May God grant us the grace to be as firm, gentle, and unswerving as Brother MacArthur if our lot ever has us in a very public spotlight such as 'Larry King Live' surrounded by people mocking the 'foolishness' of the Cross.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Mayflower

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:

This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

T4G 2008 | Together for the Gospel (T4G)

No, he isn't. He gets many things right, but he gets some things very wrong. His teachings should be listened to only with great discernment.

I would be very concerned if that wasn't your attitude with every preacher.

I should clarify: I refer to the "discernment" part of what you said, rather than the "very wrong"!

Originally Posted by Herald

I am not and apologist for Dr. MacArthur, but I will say that he has been a faithful servant of Christ in his public ministry. His advocacy of biblical eldership has helped steer many churches away from heavy handed spiritual leadership. He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air. I disagree with Dr. MacArthur's dispensationalism, but I praise God for the work He has done for Christ's church.

He's good but his dispensationalism gets in the way at times. But I'm very anti-dispensationalist....maybe overboard.

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

He's good but his dispensationalism gets in the way at times. But I'm very anti-dispensationalist....maybe overboard.

I hope you mean anti-dispensationalism?

Well, both. If you didn't have dispensationalism you wouldn't have dispensationalists. But the theology wouldn't be a menaces if there was no one around to believe in it. So I'm against the theology and against a person's belief in them....although I"m not anti-person. It's the person purporting that doctrine that's dangerous....not the doctrine sitting on a shelf.

A wise distinction Sarah. It's always the person that's the source of the foolishness.

If we think we need to throw the baby out with the water, we better be sure we are able to (winsomely) tell the momma why she should be ashamed.

P.S. I count Dr. MacArthur as one of my spiritual fathers - his Grace to You broadcast was instrumental in my early years. Got me off to a solid start. Nothwithstanding his errors (dispensationalism is sometimes long in dying), I take great encouragement in his coming to reformed convictions - and I'm not worried if he never adopts our labels.

I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice

Lately I have been reading and listening to him a lot, and I can tell he is definitely a consistent Calvinist and, apart from his dispensational hermeneutics, he is quite a solid teacher on many themes. I thank the Lord for his serious commitment to the Gospel.
From what I could see in my church, which is very close to his theology and has many ties with the Master's college, he is probably moving very slowly toward the adoption of the Second LBCF. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking...

Originally Posted by ExGentibus

I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice

Lately I have been reading and listening to him a lot, and I can tell he is definitely a consistent Calvinist and, apart from his dispensational hermeneutics, he is quite a solid teacher on many themes. I thank the Lord for his serious commitment to the Gospel.
From what I could see in my church, which is very close to his theology and has many ties with the Master's college, he is probably moving very slowly toward the adoption of the Second LBCF. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking...

Most likely wishful thinking. He is decidedly NOT covenantal. I don't see that happening. His doctrinal statement is not anti-covenantal so much as that it clearly is not covenantal. You probably won't have to worry about him proclaiming Israel. It's not his bent, and the topic doesn't lend itself to it. But, if the leadership of Aurora asks him to somehow fit it in, he very well might do so. At the first Focus conference he was asked to focus on God's sovereignty, and he did. Joe Aleppo was elated. I would encourage considering whether or not a "sigh" and shake of the head is a symptom of pride and disrespect though.

Enjoy the conference. I hope to make it over one day. We've developed some dear friends who serve in Italy and just had a new missionary to Italy stay with us recently. There is some excellent work going on there. But there is also an element of pride among many whose reputation for Calvin is known before their love for Christ.

My words were mostly tongue in cheek, as I have a huge respect for him and his work and I know very well that I have only to learn from him. But I really thank you for your kind admonition, brother.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Most likely wishful thinking. He is decidedly NOT covenantal. I don't see that happening. His doctrinal statement is not anti-covenantal so much as that it clearly is not covenantal. You probably won't have to worry about him proclaiming Israel. It's not his bent, and the topic doesn't lend itself to it. But, if the leadership of Aurora asks him to somehow fit it in, he very well might do so. At the first Focus conference he was asked to focus on God's sovereignty, and he did. Joe Aleppo was elated. I would encourage considering whether or not a "sigh" and shake of the head is a symptom of pride and disrespect though.

When Dr. Johnny Mac is wrong, he's so wrong, but when he's right, MAN, is he ever right! He's a very gifted preacher, IMHO. As for his dispensationalism, I find that it mostly is restricted to his eschatology. He may be wrong about the Sabbath, but when he preaches about Jesus' instruction to the Pharisees on the Sermon on the Mount, he sounds, in many ways, puritanesque. He does not preach that Jesus brought a higher law, better law, or new law. He preaches that Christ was correcting the Pharisees' perversion and distortion of God's Law. His sermon series on the Prodigal Son section of Scripture is absolutely and heart-breakingly good. The man has my respect, and I'm one that says Baptists aren't Reformed (in the historical sense and use of the word, but I still call folks Reformed Baptist)! Kudos to Dr. Johnny Mac.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Originally Posted by ExGentibus

I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice

Lately I have been reading and listening to him a lot, and I can tell he is definitely a consistent Calvinist and, apart from his dispensational hermeneutics, he is quite a solid teacher on many themes. I thank the Lord for his serious commitment to the Gospel.
From what I could see in my church, which is very close to his theology and has many ties with the Master's college, he is probably moving very slowly toward the adoption of the Second LBCF. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking...

Most likely wishful thinking. He is decidedly NOT covenantal. I don't see that happening. His doctrinal statement is not anti-covenantal so much as that it clearly is not covenantal. You probably won't have to worry about him proclaiming Israel. It's not his bent, and the topic doesn't lend itself to it. But, if the leadership of Aurora asks him to somehow fit it in, he very well might do so. At the first Focus conference he was asked to focus on God's sovereignty, and he did. Joe Aleppo was elated. I would encourage considering whether or not a "sigh" and shake of the head is a symptom of pride and disrespect though.

Enjoy the conference. I hope to make it over one day. We've developed some dear friends who serve in Italy and just had a new missionary to Italy stay with us recently. There is some excellent work going on there. But there is also an element of pride among many whose reputation for Calvin is known before their love for Christ.

And only for those following, Mr. MacArthur describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist." That means he doesn't fully embrace dispensationalism, which is a framework for viewing the Bible.

While he does embrace main points of dispensationalism, such as a different redemption plan for Israel than for the church, I'm not sure if the "leaks" are more in the direction of covenant theology or not.

Here, in Dr. MacArthur's own words is a section where he describes his "leaky dispensationalism" (quoted in length to give context):

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

...

Question

What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer

I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:

"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?

I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.

I don't want to say any more than that about dispensationalism. I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there?

Originally Posted by Scott1

While he does embrace main points of dispensationalism, such as a different redemption plan for Israel than for the church, I'm not sure if the "leaks" are more in the direction of covenant theology or not.

That's not accurate Scott. At least if you're stating that he makes any claim of salvation outside of Christ. If that's not what you're saying, then I misunderstood.

I think of MacAthur as a gateway drug into Reformed Theology. Thats what he was for me.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Herald

He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air.

I remember once when I went back to one of the churches I was pastor of. The present pastor had MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" sitting on his desk. I picked up and starting reading it, knowing that the pastor didn't agree with MacArthur. He said, "What do you think of THAT book! I told him that I thought it was great and agreed with MacArthur. Others in the room were incredulous. "How could you agree with that stuff!"

Anyway, I stated my case. Didn't win anybody over, but they still let me preach there!

Ivan, don't want to derail this thread, but bring me up to speed on the controversy of the book if you will. I haven't read it and am not familiar with the "problem."

Originally Posted by Wannabee

You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.

He's paid a dear price for much of his work. And, to a point, it's taken a toll. In his more candid moments he comments on this. Even the effort of putting out so much material has a price. He commented once that doing the Study Bible was something he never fully recovered from.

That's intriguing, that he's writing a systematic theology - probably, first of all, for students at his seminary. I wonder how far away from publication it is. As for the study Bible, he himself says that most of the Old Testament side was done by professors at the seminary. He gives credit where it's due.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by Wannabee

You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.

He's paid a dear price for much of his work. And, to a point, it's taken a toll. In his more candid moments he comments on this. Even the effort of putting out so much material has a price. He commented once that doing the Study Bible was something he never fully recovered from.

That's intriguing, that he's writing a systematic theology - probably, first of all, for students at his seminary. I wonder how far away from publication it is. As for the study Bible, he himself says that most of the Old Testament side was done by professors at the seminary. He gives credit where it's due.

That's true. Same with the NT. He didn't write all the commentary notes. But he did edit the whole thing.

The systematic is the same. The profs are working on it and MacArthur will most likely edit it. I would assume that it will join the other three books on preaching, pastoring and counseling, becoming a set of four. But I'm not sure.

Some of what's happened in the last few years may have something to do with some students becoming postmil. I know of one graduate who is very vocal about it and another one who was at one of the training centers changed his views as well. I'm sure there are other incidents, and I guess some papers were leaning that way. I've heard that this had something to do with his sermon at the Shep's conf a few years ago, and may have something to do with him finally giving in and working on a systematic. He once vowed not to.

I wonder if it's accurate to say that MacArthur "writes" books. Phil Johnson, as someone said, has been his close associate for many years, and is the man actually responsible for putting MacArthur's books together, if one wants to phrase it that way.

I imagine that most, if not all, of his books are sermons reduced to paper and edited together with, probably, a sprinkling of freshly-written new material here and there. Someone once told me that he thought that, with The Gospel According to Jesus, it seemed like the first chapter was fresh material while the rest of the book was edited sermon material.

I'm not knocking MacArthur here or accusing him of dishonesty when it comes to describing his books. After all, I've already noted that he gives proper credit where it's due.

I'm just wondering if it's just a little misleading to describe MacArthur as a man who "writes" books since, to most folks, that means sitting down at a computer and writing a manuscript from scratch.

Good observations Richard. You'll notice in many of the books ascribed to him that he's listed as the editor. In others he's the author. There is a blend, but from what I understand you are correct. There's a joke around TMS about what MacArthur book Johnson is going to write next. Johnson has a great grasp of historical theology and helps MacArthur avoid traps. He uses MacArthur's sermons and compiles them, editing as he goes to change nuances of statements so that people don't think MacArthur's said something he didn't intend. We get away with some things in preaching that we can't get away with in writing.
So, who's the author? Is Calvin the author of his commentaries? He didn't write them. They were recorded. How about Spurgeon? He didn't write his sermons. But I would say they were the authors. It's their material. And the same goes for MacArthur. It's his material edited and compiled for clarity and contextual reasons.
Interestingly, Hard to Believe was not edited by Johnson. And they were a bit disappointed in how it came out.
And MacArthur probably doesn't write anything from scratch. He starts with the Bible.

[quoteIvan, don't want to derail this thread, but bring me up to speed on the controversy of the book if you will. I haven't read it and am not familiar with the "problem." ][/quote]

"The Gospel According to Jesus" addresses the issue of easy believeism. He disassembles the old "walk the aisle, say this prayer" type of gospel as not being the one that Christ Himself brought. He emphasizes that Christ called people to not only believe Him, but to follow Him....be committed, devoted, loyal. He makes no apology for the fact the Christ IS Lord, and because He is Lord is why He is Savior. No Lordship = no salvation.
As to why it would be so contraversial is that many churches (I hate to say this, but so many Baptist churches) promote the "just raise your hand, bow your head, repeat this prayer" type salvation. No mention of repentance, turning from sin, being a follower of Christ, etc.
As a youth, I was a "victim(?)" of this type gospel.
I was simply told that if I didn't want to go to hell, that I need to "ask Jesus into my heart." (Whatever that meant.) I walked the aisle. He led me through a prayer where I "asked Jesus in my heart." I was baptized a couple of weeks later.
And that was it.
I had my "fire insurance," and I was ready to get on with my life, but the problem was my life had nothing to do with Jesus. If you had asked me if I was a Christian I would have told you "yes." If you had asked me who Jesus was and what His death on the cross meant, I couldn't have told you.
By God's grace and will He later made known to me the fullness of who Christ is and His calling to follow Him.
I am thankful that someone was willing to take the heat and proclaim the Lordship of Christ to a generation that does not want to hear it.