MacArthur Q&A

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Main Page
John MacArthur's Questions and Answers

Need a John MacArthur Study Bible or one of his books? Then Click here!
Subject Areas
[Click ] to go there Major Subjects in Each Area
The MacArthur Study Bible
For thirty years, John has spent nearly thirty hours a week studying the Bible, taking detailed
notes, and teaching people what he learns. The result is the MacArthur Study Bible. This
means each time you open your Bible, you'll have help understanding difficult passages. Help
simplifying complex doctrines, help bringing important culture, geography, history, and
language gaps. It can help bring your Bible to life.
Hardcover This excellent study guide is designed for both scholarly biblical research and for personal
enrichment. •Nearly 25,000 notes •Thorough cross reference system •Book introductions
•160 page topic index •More than 50 maps •Timelines of kings, prophets, NT and OT
chronologies •Charts of parables, miracles, and prophecies •Harmony of the gospels
Leather
And NOW at substantial discounts, just click on either Bible, or click here to
see greater selection.
MacArthur's Quick Reference Guide to the Bible: A Book-By-Book Overview

of Essential Bible Information
Paperback
--Abiding in Christ, Abortion, Age of Accountability, Angels, Animals,
A Apologetics, Apostate, Apostles, Appearance, Arminianism, Atonement,
Authority,
--Babies, Babylon, Baptism, Baptism for the Dead, Bible, Bible Study, Birth
B
Control, Birth of Jesus, Blessings, Blood of Christ, Business,
--Calvinism, Card Playing, Carnal Christians, Child Evangelism, Children,
C Charismatics, Christ, Christians, Christian Colleges, Christian Living,
5/18/02 Church, Circumcision, Cloud of Witnesses, Communion, Confrontation,
Contentment, Creation, Crowns, Crucifixion, Cults, Curse,
--Damascus Road, Dancing, Dating, Day of the Lord, Deacons, Death, Death of
Christ, Deity of Christ, Demons, Depravity, Dietary Laws, Discernment,
D
Discipline, Dispensationalism, Divorce, Doctrine, Dominion Theology,
Drinking,
http://www.biblebb.com/macqa.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 7:47:31 AM]

--Easter, Elders, Election, End Time Events, Enoch, Eternal Security,

E
Evangelism, Evil Spirits, Example,
F
--Faith, Fantasy, Fasting, Firstborn, Forgiveness, Freedom,
5/8/02
G
--Genealogy, Genesis, Giants, Giving, God, Gospel, Government, Guilt,
5/18/02
H --Habits, Hair, Halloween, Hatred, Healing, Heart, Heaven, Holiness, Holy
5/18/02 Spirit, Homosexuality,
I --Idols, Images, Incarnation, Integrity, Islam, Israel,
--Jesus, Jewish Holidays, John MacArthur, Jonah, Judgment, Judgment Seat
J
of Christ,
K --Knowing Christ,
L --Leadership, Leaving a Church, Lordship Salvation, Lottery, Love, Lutheran
5/18/02 Church, Lying,
--Magic, Marriage, Messiah, Millennial Kingdom, Ministry, Morality, Moral
M
Majority, Murder, Music,
N --(None at this time)
O --Obedience,
P --Parents, Pentecostalism, Persecution, Polygamy, Pope, Popularity, Prayer,
5/18/02 Preaching, Predestination, Protection, Protests, Punishment,
Q --(None at this time)
R --Races, Rapture, Regeneration, Religion, Remarriage, Repentance,
5/18/02 Resurrection, Revival, Rewards, Righteousness, Roman Catholicism,
--Sabbath, Sacraments, Sadness, Saints, Salvation, Satan, Scripture, Second
S
Coming, Sheol, Sickness, Singleness, Sin, Sinlessness of Christ, Sinning
5/18/02
Christians, Slander, Sovereignty, Spiritual Gifts, Suffering, Suicide,
T
--Teaching, Television, Temptation, Tithing, Tongues, Tribulation, Trinity,
U
--Unevenly Yoked, Unity
V --(None at this time)

--Widows, Will of God, Wine, Witnessing, Women, Women Preachers, Words
W
of Knowledge, Works, Working Wives, Worship,
X --(None at this time)
Y --(None at this time)

Z --Zeal
Go back to Bible Bulletin Board's Home Page.

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "A"

Subjects "A"
Subject Questions
Abiding What does it mean to "abide" in Christ?
I’d like your comment on pregnant women who go to practitioners, that

Abortion [01]
perform abortions, for their prenatal care and deliveries, please.
Abortion [02]
4/7/02
What is the Christian view of abortion and birth control?
Age of What is the Scriptural basis for the "Age of Accountability" in regards to
Accountability children's salvation?
My question is from Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of the LORD appeared to
him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold,
Angels [01] the bush burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed." My question is,
Why do some people say that the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus Christ?
Now, my question is about Genesis 6:4-- I’m wondering, how you would fit
the demons, cohabiting with women on earth, and could not that verse also
Angels [02] mean that the sons of God would be godly men and the daughters of men
would be ungodly women?
The question’s out of I Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 10. Now, I’m not so
sure how critical this is to anybody’s salvation or their sanctification, but let
me read a few verses before to set the scene. I’ll start at verse 8, “For the
man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
Angels [03] created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the
woman to have authority on her head because of the angels.” Now, here’s
the question, “because of the angels”-what does that mean? “Because of the
angels…”
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/a.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:45:37 AM]

In Hebrews 1:14, it says, “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve
those who will inherit salvation?” Does this mean that the elect who have not
yet come to know the Lord are being ministered by angels? And, if so, how
Angels [04] do they minister to them? Since the Holy Spirit does not dwell in them, is
this ministry to prepare their hearts and minds for the day they surrender to
the Lord?
I have a young daughter (4 years old), we are Jewish, and we sent her to school in
the Synagogue, and she asked us at the evening meal, "Daddy, why do we eat the
Animals
animals?"
I recently have been studying apologetics and studied the

"presuppositionalist" side and "evidentialist" side, and then I came across a
book by Mark Hannah called Crucial Questions to Apologetics and he took a
Apologetics position called "verticalism," which made a lot of sense to me. But, I just
wondered, what would your response be to a book like that, and also, how
you came to your own personal convictions on an apologetics position?
What is an apostate?
Apostate
What confuses me is that I have always understood that the Apostles were
the twelve and Paul, and perhaps James. So what I find hard to reconcile
here is that it says He appeared to all of the apostles, at least to the twelve,
Apostles and then it mentions James and Paul specifically. But it also mentions that
after He had appeared to all of those, except Paul, then to all of the apostles.
Why would he mention extra apostles again there?
Is appearance really everything?

Appearance
Can you talk a little bit about Arminian theology? Is it biblical? And, if a
church embraces that theology, are they saved? [Can somebody who holds
Arminianism
an Arminian view be a Christian?]

My question is threefold, 1. How can the Bible be read to teach "Limited

Atonement Atonement?" 2. How can the Bible be read to teach "Unlimited
[01] Atonement?" 3. What do you believe that it teaches and why?
Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also,
Atonement
whether all of them that He died for will be saved?
[02]
Do you hold to "Limited Atonement"--that Jesus Christ did not suffer,

Atonement
substitutionarily, on the cross, for the sins of the whole world?
[03]
Atonement Could you please clarify the extent of the atonement, limited versus
[04] unlimited?
How much liberty does a pastor, an elder have in advising us when or where
Authority we should go to get training?
Continue to John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subjects: A B C D

E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Go back to Bible Bulletin Board's Home Page

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "B"

Subjects "B"
Subject Questions
After your second sermon on the salvation of babies, I was walking
out to the parking lot and I overheard two college girls walking out to
their car, and one college girl was telling the other one that because
Babies
babies couldn’t comprehend sin and the law and election and stuff
like that, that no grace was needed to take them to heaven. I was
wondering how you would respond to that?
Who or what is Babylon the Great, as listed in the seventeenth

Babylon chapter of Revelation?
I got a question from Acts 2:38, Peter says, "Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins." It seems like Peter is indicating that you have got to be baptized to
Baptism [01] be saved, yet the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith.
So I am wondering, what did Peter mean by "being baptized" and why did
he say it?
If you have been baptized in another church, whether by immersion

Baptism [02] or sprinkling, is that acceptable for membership at Grace Church?
Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Baptism [03]
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/b.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:49 AM]

I was listening to a tape by Al Martin where he was pointing out that

Jesus basically gave one duty for us to do: to proclaim our faith in a
public manner and that was baptism, not altar calls and raising your
hand and all of that stuff...it really has nothing to do...that’s already
been covered. God has made provision for us to do that.
Baptism [04]
So, I just would like you to comment on how you feel the truth of this
issue should effect evangelism, including DE [Discipleship
Evangelism] and all of those other things.
Now, my Mormon relative quoted to me, some time back, 1 Corinthians

15:29, and I have looked at that and tried to study it and figure out what
they are saying, because she said, "It says, right in the Bible, that you
Baptism for the Dead
baptize for the dead." But yet Scofield says down below in the footnote,
that they are not talking about that.
"If the Bible is the Word of God, then why does Paul say,
Bible [01] 'This I say; not the Lord?'"
Occasionally, you will mention in one of your sermons, and especially

when I listened to a few tapes, that you would leave a word or a
particular verse out. An example, would be in the 23rd chapter of
Bible [02] Matthew, I think the 14th verse or somewhere around there, you said,
"was not in the better manuscripts." What are the better manuscripts
and how do we determine which manuscripts are better than others?
I am becoming extremely confused and frustrated. This is when you,

as well as a few other ministers, state that certain Scriptures (usually
from KJV) are not accurate according to the best manuscripts, and
that the KJV is not really the most accurate translation. Yet, I have
Bible [03]
heard and read from equally godly sources that the KJV is the most
accurate, and they give source material for this conclusion that
sounds most convincing. If KJV is not the most accurate translation,
then which translation is and why do you regard it so?

Can you give me a reference of some people that have, or maybe

Bible [04] yourself, that have written some books about science in the Bible.
Which Bible translation is best?

Bible [05]
How do I explain Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, “You shall not add to
the Word, which I command to you, nor take from it,” since a lot of
Bible [06]
books were written after Deuteronomy?
I have a question about the church of the east and the Aramaic
translation of the Bible. I’ve been reading that they claim that those
are the literal words of Christ, rather than the Greek or an English
Bible [07]
translation of the Bible. I was wondering if you could comment of
that.
What about those Bible Study courses advertised in the newspapers

Bible Study
and magazines by the Christadelphians?
"How are we as Christians to view the new wave of science creating life,
Birth Control [01] as they want to call it, in the laboratory. The 'test-tube babies,' the 'sperm-
banks?'"
What does the Bible teach about birth control?

Birth Control [02]
Birth Control [03] What is the Christian view of abortion and birth
4/7/02 control?
"I have a question on Isaiah 7:14-16. In the context

when you read it, it sounds as though the child had to be
Birth of Jesus born during the time of the prophet, whereas Matthew
refers it to the birth of Jesus?"

"Why are there some of us blessed, and little children are dying in Africa
Blessings [01] and starving to death?"
In your message “Can God Bless America and Preserve His

Reputation”…you’ve also mentioned in the past that you believe that
Blessings [02]
America is under the judgment of God, is that right?
My question is relating to your sermon on “Can God Bless America?”

I understand the doctrine of special and general grace and my
question to you, pastor, is--a curse, by the way, has a ring of finality--
Blessings [03]
if this nation has be accursed by God, has He lifted his hand of
general grace from us?
Blood of Christ [01]

"What your belief is on the Blood of Christ?"
Could you clarify this issue with the "blood"?

Blood of Christ [02]
"Is it wrong and how would you tell a fellow Christian that it is, to get
involved with some of these multilevel marketing things, such as Amway,
where you set your sights on certain material things, and then come back
Business
and say it is all going to be for the glory of God, because when I get all of
this money I will help support retired pastors or I'll do this or I'll do that?"


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "C"

Subjects "C"
Subject Questions
Can you talk a little bit about Arminian theology? Is it biblical? And, if a
church embraces that theology, are they saved? [Can somebody who holds
Calvinism
an Arminian view be a Christian--as opposed to Calvinism?]
Card Playing
What is the right Christian stand on playing cards?
Carnal Christians [01]

"Is there such a thing as a Carnal Christian?"
"How does, or how will God deal with the backslidden carnal Christian?"
Carnal Christians [02]
Obviously, we all believe that Jesus must be "Lord" for us to be saved--to have
salvation. How does that fit in, because we hear so often about Carnal
Carnal Christians [03] Christians, what is a Carnal Christian? If Jesus is Lord, then how can we be
living a fleshly life?
Could you draw a distinction between the Biblical teaching on a carnal

Carnal Christians [04] Christian or a fleshly Christian?
How do you describe to a young 4 or 5 year-old how they can make Christ
Child Evangelism [01] Lord of their life?
How do respond to people who say as a very young child they were saved,
and yet the church there does not even mention, other than...they don’t
Child Evangelism [02] mention Lordship other than to say “Savior and Lord”? How can you
respond to the person who’s grown up in that sort of an atmosphere?
Children
How can you know if a small child has been born again? What evidence?
5/18/02
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm (1 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:45:51 AM]

"Do you consider John Wimber to be a Charismatic brother

Charismatics [01]
who has a different perspective on the Scriptures than us, or
do you consider him a false teacher?"
I read an article in a "big city" newspaper, on the Pentecostal movement

and I am still puzzled. These people, true believers, and if they are true
believers, what are they doing in this movement: "Heal me right away or
Charismatics [02]
maybe I'll walk away from Jesus Christ." Can you shed some light on
that?
I am trying to understand how to articulate or teach to someone in the

Charismatic Movement about the following: When they are taught a story
in the Old Testament, like Israel being in bondage, they'll build a
construct out of that and then say, "We were born into this bondage
Charismatics [03]
principle," And then they will build a theology out of that, and I don't
know how to articulate: "No, what you just did was wrong. You
misapplied Scripture. You built a construct out of thin air."
"Do you believe that Christ, as He exist now, is a material being? If so, do
Christ [01] you believe that before He was incarnate He also existed as a material being?"
Concerning your message on the fear of the wrath to come, you referred
back to Matthew 24, verse 36, “But of that day and hour, no one knows.
Not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” It says
Christ [02] “nor the Son”… If the Son and God are in and of themselves the same
being and they have perfect communion, why does the Son not know the
day of the Lord?
We have been witnessing, my husband and I, to a neighbor who is Jewish

and who comes from Israel. We’ve been getting together with him and last
time he brought up his Hebrew Old Testament and my husband was
reading with him through prophecies and he would read it in English and
the guy would read it in Hebrew. And they came to the 110th Psalm, first
Christ [03]
verse: “The Lord said unto my Lord,” and so on. He says that word “my”
is not there in the Hebrew at all and the word “Lord” is not “Adonai” or
“Yahweh” or anything like that, but it’s “Adoni,” which is just like saying
“sir” or it’s an address that you can say to anybody.

I would like you to explain the last chapter in 1 Corinthians. I know that
it is disciplinary to the people of Corinthians, but why would Paul, in
Christians verse 22, say, "If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed?" I
get the point or the idea, but he is talking to Christians.
The Professor of the Christian Education Department, at Biola

University, made this statement. “If the Church was doing its job, we
wouldn’t be here,” referring to attending Biola University. [What I am
Christian Colleges
saying is], if the church was doing its job I wouldn’t have to be going to
Biola University.
Please give some of the basics for Christian living. For instance, the
Christian Living
scriptural viewpoint on dancing, drinking, smoking, and miniskirts, etc.?
5/18/02
How do we explain the anomaly, that the church is growing and alive in
Communist countries, and that the evangelical church is almost
Church [01]
completely dead where democracy has ruled?
You are quoted as saying, “Find a church where the

Word of God is not taught or a church that doesn’t have
a biblical leadership structure and instruct them in the
Church [02] truth.” Now, I can see your viewpoint as a pastor, but
what about lay people? Were you making that statement
to pastors and those in leadership or to lay people?
I am frustrated by the weaknesses in my church, but what can I do if

Church [03] there isn't a strong church in my area?
Why should I attend church?

Church [04]
When should a person leave a church?

Church [05]

In many cases people are a little bit confused and it comes under this area,
"...of admonishing, forsaking not the assembling of yourselves together." What
Church [06] is a proper definition of "local assembly" or "local church"? Some people feel
it's five miles, ten miles and they have very definite feelings about that.
Why or is it necessary to join a local church?

Church [07]
About a year ago, a friend of mine came to me and let me read one of his
books called The Fourth Dimension—it was written by Dr. Paul (David)
Church [08] Yonggi Cho, the pastor of the world’s largest church. I was very distressed as
I read the book. My question to you is, have you read the book? And what do
you know about the man?
What is the significance of the covenant of circumcision in the Old
Circumcision
Testament as opposed to ear piercing?
I have a debate going with another believer that people who die--believers
Cloud of Witnesses who die and go to heaven--that they’re watching over us. Now, is that
something to do with the great cloud of witnesses?
Could you talk about children and communion, and should they wait until
Communion [01] they’re baptized to take communion?
What would you say to encourage those who would want to take
Communion [02]
communion but for medical reasons could not?
You made reference this morning to a person perhaps not taking the
Lord’s Table if they haven’t been baptized. We have the admonition that
we should examine ourselves, and then afterwards, there’s a warning
about we’re not judging the Lord’s body correctly. And you made
reference tonight to Hebrews 10. Sometimes I’ve heard a person say that
they didn’t take communion because they’ve realized there’s something
Communion [03]
wrong and they wanted to fix it or they wanted to do something about it;
and others say that the reason we examine ourselves is to be, you know, as
honest as we can about our sin, but as long as we confessed it, then we
really--we’re all lenient, you know. We can’t make moral rectitude of
ourselves before we take communion. So, how would you apply this?
Confrontation How can we know when it is best to forgive or confront?
Contentment What is the secret of contentment?

"I have been following the Bible Science Panel and they spoke of the age of
the earth in different years. By analyzing the 'so and so begot so and so' and
Creation [01]
all of that, how old does the Bible say that the earth is?"
As you know scientists measure the distance of stars and

planets in light years. If the universe was created six to
Creation [02]
seven thousand years ago, how can there be stars whose
light we are now seeing, which has taken 5 billion years to
get here, if they didn’t even exist 6000 years ago?
Creation [03]
What does it mean when, God said, "Let there be light?"
Creation [04]
How did God get into the universe to create all of us?
A ray of light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and light from the edge
of the milky way, would then take 100,000 years to reach here. If that is
so, then our world would need be quite quite old, because we see those
Creation [05]
that are so far out there, and we couldn't see them unless those 100,000
years were fulfilled, in order to be in our sight--yes or no?
I was recently startled by a couple of friends, who I thought were

believers, when they started talking about the people who existed on the
Creation [06] earth before Adam and Eve. I’d never been confronted with that before.
Could you give us scriptures that confirm--well, straighten that out.
A few weeks back, you were teaching and you mentioned that the crown
of the believers was not a physical, material crown, but that of the joy that
we have in leading someone to Christ. I just was wondering how that fit in
Crowns with this verse in Revelation 3:11. Speaking of the Church of
Philadelphia, it says, “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have so that
no one will take your crown.”
I’d like you to comment on a teaching that Jesus descended after His
Crucifixion
crucifixion into Hell, that He had to suffer down there.

Cults [01]
"Is the Self-Realization Fellowship a cult?"
I have a brother-in-law who is involved with a church somewhat on the cultic

side I believe. He has given me a couple of verses that their group believes
that the Tribulation occurred in 70 A.D. and that "this generation" in Matthew
Cults [02]
24:34, "geneautos" (Greek) as he puts it, means "this generation" and that the
word "millennium" does not necessarily mean 1,000 years. Can you give me
something to say to him that would turn him back around?
About a year ago a friend of mine came to me and let me
read one of his books called, The Fourth Dimension. It
Cults [03]
was written by Dr. Paul Cho, the pastor of the world’s
largest church. I was very distressed as I read the book.
My question to you is, “Have you read the book?” and
“What do you know about the man?”
In Genesis 1:28 it says that God gives Adam the command that says, "Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." In Genesis 9 he
Curse tells Noah to "multiply and fill the earth," there is no indication of
subduing it. Why is that not mentioned, and is that part of the whole
kingdom?


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "D"

Subjects "D"
Subject Questions
I was wondering if you could help me with two verses I
have been having a problem with exegesis on, it would be
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, it's Saul when he’s on the road to
Damascus Road Damascus, where it says, “and they that were with me
saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not
the voice of Him that spoke to me.”
Dancing
4/21/02
What is the right Christian stand on dancing?
Dating What about dating? Is it normal or abnormal?
"I want to ask you a question about the term the "Day of the
Day of the Lord [01] Lord?"
"I have always been along the lines of a 'Pre-Trib' Rapture, and I got into
chapter 2 there, and some things seem to contradict themselves. If you could
Day of the Lord [02]
just comment on what the 'Apostasy' is, and what 'The Day of the Lord' is?"
"What does it mean when it says 'deacons must be the

Deacons husband of one wife?'"
Both Moses and Enoch--one went with a body and one

Death [01] without a body, they both went to heaven or went to be
with God. What’s the difference?
In the Bible, when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and then in
Hebrews 9:27 I saw that it says, “And in as much as it is appointed for
Death [02] men to die once and after this comes judgment”….how can we explain
that because Lazarus was dead, but then had been raised from the dead,
so that would mean that he would have to die a second time?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/d.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:53 AM]

My question is concerning the death of Christ. I know that the word-faith

people are teaching a very erroneous teaching on the death of Christ and
His going to hell and being born again, and so forth. But, it seems like
Death of Christ some sound teachers are denying the spiritual death of Christ, to kind of
dispute what the word-faith people are saying. I’d like you, if you would,
to answer the question: Did Christ die spiritually on the cross? And, what
are some of the scriptural texts in regard to that?
We witness, my husband and I, to a neighbor, who is
Jewish and he comes from Israel. We have been getting
together with him and the last time, he brought out his
Hebrew Old Testament and my husband was reading
with him through prophecies, and he would read it in
English and the guy would read it in Hebrew, and they
Deity of Christ
came to the 110th Psalm, the first verse, “The Lord said
unto my lord… and so on…and he says that word my is
not there in the Hebrew at all. And the word Lord is not
adonay or yahweh or anything like that but it’s adoni,
which is just like saying sir or it’s an address that you can
say to anybody.
"To what extent do you believe that cases of epilepsy and lunacy, today, are
due to demon possession, and would it be possible to cure these illnesses by
Demons [01]
casting out these demons through exorcism?"
A friend was saying that he feels that he needs to deliver

people from demons. I told him that I didn’t really agree
with him because I feel that, it’s a case of sin and the flesh
Demons [02]
and everything and I didn’t agree that demons could be
inside of a Christian, living inside of a Christian, if the
Holy Spirit was there. I don’t know, but is this
something that you’ve come across?
In 1 Samuel 28, King Saul went to the "Witch of Endor," and the witch
conjured up Samuel from the dead, supposedly, and the question is, "Was
Demons [03]
this really Samuel?"

In Romans 1:28, it says, "God gave them over to depraved minds..."I

thought we were born utterly depraved. Who is the "them" and when did
Depravity
this happen?
Did Jesus violate the dietary laws in the Old Testament when it says in Mark
7:19, the last clause, "Thus he declared all foods clean." Is that a violation of
Dietary Laws
the dietary laws?
What is biblical discernment and why is it important?

Discernment
I have a question on Matthew 18:15-17 that has to do with confronting another

brother. There are three steps that are outlined in those passages [four steps
actually--the final one being putting them out]. The first, go to your brother in
private and try to win him over; the second, if he won't listen to you take two
Discipline [01] or three witnesses so that every word my be established; the third, if he won't
listen to you in a group go to the church and tell them, and if he won't listen to
the church, then you are to treat him as a Gentile or a tax-gatherer. How do
we treat Gentiles or tax-gatherers?
Does God "punish" the redeemed people? This is a question I just found
out yesterday. . . .it amazed me, because my Bible Study leader said,
Discipline [02] "That He does not punish redeemed people." I always thought that He
did. The Bible says, "To whom the Lord loves he scourges and chastises."
I have a question and that is in rebuking a brother and going to him in love if
he is in sin or having problems, and trying to help him out of his problems,
Discipline [03] and he is stubborn or just doesn't...he's not seeking help nor wants any, what is
the responsibility of myself for someone else at that point?
What is Dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture,

Dispensationalism [01] on the subject?
I was wondering if you could articulate for me your own personal

theology? I know that you came from a dispensational background, and I
was wondering if you could talk about, kind of like, the history of your
Dispensationalism [02]
studying the Bible and being confronted with covenant theology, and how
you’ve sort of come to the conclusions you’ve come to, and when that
happened?

Could you define biblical Dispensationalism and contrast that with (if
Dispensationalism [03]
there’s any contrast to be made)…with popular dispensationalism?
In Malachi, chapter two, verse eleven, it talks about the people of Judah
who have divorced the wife of their youth and have married the
daughters of a foreign god. And it goes on into verse fifteen where it says
that the people who have done this--not one of them have had any
Divorce [01] remnant of the Holy Spirit. What I was wondering, how does this carry
over into the New Testament, as far as a person who claims to be a born-
again Christian, if they were to do something like this--is this saying that
they were never really saved to begin with?
What's your view of divorce and remarriage?

Divorce [02]
Is it true that Christians and non-Christians have the same rate of

Divorce [03] divorce?
Divorce [04]
4/21/02
What is the Bible’s standard of divorce?
How can we determine what doctrines are essential and what are they?
Doctrine
Dominion Theology
What is Dominion Theology?
Drinking
Should Christians Drink Wine Coolers?


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "E"

Subjects "E"
Subject Questions
I have been here in this church [Grace Community Church] for quite some
time, and I remember back when we used to call the Sunday that Jesus
Easter rose from the dead "Resurrection Sunday," and I would like to know why
we went back to using the name of a pagan goddess?
Can women serve as elders in the church?

Elders
What does the Bible teach about election?

Election [01]
Why didn't God choose everybody to be saved?

Election [02]
I just have a brief three-part question. It’s concerning Revelation. The first
part is, almost every biblical scholar at this point and time believes that the
economic community, which is beginning next week, is the second Roman
End Time Events Empire. And, the antichrist is supposed to arise out of that. Is there any
hints to where he’s going to come from? And also, will the rapture happen
before these events take place or will we see the antichrist come to power?
There seems to be a big problem in the church today, concerning the

doctrine of eternal security. Most Christians, Charismatics, and even
Eternal Security [01] Evangelicals, believe you can lose your salvation. Now, one of the
arguments they use is Revelation 3:5, could you please comment on that?
In chapter five, which I was teaching a couple of weeks ago, we came to

Galatians 5:2 and 5:4, which talk about the consequences of accepting
circumcision or coming under the Jewish law, or doing anything legalistic.
Paul writes in verse two that “Christ is of no benefit to you that were
Eternal Security [02] severed from Christ,” verse 4, “you are fallen from grace.” I got into quite a
discussion with a fellow in the class about whether this meant you could lose
your salvation, which was the position he took. I just wanted to ask how you
would have dealt with that situation? What would you suggest to me?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/e.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:45:54 AM]

I have a question from Matthew 8:12. It says, “the sons of the kingdom
should be cast into outer darkness, where there’s weeping and gnashing of
teeth.” I came from an organization where they teach that there are born-
Eternal Security [03] again Christians who, because they don’t live a holy, godly, Christian life,
can forfeit the kingdom and wind up in this place of outer darkness. Do you
believe in this? Or do you believe that all Christians will get into the
kingdom, no matter how they live?
Eternal Security [04] Is it possible for redeemed people to lose their salvation?
I understand about salvation, that we do have salvation, we don't lose it. But I've
Eternal Security [05] been asked on Matthew 24, verse 10, where it says that many will fall away in
the last days. Is that referring to Christians?
My question [is] on Revelation 3:16, where it talks about the Lord spewing
you out of his mouth if your works are neither hot nor cold. I’m wondering
Eternal Security [06]
how that relates to “once being saved, always being saved”?
I was taught before, when I used to go to a different church, that once you
become a born again--once you have a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ, you can never lose your salvation. But it seems like, after listening to
Eternal Security [07] all your preaching, that being a Christian is not just saving by grace; you
have to constantly work hard to be a Christian, to obey. So that means a
Christian could still go to hell?
"When Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses come knocking at

Evangelism [01]
our door, should we greet them and have them come into our
homes? I know we are not supposed to be cordial to them."
You have always taught here that the purpose of the Church was to "equip
the saints," yet recently you stated that the main purpose of the Church was
Evangelism [02] to "reach the lost," and if that is true, then why don't we have more
emphasis on evangelism here at Grace Community Church?
"In 1 Samuel 18:10 it says, 'Now it came about on the next day
that an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul.' The
Evil Spirits question is about the 'evil spirit,' since there is no evil coming
from God, it only comes from Satan."

"How important is a good example?"

Example


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "F"

Subjects "F"
Subject Questions
Does James 2 contradict Romans 4?
Faith [01]
How can we know if our faith is real?

Faith [02]
What is the nature of true saving faith?

Faith [03]
What kind of things do and do not prove the genuineness of saving faith?
Faith [04]
Myself and some of my friends have been discussing for the last couple of weeks,
do I exercise faith as a result of the fact that I am regenerate or does God
Faith [05]
regenerate me as a result of the fact that I exercise faith?
I wanted to know what you thought [about] Harry Potter.

Fantasy
In Matthew six, it talks about giving alms, and further on it talks about when
you are praying, and then it says, "when you fast." It looks as though that
Fasting fasting should be just as regular as praying and giving alms, and I wondering
how we should be applying fasting in today's day and age.
I have a question from Colossians, chapter 1. They refer to Christ being the
“firstborn of all creation” in verse 15, and then in verse 18, they refer to Him as
Firstborn being “firstborn of the dead.” I understand “firstborn of the dead,” but what is
“firstborn of all creation?”
How can we know when it is best to forgive or confront?

Forgiveness [01]
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/f.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:45:55 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "F"
Jay Adam's new book on forgiveness that came out in 1989 is in the Book Shack
[Grace Community Church's book store] . He clearly teaches in accordance with
Luke 17:3, “Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he
repents, forgive him.” He teaches that you have to have a heart always for
Forgiveness [02] forgiveness, yet there are many, many fine Christian theologians that take a
different point of view, their point of view being that forgiveness is there, it is
consummated just in my mind and it doesn’t need to be that the sinner come
and ask for forgiveness. Could you clarify this?
Freedom
What is Christian freedom?
5/8/02

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/f.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:45:55 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "G"

Subjects "G"
Subject Questions
In the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, on the surface there appears to be
some difficulties. In Luke chapter 1, how can we be assured that Luke is tracing
the genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s decent? And also can you recommend a
Genealogy
book that deals in depth with the genealogies of Matthew and Luke and
attempts to harmonize them?
I want to ask you, in Genesis 6, if the Nephilim giants didn’t survive the flood,
how come when Caleb and Joshua and the spies went to Canaan, they found the
Giants Nephilim giants there? And also, why are there so many interpretations of
Genesis 6?
The question I have is [concerning] Matthew 5:42, “Give to him who asks of
you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Does that
Giving [01]
mean we give to everybody that asks of us?
In Isaiah 55:1, where God says, “Come, you who have no money, buy and eat.”
Giving [02] But I have no money; how can I buy?
There are several places in Scripture where it says, “It repenteth God that He
made man”; “It repenteth Him that He made Saul king”; and if I could squeeze
God in another one that’s related to Saul, God sent, on several occasions, an evil
spirit to Saul. Can you comment on all that?
My question is on Romans 6:3-4…could you explain how that

fits into the whole picture of the Gospel? I am quite familiar
with the deity of Christ and the Trinity and the bodily
Gospel [01] resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15, but what is it when you
accept Christ into your heart and how is that transferred and
could you kind of go over the Gospel and explain it?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/g.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:45:57 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "G"
Could you talk about the proper place for the "sinner's prayer" (inviting Jesus
into you life to be your Savior), perhaps as a demonstration of faith, but not
equal to faith, and could you also explain the dangers in the misleading use of
Gospel [02]
the "sinner's prayer" and receiving Christ, and perhaps touching on Revelation
3:20 as well?
You have made a statement on one of your tapes, "that anyone who says, that
they can get to heaven any other way than through Jesus Christ, really doesn't
understand the gospel." Later you stated, with regard to ECT (Evangelicals
and Catholics Together Unity Movement), that, ". . . . of those men that were
Gospel [03] arguing from ECT's side (reuniting Evangelicals and Catholics), these men
understand the gospel, but what they are really not willing to commit to is the
fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven." My question to you, in
respect to these men, who in the past we have consider great theologians, what
is the bottom line as far as the pronouncements of Scripture against these men?
"What is our responsibility to the government, to let our legislators know how we
Government [01] feel?"
Sunday night, "On the Christian's Responsibility to Government," you used the
example of the Early Church as a standard for the Christian community these days.
Well, about the tenth observation made by the historians, in that day, was that the
Early Church was indifferent to the world's temporal materialism and political
Government [02]
systems. Now, my questions is, how does the "Salt Shaker" stand in relation to the
example set by the Early Church, which basically segregated themselves from
government?
Guilt
Is there any such thing as a healthy sense of guilt?
5/18/02

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/g.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:45:57 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "H"

Subjects "H"
Subject Questions
How can I overcome a bad habit?
Habits
"In First Corinthians, where they talk about women are supposed to have
Hair something on their head when they are praying and whatever. Why doesn't that
pertain to today?"
Halloween
"How should Christians celebrate holidays such as Halloween?"
What does hate mean, when God says He "hates Jacob?" Does He actually
Hatred hate the person or does He hate what the person does?
The questions of whether Jesus can still or does still heal? And, does the Lord
Healing heal believers who pray for healing?
Heart
What does it mean to love the Lord with all my heart?
Can the people in Heaven see what we are doing? Do they

Heaven [01] know what we think?
Once our disembodied spirits go into heaven, would we be able

to see events taking place on the earth, such as the Great
Heaven [02]
Tribulation and salvation of other souls? Once up there, would
our prayers have any more effect for the salvation of souls, once
we have been freed from sin?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/h.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:58 AM]

I have a question for you regarding a book I just read by Earl Davies: Heaven
is a Far Better Place. The question is, is heaven an intermediate state or is
Heaven [03]
heaven an eternal state?
When we a leave, when we depart from this earth, I know we are not given a
new body right away, but are we in heaven? Those that are in heaven, do they
Heaven [04]
know what’s taking place here on earth?
Can Christians become too heavenly minded?

Heaven [05]
In one of your heaven sermons, you were talking about how we’re going to
“serve” up in heaven. You said something about, "If we’re faithful in what we
do on earth, we’re going to have more of a capacity to be faithful in heaven."
Well, I was wondering; the story about the talents, where you have these three
guys and the master gives them talents and stuff…and one of them is the most
Heaven [06]
faithful or something, and he goes out and gets lots more talents and comes
back and the master loves him to death. So, I was wondering if it’s going to be
that [way], when we have a greater capacity to be faithful in heaven, it’s going
to be the same way, like, with the talents?
My question is from Luke 16 where you have Lazarus and the poor man and
they’re shown in a place together, one in Abraham’s bosom and one in
torment. My question is, was Lazarus or Old Testament believers in general
Heaven [07] in the fullest sense in heaven? Or did they have to wait until Christ died to
gather them up? I say this because I heard something in your tape that you
don’t believe in a sort of a holding tank, a “limbos."
Are Christians really supposed to be holy?

Holiness [01]

My question comes from Ezekiel Chapter 44. There is one

verse here that seems kind of contradictory to what God’s
intending. God is speaking to Ezekiel and I am curious as to
why He would say this. In verse 44:19, it says, “And when
they go out into the outer court to the people, they shall put
off their garments in which they have been ministering and
Holiness [02] lay them in the holy chambers. Then they shall put on the
other garments, that they may not transmit holiness to the
people with their garments.” Now it seems to me that God
would want the people to be holy, I mean, that’s part of His
desire, and yet here He says he doesn’t want holiness
transmitted.
I Timothy 5:4. It’s talking here about widows who would be serving in the
church: “If any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show
Holiness [03]
piety at home, to requite [repay] their parents, for that’s good and acceptable
5/18/02
before God.” What is piety? The question is, what does piety mean in this
verse?
I have a question about the "works of the Spirit," from Judges 14:6, "The
Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily." My point is this, "the Holy Spirit
coming upon Samson," the question is [about] the Holy Spirit indwelling
Holy Spirit [01] people before Acts, chapter two. Also, I have another question referring to the
same thing, in the gospel of John, chapter 20:22, "He breathed on them, and
said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' and, only eleven of them received Him.
Holy Spirit [02] What was the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and ministry?
I have some questions with regard to some scriptural references to the

presence of the Holy Spirit in the eternal state. I just want to know some
Holy Spirit [03]
references that I could look up. And what is His function? What is His
ministry, if you will?
Holy Spirit [04] How can a true work of the Holy Spirit be distinguished from that which is false?

It’s my understanding that those who live by the flesh will not inherit the
kingdom of God, but those who’ve been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and
marked by the Holy Spirit are God’s own. But, before the day of Pentecost,
Holy Spirit [05] God gave his spirit only to certain, select individuals. So, I was wondering
about the rest of the Old Testament saints, if they were regenerated or how,
without the Holy Spirit; and if they weren’t regenerated, were they living in
the flesh; and if they were living in the flesh, how were they saved?
"How can a physical sin be worse than the sin of Romans 1:21 of not honoring
Homosexuality God? Isn't not honoring God a worse sin than homosexuality?"


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "I"

Subjects "I"
Subject Questions
I understand that idols don't have to be graven images, you know, that we're to bow down
Idols to, but can you help us understand what some [idols] could be in our lives now?
"The Bible is clear on the fact, that we should not use images of the
Images Lord. Why do we use pictures of Jesus to teach our children?"
I have read that Jesus has faith. Now if He is Omniscient why would He need Faith?
Incarnation
Integrity
"What is a Biblical definition of the word integrity?"
Will you clarify why you say Allah is another name for Satan without any
Islam explanation or disclaimer that all translations of the Arabic Bible use “Allah” as the
12/22/01 name for God?
I would like to know your personal viewpoint about the state of Israel, with regard
Israel to Benjamin Netanyahu, and how he fits into God's Biblical Clock?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/i.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:00 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "J"

Subjects "J"
Subject Questions
Did Jesus, at age 12, disrespectfully disobey His parents, by not
informing and not returning with them when it was time to leave? Some
Jesus Bible commentators have said that, "At this particular time, that no
longer was Jesus technically under parental authority."
Which Jewish holidays, such a Purim, Passover, Hanukkah, would be

Jewish Holidays appropriate for a Jewish believer [in Christ] to still celebrate, and which
6/4/01 if any, would no longer be appropriate?
John MacArthur
"Who is John MacArthur?"
"In our Bible study at work we were studying the Book of

Jonah and one of the fellows in the study mentioned that
somewhere he heard that one of the Bible teachers had said
that he believes that Jonah actually died in the whale, and
Jonah
then when he was spit out God made him alive again.
There was a reference to where the Lord says, 'As Jonah
was three days and three nights in the belly of the great
fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the earth.' Can you elaborate on this?"
"Although a Christian's sins have been forgiven, will

Judgment [01]
Christians still have to give an account for their bad deeds
at Judgment?"
"What is God's purpose for judgment and wrath?"

Judgment [02]
"Who is judged at the Great White Throne?"

Judgment [03]
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/j.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:01 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "J"
"How will God judge 'Non-Christians' who have been very selfless,
Judgment [04] giving, and loving to others all their lives?"
"I know that the works or service of Christians will be tested, but will
Judgment [05] there be any judgment on Christians for their sins?"
My question comes from I Corinthians 3, where Paul’s talking about the

Bema Judgment of Christ. And in v. 15, he tells about a Christian
Judgment Seat of Christ “whose work is burned up and he suffers loss, but he is saved, yet so as
3/4/01 through fire.” Will you tell me a little bit about this Christian and how
he fits into the lordship-salvation scheme?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/j.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:01 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "K"

Subjects "K"
Subject Questions
"How
do you personally know Jesus Christ? I mean it is such a
struggle. I sit and I pray and I have answered prayers, but yet do I
Knowing Christ really know Him? It's like, I want to know Him so bad. You
know? Do you understand me?"

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/k.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:02 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "L"

Subjects "L"
Subject Questions
It seems that every time I enter a discussion about the qualifications of a
pastor, the conversation eventually ends up in: what are the biblical
Leadership guidelines for a church? Should it be elder-run or should it be pastor-
run? And, I don’t know how to answer that question. Does the Bible
offer any guidelines as to who has the final say?
Realizing that every church has its problems and realizing the
importance of unity in a church, could you give some guidelines on when
you should really work to preserve the unity in a church as a member,
Leaving a Church and when the problems get too great you ought to leave it. Secondly,
how you can leave a church if it gets to that situation and it has got to be
done?
I’m a little confused as far as the implications of that Lordship to the non-
Christian at the point of salvation. How much of it can they really
comprehend in terms of the Lordship issue? And then along with that,
Lordship Salvation [01]
are you saying through your series on the Lordship that the call to
salvation is synonymous with the call to discipleship?
Several of us are taking a campus class--it’s in the college department

and it’s dealing with part of your manuscript on Lordship Salvation.
Part of it was talking about how, I guess, the non-Lordship position was
Lordship Salvation [02]
derived from Dispensationalism, and I was having a real tough time
following that. Could you explain the connection between those two?
Lottery
"What should the Christian attitude be towards the Lottery?"
Regarding Romans 12:10, it says, "Be devoted to one another," and John
13:14 about washing our feet and God washing our feet for "an example that
you should do that." And John 13:34, "This command I give you to love one
Love [01]
another." First of all, what is God trying to tell us? And, are we doing that at
the current rate of one or two "meetings" a week?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/l.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:04 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "L"
Love [02] If God is such a loving God, why does He send people to hell?
5/18/02
I was brought up Lutheran and it appears that there are inconsistencies

in Luther's Small Catechism, in relation with the Bible, primarily
Baptism and Communion. If Luther was truly a man of God and the
Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church is really following him, why is the Lutheran Church
today so liberal and caught up in man's tradition?
My daughter asked me a question and it is out of Joshua 2:3-7, 18-21,

and it's talking about Rahab. Her main question is: that God forbids us
to lie, and she said, "Mom, Rahab lied to the king and she hid God's
Lying [01]
people, but God said that it is a sin to lie. How do you reconcile the fact
that she lied and God honored her lie?"
At what point does deception become sin? For example, Rahab was
commended for her faith, but apparently she lied when she was hiding
spies. And, more specifically, what would you do if you happened to be
Lying [02]
hiding Jews in your house, and officials asked you if you were hiding
Jews, how would you respond to that?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/l.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:04 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "M"

Subjects "M"
Subject Questions
How do you discern between regular magician who does acts of
delusion and "Christian Magicians?" So I was wondering how we
as Christians are supposed to discern that--whether it is all
Magic
delusion, or whether there is some real stuff, and how are we to
discern that?
"What does Paul mean when he says, "Those who

Marriage [01] have wives should be as though they had none."
"In the case of a Christian friend who is about to

Marriage [02]
marry a nonbeliever, would you suggest attendance at
the wedding ceremony as their friend?"
What is your opinion on mixed marriages, like

Marriage [03] different races getting married, Biblically?
What is the ultimate purpose of the premarital counseling at

Grace Community Church? Is the class meant to be purely
instructional or to be a test for the man's or the woman's
Marriage [04]
godliness? Is it Biblical for the man to use the class as a test to see
if they should be engaged?
What does the Bible teach about interracial marriages?

Marriage [05]
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/m.htm (1 of 5) [5/21/2002 8:46:06 AM]

What does it mean to dwell with your wife with

Marriage [06] understanding?
Where did we get our marriage vows from? I mean you

know this saying of the marriage vows when people get
married, where did this come from? What the ministers
Marriage [07]
use. You know “for better and for worse; in sickness and
health.”
I was reading in Genesis and it’s kind of confusing to me

that different people had more than one wife. Is it because
Marriage [08] they were in the Old Testament and weren’t in the New
Testament yet? Did God allow it? Was it sin?
What were your thoughts and feelings when you were walking
Marcy [John's Daughter] down the aisle as she was getting
Marriage [09]
married?
If someone marries secretly, what is God’s view of their sex

Marriage [10]
relationship?
4/7/02
Marriage [11] What does a Christian wife do if her husband fails

4/7/02 to be the authority for her to submit to?
Marriage [12] Can Christians live together in one house in a

4/7/02 communal situation?
Marriage [13] Why did God allow polygamy in the Old

4/21/02 Testament?

"A lot of Jewish apologists object to the fact that Isaiah 53:9 says that
'The suffering servant has done no violence,' and Siegel (sp.) in his
book brings this out, he says, 'How can Jesus Christ be the Messiah
Messiah [01] because verse 9, specifically says He has done "no violence" yet he
went into the Temple and scourged the money changers or drove them
out?' Obviously, there was violence. How do we answer that?"
I have two questions, both related. During the time of the

crucifixion the Jews were looking for some kind of a "knight on a
charging horse," who would come in and throw the Romans out
and kill the Gentiles. But the priesthood, the Jewish priesthood, as
Messiah [02] opposed to the Jewish people were teaching the Jewish people this
kind of thing, in other words, they weren't looking for a God! So
my question to you is, "Were the Jews guilty of killing a God or
killing a man?
This is in Zechariah; I want to know if this pertains to the

millennial kingdom, and if it does, I have a question. Starting in
chapter 14, verse 16, “Then the survivors from all the nations that
have attacked Jerusalem will go up, year after year, to worship
the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the feast of
tabernacles…” There are other verses here, but I’ll just skip over,
Millennial Kingdom [01]
because it has to do with feast of tabernacles. In verse 19, “This
will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the
nations that do not go up to celebrate the feast of tabernacles.” If
this is the millennial kingdom, why would they be celebrating this
feast? “What time is this?” is what I’m basically asking.
In light of Hebrews 9, what is the purpose of the [millennial]

Millennial Kingdom [02]
sacrificial system in Ezekiel?
"If a man is chosen, by God, for the Ministry, and

later, has to step down because of some sort of moral
Ministry [01] indiscretion, will God ever restore this person to the
Ministry?"

"One morning our minister told us that he had been

having an affair with one of the women in the church.
Ministry [02] My question is, Where can I find forgiveness for
this?"
This is going to be a hypothetical question. Let’s say you had

church A, church B, and church C. And let’s say you’re church C.
And, let’s say that the pastor of church A falls, because he no
longer fits the elder qualifications-let’s say it’s immorality. And,
let’s say that pastor goes over to church B and they take him in
Ministry [03] and put him in a position of leadership, a shepherd. And, let’s say
that you’ve previously had a working relationship with church B.
That is to say, you’ve engaged in mutual ministry. Could you,
church C, still maintain the same level of a working relationship
with church B?
In Romans 12:7 it says, “Or ministry, let us wait on our

ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.” My question would
just be, what type of serving or to what capacity of serving should
Ministry [04]
someone do if they have the gift of ministry? What is the gift of
ministry?
You said in the past that you don’t really concern yourself with
the breadth of how God blesses the ministry through you and
through this church, but your concern is in the depth of your
ministry and your personal growth with God. I understand that
Ministry [05] and I just kind of wanted you to kind of expound a little bit more.
What do you do to focus on the depth of your ministry and how
do you balance this with the other many responsibilities that you
have, including your relationship with your wife and family?
Has common-sense morality died?

Morality

Can you make some comment about Jerry Falwell

Moral Majority and the “Moral Majority”?
Since God does not contradict Himself and God does not lie, God
cannot lie. God says, “Thou shalt not lie.” How do you answer
Murder someone that says to you, God also says, “Thou shalt not kill.”
And yet, God sometimes kills.
"In Romans 14:14, it says that nothing is unclean, and

last Sunday you gave a lot of examples about
cigarettes and all kinds of things. I somewhat
understand your perspective on rock music and
different styles of rock music. I don't know if I
Music [01] understand it totally, but as far as I understand that
verse saying is when 'nothing is unclean,' that would
consist in music too. A certain beat, whether it would
be a "rock" type beat or whatever, that in itself
couldn't be wrong. Am I correct?"
I have a question about the Christian rock movement. Is

Music [02] Christian rock music non--biblical, and if so, is there any biblical
proof?


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "N"

Subjects "N"
Subject Questions
There are no files in this area at this time

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/n.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:07 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "O"

Subjects "O"
Subject Questions
In Psalm 119, it says, "Your testimonies are full of wonder: therefore my soul
observes them." And in 2 Peter it says, "If moral excellence, knowledge, self-control,
perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness; and love are increasing, you will not be
Obedience unfruitful." So, the question is, "Is the increasing spiritual awareness and
meditation of the treasures of God's Word the requirement for a truly obedient
walk?"

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/o.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:08 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "P"

Subjects "P"
Subject Questions
What is your obligation to your parents if they’re not
Parents
Christians, they’re in their 80s and they drink alcohol and
expect you to serve it in the home and have no respect for
your Christian faith?
I read an article in a "big city" newspaper, on the Pentecostal movement and
I am still puzzled. These people, true believers, and if they are true believers,
Pentecostalism what are they doing in this movement: "Heal me right away or maybe I'll
walk away from Jesus Christ." Can you shed some light on that?
I am a Hebrew Christian, and my dad doesn’t want me to

come to church or anything, and I promised him that I
wouldn’t go while I’m living at our house. The problem is
Persecution that I think that I have broken a promise, right? And isn’t
that something wrong? I mean when I go home tonight he’s
going to ask me, “Did you attend the services?”
I know that a man is supposed to have only one wife, then what is the
reasoning by Solomon having 600--but God still blessed the men that had
Polygamy
more than one wife--like Abraham?
Yesterday, they were reporting about the Pope being in Mexico, not for
religious purposes, but for political. Where does he tie in with Revelation 17?
Pope There’s the beast, there’s the antichrist, and the false prophet; would he tie in
with one of those?
Popularity How can a Christian be popular with the world?

5/18/02
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/p.htm (1 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:46:10 AM]

"Isn't it true that only the 'Regenerated,' that is, only the 'Born
Prayer [01]
Again,' the 'Saved' people can communicate with God, for the
purpose of solving their problems?"
I know you have to pray in His will, as the Lord did, “Not
my will, but Your will be done,” but how do you blend, that
Prayer [02]
sometimes when maybe you think it’s a burden He’s putting
on you to pray and yet you don’t see it come and you are
still asking in His will?
What is your opinion of the new best-selling book The Prayer of Jabez? Should
Prayer [03] Christians be learning how to pray Jabez's prayer?
Does God answer the prayers of unbelievers?

Prayer [04]
Prayer [05] Is there a correct posture for prayer?
Prayer [06] What does it mean to pray without ceasing?

On asking "in the will of God," do you kind of tack that one on like, "in Jesus'
name?" Or, you know, like some people, every time they pray, they go, "Lord, if
Prayer [07] it's Your will," and kind of got the idea that they really don't think it is, but they're
going to pray it anyways. Would you explain what you mean by "asking in the
will of God?"
You [have] said that prayer moves God to act. Would you explain how I can move
Prayer [08]
God to act?
Two things that I would like you to explain, that I hear people use in prayer very
Prayer [09] often: "Pleading the Blood of Christ" and "Praying to bind Satan"--they're
common practices. Would you comment?
When you pray, how do you know...like you're praying earnestly for something
Prayer [10] over and over and over again...how do you know you're not going to get
something like a Saul in your life?
When we pray does Satan hear our prayers? Or can he listen to us?
Prayer [11]
Would you comment on fleeces?

Prayer [12]

I understand why God might not answer a prayer for a [new sports car]. But I don't
understand if a family is praying for a safe trip and on their way back half are
killed and it's stated, "it's God's will." I don't understand what the point of prayer
Prayer [13]
would have been or even constant prayer because it was going to be God's will for
the family to split in the first place.
When you were talking about prayer, you made the comment that it was wrong for
us to ask for more love or more peace because we already have this. And I assume
that you were referring to us positionally--we have it all. But then there's the other
side and don't you think that often when people pray for more love or more peace
Prayer [14]
or any of these things that are ours positionally, that they're actually asking that it
would be more of a part of their experience without denying the fact that it is their
position? And in that it wouldn't be irrelevant to pray that way.
I have a question concerning the gospel where it's talking about hypocrisy of
Prayer [15] praying aloud versus praying in the closet and praying the Lord's prayer.
Does God answer unsaved people's prayers?

Prayer [16]
On the same line as fleeces, if you're not praying in God's will, can Satan answer
your prayer? I mean, like if you're outside of His will. Could he make something
Prayer [17]
happen that where you'd think you were being answered?
I never knew that Satan would be able to hear your prayers if you said them
audibly. I was under the impression that he can only be in one place at a certain
Prayer [18]
time.
I just wanted to ask what suggestions you would have for teaching children to
Prayer [19] pray?
I was raised up a Catholic and my husband...like when we say prayers before

meals, he still says the Catholic prayer. And it's like...they're just words to the
Prayer [20] children and doesn't really mean a thing, but then he's the one that leads the
prayers so should I just...?
In praying for a brother that is in some sin and this brother continues to be in sin,
should it come to a point where we should discontinue our prayers or what should
Prayer [21]
be, I don't know, along that line?

My question, if I may read two verses, has to do with repetitive prayer for
salvation for loved ones. It’s in I John, chapter five, verses 14 and 15: “And this is
the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to his will,
Prayer [22]
He heareth us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that
we have the petitions that we desired of Him.”
How should we theologically classify passages like Psalm 139:19-22 in light of

the New Testament teaching to love our enemies and those who persecute us,
since many times God’s enemies are in fact or become our enemies? How do we
Prayer [23]
answer someone who quotes passages such as these and claims that the Bible is
guilty of the same hatefulness that is found in the Koran?
Could you please define what a genuine expositor of the Word is?
Preaching [01]
Thirty years ago you started teaching [here]. I’m just curious, have you
changed in any of your stances or interpretations--anything biblical, or
maybe the way you might have said something? Let’s face it, you probably
Preaching [02] have offended some people, and you know, maybe a better word is
“convicted” some people. But, I’m just curious, are there any changes in your
stances or interpretations?
To what extent do you use notes? Do you write a manuscript?

Preaching [03]
What use do you make of quotes and illustrations?

Preaching [04]
How long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

Preaching [05]
How do you guard your preparation time?

Preaching [06]
How long should a sermon be?

Preaching [07]
I've heard it said that 50 percent of a sermon should be application. Could you
Preaching [08] comment?
Do you find it easier now to develop a sermon from a passage?

Preaching [09]
How do you differentiate between persuasion and manipulation?

Preaching [10]

What abiding lessons would you teach men who are committed to expository
Preaching [11] preaching that will sustain them for a lifetime of ministry?
Since notable expositors are avid readers, what are your reading preferences?
Preaching [12]
What is the ultimate key to effective preaching?

Preaching [13]
If we are to proclaim the "whole counsel of God," why do you preach

Preaching [14] predominately from the New Testament?
Why are you compelled to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible,
Preaching [15] unlike other notable preachers such as C. H. Spurgeon?
"I have been studying John, chapter 17, and one thing that came out was that our
names are already written in the 'Book of Life.' My question is, "Is that like
Predestination [01]
Predestination?"
I wasn't raised this way and I was just kind of curious about Predestination. I
have heard back and forth that God had a plan. I was just curious about my
Predestination [02]
family members that aren't saved, I thought, "Does God not choose them?"
I just wanted to ask what your view was on "Double Predestination" and
Predestination [03] why?
"How far are we supposed to go, as Christians, to protect

Protection
ourselves, and our family, and our homes from intruders and
such?"
"How do you feel about a march? Christians are marching. I saw Frank Schaeffer
Protests (sp.) leading, I believe, an Anti-Abortion march."
Why was nothing ever said or done to Aaron for making the golden calf in
Exodus 32? There was never any mention that he protested against it; why
Punishment
was he not punished?



John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "Q"

Subjects "Q"
Subject Questions

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/q.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:11 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "R"

Subjects "R"
Subject Questions
All of us started with Adam and we are all descendants of Adam, and yet
there are many different races around the world. My question has to do with
the origin of different races and also language. I think language was at the
Races [01]
Tower of Babel, that God dispersed into different languages. Did everybody
speak the same language up to that time? And is that true with races also?
If Adam and Eve were the first two people, how did we get so many
Races [02] races?
Knowing that all children belong to God--during the Rapture, what's

Rapture [01]
going to happen to all the children?
I’ve always found the teaching of Harold Camping to be confusing. And,
Rapture [02] I was wondering, where does he go wrong, and especially with the
Rapture?
I understand all of the Old Testament feasts have had a New Testament
Rapture [03] fulfillment, except for the Feast of Trumpets. Aside from the caution
against date setting, could that be the Rapture?
Is there any difference between the Reformers and the Puritans views on
Regeneration Regeneration?
We hear in our church, and I hear it from you, where we tie Christianity
as a religion. And as far as I am concerned Christianity was created by
Christ, where religion is created by Satan. And I hear ministers tie them
Religion both together and we get the idea that Christianity is a religion, where
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” And I look at
Christianity as a way of life--Not a religion.
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/r.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:46:13 AM]

I was browsing in the bookstore and found a book called Jesus and
Divorce by Gordon Wenham and William Heth. It’s very new and they
make what appears to me to be--I can’t say I really like this--but it
seems that they’re really canvassed all the material on the previous
Remarriage books that have been written and have done some hard exegetical work,
and their conclusion is that remarriage is just plain not permitted in any
case. And, I’m wondering if anybody here is sort of looking over that
material, and if any conclusions are being drawn?
What happens to a person when he or she believes on Jesus but doesn't

Repentance [01] repent and doesn't ever turn from sin?
What is repentance and how does it relate to salvation?

Repentance [02]
In Daniel 12:2 and in Revelation 20:4-5 we have descriptions of how many

who are asleep will hear the voice of our Lord and be raised from the grave
to an immortal body. How do these statements harmonize with the statement
of our Lord on the cross in Luke 23:43 when He says, "Truly, I will say to
you, 'Today you shall be with Me in paradise.'" And also, with the parable in
Luke 16, where the rich man and the poor man both died and one found
Resurrection
himself in the bosom of Abraham, and the other one was buried and found
himself in Hades in torment. Through the latter two statements one would
be led to believe that you are risen immediately, whereas, in Daniel 12:2 and
Revelation 20 we see "asleep" and then being risen for the first resurrection
when our Lord calls?
What about all the revivals that we are reading about in the
Revival
newspapers?
The Bible teaches that as a Christian, when we die we receive different
degrees of rewards in heaven. And, I’d like to know if you could
Rewards
expound on those different degrees, but also, if there are different
degrees of suffering in Hell?
Between Ephesians 2:8-9, and between those verses and verse10,
something happens after salvation, and it’s denoted by the word
“created.” “God creates us unto good works.” And in Ephesians 4:24 we
are told to “put on the new man created in holiness and righteousness.”
Righteousness
So, God creates righteousness in man, so couldn’t we say, that at times,
when we’re walking in the Spirit, and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh,
the Christian becomes innately righteous, not just inputted
righteousness?

I’d like to know how to respond to a Catholic who, when asked why
they’re going to heaven, whether it’s their relationship or because of
religion or good works, they say because of their relationship with Jesus
Roman Catholicism [01]
Christ, yet they choose to participate in the sacraments. I’d like to know
how to respond to that--if they’re in sin and what should I say?
Roman Catholicism [02] Will people who accept Christ but remain Catholic be saved?
5/18/02


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "S"

Subjects "S"
Subject Questions
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?
Sabbath
In the Bible, John 3:3-5, it says here, "You must be born again to see the
kingdom of God." Then in verse 5, after Nicodemus questioned some, it
says "Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." I
always understood that to mean that "except in water," being accepting the
Sacraments
Word of Jesus, and "of the Spirit, being born of the Spirit," being baptized
by the Holy Spirit. I am just curious, like the church teaches ceremonial
sacraments, the seven sacraments, plus the Catholic Church, I think, does
nine. How do you relate that to the Holy Sacraments?
"As Christians we are supposed to have a smile on our face,

Sadness
yet I am sad and I am always thinking about what I can do to
possibly help the unbeliever, is this normal?"
"What did Paul mean in Romans 1:7, concerning 'To all that be in Rome . . .
Saints called saints? What is a saint?"
"I want to ask why lots of people accept the Lord only when something
Salvation [01] drastic happens in their lives?"
"In Acts 16:31--I come from a Pentecostal background, and they use this
Scripture to claim their family's salvation. I have read the Scripture myself and I
don't believe it--I believe that a man has to give an account to God for his own
Salvation [02]
salvation. It says here, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house."
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/s.htm (1 of 7) [5/21/2002 8:46:15 AM]

In Jeremiah, Chapter 30, verse 21, "'Their leader shall be one of them; their
ruler shall come forth from their midst. I will bring him near and he shall
approach me, for who would dare to risk his life to approach Me?' declares
Salvation [03]
the LORD." What does that mean? Why would God say, "' who would
dare to risk his life to approach Me?' declares the LORD."
Recently a friend and I had some discussions concerning the amount of

information that is needed for salvation. My friend is a Charismatic and has
that background. And we were discussing the “Heathen in Africa” question.
His point was that a person could actually be saved without actually having
the name of “Jesus Christ” mentioned or having the gospel, like the Word of
God, read to him or preached to him, because God could actually speak to
Salvation [04] that person and they would be saved much the same way as Abraham was
saved in Romans, chapter 4, where Abraham believed God and it was
reckoned to him as righteousness. And I disagreed with him, and I said,
“No, because God has given the Word that is what needs to be brought to
them.” And I brought to him Romans 10, that a preacher needs to come…so
we come to you at this point.
Since Christ purchased our liberty consisting of our freedom from the guilt
of sin, the condemnation of God, the curse of the law, and everything else
that came with the saving work…and since God alone is Lord of the
Salvation [05]
conscience, do we, in our trying to keep our conscience pure in the sight of
God, find ourselves working out our salvation by works, and not by faith?
I need to ask you a question about a quote you made a couple of months ago,
in the second part of the Biblical View on Abortion. You said, “It is my
conviction that God redeems murdered infants, that His grace reaches out
and takes those little ones to be with Himself. The Bible is very clear that
people perish in Hell because they refuse to believe, that Hell is for those
who rejected God and who rejected Christ, something an unborn infant
Salvation [06] could never do. And so God, not having a just basis, either internally or
externally, by virtue of the attitude or the action of an unborn child, would
have no basis on which to sentence them to Hell, except for the depravity
they inherited in Adam, which is never a cause for damnation, apart from
its evidence in behavior or attitude. God must then embrace them into His
own kingdom.” I had a problem with this, a couple of problems with it.

A couple of weeks ago at our Bible study, the discussion got onto the
doctrine of election. And, inevitably, it got over to the point of: what about
the heathen who have never heard the gospel? One group's feeling, since the
Bible teaches faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word, that you
Salvation [07] have to hear the gospel and you have to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for
salvation through faith. And the other side, taking Romans 1, verses 16
through 19 (roughly), as meaning that anyone who believed in a god, or who
saw God in the universe, could be somehow saved. Would you address that?
I have someone who’s close to me who lives out-of-state and he’s a

professing believer, but I fear his faith is a dead faith given the lack of fruits
in his life. He does not currently attend church, although I’ve encouraged
Salvation [08] him to go. The last thing I want to do is point him to a church that might
lead him to conclude, falsely, that he’s delivered if he’s really not. I was
wondering if you could share some of your wisdom on this.
My question comes from John 3, and particularly verse five were Jesus says,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And my question is, what did he
Salvation [09]
refer to when he said, "one has to be born of the water," because I know it
doesn't mean that we have to be baptized to be saved?
How can I be sure of my salvation?

Salvation [10]
In Hebrews 4:12, we’re told that the Word of God is powerful, active, and
living. My question to you is this: Does the Word that saves and sanctifies a
Salvation [11] believer’s life rest in the Word itself or is the Word of God the instrument
by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies an individual?
Salvation [12] Is salvation based on accepting Christ as Savior and Lord or does He
5/18/02 become Lord later?
Salvation [13]
How do you know when you’re saved?
5/18/02
Salvation [14] Does God answer every salvation prayer? Is there ever anybody who prays
5/18/02 to be saved and gets refused?
Salvation [15] I’ve heard many times this statement: “When the last soul is saved, the Lord
5/18/02 will return.” What is the scriptural base for this?

This question is about Genesis 3:1, and 3:14, In what form was Satan when
he tempted Eve? It says something in here about "cattle" and he was put on
Satan [01]
his "belly" to go in to dust.
Does God allow Satan to buffet us for us to be stronger in the faith? Does
Satan [02] this still happen today?
Did Jesus really say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes
Scripture to the Father, but through Me"? (John 14:6)
"Some Bible Scholars say that Christ did not promise to come
Second Coming [01] again. Is this true?"
I was trying to look it up earlier out of Isaiah 35, but was wondering that
when the second coming of Christ comes about--the desert--is it supposed to
Second Coming [02]
bloom and blossom with flowers and vegetation?
"What does it mean when in the Book of Jonah it says, 'My

Sheol spirit went into Sheol?'"
In James 5:13-18, where it told about anointing with oil, my question is kind
of a four-part question:
1. Is this for the church today?

Sickness [01] 2. If so, when is it appropriate for someone to call the elders of the church?
3. What kind of sickness is this for--is it only for sin sickness?
4. How does someone at Grace Community Church call the elders of the
church if a serious circumstance should come up?
In James 5:14, it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the
elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
the name of the Lord, and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one
who is sick and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins,
Sickness [02]
they will be forgiven him.” Now, if that’s a promise to the church, then
should we not be doing that? Or, I guess my question is: is it a promise? Can
we claim that as a church?

What signs and circumstances does one need to be alerted to that God
Singleness [01] would use to confirm the gift of celibacy?
There are a lot of references in Proverbs 31, Titus 2, I Peter 3 about what a
godly woman, like a married woman… What is your definition of femininity
Singleness [02]
to the single woman?
"If Christ didn't sin then how can I be acquainted with a God
Sinlessness of Christ who could not sin because He doesn't really know my sins?"
I am looking for your interpretation of Hebrews 10:26 in context with the

passage which says, "For if we sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of
the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." In desiring to use the
Sin [01] Word of the Lord accurately, I have often used this passage in sharing with
people who would consider themselves Christians and desire to continue to live
with their girlfriends, or Christians who justify getting divorces.
Does a Christian have an old nature?

Sin [02]
We know that sin entered the world through man--I assume the word
"man" is used in a generic way, since all enter the world in sin. So, if Mary,
by her own admission, needed a savior, making her a sinner, and since Jesus
Sin [03] was part of her flesh as well as out of the Holy Spirit…I accept by faith that
Jesus was sinless, but don’t understand how Jesus would not be tainted by
sin, since he was born from her body?
The third commandment--“don’t take the Lord’s name in vain”… So, if a

person is an actor and he’s going to play a part in a movie and he is going to
Sin [04] take the Lord’s name in vain, should he not take the part? Or, if he takes
the part, is he going to answer to God?
Are there degrees of sin, as far as...I’m thinking of lusting in your heart
Sin [05] verses adultery?
What is the essence of sin?

Sin [06]
How far can Christians go in sinning?

Sin [07]

I thought I became a Christian 22 years ago, but if I’m more aware of my

Sin [08]
sin now than I was then, does that mean I’m not a Christian?
Sin [09]
Why did God allow sin?
5/18/02
Sin [09]
God cannot sin, so how could Christ have been tempted by Satan to sin?
5/18/02
I have a question about worshipping and fellowshipping with
so-called, or a professing believer who is in sin, hardened sin
of a grievous nature. You’ve come along side them to confront
them and there is no repentance. They go to another church
Sinning Christians
and that church does not practice Matthew 18, and so you have
a situation where the four steps of Matthew 18 are not applied
by their church. They want to go to conferences with you,
perhaps pray with you, have fellowship with you, and yet,
you’re reluctant to do that because of their lack of repentance.
How do I deal with seemingly Christian people, who love the Lord a lot, who
are coming to me, telling me...these are not [just] Charismatic people; [but]
these are just people who look in the Word of God and [say] "you" say
“works,” “works.” How do we deal [with this]? Because I want to stand up
Slander
and say, “No way, this man is standing up for the Word of God.” But how
do we show compassion to people who are saying that like Pastor Hocking,
Pastor MacArthur is a cultist? Do we put them aside?
I was wondering what your opinion was on the sovereignty

of God concerning picking up hitch-hikers or keeping a
Sovereignty gun in your house. Do you believe that you need to take a
step out in faith when taking risks like that?
I was wondering, are there conflicts between the different spiritual gifts? I mean,
Spiritual Gifts [01]
like do you have problems, like if you have an exhorter and a teacher?

On the willingness to appropriate those things which are ours...on a number of

occasions Jesus said in Matthew 13, speaking about the parables and also in
Matthew 25 speaking of the parables of the talents, He said, "For unto everyone
Spiritual Gifts [02] that has shall be given and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not
shall be taken away even that which he hath." Does that in any way imply that
we could have spiritual gifts but because of our unwillingness to use them Jesus
would take them away?
In regard to Luke 22:31 ["Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat"]
Suffering [01] how might that apply to some of the experiences that Job went through?
The Bible teaches that as a Christian, when we die we receive different

degrees of rewards in heaven. And, I’d like to know if you could expound on
Suffering [02] those different degrees, but also, if there are different degrees of suffering in
Hell?
I’ve witnessed to several people who question the existence of God by

saying, “Why does He let the innocent people suffer, innocent people get
Suffering [03]
killed, children die, etc., etc.?”
Can one who commits suicide be saved?

Suicide


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "T"

Subjects "T"
Subject Questions
Referring to your message this morning on Titus and the ability to teach, is
there a difference, and what is the difference, between the ability to teach and
the spiritual gift of teaching that is mentioned in I Corinthians 12? And then,
Teaching
flowing from that, is it possible to be in an elder position or a pastor position
likes yours, without having the gift of teaching?
What has television done to the way we communicate?

Television
How do you know when you are being "tempted" by Satan or "tested" by God?
Temptation [01]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but last week, you said that the devil couldn’t put any
Temptation [02] thoughts in your mind?
In II Samuel, chapter 24, verses 1 and thereafter (about 5 or 6), it would almost
seem as though God is prompting David to sin with respect to the taking of an
inventory of his army and his troops. And, of course, in a footnote in the NIV, it
says that God did not cause him to sin, which is true: everybody has free will.
But, if it was to reveal his sinful nature--I’m assuming--if that be the case,
Temptation [03]
would it not have come about regardless of whether God prompted him with
the quote where it says, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah” and yet
that’s clearly contrary… Because of pride--it almost seems as though He’s
prompting him to do such.
There is a very popular Charismatic TV program that promotes the "law of

reciprocity," as far as tithing goes--giving money to the Lord. In effect, that
Tithing [01] whatever you give to the Lord, you are going to receive it back while you are on
earth. I just want to hear you views on that.
Does God require me to give a tithe of all I earn?

Tithing [02]
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/t.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:17 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "T"
In Acts 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 12, it talks about the tongue as a spiritual gift. My
question is, "How is the tongue supposed to be used today, and how can we misuse
Tongues [01]
it?"
In the account in Acts 2 of Pentecost, as I read my New American Standard

Bible, over and over I come to the feeling that this miracle was in the hearing.
Tongues [02]
I’ve never heard anybody comment on that and I just would like to hear your
11/17/01 opinion of that.
If the Church won't go through the Tribulation, and Matthew 24 has some
believers who will be in the Tribulation, how do we separate the Church and
Tribulation
these people since the Bible has them as one nation?
“Do you have to believe in the Trinity to become a Christian?”

Trinity [01]
The Trinity, how could there be three in one?

Trinity [02]
In a recent conversation with a coworker who’s an orthodox Jewess, she and I

were discussing theology and we were fine on the Old Testament to a point, and
Trinity [03]
then she turned around and said, “Christians are polytheistic.” I had never
12/9/01 thought of this as being polytheistic and I didn’t know how to answer her.

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/t.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:46:17 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "U"

Subjects "U"
Subject Questions
There are some movements in the body of Christ to unite the body of Christ.
I’m not just talking about channel 40 or KTBN, but I am thinking of Wycliffe
too, where they have Catholics and some Charismatics in their organization. Do
Unity
you think that there are any movements that are good, or do you think that they
all endanger sound doctrine?
My question is about being unequally yoked. Some people have told me that this
is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to
Unevenly Yoked business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this?
12/9/01 What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I
have if it is OK for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/u.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:18 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "V"

Subjects "V"
Subject Questions

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/v.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:19 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "W"

Subjects "W"
Subject Questions
In I Timothy, chapter 5, verses 9 and 10 it gives the qualifications for
the " widows indeed," it says in verse 10, "... if she has brought up
children..." Suppose that there is a lady that gets married and cannot
Widows have children, so they decide to adopt a child and later on she becomes
a widow. She raised the child, but she couldn't have the child, would
she be qualified to be on this list?
Will of God [01]

"How do I know the Will of God for my life?"
Could you please tell me how we can each know what God's special plan
is in our lives, in terms of how we can use our talents, or how we know
Will of God [02]
when we are using them in the right direction?
If everything happens in the will of God, then why do people say,

when you’re doing something wrong, “Oh, that’s not in the will of
Will of God [03]
God; that’s not the will for your life”…if everything is in God’s will?
How does a person making decisions know what is the will of God?
Will of God [04]
How can I make decisions consistent with God's will for my life?
Will of God [05]
Can you elaborate on your principles for knowing exactly where God
Will of God [06] wants us and some patterns maybe we can follow to find that out for sure?
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/w.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:46:21 AM]

I always hear that God helps those who help themselves and like you
mentioned, you ought to do something, you shouldn't just be in limbo.
How do you draw the line between the point where you are doing
Will of God [07] something that God can work on and where you're doing so much that it
shows that you really don't have faith that He's going to answer your
prayer?
Where do you stand on the wine issue and why?

Wine [01]
Wine [02] What is the right Christian stand on drinking?

4/21/02
"When the Jehovah Witnesses come or the Mormons

Witnessing [01] should we be bold to these people [or hide]?"
I would like to ask a question of Luke 8:16-18, "Now no one, after

lighting a lamp, covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed;
but he puts it on a lamp stand, in order that those who come in may
see the light. For nothing is hidden, that shall not become evident; nor
Witnessing [02] anything secret, that shall not be known and come to light. Therefore
take care how you listen: for whoever has, to him shall more be given;
and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken
away from him." What does it mean?
I have a question in relation to Ezekiel, chapter three, God appoints

Ezekiel as a watchman over the House of Israel, and He says in verses
18 and 19, "When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you
do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way
that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his inequity, but his
blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked,
Witnessing [03]
and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." My question
is, "If what way or any are these verses applicable to modern day
believers in relation to our responsibility to tell unbelievers about the
Gospel?"

We were trying to tell him about the Word of God and

that it was real. He said, "Well that’s what you say.
You know the only thing that’s real is what I could
Witnessing [04] touch." My question is, when you are talking to
people, trying to witness to people like that, what can
you do?
Is it safe to say when you are witnessing to people to

say that Christianity is not a religion, that religion is
man trying to make himself presentable to God
through his own means and his own actions and
Witnessing [05] Christianity is a relationship with God, having no
confidence in the flesh and putting all of your faith,
hope and trust in Jesus Christ, Who was God in
human flesh?
I’ve been involved in a couple of Bible studies where women have

ended up sharing throughout the time, so I did some studies on it. I
was reading the MacArthur I Corinthians commentary and I came to
a sentence that I wanted you to clarify for me. It says, “There are
Women
times in informal meetings and Bible studies where it is entirely
proper for men and women to share equally in exchanging questions
and insights.”
Would you tell me why the Pentecostal churches use women pastors?
Women Preachers
How would you reply to a believer, in the Charismatic movement, who

agrees that revelation [new] cannot be added to Scripture, but would
Words of Knowledge still argue that God still gives "Words of Knowledge" in the church,
for direction as long as it falls in line with the Scripture?

Is it ok for a wife to work outside the home, and what are a

Working Wives [01] wife's priorities?
Working Wives [02]

4/7/02
In a Christian marriage, should the wife work?
"I want to ask why lots of people accept the Lord only when
Works something drastic happens in their lives?"
One thing the [Church] body does and we do it together is worship. Would
Worship [01] you explain two things? What worship is and why do we do it on Sunday?
Seeing that Christianity is the only true religion and God only accepts
worship from a heart--a clean, pure heart (as the Psalms say over and over
again: “clean hands and a pure heart”), why would you say it is that we’re
Worship [02] constantly told even from the pulpit that we have wicked hearts? And if
we don’t, if we do have new hearts, as the Bible teaches, could you clear
that up for us?


John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "X"

Subjects "X"
Subject Questions

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/x.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:21 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "Y"

Subjects "Y"
Subject Questions

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/y.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:23 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subject Area "Z"

Subjects "Z"
Subject Questions
I ride the busses quite frequently. I see on these busses these advertisements for this
guru, "Have all your spiritual needs answered!" And in light of 1 Peter 3, Romans
13--I tear them down, because I cannot in my "being of beings" allow this to
influence other people on the bus. I would like your comment on that because it is
Zeal
something that I feel. . . .if I had to pull a verse out it would be John 2:17 about,
"My zeal for the Kingdom of God." I would just like your comment in regard to
those actions in light of such things as "Operation Rescue" etc.

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/z.htm [5/21/2002 8:46:24 AM]

John MacArthur - Abiding in Christ
The following "Question" was asked of John MacArthur Jr., the pastor of Grace Community Church, Sun
Valley, California. Copyright 2001 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
What does it mean to "abide" in Christ?
Answer
Jesus defined "Abiding in Christ" when He likened Himself to a grapevine and believers to its branches:
"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so
neither can you, unless you abide in Me" (John 15:4). That picture illustrates the vital union existing
between Christians and Jesus Christ.
The word "abide" basically means "to remain." Every Christian remains inseparably linked to Christ in
all areas of life. We depend on Him for grace and power to obey. We look obediently to His Word for
instruction on how to live. We offer Him our deepest adoration and praise and we submit ourselves to
His authority over our lives. In short, Christians gratefully know Jesus Christ is the source and sustainer
of their lives.
Abiding in Christ evidences genuine salvation. The Apostle John alluded to that when he referred to
defected professors who "went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they
would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of
us" (1 John 2:19). People with genuine faith will remain-they won't defect; they won't deny Christ or
abandon His truth. Jesus reiterated the importance of abiding as a sign of real faith when He said, "If you
abide in My Word, then you are truly disciples of Mine" (John 8:31).
Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-abide.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:47:38 AM]

John MacArthur - Abiding in Christ
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-abide.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:47:38 AM]

Question
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 70-2, 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
I’d like your comment on pregnant women who go to practitioners, that perform abortions, for
their prenatal care and deliveries, please.
Answer
Well, let me put it as bluntly as I can--they are murderers. They are just absolute wholesale murderers.
They may have licenses and so forth and so on, but killing a child in the womb is murder and God
defines it as murder. We are going to get into that, by the way in the month of January, when we get into
Romans 13. It is murder. There is no question in my mind, and there is no question in the mind of
Scripture writers, that it is murder, and we will point the reasons out for that.
I suppose we could make it very crass and say if you want to go to a murderer for your prenatal care,
that’s your choice. I would find it very difficult to do that. I believe with all my heart that the taking of an
unborn child’s life is murder. It is a prerogative we do not have. That is a creation of God. You can argue
all you want about how much that person is a person, but I’ll tell you this--it is a creation of God and that
is unarguable. And once there is a creation of God and you have taken that life, that’s murder. Now,
people say, well, it isn’t a full person. Yeah, but if you leave it alone it will be all a person could ever be.
But you are stopping that process. I believe, also, as I am going to point out in a few weeks, that God’s
going to judge this nation. I think we are on the road to the end of what we’ve known as the greatness of
our land and I think much of it is related to our abortion rate. You see, in the Old Testament, you have a
myriad of passages where the Bible talks about how God says there must be blood for blood, and eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life and what we’ve done in America is murder millions and
millions of persons that God has created, with no retribution, with no punishment, with no justice, and so
what we have is a bloody nation, blood on our hands. We have an absolutely escalated blood guiltiness
before a God who demands a life for a life and I believe we are in such deep debt of blood guiltiness that
as it says in the Old Testament, the ground cries out for thy brother’s blood….Cain and Abel. And it says
later on that the land is polluted with the blood of those who have been murdered, unrequited blood that I
think our nation is under the sentence of God for blood guiltiness. I think it’s a very severe thing and I
don’t think there is any way around it. Now there may be some doctors who don’t understand what the
Bible teaches, there may be some people who advocate therapeutic abortion, or whatever, but plain and
simply from a Scriptural definition, taking a life if murder. And I would have a very difficult time
entrusting the care of any living thing to a person who would do that.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-2-6.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:47:39 AM]

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Abortion and Birth Control -- John MacArthur
the tape, GC 1301, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing,
Question
What is the Christian view of abortion and birth control?
Answer
Now, that is a very important question; particularly, I think, in the day in which
we live, when there is being a tremendous amount said on the subject. There is,
very definitely, a scriptural view of abortion. Just to give you a simple definition,
abortion is—and I’m just quoting medically—“the expulsion of a human fetus
from the uterus, prematurely, with the stoppage of life. When this occurs
spontaneously, it is called miscarriage.” It is the expulsion of a fetus. We have
come to know abortion not in the natural sense or the spontaneous sense, but
rather, in the induced sense where embryonic life is terminated either by medical,
surgical, or chemical or physical means.
Such abortion has become a rather common process of birth control: if the pill
doesn’t work, we get an abortion. Therapeutic abortion, as it is called, is granted
today on three bases: one, when the continuation of the pregnancy may threaten
the life of the woman or seriously impair her health; two, when pregnancy has
resulted from rape or incest; three, when continuation is likely to result in the
birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation. Now, in
these cases, we have what we know as therapeutic abortion. For the most part
today, however, you could get an abortion for any whim or any reason that you
want it. There are clinics that just constantly offer that service.
To find out what the Bible instructs about abortion is, I think, a very simple
thing. Let me give you some incidents from the early church because it’s
important for us to know what the early church thought. In the teachings of the
twelve apostles—which is, incidentally, one of the earliest historical writings that
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-5.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:47:40 AM]

we have after the years of the church (the early church)—it says this: “Thou shalt
not slay a child by abortion, nor what is begotten shalt thou destroy.” The
viewpoint of the first century church and the second century church was that
abortion violated the commands of God.
Tertullian, who was one of the early church fathers, said, “To hinder a birth is
merely a speedier way of killing, nor does it matter whether you take away a life
that is born or destroy one that is coming to birth; that is, a man which is going to
be one. You have the fruit already in the seed.” The early church had a writing
entitled “The Apostolic Constitution” and in it, it said this: “Thou shalt not slay a
child by causing abortion.”
Now, the reason we quote these extrabiblical sources is because the Bible does
not say anything about abortion, particularly. But it does say, “Thou shalt not
kill.” And we believe that the Bible teaches that abortion is tantamount to
murder. That is, I think, supported for many reasons. For one very interesting
passage, look at Exodus 21. And we’re not going to spend a lot of time on this,
but I would like to point out this is where we have some indication regarding fetal
life.
Exodus 21:22. Assume that in the middle of the street or in the middle of the
house, two men start a fight and there happens to be a pregnant lady there who
gets somehow drawn into the fight—not according to her own wishes, but she is
either struck or hit or knocked over or something and you have the incident
indicated here. “If men strive”—that is, if there’s a fight going on, “and they hurt
a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follows,
he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him
and he shall pay as the judge has determined.” If a fight occurs and a woman
loses her baby—without an intent, by accident—then there was a price to pay. “If
any mischief follows,” verse 23, “then thou shalt give life for life.”
Now, there are two interpretations: that mischief means the death or the injury of
the mother or that mischief means the death of the unborn child. And most
commentators would say that it refers to the unborn child. Now, if the unborn

child dies, according to verse 23, if that’s what “mischief” is, then you shall give
what? Life for life. And therein does God regard that life, that fetal life, as real
life, as actual life, and required—if that is indeed the meaning of the term
“mischief” the life that took that life.
I think Psalm 139 bears reading. Verse 13 and following: “For thou hast
possessed my inward parts, thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will
praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works
and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hidden from thee;
when I was made in secret and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the
earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unformed and in thy book all
my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned when as yet
there was none of them!” In other words, “God, you had a perfect description of
me, physically, before I ever existed. When I was yet in the womb and unformed,
you knew what I would be when I was formed.”
“How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God; how great is the sum of
them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand. When I
awake, I am still with thee.” And here we find God active in forming the fetus,
God active in the actual life of that child before it is born. And I think this is
sufficient evidence to indicate that the fetal life is indeed considered by God to be
actual life. And God certainly is the One who created that life. If God wanted
the cessation of that life, God could take care of it. The natural process of
miscarriage is God’s way of aborting that which God does not desire to be born.
And I don’t believe that even in the cases of therapeutic abortion, there is any
justification for such abortion. I think it has to do with the providence of God and
the care of God and God bringing about that which He desires; He will affect
what He will affect.
Now, in the case of birth control—just to add to that—I don’t think there’s
anything in the scripture to limit birth control. Certainly by abortion, yes. But by
other means, I don’t think the scripture qualifies anything against birth control. I
don’t think the argument of population explosion—you know, we read that
somewhere in the world there’s a woman having a baby every fourth of a

second… Course I think we ought to find her and stop her, but I don’t really
think that that is any reason to defend birth control. I think birth control the Lord
has left up to every individual husband and wife for their own determination, for
what is the will of God for their life, and what they are desirous of doing. The
scripture is silent on that issue. I think it is wisdom that does allow for some birth
control in some certain cases, obviously.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Our websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Online since 1986

Question
the tape, GC 70-17, 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 the Scriptural basis for the "Age of Accountability" in regards to children's salvation?
Answer
I think the best way to answer that is to say this: There is no "Age of Accountability" identified in
Scripture, as such. There is nothing in the Bible that says, "Here is the 'age' and from here on you are
responsible!" I think the reason for that is because children mature at different paces. That would be
true from culture to culture, and from age to age in history. So the Lord in His wisdom, didn't identify a
specific moment. God knows when that soul is accountable. God knows when real rejection has taken
place; when the love of sin exists in the heart. When enmity with God is conscience and willful. God
alones knows when that takes place.
Also, it is important to say this: There is no indication, anywhere in Scripture, of the salvation of a child.
There is no illustration of it. Jesus never had an encounter with a child and lead him to faith. He
encounter a lot of people; preached to a lot of crowds, and a lot of people believed, but there is never any
indication about a child believing. So consequently, we have to assume, then, that a saving commitment
to Jesus Christ comes only after a child has reached the conscience reality of rejection, and the
conscience awareness of iniquity. As to when that is, as I say, it varies from child to child.
The Jews, as you well remember, had identified about the age of twelve, and that's, you remember, when
Jesus was taken by His parents to Jerusalem for the Passover and the Feast, and there He was in the
temple questioning the doctors. I think you have a good illustration there; if Scripture says anything, it
sets that one illustration, and Jesus was asking the kinds of questions that were actually profound
questions to the doctors. We can assume then that was the age at which those kinds of questions begin to
be personal. So I have always felt that somewhere around that period of time, the transition from
childhood to adulthood takes place. It's probably not totally disassociated from puberty, where there is a
consciousness of one's own impulses, feelings, drives, desires, and therefore sinful attitudes and passions,
and whatever else that starts to emerge.
Now, as to how you deal with that--I was just talking to a parent about that the other day--I believe that it
is absolutely essential, all the way along with the child, that every time they desire to make a
commitment to Jesus Christ, at whatever age they're at, you encourage them to do that. Because you
don't know, we can't know, when that is a saving commitment. I mean, if I go into a class over here of
five or six-year-olds or seven or eight-year-olds, and tell them the story of Jesus, and ask how many want

Question
to ask Jesus into their heart, they will all say we do, because the story of Jesus is compelling, because
that's what you want from them, and if they love you and you are their mom and dad, then obviously
that's what's going to happen. So, when a child, say at the age of six or seven, or whatever it might be,
says, "I want to invite Christ into my life," then you need to encourage them to do that. Everyone of
those, I see as a step towards God. At what point that becomes saving faith--God knows--I don't know.
But, I also believe, that up until that point of real saving faith, God in His mercy, would save that
child, should that child die. I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a
conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel, of very astute theologians--no one gave an
adequate answer. And I thought, "How can we have theologians who don't know the answer to that
question," "What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to
heaven?" I think the answer is "yes," and I think it is a strong "YES," based upon the confidence of
David who said, when his little baby died, "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." And David
knew where he was going; David knew where he was going to heaven--he knew that. There wasn't any
question in his mind about that, and when he said, "I shall go to him," in those words was the
anticipation, and the hope and the joy of reunion. Now, some people have said, "Well, all he meant was,
'I am going to be buried next to him.'" There wouldn't be any reason to say, "He can't come to me, but,
Oh I'm so glad I am going to be buried next to him!" There would be no joy in that; that wouldn't satisfy
anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven, he
knew that, and that's exactly where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.
Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred
to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used
for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being
taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed
through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of
Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they
are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to
exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.
But, that "Age of Accountability" is not clearly identified. I just think it's up to parents; every time a
child wants to respond and open the heart to Christ--you need to encourage that, all the way along, until
they come to that point where it is genuine, and the Lord knows that, and you may not know that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

Question
Question
My question is from Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire
from the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burning with fire, yet the bush was
not consumed." My question is, Why do some people, older in the Lord, say that the "angel of the
Lord" is Jesus Christ?
Answer
I have to reach back and pull together so many things. There are many places in the Old Testament where
the "angel of the Lord" is mentioned. In many of those places He appears in a form and accomplishing a
mission that is so unique to deity that it appears as if He must be deity. And if, in fact, He is deity, then
He must be that person of deity who is manifest in some element--maybe in fire, maybe in a human
body, or whatever. It is due to the fact that His appearances seem to be the manifestation of deity rather
than a created being, even an angel, and the unique holiness, the unique deliverance mode. The "angel of
the Lord" is often seen as a savior or a deliverer, and there are some passages that may be even more
explicit than that.
Those are what we call "Christophanies" that's a technical term, but it means a preincarnate appearance
of Christ. Now, we shouldn't have a problem with that because we believe that Jesus Christ is the second
member of the Trinity--and always existed. Right? There is no reason not to believe, that before He was
incarnate in human form and came into the world, He was certainly busy doing something. Why not
these kinds of things? The word "angel" should not trip us up, because "angel" simply means
"messenger." Sometimes it could be used in a technical sense referring to an actual angel, a created
angel; but sometimes it can be used in a nontechnical sense, referring to a messenger, such as many
believe it's used in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd chapter of Revelation.
So it would just be by virtue of the form, the power, the holiness of this being, that He appears more to
be deity than He does to be a created being.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Before I ask my question I just want to point out two verses, the first verse is John 3:6. It says,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." The other
verse is Matthew 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but
are like the angels in heaven." Now, my question is about Genesis 6:4-- I’m wondering, in
reference to those two verses, how you would fit the demons, cohabiting with women on earth, and
could not that verse also mean that the sons of God would be godly men and the daughters of men
would be ungodly women?
Answer
Well, there are several problems with that. Genesis 6 says that the sons of God cohabited with the
daughters of men. Some would like to believe that the “sons of God” refers to godly men, and that the
women are ungodly women. Of course, they wouldn’t be very godly men, would they, if they cohabited
with ungodly women?
Others say that the “sons of God” there refers to fallen angels, who cohabited with women. That tends to
be the view that I take based upon 1 Peter and Jude, in which you have angels who left their first
habitation and he identifies them with being at the time of Noah, when the flood came, which is when
Genesis 6 identifies that incident.
Now, the question he is asking is, if this is true, that these fallen angels cohabited with women, how do
you explain the Scripture, “that which is born of the spirit is spirit,” that is in that angels are spirit beings;
and “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” flesh are human beings, and if those two are distinct how
can spirit beings and fleshly beings come together. That’s basically your question.
The only way that could be possible would be in the event that demons were able to take over some kind
of human form. And I believe there is indication in Scripture that both holy angels and demons can,
indeed, do that. If you remember in the Old Testament, you will remember that Jacob wrestled with an
angel. You will remember that two angels came to Sodom in Genesis 19 and there the homosexual
population of Sodom tried to attack those angels, which were in enough of a human form to appeal to
them in a lustful way. You will also remember that it says in Hebrews 13:2 that people have entertained
angels unaware. That is that they have appeared in such human form that they were not distinguishable as
angels. A classic illustration would be in the 18th chapter of Genesis where Abraham serves a meal to
God and two visiting angels because they take on a form. Now, if angels can eat a meal, then angels can

Question
take on a physical form. They are spirit beings but there are times in the Old Testament, such as Jacob
wrestling with an angel, when angels have taken on human form--holy angels. We can assume, also, that
fallen angels can appear in a human form. There are illustrations of Satan appearing within someone,
controlling someone, to what extent we don’t know. It may well have been that in that time there were
human beings who were so totally possessed by demons that they, in fact, were the ones who were
engaged in that. But I really don’t think that violates the idea. Spirit beings are spirit beings. Human
beings are human beings. Spirit beings, by illustration, in Old and New Testament times, can take on
human form. They can appear in human form and in that way be visible to men and in contact with men.
Question (continued)
So are you saying that in this situation in Genesis 6:4, that they took on a form of humans or that
they possessed a human?
Answer (continued)
I don’t know. I don’t know how it happened, because there is not any information about that. I don’t
think they can just go, (he snaps his fingers) like that, and take on human form as such. It’s not a magic
thing. They have access to human form. I don’t know whether they took on a human form that was
distinctly given only to them or whether they possessed certain people and totally dominated that form. I
really don’t know the answer to that. I do know that they left their first habitation and that they became
something that was not true to their nature and therein was their condemnation according to Jude.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Angels
GRACE. Copyright 1990 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
The question’s out of I Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 10. Now, I’m not so sure how critical this is
to anybody’s salvation or their sanctification, but let me read a few verses before to set the scene.
I’ll start at verse 8, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the
man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have
authority on her head because of the angels.” Now, here’s the question, “because of the angels”-
what does that mean? “Because of the angels…”
Answer
Well, many times in the New Testament, we have to transport ourselves to another dimension in which
God is doing things that may not be directly related to us. There are times when God has spiritual
purposes on the angelic level. Do you remember, we talked about that in our I Peter study in spiritual
warfare? That, here was Job and this whole thing is going on in his life and the reason for the whole thing
is God’s trying to make a point to Satan and Job hasn’t got a clue that this is going on. He’s just down
there, his whole world is coming apart, he doesn’t know what is going on, and the issue is God is proving
to Satan the doctrine of eternal security and the perseverance of faith. Satan comes to God and says,
“Hey, you know that guy Job? If I do enough stuff to him, he’ll abandon his faith.” God says, “Have at
him. I’ll prove eternal security with Job’s life. I’ll prove perseverance.” And, Job didn’t know what was
going on.
There are times in this life when God when God may be doing things for supernatural purposes which are
out of our sphere. And I believe that even salvation itself is something angels desire to look into. And I
believe that God is demonstrating His majesty and His glory and His grace to angels through the church;
Ephesians 3 says that, that the angels can see the manifold grace of God in the church. You see, angels
don’t experience grace. Why? Because holy angels don’t what? Sin. So, they can’t experience grace, so
God wants them to know grace. You say, “Why do they have to know about grace?” Because grace is
part of the attributes of God for which they need to give Him glory. So, in order to demonstrate to them
His grace, so they can praise Him for His grace, He says, “Look at the church and look what I’ve done
with grace, in redeeming those wicked sinners.”
And, I also believe that God, in the church, is showing the wonder of His work (in perfection in the
church), by how the church orders its life. And part of that has to do with the role of men and women.
When a woman takes a submissive role--she who was made for the man--when she takes a submissive
role and puts a symbol on her head (because in that culture, when a woman wore a veil, that was the

John MacArthur - Angels
symbol that she was submissive to her husband… And when the women in the church took the feminine
role, in our society today--that’s different. I still think a woman ought to look feminine, and her hair can
be that sign of her femininity, but her whole demeanor should be) that she therefore shows herself under
her husband, and thus demonstrates the wonderful work of God in the church to the angels so the angels
can give Him glory.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-12-2.htm
the tape, GC 70-12, titled "Questions and Answers--Part 40." A copy of the tape can be obtained by
Question
In Hebrews 1:14, it says, “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit
salvation?” Does this mean that the elect who have not yet come to know the Lord are being
ministered by angels? And, if so, how do they minister to them? Since the Holy Spirit does not
dwell in them, is this ministry to prepare their hearts and minds for the day they surrender to the
Lord?
Answer
Well, let me answer the question first of all by saying, go back to the word “will” here and let’s clear that
up. When it says, “They are sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation,”
it’s not talking about unconverted but elect people; it’s talking about saved people who have not yet
entered into their inheritence. You see the difference? In other words, in Romans 13, it says, “Now is
your salvation nearer than when you believed.” What that means is that the full, final inheritance which,
as you know, where it says in Peter: “laid up for us”--we are the ones who will inherit that. It’s not
talking about elect but unsaved people. It’s talking about saved people who have not yet received the
fullness of their salvation.
See, salvation comes in three tenses, right? Past: we were saved from our sins; we are being saved, in the
fact that we’re being preserved and kept; and we will be saved in the fullest and final and ultimate sense
when we leave this world and enter into the fullness of glory.
So, how do the angels minister to us?
Answer (continued)
Well, obviously they do. Right? The fact that they are invisible makes it difficult for us to know how
they do that. And furthermore, Hebrews 13 says we can even entertain angels--what?--unaware. Now, the
only thing I can say is it doesn’t tell us how they minister and it’s such a secret that they could be doing it
and we wouldn’t even be aware of it.
Now, I can give you some illustrations that I’ve read about. The one that’s a classic is the illustration of
John Paton. John Paton was a young man growing up in England and felt called of God to the New

Hebrides, which were inhabited by man-eating cannibals. He was married. And he put his little wife on
this ship, steamer ship, and they went by the New Hebrides and dropped them off in a little rowboat and
they rowed ashore, and that’s how they started their ministry--just rowing ashore, didn’t know the
language, and it’s an island full of natives. People had gone there in the past, but they were invited to
lunch and never came back…you know how that goes.
So when Paton and his wife got off this little boat, they built a little lean-to on the beach. John writes in
the biography that at night he could see the natives peering at him from out of the jungle. He tells stories
about how that sometimes when he felt that they were coming after him, he would be in the river
breathing through a reed. There were other times when he was completely exposed and they never
bothered him.
After a period of time, God began to do some incredible things. First his wife gave birth to a baby, then
she died, then the baby died, and he slept on their graves for three straight nights to keep the natives from
digging up their bodies and eating them. He still hadn’t contacted anybody… It wasn’t long after that that
there was a native thrown out of the tribe and they made contact and he began to use that native to learn
the language and led that native to Christ. He finally had the privilege of leading the chief to Christ,
along with all of them. In fact, it says there was something like 35 churches on those islands by the time
he left.
But, toward the end--and you find this in that book written by Billy Graham, called, Angels--towards the
end, when these people started coming to Christ, the chief came to him one time and asked him “Who
were those soldiers that guarded your lean-to on the beach every night?” And he said, “What soldiers?”
and then he realized that what he didn’t see, God allowed them to see. That’s a very unique situation. We
don’t see them--they’re in a different dimension--but they are nonetheless there, active.
You remember in Daniel? In Daniel, when Daniel prayed and God sent an angel to answer his prayer,
and that angel got held up by a demon for many, many days, and God sent Michael to knock that demon
out and then that angel went on and finished God’s answer. Now, what that tells me is sometimes, when
we pray, God uses angels to answer those prayers. Maybe to protect somebody, maybe to cause some
circumstances to happen, but, unquestionably, to the saved there’s the promise that angels are ministering
spirits.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
Question
I have a young daughter (4 years old), we are Jewish, and we sent her to school in the Synagogue, and
she asked us at the evening meal, "Daddy, why do we eat the animals?"
Answer
If my four year old daughter said to me, "Why do we eat the animals?" I probably would have said,
"Because, they taste good!" And then leave it at that, because somebody said to me, "If somebody asks
you what time it is--don't take your watch apart."
Let me give you an answer from a Scripture, and the answer is a very simple one, I believe. I believe
that God, and this is indicated to us both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, created the
animals for the purpose of food. In other words, that is their created intent. In the Old Testament, God
outlined very clearly--and again you are back to the authority of Scripture, and I appreciate your coming
to ask the question--I really do, but we believe that you have got to have a standard. In other words, if all
you do is try to dream up logical opinion about things, you are going to have people who differ and you
are not going to know where the right answers are. So you accept a standard, and to us the standard is
the Word of God--we didn't invent it, we have had it passed down to us, and when the Word of God says
something--we believe that it is true.
The Scripture says, for example in 1 Timothy, "All things are to be received with thanksgiving." It says
that some will come along and say, "don't eat this" and "don't eat that," but Scripture says, "all things are
to be received with thanksgiving." Now, in Acts, chapter 10, there was a group of Jewish people who
came to a Gentile and Peter was in that group, he had been raised kosher--he had never eaten anything
that wasn't kosher--he was threatened by the thought of eating something that wasn't kosher. The Lord
was making a transition, and so the Lord gave him a vision of a sheet coming down and every kind of
animal was in that sheet, and Peter said in his vision, "I can't eat those things, I've never eaten anything
unclean." And the Lord said to him, "What I have called clean, don't you call unclean." In other words,
the Lord said, "It's all now to be eaten and received with thanksgiving." So the best answer to the
question is, that Scripture says that God has given us those things for food to be enjoyed from Him.
Now, as far as an animal having a soul or a spirit--in a sense as you use the terms--an animal has a soul,
if by soul you mean an internal sort of consciousness, not a self-consciousness. In other words, an
animal doesn't know that it is an animal. It doesn't know that it is a dog, it doesn't know its name--it has
conditioned reflex. It is an outer and an inner creature, in other words, there a physical part and there is
an immaterial response part within an animal that you could call a soul. An animal is neither self-
conscious, that is, an animal doesn't know its an animal, or know its name, or understand itself, and
neither is it God-conscious. It cannot know God. It doesn't know that it's alive it is just alive. It has the
ability to be trained for certain impulses, like Pavlov proved, but, an animal has no God-consciousness.
An animal has no self-consciousness, it has no sense of morality, no shame.

Question
The bottom line is, if you just look at the Scripture, that an animal is made by God, animals were created
by God for a purpose, and one of the purposes was food. Now, further, animals were not only created for
food for people, but frankly, animals were created for food for animals. The whole system of the animal
kingdom is a self-consuming system--everybody has a predator, everybody has an enemy in that system.
The system is such that man is made in the image of God, and that means that man is self-conscious, man
is God-conscious and that is beyond any animal. It is very distinctly in the created pattern--God created
everything that He created, then He created man in His own image--with conscious, with a sense of right
and wrong, with morality, with self-consciousness, God-consciousness, the ability to build relationships,
a sense of shame, etc. And that is why man is a sacred being, whereas an animal is a part of the whole
system of the world which depends for survival upon the consumption of that system.
The only answer that you need to give your daughter is "That's the way God designed the world to
work!" And that is the ultimate answer. I have said that to my kids a thousand times. I don't know
anything more than to say that, "That's the way God designed it to be." So enjoy your "Big MAC."
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I recently have been studying apologetics and studied the "presuppositionalist" side and
"evidentialist" side, and then I came across a book by Mark Hannah called Crucial Questions to
Apologetics and he took a position called "verticalism," which made a lot of sense to me. But, I just
wondered, what would your response be to a book like that, and also, how you came to your own
personal convictions on an apologetics position?
Answer
Well, I am a presuppositional apologist--that simply means that I don’t believe you start from ground
zero with evidence. I think you have to start with a presupposition and that is, God exists and He is the
author of scripture, and that you affirm that by faith and that’s given by the Holy Spirit. I believe in God
because God planted the belief in my heart. And I believe in the Bible because God gave me the belief in
His Word. And, so I start with that. So, my defense of anything will be that God already exists--that’s the
presupposition--and scripture is the Word of God. Evidential apologetics starts with nothing and uses
philosophical arguments to postulate the existence of God and the authority of scripture. The most
popular evidential apologist, the most widely known, would be Josh McDowell, who starts with nothing
and does that.
Now, to be honest with you, I have not read Mark Hannah’s book. I have read some of his material, but
that book on vertical apologetics I have not read. So, it’s hard for me to comment on it. And, maybe a
good effort; I need to read it. Thanks for piquing my interest.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

John MacArthur - What is an Apostate?
Question
What is an apostate?
Answer
The word apostasy comes from the Greek apostasia, which is translated "falling away" in 2
Thessalonians 2:3. The word is closely related to the Greek word for "divorce."
Apostates are those who fall away from the true faith, abandoning what they formerly professed to
believe. The term describes those whose beliefs are so deficient as to place them outside the pale of true
Christianity. For example, a liberal denomination that denies the authority of Scripture or the deity of
Christ is an apostate denomination.
True Christians do not apostatize. Those who fall away into apostasy demonstrate that their faith was
never real to begin with (1 John 2:19).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-apostate.htm [5/21/2002 8:47:50 AM]

Question
Question
I have a question about Apostles. In 1 Corinthians 15:4-8, it says that, "He was buried, and that He
was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, and then
to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also,"--the Apostle
Paul.
What confuses me is that I have always understood that the Apostles were the twelve and Paul, and
perhaps James. So what I find hard to reconcile here is that it says He appeared to all of the
apostles, at least to the twelve, and then it mentions James and Paul specifically. But it also
mentions that after He had appeared to all of those, except Paul, then to all of the apostles. Why
would he mention extra apostles again there?
Answer
I think basically it is chronological: "He rose the third day, and He was seen of Cephas." I believe there is
a certain chronological thing:
1st - He was seen by Peter

2nd - He was seen by the Twelve
3rd - He was seen by 500 brethren
4th - He was seen particularly by James
Now these two, Peter and James, indicate some private audiences, and I think there is reasons for both of
them. First of all, I believe the Lord appeared specifically, in post-resurrection form to Peter, to confirm
Peter, because Peter was to be so absolutely critical for the future of the Church. In fact, Peter is the main
character in the first twelve chapters of the Book of Acts. And, Peter vacillated so much, and Peter
denied Christ on three occasions, and Peter had so many difficulties in confirming his commitment to
Christ, that I think there was a special time when the Lord appeared to Peter. All right, so that's noted.
James was the Lord's half-brother, and James here, is not James the Apostle, but James the half-brother
of the Lord, most likely, who became the leader of the Jerusalem Church. This probably was an
indication of the initiation, if not the consummation of the conversion of James, who prior to this, along
with the other half-brothers of Christ (according to John 7) didn't believe in Him, so it may have been
that special time. All he is saying is, He appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the 500, then
James, and then the Apostles again. In other words, it isn't so much that it is listing all those He appeared

Question
to as much as it is kind of giving you the flow of a chronology. That's probably the best explanation.
You could take it that "The Apostles" is used here in a very general sense, but I like to think of it in a
more chronological thing.
Do you remember what He said to them, when he appeared to them the first time, He said, "Now, go into
Galilee and wait there till I come, and I will appear to you in Galilee." So He appeared to them in
Jerusalem, and went to Galilee later. He went to Galilee and appeared to them again. In fact, after His
resurrection He never appeared to anybody but believers--never. People have always wondered why, if
the Lord wanted to confirm the resurrection, He didn't appear to unbelievers? The answer to that question
is, because Jesus said to them, "I am going to go away and you are never going to see Me again. If you
don't believe what you have seen now--why would you believe that? I mean, if they wouldn't believe that
He could raise the dead, and they didn't believe when He did all of the miracles, that they knew He did--
what would resurrection mean to them? In fact, when they did face the resurrection they bribed the
soldiers to lie about it, so it is pointless. To try to bring apologetics to someone who's a rejecter is silly,
"He that is convinced against his will is unconvinced still." So what you want to do, apologetics, or a
defense of the faith, are a way to strengthen the believers who have to go out and evangelize. So that is
why, if you wanted to pin me down to extrapolate a thought out of this--I don't think that apologetics is
that strong an argument to an unbeliever who has turned away. I think apologetics strengthens the faith of
one who is interested in Christ, and one who is committed to Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Appearance Is Everything
Question
Is appearance really everything?
Answer
An advertising agency wrote seeking our ministry's business: "Let's face it: appearance is everything. Let
us help you enhance your image."
My first thought was This agency must not realize they are dealing with a Christian organization.
But then it occurred to me that this is precisely the impression many unbelievers must get from the state
of evangelical Christianity today: Appearance is everything. Truth and reality often take a back seat to
image.
This sort of mentality has long been a plague on the church, but in recent years it has reached epidemic
proportions. Sadly enough, Christian leaders are frequently the most image-conscious of all. And whole
churches are being built on the philosophy that image is everything, while truth is something that must be
downplayed or camouflaged so that the church can appear in more appealing dress.
In order to achieve a friendly, non-confrontive image, many churches forego the practice of church
discipline altogether, lest the all-important image be tarnished. Sin in the body is tolerable as long as the
carefully polished veneer remains in place.
Worst of all, this attitude is all too pervasive at the individual level. Many modern Christians live their
lives as if a pretense of righteousness were as good as the real thing.
That is precisely the error committed by the Pharisees of Jesus' day. They had externalized the demands
of the law. And many of them lived as if external obedience to the law fulfilled all the demands of divine
righteousness.
Again and again Christ rebuked the Pharisees for their fastidious observance of the external, ceremonial
law—married with a wanton neglect of the law's moral requirements. The Pharisees' teaching had placed
so much emphasis on external appearance that it was commonly believed evil thoughts were not really
sinful, as long as they did not become acts. The Pharisees and their followers became utterly preoccupied
with appearing to be righteous. Yet they were all too willing to tolerate the grossest sins of the heart.
That is why Jesus likened them to whitewashed tombs, spotless on the outside, but filled with corruption
and defilement on the inside.
The notion that morality is merely external underlies all forms of hypocrisy. It is the very error Jesus
decried in His exposition of the moral law in the Sermon on the Mount. The central lesson He
underscored was this: External appearance is not what matters most. The proper focus of the moral law is
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/appearance.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:47:53 AM]

the heart, not merely external behavior.
Jesus' exposition of the law is a devastating blow against the lie that image is everything. Our Lord
taught repeatedly that sin bottled up on the inside, concealed from everyone else's view, carries the very
same guilt as sin that manifests itself in the worst forms of ungodly behavior. Those who hate others are
as guilty as those who act out their hatred; and those who indulge in private lusts are as culpable as
wanton adulterers (Matt. 5:21-30).
So Christians are not to think of secret sins as somehow less serious and more respectable than the sins
everyone sees. Here are three reasons secret sin is especially abhorrent:
1. Because God sees the heart.
Scripture tells us "God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks
at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7). No sin—not even a whispered curse or a fleeting evil thought—is hidden
from the view of God. In fact, if we realized that God himself is the only audience for such secret sins,
we might be less inclined to write them off so lightly.
The Bible declares that God will one day judge the secrets of every heart (Rom. 2:16). He "will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil" (Eccl. 12:14).
Not only that, secret sins will not remain secret. "The Lord [will] bring to light the things hidden in the
darkness" (1 Cor. 4:5). Jesus said, "There is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that
will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what
you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops" (Luke 12:2-3). Those
who think they can evade shame by sinning in secret will discover one day that open disclosure of their
secrets before the very throne of God is the worst shame of all.
It is folly to think we can mitigate our sin by keeping it secret. It is double folly to tell ourselves that we
are better than others because we sin in private rather than in public. And it is the very height of folly to
convince ourselves that we can get away with sin by covering it up. "He who conceals his transgressions
will not prosper" (Prov. 28:13).
All sin is an assault against our holy God, whether it is done in public or in secret. And God, who
beholds even the innermost secrets of the heart, sees our sin clearly, no matter how well we think we
have covered it.
2. Because sin in the mind is a fruit of the same moral defect that produces deeds of sin.
When Jesus said hatred carries the same kind of guilt as murder, and lust is the very essence of adultery,
He was not suggesting that there is no difference in degree between sin that takes place in the mind and
sin that is acted out. Scripture does not teach that all sins are of equal enormity. That some sins are worse

than others is both patently obvious and thoroughly biblical. Scripture plainly teaches this, for example,
when it tells us the sin of Judas was greater than the sin of Pilate (John 19:11).
But in His Sermon on the Mount Jesus was pointing out that anger arises from the same moral defect as
murder; and the one who lusts suffers from the same character flaw as the adulterer. Furthermore, those
who engage in thought-sins are guilty of violating the same moral precepts as those who commit acts of
murder and adultery.
In other words, secret sins of the heart are morally tantamount to the worst kind of evil deeds—even if
they are sins of a lesser degree. The lustful person has no right to feel morally superior to a wanton
fornicator. The fact that she indulges in lust is proof she is capable of immoral acts as well. The fact that
he hates his brother shows that he has murder lurking in his heart.
Christ was teaching us to view our own secret sins with the same moral revulsion we feel for wanton acts
of public sin.
3. Because hidden sin involves the compounding sin of hypocrisy.
Those who sin secretly actually intensify their guilt, because they add the sin of hypocrisy to their
offense. Hypocrisy is a grave sin in its own right. It also produces an especially debilitating kind of guilt,
because by definition hypocrisy entails the concealing of sin. And the only remedy for any kind of sin
involves uncovering our guilt through sincere confession.
Hypocrisy therefore permeates the soul with a predisposition against genuine repentance. That is why
Jesus referred to hypocrisy as "the leaven of the Pharisees" (Luke 12:1).
Hypocrisy also works directly against the conscience. There's no way to be hypocritical without some
searing of the conscience. Therefore hypocrisy inevitably makes way for the most vile, soul-coloring,
character-damaging secret sins. Thus hypocrisy compounds itself, just like leaven.
Beware that sort of leaven. An ungodly culture tells us that appearances are everything. Don't buy that
lie.
The truth is that our secret life is the real litmus test of our character: "As he thinks within himself, so he
is" (Prov. 23:7). Do you want to know who you really are? Take a hard look at your private
life—especially your innermost thoughts. Gaze into the mirror of God's Word, and allow it to disclose
and correct the real thoughts and motives of your heart.
Tony Capoccia


Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?
Question
Can you talk a little bit about Arminian theology? Is it biblical? And, if a church embraces that
theology, are they saved? [Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?”]
Answer
Yes, if you’re talking about Arminian theology. We always want to make the distinction between
Armenians and Arminians. Armenians [are] a people; Arminian is a theology from Arminius. Let me just
say this. This debate comes up all the time, and I like to answer the thing by saying I really don’t land,
necessarily, with labels very comfortably. You know, you can be called a Calvinist or a Hyper-Calvinist
or a Four-point Calvinist or…I’ve been called a Four-and-a-half-point Calvinist… One guy called me a
One-point Calvinist--I don’t know how he came up with that. And people can be labeled Arminian.
I understand what they mean by that, but I, personally, try to resist those labels because those labels are
loaded with different content for different people. And people love to slap a label on you and then
everybody defines that label in a different way. So, I really run from those labels.
At the same time, to put it simply, the debate of Calvinism and Arminianism falls along five simple lines
that we all know about called T.U.L.I.P.: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the saints--T.U.L.I.P.
John Calvin rightly interpreted the Bible to teach that man is totally depraved. What that means, is that,
not every human being is as sinful as he could be or she could be, but that every human being is sinful to
the point that they’re incapable of altering their condition. That is to say, total depravity means you can’t
do anything to save yourself. You can’t even make a right choice. You can’t awaken your spiritual
deadness. You can’t give life where there is death. You can’t come to a right conclusion on your own.
Total depravity means that everyone, is by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own
choices, incapable of redemption. That’s total depravity.
Arminius would say--Arminian theology, Palagian theology, as it’s also called--would say “man is
capable.” That while man is, in the general sense, a sinner, he has capacities within himself to choose to
be saved. That is the debate. I don’t think that’s biblical. I think we are dead in trespasses and sin, and
dead people don’t make choices. Dead people can’t make themselves alive. So, I think there is a clear
distinction there.

In the case of unconditional election, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved
are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition.
Whereas, typically, the person who holds Arminian theology would say that we are saved by acts of our
own will. We have still the power to believe on our own, and therefore, when we choose to believe, we
become elect. It isn’t something that God determined in eternity past; it’s something that occurs sort of
‘de facto’ or ‘ipso facto,’--“after the fact.”
And then you have limited atonement; in the typical reformed view, means that the atonement, in its
actual work, the actual efficacy of the atonement, was only for the elect. That is, it’s limited to those who
believe and were chosen by God, whereas the Arminian side of it would say that everybody’s sins have
been paid for, all across the world, whether people believe or not. So that, in the end, Jesus paid the
penalty for the sins of people who don’t believe. That’s a problem because if your sins are paid for
already by Jesus and you go to hell, then that’s double jeopardy.
And then you have irresistible grace, which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of
a sinner, the sinner can’t resist. Arminian theology would say the sinner can resist.
And perseverance of the saints, the last in the five points, is the idea that if you’re saved, you’re going
to persevere to glory. Arminian theology says you might not--you could lose your salvation along the
way.
So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view
be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be
Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election,
to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s
saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being
confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of
salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push
those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You
could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your
own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could
get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.
But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds
an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t
understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to
save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and
power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could
be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone.

Even if they are teachers of churches who teach that? Why wouldn’t they understand if they’re so
scholarly?
Answer (continued)
Well, they don’t understand--there are a number of reasons why people get it wrong. One is they are in a
tradition where people have had it wrong for a long time. And so, that’s the way they grew up, that’s the
tradition they’re in, and that’s what they understand. In other words, there is a predigested, passed-down
system. Let me tell you, Arminian people can make an argument. They can make the case; they’ve been
making the case for centuries for their viewpoint.
I remember one of the exercises that I had to do when I was a seminary student, in fact, I did it on my
own; I don’t think it was an assignment, but I did it--it was to read Shank’s book on Life in the Son,
which is I think the best, concise argument for the Arminian position. And it is a very carefully thought
out, systematic argument. I also studied the theology of Arminians--Wiley and Miley--systematic
theologies written by these men. They can systematize their viewpoint and once that viewpoint is
systematized at some point in history and passed down and passed down and refined and refined and
refined, they have a scholastic system. I mean, essentially, Roman Catholicism is Arminian! It’s a pretty
sophisticated system that can rise to pretty high levels of scholasticism.
So, it isn’t that they’re not scholars; it’s that they tend to be in a mold or in a rut (I guess you could say)
that traditionally gets passed down.
I also think a second reason why people get it wrong--and this is true for anything--is because they don’t
do the really hard work of studying the Word of God, and you have to drop your presuppositions at some
point.
One of the benefits that I had, is I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher and it was
basically a Baptist kind of environment. And what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground. In
my upbringing, we didn’t like the Calvinists and we didn’t like the Arminians; we sort of had that Baptist
middle ground. That’s probably what a lot of you…you grew in the same kind of environment. You
didn’t talk about predestination or election--that was kind of a frightening thing and that was for dead
Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles--at the time, and
they were over in a room somewhere contemplating their navel and reading John Calvin. You know, it
was very introspective and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group and
we weren’t into that.
I went away to college and essentially I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist.
So, they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a Revivalist environment, and the other was
a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to
imbibe all of this Arminian theology. I got out of that; I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian
influences. So, I went from the Arminian kind of side to the Reformed side, and there I was in the middle

of this mix and I just decided I’d go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said. I think, in a sense, all
of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word
of God and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible
speak. Through the years, the Bible I believe speaks very clearly about what the truth is.
But, I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a
little humble pie and say, “It’s possible that I might be wrong,” and take another hard look at the Word of
God, they would come to the right answers. It’s a very simple point to make, and it is this: if two people
take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong. And it’s not us,
right? Well, I mean, I don’t say that in a proud way. I just believe that we are where we are because we
believe this is true.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question My question is threefold
Question
My question is threefold,
1. How can the Bible be read to teach "Limited Atonement?"
2. How can the Bible be read to teach "Unlimited Atonement?"
3. What do you believe that it teaches and why?
Answer
Let me qualify this, because this is a little bit of a theological question.
There has been through the years a debate about the Atonement, and the debate basically is, "Did Jesus
Christ die for everyone?" In that sense, His
atonement was unlimited. In other words, He died to pay the penalty for sin for the whole world, and
then the gift of salvation is generally offered to
the world.
The second viewpoint is, that Jesus Christ died only for the elect. That it is more logical to assume that if
only the elect are saved--that Jesus died only for the elect, otherwise Jesus died for people who He knew
would never be saved, and what's the point of that?
So this particular debate rages hot at this particular time in history. There are some who believe in a
"Total Redemption," that is, that Jesus Christ provided a full redemption for all human beings, and there
are some who believe in what is called a "Particular Redemption," that He died providing redemption
particularly, that is only, or specifically for the elect.
I find in my own mind and in my own study of Scripture a strong case for a "General Atonement," for a
"Universal Atonement," for an "All Encompassing
Provision." For Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins--and not for ours only but for the sins of the
whole world, tying it in particularly with John, chapter three, "God so loved. . . ." What? "The world"--
not the elect. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beleiveth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in
response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was, was sufficient for the
sins of all the world.

Question My question is threefold
So, I would say, that I believe, and I think this is maybe one way to understand it--I believe that the
atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world, but is efficient for those that believe. I believe in, I
guess what you could call a "Limited and Unlimited Atonement." It is unlimited in the sense that it was
sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world--it is limited, in that it is applied only to those who
believe. I don't like to get pushed beyond that, but I don't like to just take the title of believing in
"Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption," that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that
that has some exegetical problems. I think you would have problems explaining certain passages of
Scripture, but I admit to you that it is a very difficult issue, because there are many passages that apply
His redemptive work "only to the elect," "only to those who believe." But I believe, compared with other
passages, His redemption encompasses, in its sufficiency--the world.
It is no more a contradiction than the many other things that appear to be contradictory. Like, how is it
that people are saved by the election of God and damned by their unbelief? I mean, I think that there are
other issues in theology that are very difficult for the human mind to resolve and that has passages,
apparently, on both sides. For example, you have passages in the New Testament on "Eternal Security"
that say that God keeps us. You have
passages in the New Testament that says that you will be saved if you persevere to the end. So, I think
that we can't get too threatened by the fact that with regard to theological issues, particularly in the realm
of salvation, we may not be able to harmonize everything. You can read some Scriptures which appear
to be limited, some Scriptures which appear to be unlimited--a better way to understand that is in
somewhat paradoxical terms--in some points it is limited, in some points it appears to be unlimited.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also, whether all of them that He
died for will be saved?
Answer
The answer is, in terms of Scripture, is that Christ died for the world--the Scripture talks about the
world. But I think that the way you have to define that is to define it as humanity--human kind. The
question is, "Whose sins, within humanity, did He actually atone for?" Right? "Whose sins did He
actually pay the price for?" "Whose sins did He actually expiate?" "Whose punishment did he actually
bear, and thus eliminate them from ever being judged?" And the answer is, "Only those who believe."
So Christ actually paid the penalty; suffered the wrath of God; expiated sin, and was a perfect and
satisfactory atonement for the sins of all of who would ever believe. Some people want to say that He
actually paid the penalty for the sins of all who ever lived. We have some problems with that. We have a
number of passages in the New Testament that indicate that He died for His own, He purchased His own,
with His own blood He purchased the Church. Those kinds of statements, I think, take the humanity, or
the world and narrow it down more specifically to who it is, it is referring to. So in the end, if He died
and paid the actual penalty for the sins of all people who ever lived, then Hell would be double jeopardy.
Then how could you send people to Hell when their sins have been paid for? So you can't really have a
complete expiation of the sins of everybody, or you are going to end up as a Universalist. So in reality
Christ actually expiated the sins of those who believe.
Now in the end, of course, as you study the elective and unfolding purposes of the decree of God, it is
clear that those who believe, believe because they were chosen before the foundation of the world. Their
names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life and the Spirit of God came and regenerated them by the
sovereign purposes of God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Do you hold to "Limited Atonement"--that Jesus Christ did not suffer, substitutionarily, on the
cross, for the sins of the whole world?
Answer
Yes. But don't go out and say "John MacArthur advocates 'Limited Atonement,' because I don't. And I
will tell you why--because I don't like that term, because it is not Biblical. It is obvious when something
is not explicitly stated in Scripture, and when you are dealing with the inscrutable nature of God and the
mysteries of redemption, and the mysteries of the unfolding divine purpose, and the mind of God--there
will always be grappling with these issues. Whatever it is that you believe about the inherent nature of
the atonement, whatever it is that you believe about the limits of the atonement, whether they're there or
not there--whatever it is that you believe about the actual efficaciousness of the death of Christ and to
whom it is applied, whatever nuances of that discussion you particularly believe--in the end, the
atonement will only have value to those who believe--whatever it is that you believe.
My point is, arguing about that really is pointless in a sense. I understand the debate and I certainly
engage in it heartily, but in the end we make our best shot. It is like trying to define the Trinity, it is like
trying to unscrew the unscrutable, it's like trying to figure out things that are beyond our capacity--
whether you're talking about the security of the believer measured against the perseverance of the saints,
or you're talking about volition and divine election, whether you are talking about any of those kinds of
issues, you are always are going to be in the dilemma, and that is why theological debates like this have
gone on always. In the end, however, we don't need to separate, we don't need to become divisive, we
don't need to sort of break fellowship over what exactly is the inherent, innate character of the atonement,
because in the end, the death of Jesus Christ is only efficacious for those who believe. And in the end,
whatever was going on, on the cross, it has no application to those who don't believe--right? So,
whatever you want to say about it's inherent limits or non-limits--in the end you come to the same place.
It is like the argument about Predestination--people always say, "Well, I just can't handle that God
predestined. I just can't handle that He elected; I just think He knew what was going to happen." O.K.,
let's take that view: "God just knew what was going to happen." When did He know it? Well, He always
knew it. Well, then if He always knew it, why did He create the people to whom it would happen, if He
didn't want it to happen? Even if He knew it was going to happen and nothing more, and went ahead and
created the people He knew it was going to happen too--He acted sovereignly in doing that--did He not?
You can't escape these issues. I'm certainly not going to say all truth resides with me. I believe in a

Question
gospel offer that is universal. I understand the exegesis of 1 John 2:2, that "He is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world." I understand that. I understand John
3:16, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever . . . ." I understand all
of that. I understand the call to go to preach the gospel to every creature on the face of the earth, which
means you have to have an honorable, legitimate call to salvation or you're illegitimate in that. I wrote a
lot of this in the book on the Love of God, trying to cover a lot of these things.
In the end, these things are very difficult for us to grasp, because they are things that are in the divine
mind and we are not capable. Suffice it to say, I've always been content to fellowship with those who
would take an unlimited view, and those who would take a limited view, because in the end, as long as
you believe that people who are putting their faith in Christ go to heaven and those who don't go to hell,
then you are orthodox--and that's the issue. But it is the nature of seminary; it's the nature of grappling
day in and day out, hour in and hour out, as I do constantly in my life, with these kinds of issues, and
reading widely on these things, to sort of pick and chose where you feel the weight of evidence, and it is
usually related to how much you respect the "scholar of choice" or the "author of choice" and that's fine.
That's all about establishing trust and confidence in those that God has given to us as teachers. The very
fact that we are still discussing this issue is pretty good indication that it is not crystal clear, so that we
could all rally around it, such as we are able to rally around some things in Scripture, for which there is
really little discussion, because they are so explicit.
But anytime you are crawling into the mind of infinite God and trying to sort out those matters, you have
to stand with a bit of humility and a sort of a soft dogmatism, and I'm happy to softly dogmatic on this
point, understanding as best I can what the Word of God has to say. I have such a strong view of the
atonement that I would have to believe that if Jesus, on the cross, actually paid the penalty for the sins of
somebody, then they wouldn't go to hell, because that would be double-jeopardy. So there is that issue,
theologically, to deal with, and I know how those passages are dealt with as well. But I think in the end,
we want to maintain some humility. It seems like the younger you are, the harder you hold to these
views, and as you grow in your understanding of Scripture, you are more comfortable with allowing
yourself to leave the real hard questions to the Lord. As I say, what matters in the end is who believes,
and who doesn't believe.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
Could you please clarify the extent of the atonement, limited versus unlimited?
Answer
Well, I don’t know if I could clarify it, but I could take a sort of stab at it. People always ask this question
about the extent of the atonement. What the question is, is basically this: did Jesus Christ die for the
whole world or did He just die for the elect? Now, we believe in election because the Bible says that the
elect were chosen before the foundation of the world--their names were written in the Lamb’s book of
life at that time--and they were given to Christ as a love gift from the Father. That’s what election is. We
were predestined to be adopted as children of God and all of that. So, we believe in election.
The question then comes, did Christ die only for the elect or did He die for the whole world? The debate
circles around these thoughts: if Christ died for the whole world, then He died for people that He didn’t
save and didn’t choose, and therefore you have a wasted effort on His part. In other words, you have Him
(this is the philosophical approach to it) you have Him dying for people who were never supposed to be
saved anyway, so why would He bother to die for them?
Now, in the first place, this is a whole lot of human reasoning and that’s what makes it so very difficult.
Christ died. He died. God knew who His death would benefit, true? God not only knew who His death
would benefit; He decided who His death would benefit. He decided who His death would benefit before
He planned His death, because He wouldn’t have planned a death unless He had planned a redemption
effected by that death. Is that ok, in the “ordis” (sp?) category, Ken? Ok? (he's the Theology professor). I
mean, you don’t plan the means until you plan the end or the goal. So, from the very outset, God knew
that the death of Jesus Christ would be applicable to the elect. Beyond that, I cannot go…except to say
this, that there are some ways--and you can find certain verses that seem to apply the atonement to the
elect only--to go beyond it in several ways, maybe two. One first of all; there are some ways in which the
death of Christ applies to the non-elect and the unsaved, and that would be in what theologians through
the years have called “common grace.” Are you familiar with that term? Grace that is common to all.
For example, in Acts 14, "... in the generations gone by, He permitted all the nations to go their own
ways." He let them go their own ways, "yet He didn’t leave Himself without witness in that He did good
and gave rain from heaven and fruitful season, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." That’s
what we call “common grace”: the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Also, in 1 Timothy 4:10, it says,
"God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." Now, what does "common grace" mean?

Question
One, there is the temporal aspect of it, it's really all temporal, but let's just divide it that way for a
moment. The first temporal aspect of it would be earthly blessing. Somehow in the atonement of Christ,
the wrath of God was mitigated so that He allows even the unregenerate to enjoy life. Ok? I mean, they
can laugh, and they can smile, and they can enjoy the richness of life in creation, and love, and children,
and whatever. But secondly, "common grace" shows itself in a temporal way, in that God doesn't kill
people, in other words, the very fact that a sinner takes another breath is grace--is it not? Because he
deserves to die.
So somehow in the atonement there is found even a "common grace" which can be bestowed on an
unregenerate, and that "common grace" will express itself in the blessings of human life and in human
life itself. But then there is another component, and this throws the mystery into the whole thing, and
that is this: if a person goes to hell, they do not go to hell because Christ didn't die for them--they go to
hell because they rejected His death. Is that not true? Now that's what makes the whole thing
incomprehensible to me. I was fine until I made that statement--right? But that's honest. There is an
element in this whole atoning work that makes men culpable of sin, because "they believe not on
Christ." Jesus simply said, "you will die in your sins because you believe not on Me." And, we are told
to go into the whole world and preach the gospel "to all the elect"--is that right? [No], "to every
creature!"
So, the atonement, certainly in the purposes and plan of God in its efficacy (its effectiveness) was from
the very beginning, planned for and limited to the elect, and yet there was something in it that satisfied
the justice of God so that he could be gracious commonly to all sinners, and there is another component
in the atonement that renders sinners guilty of rejecting it, and thus they are damned. Now, if you
understand all those components and just leave them there--you're ok. And we have to let God resolve
all that in His own perfect wisdom.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Authority of Elders and Pastors
Question
This question is concerning elders’ authority or pastors’ authority over the flock of God. I’m a
visitor here and I’m looking to get some biblical and spiritual training. In making a big decision on
where I might want to go to get this training, I feel it’s important to seek good, godly counsel. An
elder and a pastor is certainly an appropriate person to go to.
My question then is how much liberty does a pastor, an elder have in advising us when or where we
should go to get this training?
Answer
I believe that as far as authority, the only authority any pastor or elder has is the Word of God. When you
step beyond the Word of God, you’ve overstepped the bounds of your authority. I have no authority, if
you’re in my congregation, to say to you, “Go here and get this training. Go there. I command you to...”--
I have no authority to do that. That is overstepping my bounds. I am nothing more and nothing less than
an instrument by which God makes known to you his revelation. That’s my role.
Now, I may say to you, “Given the circumstances, I would recommend this because it appears from what
I know about that and what I know about you that this would be a good choice,” but that is not authority;
that is counsel. My authority stops when I close the page of this book, and then all I’m doing is giving
you counsel. You can consider that counsel as to its inherent value and make your own decision. But I
have no authority to command you, beyond the pages of the Word of God.
That very point is where pastor's and elder's leadership becomes out-of-bounds and abusive and
overbearing. God never intended that. The best we can do is give wise counsel. That’s why the Old
Testament says, “In much counsel, there is wisdom.” The point is there. If God wanted us to just listen to
one guy, He would say, “If you want to know what to do, go ask the elder.” But He says, “Get much
counsel and you’ll get wisdom.” So I believe that our authority stops where scripture ends and then the
best we can do is try to give wise counsel based upon our best understanding of the facts.
Tony Capoccia

John MacArthur - Authority of Elders and Pastors
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Babies and Salvation
Question
After your second preaching [sermon] on the salvation of babies, I was walking out to the parking
lot and I overheard two college girls walking out to their car, and one college girl was telling the
other one that because babies couldn’t comprehend sin and the law and election and stuff like that,
that no grace was needed to take them to heaven. I was wondering how you would respond to that.
Answer
Well, I hope I made that clear in the two messages that I gave. I’m sorry if I didn’t and if they might have
misunderstood me. Nobody ever goes to heaven apart from grace. Babies who die go to heaven by pure
grace whether they understand it or not.
They have to be born again?
Answer (continued)
Well, the terminology “born again”--yes, I mean, they have to be regenerated. They have to be made into
new creations. But, for the baby that dies, that cannot be separated from glorification. In other words, it’s
not like they have to be regenerated and then later on, you know, sanctified, and then later on, glorified.
Their regeneration occurs at the time of their glorification. At the time they die, I think they are at that
moment regenerated by the grace of God, the sheer, pure grace of God, apart from all or any work.
It is all grace because they are all sinful. They are all culpable. They are all guilty before God. That’s
why death is a reality in their lives. But, it isn’t necessary for them to comprehend any of that because
that’s the very point: they can’t. And so, it is sheer grace, which makes it such a wonderful illustration of
how all of us are saved by the same kind of grace--only in an adult case, God, by that grace, effects
repentance and faith in our hearts.
Tony Capoccia

John MacArthur - Babies and Salvation
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Babylon the Great
Question
We have read quite a few commentaries about this and I had a dear pastor tell me that the Bible
casts a lot of light on the commentaries. But, I still have a question I need to ask you. Who or what
is Babylon the Great, as listed in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation?
Answer
I think Babylon the Great represents a worldwide religious system. In chapter 17, a restoration of the
original, anti-God paganism that was associated with the Tower of Babel in Genesis, and thus it bears the
same name. But, I think it’s a worldwide religious system, and it appears to me, if you read carefully
through chapter 17, it centers itself in a city with seven hills, which isn’t too hard to figure out: Rome. It
seems to me too that it’s bigger than Rome because it’s drunk with the blood of all the martyrs, which
means it takes all false religion that has massacred the true church throughout all the centuries--and
masses all of that in one final, great, massive, religious, false system. The antichrist, along with the false
prophet, allow this system to exist for a while, and then consume that false religious system when the
antichrist establishes himself as the only one to be worshipped. That sets up the final Babylon, which is
more of a secular world-economics situation, that you see in chapter 18.
But, I see it as a conglomerate system of false religion worldwide that is centered in the city of Rome and
has, as its titular head, very likely the Pope, whom some believe would even be the kind of person that
could serve as antichrist or the false prophet. So, I see it as a world religious system, sort of centered in
Rome.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Babylon the Great

Question
Question
I got a question from Acts 2:38, Peter says, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." It seems like Peter is indicating that you have got to be
baptized to be saved, yet the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. So I am wondering,
what did Peter mean by "being baptized" and why did he say it?
Answer
Well, first of all you want to take Acts 2:38 in the context of the whole of Scripture and it is very obvious
and very clear that the whole of Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith. If you read
Ephesians 2:8-9 it says just that, "For by grace are you saved, through faith--that not of yourselves, it is
the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast." You also have in Acts, chapter 8, the
illustration of Simon, you remember, who wanted the Holy Spirit. He was baptized, and then Peter said
to him, in effect, you are an unbeliever, you are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity--
obviously baptism didn't save him. Obviously, the lack of baptism didn't damn the thief on the cross,
because Jesus said to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise," even though that was of course a
pre-church situation.
So, the whole of Scripture teaches salvation by grace through faith, but at the same time, the first and
initial act of obedience in the early church, the first and initial act of obedience was the public confession
of that faith. I believe that public confession of that faith came forth in baptism so that baptism is linked
with repentance. "Repent and be baptized" is to say, "Repent of your sin and make public confession."
It may be very much like Romans 10:9-10, "If you believe in heart God raised Him from the dead, and
confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' you will be saved."
So, I believe that baptism was God ordained as a first step of public confession of a repentant, believing
heart. It was so inseparably linked to salvation as to be spoken of, if you will, in the same breath. I
believe, for example, in Ephesians 4, when it says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," it's talking about
water baptism, because that water baptism was such an immediate, visible expression of a heart of faith
that they were tied together. So, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sin," simply takes the confession and the faith and puts it together--one is the heart
and the other is the outward acknowledging and I think it puts them together.
Some would take the word "for," the preposition "for" and translate it "because." I have gone through
that myself and that is a possibility, in other words it would read, "Repent and be baptized, every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ, because of the remission of sins"--adding that "baptism" is there because
you sins have been remitted, but I don't really think that you need to force it to say that. It is simply that
baptism was so inextricably linked to the inward attitude of the heart as the way that the confession was
made that they are tied together, and you see it in verse 41, "They that gladly received his word were . .
." What? "baptized."

Question
Now, you don't want to come up with a "Baptismal Salvation" because that would strike a blow at the
doctrine of salvation by grace through faith which is pervasive in Scripture. So you want to see baptism
for what it is--the outward confession of the inward belief.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
If you have been baptized in another church, whether by immersion or sprinkling, is that
acceptable for membership at Grace Church?
Answer
Well, the answer to that is, "yes," in the broadest sense and I'll tell you why. Certainly, if you have been
immersed anywhere, since you have become a Christian--since you have become a Christian. That is
what we would believe is a valid baptism, and we don't expect people to be rebaptized in our church, as
if you needed a baptism for every church you might attend--you only need one baptism in your life, after
you become a Christian.
But with regard to sprinkling the question gets a little more difficult. I don't believe the Bible teaches
baptism by sprinkling. I don't think that you can support that mode of baptism exegetically, or out of the
text of Scripture, but if a person, in good faith, was raised in that environment, or converted in an
environment where sprinkling was the mode of baptism, and in good faith they made their public
testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ, and were instructed that this is the manner in which you do that--
their conscience was clear and they were obedient to that which was taught to them--we would
acknowledge that. At the same time, we would hope and trust, that over a period of time they might
come to a better understanding of the mode of baptism. We wouldn't want to eliminate their membership
because of the mode, but we would want them to come to an understanding of the true biblical means of
baptism, and at some point ask for that immersion to be done.
Now, if a person were to come and say, "I want to be a member of Grace Church, but I have never been
baptized in any way"--we would ask that they be immersed prior to completing or immediately after
completing that membership process.
You say, "Well, why is baptism an issue?" It's an issue because the Bible commands it--right? It's a
matter of obedience. If you have any questions about that, get the tape. I did a tape a couple of years ago
called, "Understanding Baptism" which summarizes all of it and I know that you can get it in the Tape
Room and probably in the Book Store.
Tony Capoccia

Question

Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Baptism
Question
Is Baptism necessary for salvation?
Answer
No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for
salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5;
Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is
presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day
of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26),
Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is
necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a
concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians
1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly
differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for
salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done
Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood
baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who
were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced
them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The
penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also
experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48,
Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before
being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46)
before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved)
that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-baptism.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:48:26 AM]

other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense.
And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the
general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen,
that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach
otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the
general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach
that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible
interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate
the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in
Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that
fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of
the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected
with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke
24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the
opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only
the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward
symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think
it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual
evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a
thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp.
122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is
simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always
refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16;
11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about
immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to
immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or
repentance.
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a
reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those
passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on
Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus

road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the
phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek
participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by
baptism, but by calling on His name.
Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not
teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
This is relative to the Lordship thing, and it’s not so much a question as just a comment. First of
all, it seems to me like there’s so much heat and not a lot of light going on in this, with all the
accusations you’re getting. I’ve heard you say on occasion, and I really agree, that you don’t make
Christ Lord--that He’s already Lord whether you’re saved or not and whether you even know He
exists. Sometimes I think that there’re a lot of areas where more careful use of terminology would
help a lot. So, I just wanted to commend you for that and say the more you can say it, I think the
better it’s going to be.
Secondly, because of this, it seems like this really has an effect on the methodology of evangelism. I
was listening to a tape by Al Martin where he was pointing out that Jesus basically gave one duty
for us to do: to proclaim our faith in a public manner and that was baptism, not altar calls and
raising your hand and all of that stuff...it really has nothing to do...that’s already been covered.
God has made provision for us to do that.
So, I just would like you to comment on how you feel the truth of this issue should effect
evangelism, including DE [Discipleship Evangelism] and all of those other things.
Answer
I don’t know that there’s any such thing in the New Testament as a non-baptized believer. I mean,
certainly on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 believed and were what? Were baptized. And every other
situation--you know, the eunuch, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” The Philippian jailer--baptized
and his whole household. Paul, with Ananias--baptized. There’s little question about that. In fact, it
becomes so absolutely synonymous with saving faith that Paul writes to the Ephesians and says, “One
Lord, one faith, one-” what? “One baptism.” He’s not talking about spirit baptism; he’s talking about
water baptism, because they were inseparable.
And you’re right in saying that the public confession of Lordship was baptism. That’s right. And I’ve
always said this and I say it again: a believer who is reluctant to be baptized should be questioned as
to the genuineness of his or her salvation. I man, it’s that simple, because that has been that standard,
normal, routine expression of true salvation.
You say, “Well, why is it so important?” It’s so important because the Bible says, “Repent and be--”
what? “Baptized,” and if obedience is the demonstration of submission to the Lordship of Christ, then it

ought to include obedience to that very initial command.
I’ll say it very plainly: those of you who have not been baptized are really a contradiction. On the
one hand, you say Christ is Lord; on the other hand, you say, "I just don’t want to obey Him." I’m not
sure I can comprehend how to read that. It’s a very vital thing.
But how in the world--and I think what you’re saying is so true--we ever associated salvation more with
lifting a hand, walking an aisle, signing a card, or making a "decision," than we did with public baptism?
I suppose it’s the legacy of contemporary evangelism.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a family member that a couple of years ago was taken in by the Mormons (she had a very bad
experience in her life). My grandmother that lived up there died and they had converted her. She was
very senile, so I have no doubt in my mind where she went, she didn't know what she was doing. But I
know they probably went through the Baptism of the Dead. Now, she quoted to me, some time back, 1
Corinthians 15:29, and I have looked at that and tried to study it and figure out what they are saying,
because she said, "It says, right in the Bible, that you baptize for the dead." But yet Scofield says down
below in the footnote, that they are not talking about that.
Answer
Well, Paul is saying, "Why are people baptizing for the dead if there is no resurrection?" And we are
saying, "What in the world does he mean by that?" Right? "What is the Baptism for the Dead?" It isn't
even important what he means--to us. People then knew what he meant. There was some pagan cult at
that time that was doing Baptisms for the Dead, today it would be the Mormons. But, all Paul is trying to
say is, he is trying to prove the validity of resurrection in general. In other words, the whole chapter is to
prove that there is a resurrection, and all he is saying is, "Even the pagans understand that there is a
resurrection, or else why would they be baptizing for the dead?" In other words, he is only using what
we would call a natural argument rather than a supernatural one.
Like we say, for example, the old story of immortality that is told about the little blind boy that was
sitting on the top of a hill and he had a kite, and the kite was pulling against the wind. Somebody said to
him, "Can you see the kite?" He said, "Oh, no sir." And then he said, "Well then how do you know that
it is in the air?" "Well," he said, "I feel the tug on the string that I hold in my hand." The old adage was
that's the way it is with immortality--even pagan people feel the tug of immortality--that there is life after
death. That is why Indians buried ponies with the dead braves. That's why people in Greece put a coin
in the mouth of the dead body, so that they could pay their fare across the Mystic River of Death. That's
why they put a canoe in a Pharaoh's pyramid, so that he could go down the River of Life in his canoe. In
other words, there is something in the human heart that longs for immortality, and Paul is saying in 1
Corinthians 15, "If there is no resurrection, then why are these people baptizing for the dead? Even the
pagans feel the pull of immortality." And of course it [Baptizing for the Dead] was in error, and it still is
with the Mormons that do it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Question
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I was reading through 1 Corinthians this week and I came across verse 7:12, and I
was wondering, if the Bible is the Word of God, then why does Paul say, "This I
say; not the Lord?"
Answer
1 Corinthians 7:12, he's talking about marriage and singleness. It's amazing, I can
go all the way back to my seminary days and we were studying this passage and it
continually is a question of people, but all you have to understand is one basic
thing: what he is saying is (very simple), "to the rest speak I, not the Lord."
Now, all he means is: I am saying this; the Lord didn't say this. Now, there were
a lot of things that Paul said that Jesus didn't say. Right? In fact, Jesus didn't say
anything in the Book of Romans, Paul said all that.
All Paul is saying here is this, "I am saying this; not quoting Christ." That's all.
He is not saying this isn't inspired; he's saying I am not quoting Christ. This is
not something that Christ has taught. See, go back to verse 10, "And unto the
married I command, yet not I," I am going to tell you what my command is,
"Don't divorce your husband, but the Lord said this too." He's reaching back to
where the Lord said that, "Don't divorce," (Matthew 5, Matthew 19). So all that
he is doing here in his discussion of marriage is at one point he is quoting the
Lord; and at another point he's saying now I'm saying this, this is not a quote from
the Lord, but he is not saying that it is not the Holy Spirit speaking through him
in inspiration.
Tony Capoccia

Question

Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Occasionally, you will mention in one of your sermons, and especially when I listened to a few
tapes, that you would leave a word or a particular verse out. An example, would be in the 23rd
chapter of Matthew, I think the 14th verse or somewhere around there, you said, "was not in the
better manuscripts." What are the better manuscripts and how do we determine which
manuscripts are better than others?
Answer
You are going to have to trust some other people on this one. This is such a difficult issue, not difficult
for me to understand, but difficult to communicate to you in a way that is going to be understood,
because it is such a long, drawn out thing.
You have in your hand a Bible, maybe you have like I do, "the Holy Scolly," Scolfield's notes, you know,
"My hope is built on nothing less than Scolfield's Notes and Scripture Press" or "Moody Press" I guess.
Some of you have the New American Standard (NASB); some of you have the NIV (New International
Version); some of you have the Amplified Bible, I don't know what all you have. Some of you may even
have an old Confirnity Version, or Douay Version, you got from your Catholic days with the Apocrapha
in the middle. You may have a Living Bible, which is not a Bible, but a commentary on the Bible--a
paraphrase. But, there are all kinds of things like that.
Some of you have a 1901 American Standard--all these various things, alright? Now, the Bible you have
is in our culture. In Latin America they have a Spanish Bible and it's going to be translated out of the
original languages into Spanish. In Europe they are going to have a French one, they are going to have a
German one, they are going to have an Italian one. You go to the Orient, they are going to have Japanese
one, a Chinese one, a Korean one, etc. So, these people who come along and say that the "King James" is
the only right Bible--that's not even thinking clearly, because that is an English translation, what are we
saying? That is almost like Hitler's "Doctrine of the Supreme Race," as if we got all the corner on all of
the truth, and the rest of the world is limping along without the full revelation.
Let me just back up from that by saying this, all the Bibles that we do have are basically translated into
the languages in which we read them from "manuscripts." The Bible was written in the Old Testament in
Hebrew, with the exception of several passages in Aramaic, which is a Hebrew type language. The New
Testament was written entirely in Greek, not classical Greek like Ceaser's "Golic Wars," but "koine" or
common Greek, which is a "street Greek." So, what we have to do then, to find out what the Scriptures
really say, is to collect the ancient manuscripts.

Question
Point 1. We have no original manuscripts, we have none. We don't have the original Isaiah, we don't
have the original John, the original Acts, the original Romans. What we have is copies, and we have
copies, and copies, and copies, because once the Scripture was given everybody started to copy it. It was
a perfect opportunity for people to change it, as it went copying along--they could put in something here,
put in something there. And maybe a scribe made a mistake, I mean, sitting down to copy the whole Old
Testament would be a tough job--right? Especially, do you know what they did to help themselves? They
took out all the vowels--they took out all the punctuation, all the paragraphs and all the spaces, and just
wrote consonants in big long strings.
So scholars just have to come back in--and it is not hard to do if you know Hebrew well. But anyway,
they wrote, and wrote, and wrote, in fact, they say Ezra could write to whole Old Testament from
memory (he was a scribe) without error. And many of them would write one letter [single character],
they were so precise--they would write one letter and wash their pen, because they didn't want to change
one single letter. But, there were some who more careless than that.
Through the years of history we have had scholars that are working in a field that is known as "lower
criticism" (that's just what they call it). Who have collected and studied all the groupings of these various
manuscripts, and they have come down, basically, to two groups of manuscripts. But these two groups of
manuscripts; one of them has produced the King James and the other has produced all of the other
modern translations. That second group, that has produced all the modern translations, has had the
benefit of all the years of study since 1611 when this King James came out. In those 300 years there have
been many other manuscripts found, which we now know were the better manuscripts, because there is a
science of comparing them.
For example, if you find two manuscripts and one makes something very difficult, like one manuscript
says, "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to get into heaven," and
this manuscript family says, "It is easier for a thread to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to
get into heaven,"--which is the right one? The "camel" has to be right. Because a scribe would change a
camel to a "thread," but a scribe would never change a "thread" to a camel. So, one of the laws of lower
criticism is you always take the more difficult rendering, because you assume people would try to make
it easier, not harder.
So, there are many, many principles that they use in the study of lower criticism and what they have
come up with is these two families of manuscripts. The King James was based upon the "best" available
stuff in 1611, but now the stuff that the NAS and others have based upon, the NIV, is now manuscripts
that are older than the King James manuscripts, and the further back you get, in most cases, the purer you
are going to be. Right?
So, that's why, from time to time, we say, "That the better manuscripts indicate" such and such. The
newer manuscripts have the benefit of all that was in the other set, and all that has been added to that
since that time. You can thank the Lord that there are men who spend there whole life just fussing around
with these manuscripts.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I am becoming extremely confused and frustrated. This is when you, as well as a few other
ministers, state that certain Scriptures (usually from KJV) are not accurate according to the best
manuscripts, and that the KJV is not really the most accurate translation. Yet, I have heard and
read from equally godly sources that the KJV is the most accurate, and they give source material
for this conclusion that sounds most convincing.
So, I would very much appreciate a clarification. When you refer to a KJV Scripture as "not
according to the best manuscripts" just exactly what do you mean and what exactly are the best
manuscripts? If KJV is not the most accurate translation, then which translation is and why do
you regard it so?
I'm sure you will agree that in this day and time we all need to be able to point to God's Word and
say to the ungodly, et. al., that it is accurate and why. It is most important that we all know and be
sure of what we are talking about, in order to be witnesses of the true Word of God.
Answer
The question you raised concerning various Bible versions is a very complex issue that cannot be
adequately discussed in a letter. Often times it is filled with more emotion and heat than it is knowledge
and light. Let me share with you my own conclusions after studying these issues. Bible versions, such as
the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men
of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today. May I
add, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King
James Version's translators in 1611. I would have no reservation in recommending these versions, yet I
myself choose to continue using the Scofield Reference Bible because it is the text with which I am most
familiar.
Let me recommend a recent book which very carefully discusses the issues. I think you might find it
helpful. The author is Donald A. Carson, "The King James Version Debate," published by Baker Book
House.
Just a final word, keep in mind that the supporters of "God wrote only one Bible" theology have
mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts written in the first century.
It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.
These are detailed issues, especially for those who are not trained in the field of the Greek language and
New Testament textual studies. But I trust that these brief comments will prove helpful.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/991224.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:48:32 AM]

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Science in the Bible
Question
Can you give me a reference of some people that have, or maybe yourself, that have written some
books about science in the Bible.
Answer
Oh, there are plenty of things like that. I’ll tell you a really, really helpful book, written by Henry Morris,
who’s an outstanding creation scientist…he’s got an excellent, excellent…well, several books…you can
check them in the bookstore or in the library. I can’t remember the name of the latest one. I just gave
mine to somebody just about a week ago to look at. It’s his book on apologetics-“why I believe” or
something like that. Many Infallible Proofs, that’s it! Many Infallible Proofs. Really good. It’ll load you
with more stuff than you can handle. And it’s done properly.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-13-16.htm [5/21/2002 8:48:33 AM]

John MacArthur - Bible Translation
Question
Which Bible translation is best?
Answer
The four English translations used most widely by evangelical Christians are the King James Version
(KJV), The New King James Version (NKJV), the New International Version (NIV), and the New
American Standard Bible (NASB).
The KJV is the oldest of the four and continues to be the favorite of many. It is known as the Authorized
Version of 1611 because King James I approved the project to create an authoritative English Bible.
Although it contains many obsolete words (some of which have changed in meaning), many people
appreciate its dignity and majesty. The NKJV is a similar translation, taken from the same group of
ancient manuscripts, that simply updates the archaic language of the KJV.
The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but
aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV does not follow the exact wording of the original
Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the KJV and NASB versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered
a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for
devotional reading.
The NASB, completed in 1971, is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It is a literal
translation from the Hebrew and Greek languages, making it a favorite for serious Bible study.
Which version is the best to use? Ultimately, that choice needs to made by each person individually.
Each of the versions have strengths and weaknesses, but they are all reliable translations of the Bible.
Ideally, the serious student of Scripture should become familiar enough with concordances and word-
study aids, so that even without a thorough knowledge of the original languages, he or she can explore
some of the nuances of meaning that arise out of the original texts.
For further study:

D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).
James White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995).
Tony Capoccia
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-translation.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:48:34 AM]

John MacArthur - Bible Translation

Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-translation.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:48:34 AM]

John MacArthur - Bible
Question
A few weeks ago, I was witnessing to a Mormon friend of mine and we were discussing The Book of
Mormon and I brought to her attention that she claimed to believe in the Bible, and if she did so,
then she couldn’t hold The Book of Mormon on the same authoritative level because of Revelation
22:18-19, which, in paraphrase, states that no one can add or take away from this book without
receiving judgment from God. Her response to me was that if that was true and if that meant that
revelation from God was done and over, then how do I explain Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, “You
shall not add to the Word, which I command to you, nor take from it,” since a lot of books were
written after Deuteronomy?
Answer
Well, that’s a good question and you need to have a good answer for that. And the answer in both cases
is this: when God has finished giving his Word, you can’t add to it. It is very obvious that the Word of
God was not finished with the Law of Moses--it wasn’t finished. That principle is still true. We also
know that with the book of Revelation written by the apostle John, the last living apostle, who wrote that
in about 96 A.D., and most of the all the other apostles are long dead. You have the last apostle writing
the last letter about the final end of the entire universe and God ends the Scripture at that point. And at
that point, then you apply the Deuteronomy 4 passage and you apply the Revelation passage. When God
is finished, that’s the end. That is the meaning of that. So you don’t want to make too big an argument--
and that’s what this person is pointing out to you--you don’t want to make too big an argument about
where that statement is placed in the sequence. We all know that there are 39 books in the Old
Testament, which were inspired by God, but once that was finished and the canon was closed and
completed and unarguably affirmed to be the true canon: God had spoken and when He was finished
speaking, you don’t add to that.
But God himself wasn’t finished, even at the end of the Old Testament canon. As the writer of Hebrews
says, “God who at sundry times and in diverse manners, spake in time past by the fathers through the
prophets has now spoken unto us by his Son.” And so you have the whole New Testament in which God
presents Christ. The gospels tell the story of Christ; Acts tells the story of the spread of the gospel of
Christ; the epistles explain the meaning of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and the punctuation point
is the Book of Revelation, which details his Second Coming and the establishment of his eternal glory.
Those verses simply mean that when God is finished speaking, that’s the end; you can’t add to what God
has said. Joseph Smith is one of those “yous” who can’t add to what God has said, and neither can

anybody else add to what God has said.
Just a little footnote: I was talking to the elders a little bit about this on Thursday night because
everybody gets into these kinds of apologetic arguments with people…and I want you to understand
something at the very outset. It’s very good to give people answers, it’s good to give people reasons for
faith, but understand this: unconverted people have no capacity to process that information. They have no
capacity. If we know anything about an unconverted person that is absolutely true and definitive, it is the
biblical definition of their condition. The biblical definition of their condition, in Ephesians, is that they
are dead in trespasses and sins.
Dead people don’t think clearly about anything. I think we would all agree on that principle. They have
no capacity to think clearly about things. In Ephesians 4, “They walk in the emptiness of their mind, their
understanding is darkened, and they are alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in
them because of the blindness of their heart.” That is a profound condition!
Let me just go over that. “They are futile in their mind”; what that means is they can’t think right. If you
don’t have a Christian, biblical worldview, you can’t think straight, because fallen people, though they
have reason, that reason is profoundly affected by their selfish sinfulness and so convoluted that their
thinking is futile in terms of grasping truth. “Their understanding is darkened,” further, “They are
alienated from the life of God. They are ignorant and they are blind in their heart, they are past feeling”--
I mean, it goes on. So what you’re dealing with is someone who has basically no capacity. That’s why
when you talk to somebody, you argue with somebody, you get so frustrated because it’s so clear to you.
[You say to them,] “Why isn’t everything so clear to you?!” You say, “Why don’t they get it? Why don’t
they get it? I tell you, if we give them just reasonable stuff here, if we just lay it out, don’t they have the
reasoning capacity to grasp this and to sort it out and to come to a proper conclusion?” Answer: No. No.
They don’t…unless the Spirit of God awakens them from the dead.
If people don’t believe the Bible, your clever arguments aren’t going to make them believe the Bible. If
people don’t believe the gospel, your clever arguments aren’t going to make them believe it. If they don’t
believe doctrines affirmed by the Scripture, you can argue till you're blue in the face; they do not believe
because they are blind, they are ignorant, they are empty in their thinking. You have to just keep giving
them the truth.
And remember this: it’s more important that you proclaim the truth than that you somehow try to reason
them into believing it. Proclamation is the thing. Proclaim the truth and if the Spirit of God wants to do
the work of awakening them from the dead, the proclamation of the truth is all that’s needed. That’s all
that’s needed. I’ve learned that through the years and I was telling the elders this and I mentioned it, I
think, here, a week or so ago. Whoever knows the Bible best is the best defender of the faith. It’s not the
person who’s most philosophically acute. It’s not the person who’s sorted and figured out all the rational
arguments. Whoever knows the Bible best is the best defender of the faith because the way you defend
the faith is to proclaim the faith. The only way people will ever believe it is when the Spirit of God,
under the proclamation, quickens their heart to receive it.

So just keep proclaiming the faith. And what I do with people like that, whenever I have the opportunity
to talk with them, is to push them towards Christ, and encourage them, unaided by some of their, you
know, aberrant material, to read the record of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in the four gospels and
let them reveal the reality of who Jesus Christ really is. Exposing them to the Word of God is the key.
And I say again, the way to defend the faith is to know the Bible and to simply proclaim it. The Spirit of
God can quicken the heart of people to believe the Bible, even though they have all kinds of arguments
not to believe it. You can argue with them and show them reasons and they never do respond, then all of
a sudden the Spirit of God awakens their heart and instantly they believe the Bible! I’ve seen it happen
all my life. All of a sudden, they believe the Bible. I get letters like that; they come into Grace to You
constantly--just read one the other day. A man said, “I believed in evolution, I believed in
evolution…God awakened my heart, all of a sudden, I believe in creation, because it's in the Bible!” It’s
a resurrection. It’s an awakening.
So, I just say that to encourage you. Just keep proclaiming the faith. Make Christ the object of the your
proclamation. Trying to reason with those people is difficult because they don’t have the capability that
you have because you exist with a Christian worldview and a biblical paradigm and you think the way
God wants you to think. They don’t.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I have a question about the church of the east and the Aramaic translation of the Bible. I’ve been
reading that they claim that those are the literal words of Christ, rather than the Greek or an
English translation of the Bible. I was wondering if you could comment of that.
Answer
Well, it’s likely that Jesus, when He lived on earth, spoke Aramaic. It was the common language of the
people. And sometimes in the New Testament you have Aramaic names or you have a quote--some
Aramaic that’s translated for us; it’s even translated by the writer of Scripture. But, that’s irrelevant!
What is relevant is that when inspired the Bible, He inspired it in Hebrew--the Old Testament--with a
few sections which are in Aramaic and He inspired the New Testament in Greek. That is to say, when
Matthew wrote Matthew, he wrote it in Greek. When Mark wrote Mark, he wrote it in Greek. When
Luke wrote Luke, he wrote it in Greek. When John wrote John, he wrote it in Greek. When Luke wrote
Acts, he wrote it in Greek. And then when Paul and Peter and John and James wrote their epistles, they
wrote them in Greek. And when John wrote the Revelation, he wrote it in Greek. All the manuscripts
going all the way back affirm and attest to the fact that they were all written in Greek. That is to say, the
inspired text of Scripture, when God inspired it, in the original autographs, was given in the Greek
language! Not in Aramaic, though Aramaic was the common street language--the common language of
the day of Jesus, very likely spoken by the Jewish people in Israel.
That is not the language that God chose, obviously, because He felt that Greek was a more expansive
language with more nuances. For the theological clarification the New Testament demanded, God chose
the language of Greek. To say that we should reject the Scripture in favor of some Aramaic record of
Jesus is tantamount to denying the Bible’s inspiration! It’s a serious issue. It doesn’t matter what
language a given conversation might have been in. I’m sure when the apostle Paul in the book of Acts
was having a conversation with Agrippa or with Felix or when he was talking to Roman soldiers, there
might have been different languages used. When he got to Rome and when he was a prisoner in Roman
jails, they weren’t talking Aramaic.
It’s immaterial what the language being spoken was; what is material is that when God inspired the
writers to write, they wrote in the Greek language, the New Testament. And to say that the true record of
Jesus is some lost Aramaic manuscript or something is, in fact, to deny the Scripture, the inspiration.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
What about those Bible Study courses advertised in the newspapers and magazines by the
Christadelphians?
Answer
There was another article in the Daily News, actually it was an ad, and it says, "Reading the Bible
Carefully--An Exciting 12-week hands-on seminar beginning Thursday, January 11th." It goes on to talk
about the fact that, "Many of the problems people have in understanding the Bible," it says, "comes from
not reading it carefully." So this man, and his organization are going to help you to read the Bible
"carefully."
They give as an illustration, "Did you know that even though most everyone talks of the 'apple' that
Adam was given by Eve to eat, the Bible mentions nothing about an 'apple' at all. So you can join us as
we sit down together in a class and read the Bible carefully." Well, in the first place, who said it was an
"apple"? I never said it was an apple, and I am not sure that any Bible teacher ever said that it was an
apple. I don't think that is a very good way to attract a crowd, because who really cares whether it was or
it wasn't, and why would people want to come to discover such trivial things as that? But anyway, it tries
to pull you in, and if you read through it carefully, it says that they are going to talk about "Creation, the
Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, Noah and the Great Flood, the Tower of Babble, the Promises made to
Abraham," and so forth.
And then there is a little tiny note at the side that says, "The expense of these seminars is being absorbed
totally by the Christadelphians." You need to know, because I have been asked this, regarding this
article, that the Christadelphians is a cult. Their subtleties is that they say here, "That they are
fundamentalists." It says, "That the sessions are sponsored by the Christadelphians, a fundamental
Christian Community that wholeheartedly believes the Bible alone holds the answers," and so forth. But
the Christadelphians are a cult, they have been around for a while, and they do not hold to the doctrines
of Scriptures, and you need to be very careful about that.
But if you were to read that; if the average person was just to read that, it would sound like this is
evangelical, fundamental, basic Christianity. And when they pick up the Times and read about "God is
doing something," then this is how people view Christianity. This is supposed to be it; this is supposed
to be the movement of God, and I think even believers and unbelievers can really be duped if they come
to those conclusions, so you need to be very discerning. It's a real battle out there to reach people with

Question
the truth in the midst of all of this aggressive error. So we have to be discerning people and we know
that, and we are working hard to make sure we are.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
How are we as Christians to view the new wave of science creating life, as they want to call it, in the
laboratory. The "test-tube babies," the "sperm-banks?"
Answer
I suppose everybody has to draw the line somewhere. I don't know how to answer the question--it is
such a broad question--except to say, anytime that you do anything other than the normal God-intended
means--I get nervous. There are some things that seem to me to be really beyond acceptance, like taking
a conceived embryo and planting it into another person. I know that they are involved in doing some of
that kind of stuff. You can go back to the bottom line thing and say, "If the Lord meant you to have a
baby--you'd have a baby--you don't need to go through all of that." On the other hand, if you can't have a
baby you can certainly adopt a baby. That's pretty much the traditional view. I feel very comfortable
with that view.
At the same time I know that there are couples who go see "Infertility Specialists." In fact, we have
medical doctors in our church who are OB-GYN Infertility Specialists, and they provide some kind of
service to folks to let them know what their alternatives are--I don't think that they are advocating any of
this stuff, but there are ways that you can assist a couple. Somebody can say, "Well, if God wanted you
to have a baby, you'd have a baby, so don't go to the doctor." But if you push that too far, you are going
to be holding on to a tree in the back yard, with a leaf--dropping your baby on it--that's a "jungle
approach." We do want some help, and so we go to a hospital. If we can't have a baby normally, we
don't say, "Well, if God didn't want me to have the baby leave it alone." We say, "No, I will take it
Caesarean--I mean, just get the baby!" So, we are grateful for medical advances, but it becomes a very
difficult thing to know exactly where you draw the line.
I think, when you get outside the couple itself--that's where I have a problem--either physically outside of
them or relationally. In other words, where you impregnate a woman with somebody else's sperm--other
than her husband, or where you have some kind of surrogate mother situation--which is done all the time,
of course, in the breeding horses and things like that. Anytime that you get outside of working with
those two people that God brought together for the production of that child--I think you got a real ethical
problem. It is going to get more bizarre all the time.
Crick (sp.) and those guys kind of set the stage for this, but what they are after is genetic engineering and
we are already a long way down the line. Abortion is one step towards genetic engineering. Abortion
basically says, "We now have developed the right to murder anybody that we don't want to be born."
The more sophisticated our prenatal technology becomes, the more able we are to determine the
character and quality of the infant that's there. If they can grow a baby in an artificial womb and chart
the course of that baby, and monitor that thing, they will develop the technique to determine its physical
skills, its mental skills or whatever, they will figure out ways to do that, and then pretty soon it will be a
question of who gets to live and who doesn't get to live--then comes breeding and so on and so forth.

Question
I really believe with all my heart, and some of these things that I say might sound frightening, and I think
they are--I really believe that there are people who want to engineer the human race--the humanist. You
see, they want to eliminate crime and they want to eliminate all the problems in society, they want to
eliminate the drones on the society, the welfare cases--the people that just eat up the resources of
society.
The way to do that is:
1. To Control Birth.
So first what did we have? We had a big wave of birth control. All the scare tactics in the world.
Right? "We have too many people, we have too many people." I don't know if you know this--the entire
population of the world would fit into the state of Rhode Island--the whole world. But anyway, we have
all been scared out of our wits about having too many babies [and] they did that for a long time.
2. To Kill the Babies
The next step was--we will start to kill the babies and we will do it under the guise that a woman has the
right to her own body, which isn't the case at all--it's just murder--plain and simple! It was basically
generated by some Jewish Lesbian women, the whole thing, and it's all part of a much bigger conspiracy
than we understand. You look behind the scenes and you will find that there are many people who are
antagonistic to Christ behind the scenes. It is really something; I could talk about that sometime.
Then you come to abortion thing and pretty soon there is a tolerance for some abortions, and now it is
anybody, anyplace, anytime, can get an abortion. It has become a method of birth control.
The next thing in the engineering process will be to determine how the fetus develops, and then we will
find out what fetuses we want and what ones we don't want. And then if we can plant sperm in anybody
that we want, then we will start to do that. And it's all part of, ultimately taking us to the point of
engineering all this stuff--it's really frightening. It's an attack on God and His sovereignty.
So, I think that anytime you go beyond the couple that God brought together and try to create a life, then
you really have got yourself into a serious Biblical and ethical problem.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Question

Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What does the Bible teach about birth control?
Copyright 2001 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
What does the Bible teach about birth control?
Answer
To begin with, we know God looks approvingly on the bearing of children. That is evident from Titus 2:3-
5 and Paul's exhortation to young widows in 1 Timothy 5:14. Psalm 127:3-5 says children are gifts from
God and the man who has many of them is blessed. A large family involves increased responsibility, but
children raised in a godly way will influence the world for good and for God's glory.
Nevertheless, nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a
limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their
family is complete.
However, not all methods of birth control are acceptable. Abortion, perhaps the most widely used "birth
control" method today, is tantamount to murder (cf. Exodus 21:22, where the killing of an unborn fetus is
punishable by death). Psalm 139:13-16 clearly indicates fetal life is human life. Any form of birth control
that destroys the fetus or fertilized ovum rather than preventing conception is therefore wrong.
Other methods of birth control, including the pill, condoms, and the common surgical procedures of tubal
ligation or vasectomy, do not pose a problem biblically. If both spouses are persuaded in their consciences
before God that they should have no more children, no Scripture prohibits them from carrying through
with that decision.
In our viewpoint, birth control is biblically permissible. At the same time, couples should not practice
birth control if it violates their consciences (Romans 14:23)--not because birth control is inherently sinful,
but because it is always wrong to violate the conscience. The answer to a wrongly informed conscience is
not to violate it, but rather to correct and rightly inform one's conscience with biblical truth.
For further study we recommend the following books by Dr. Franklin E. Payne: Biblical and Medical Ethics (Milford, MI: Mott
Media, 1985), and Making Biblical Decisions: Birth Control, Artificial Reproduction and Genetic Engineering (Escondido, CA:
Hosanna, 1989). Another excellent book is Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993), by John and Paul
Feinberg.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/birthcontrol.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:48:40 AM]

John MacArthur - What does the Bible teach about birth control?

Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/birthcontrol.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:48:40 AM]

Question
Question
I have a question on Isaiah 7:14-16. In the context when you read it, it sounds as
though the child had to be born during the time of the prophet, whereas Matthew
refers it to the birth of Jesus?
Answer
That's a difficult passage. I was reading not long ago on this passage and I would
commend for your reading, if you can get a hold of it several things: my dad has
recently done an awful lot of work on this passage; it's too complex to dig into
there. There is, I think, a legitimate prophetic application here and I think that he
has done a good job. What I will do if you give me your name and address, I will
send that to you, because I think you would enjoy reading it.
The other view that I have heard recently, and I heard this at the Inerrancy
Congress when we were discussing these passages, Dr. Walter Kaiser (Sp.) who
is the Dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the Chicago area; he
believes that this is an analogy. In fact, he believes that the word "pleroo"
(Greek) when it even says "being fulfilled" can legitimately be related to
something that is no more than an analogy. His illustration of that is Matthew 2
where Matthew's gospel says that Jesus, around the time of His birth went to
Egypt and then left Egypt, and it says, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son," and
you go to Hosea 11:1 and there is no way it can mean Jesus; it has to mean the
nation Israel.
So Kaiser says we have to see in the word "pleroo" (Greek) or the word
"fulfilled" we have to see the latitude to understand analogies, and that everything
that is fulfilled is not fulfilled in the sense that we think that it is a direct prophecy

Question
with a direct fulfillment. It may mean nothing more than an analogy. So Kaiser
takes 7:14, if I remember correctly and simply, is an analogy; that is to say, like a
virgin had a child, so a virgin had a child. I really can't give that one away; I feel
there is a direct prophetic indication here. But to do a complete answer let me
send you that material so you can see the full historic picture and then you can see
its application.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Why are there some of us blessed, and little children are dying in Africa and starving to death?
Answer
God is sovereign. I have always felt that the more non-Christian the nation is, the higher the mortally rate
will be, because Christians have the highest respect for life there is. Well, look at our nation--the more
we become non-Christian, the more we become humanistic, the easier it is for us to massacre infants--by
the millions. You take a pagan country, or Africa, or India, you'll find in those countries that there is a
low regard for life--a very low regard for life. It isn't just as simple, always, as famine and so forth--it has
to do with the whole regard for life. Unless you understand that people are created in the image of God,
they are nothing more than what this man was asking earlier--it's animal life. So, I think that, that
happens because it is a low regard of life.
The "flip side" of that is, that I believe God in His mercy and grace sees the reality of redemption in that
for a people who, in many cases, would never otherwise be redeemed. Those nations that are the most un-
Christian have the highest [infant] mortality rate, which is to say that those "little ones" are taken safely
into the arms of God, before they can come to the point in their own nation where they will be
unbelievers. So, I think that is part of the answer. The ultimate answer is--God is God, and God has
designed the world the way He has designed it; sin is running its course. God has offered redemption to
all men; evil has a place, and God for the sake of His own glory, and the sake of His own revelation of
judgment and wrath against sin permits sin and its consequences, and so it is a sovereign issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Blessings
Question
Last week, in your message “Can God Bless America and Preserve His Reputation”…you’ve also
mentioned in the past that you believe that America is under the judgment of God, is that right?
Answer
Yes, I think the judgment that’s defined in Romans 1.
Now I know there’s tons of wickedness and evil around us, but sir, it seems to me there’s a lot of
godliness! Look at the people that are here. There’s hundreds of thousands of dedicated Christians
in America, and don’t you believe that right now we are seeing some of God’s blessings on
America? I.e., (and I don’t want to get political) Bush barely got in by the skin of his teeth. That
was due to Christians praying--I mean, that’s what I think. Look what we’re doing to the Taliban.
Bush is surrounded by godly men, you know. The missionaries got free! Whoever would have
thought the missionaries would have been freed? So, tell me your opinion. It seems to me that God
is blessing!
Answer (continued)
Well, I will respond this way: God will always bless his people. He will do what He wills for his people,
but He will show himself faithful to his people. Those girls over there, we would have said, if they had
been killed by the Taliban, that God had a purpose and took them to glory--that would have been the
greatest blessing possible! We could conclude that for his own glory and to show himself faithful and to
show that He’s a God who hears and answers prayer, God has been glorified in their release. It’s also true
there were six other people released and we could have concluded that this was a testimony to the
faithfulness of God to his people.
The issue is, does God somehow have some obligation to a nation as an entity? And the answer to that is
“no,” certainly not this nation and certainly not a nation that is dominated by the evil that we are
dominated by. I mean, understand this. God is going to bless George Bush who is his child. I really do
believe that God allowed him to be here for such a time as this. I don’t want to get political either, but I
would hate to see the Clinton corps trying to run the world at a time like this. I would hate to know what
the whole Al Gore thing would have looked like in a time like this. We need mature men, men of statue,

men of statesmanship, men of vast experience on a national level to provide what needs to be provided in
a time of crisis for the sake of our national safety. And that’s fine, but I don’t believe, in any sense, that
God has done anything that I could interpret as a categorical blessing on a nation of unbelieving people
who have done everything they could, worked very hard, to make sure God is completely out of the
public discourse.
But I do believe God will bless his own, as He sees fit to bless his own. He will do that in any time. He
will gather his own, as the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, says, “In the day of his judgment, He
will collect his own. He will gather his jewels,” he says, “that day, and no judgment will fall upon them.”
As God blesses certain of his own children in effective places, in high places, in significant places, the
blessing may spill over on others. It’s like being married to a believer--a non-believer married to a
believer--in I Corinthians 7 “is blessed in the household of the believer” because of the spillover effect.
But don’t for a minute think that because you are seeing a sort of a groundswell of interest in God that
this is tantamount to some real turning to God! I don’t see that…I don’t see that happening. God will
always bless his own people, but when you look at the spiral in America, you’re not going to see it
change; at least, predictably, I can’t see anything that’s going to change it.
When the war cools down--and I don’t know that it’s God that’s defeating the Taliban. I mean,
whoever’s got the biggest guns and the most bombs is going to win that one. And whoever’s up above
when you’re down below is in the catbird seat. So there are very obvious human factors for that. But I
believe that when all of this quiets down, the now-silent, immoral leadership and influence group of this
country, including the media, are going to rise right back into the same place they were before and the
old agendas are going to just be reasserted again. I would like to think that’s not going to happen.
We just need to be faithful to continue to proclaim the truth, but know this: in the midst of all of this,
God for us is a shelter in a time of storm. He is our rock, He is our defender, He is our shepherd--He
leads us in quiet places by still waters and green pastures and He brings us to our eternal home. We will
be blessed in the midst of all of this.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
My question is relating to your sermon on “Can God Bless America?” I understand the doctrine of
special and general grace and my question to you, pastor, is--a curse, by the way, has a ring of
finality--if this nation has be accursed by God, has He lifted his hand of general grace from us?
Answer
Well, I think that’s essentially what it is. Now the question is, to what degree and is it recoverable? If you
read II Chronicles 7:14 the principle: “If my people, called by my name, will humble themselves and pray
and seek my face, then I’ll restore them.” Psalm 81: “If my people will listen to my Word and walk in my
ways, then I will deliver them from their enemies and I will feed them with honey from the rock” and all
of those kinds of things. I think there’s every reason in Scripture to indicate that even when a nation is
under that judgment of abandonment, when the nation has had restraining grace removed, that if there is a
wholesale repentance--turning to God--and obedience, that that certainly can be restored. I think that
that’s indicated in Scripture.
Otherwise there would be futility. I mean, why would God call Isaiah, for example, to go out and preach--
after having anointed him in chapter 6, why would He tell him to go out and preach unless there was the
possibility that there was a remnant who would hear and believe and be saved? God knows how large that
remnant might be. I don’t know what the future of America is, but God is not obligated to sinful people.
If God deemed it to his glory and if it is his eternal plan to do so, God could bring about a great revival in
America and people could turn to God. Any sinner who turns to God ever, at any point in his life, and
honestly, genuinely prompted by the Spirit of God repents and believes will be saved! If that happens in a
large scale and many people are then saved and God begins to bless those people, then there will be a
spillover of blessing (as I was saying earlier) that falls on the rest of people. Such is the principle of I
Corinthians 7.
I think that this is the time--this is the greatest time to preach, the greatest time to proclaim the gospel,
[and] the greatest time to call for repentance. The sad reality is you have somebody like I mentioned
earlier, like Franklin Graham, who stands up and says “Islam is evil” and the MSNBC people say, “…and
no Christians agreed with him!” It’s not what the world is doing, to me; it’s what the church is not doing.
I mean, this is what is so grievous. At the same time that we need to step up and deal with these issues,
the church becomes more trivialized and marginalized by its desire to be popular.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on the Blood of Christ -- John MacArthur
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 70-9, titled
"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 2001 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
"I see that someone is speaking on MacArthurism. Could you let us know from
the pulpit, what your belief is on the Blood of Christ?"
Answer
I have done that in the past, and just in order to "touch base" with the fact that he
may have created some questions in your mind, [let me say]. Through the years
there has been no question about what I believe, regarding the Blood of Christ,
none at all. For twenty years that I have been preaching here, and all the myriad
of books and tapes, and things that have come out of the Church, and out of my
ministry, no one needs to question anything that I believe about the Blood of
Christ.
I believe that Jesus died on the cross and literally shed His physical blood. He
died as a sacrifice for sin. I saw a letter, the other day, from someone who said,
that Christ could have died "any other way," as long as He died. That is not
correct, that is not true, I do not believe that. He had to die by being lifted up. He
had to die shedding blood in a sacrificial way to fulfill the pattern of Old
Testament prophetic truth.
I believe what the Church has always believed. And somebody always says to
me, "Well, why are they always attacking you on the Blood of Christ?" And I
need to tell you what I have mentioned before, that this basically has very little to
do with theology. It has very little to do with the Blood of Christ and everything

to do with trying to discredit me. And so, they are trying pick an issue that is
volatile, misrepresent what I believe, just for the sheer sake of attacking me.
I will never forget, of course, when this first came out. It came out in a magazine
put out by Christian College, that I denied the Blood of Christ. I called the
president of the school, and I said, "You know better than that, you know me, you
know exactly what I believe, you know what I teach. Why would you do that?"
He said to me on the phone, "We have made a terrible mistake." I said, "Well, is
there some way that you could correct it?" He said, "No, we could never do
that."
So, he admitted to me it was a mistake, personally to me, over the telephone. But
what was curious about it was, that I heard from a faculty member, that there was
a faculty prayer meeting there, a prayer meeting with the administration, in which
the request that was given for the prayer meeting was, "Lord, help us to find a
way to discredit the ministry of John MacArthur." Now, that was the prayer
request. Now if you are seeking to do that, you can find some way, I suppose, to
do it.
For some reason, perhaps unknown to me, these people have decided to try to
discredit our ministry, and to attack our belief in the Blood of Christ, that is, the
sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ for salvation, would definitely be a way
to upset people and that's what they have done.
But what we believe about the Blood of Christ is available for all to see, in fact, I
gave a special communion message on that, a number of months ago. And I
believe exactly what the Bible teaches and what the church has always believed.
And I just think, that we have to just keep dealing with this onslaught, because of
the effort to discredit. And I realize there are ramifications of this, I realize that.
I realize that people have left our church over the last couple of years. It has been
a tough two years, and part of it has been the endless attacks on our church. I
know there have been attacks on our church, but we just keep trying to be faithful
to the Word of God and moving ahead. If you have question about what we

believe on the Blood of Christ, you can read the New Testament and we believe
that. Exactly what it says.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Could you clarify this issue with the "blood"?
Answer
I received this morning about six pages of stuff that one of our members received in Japan that was being
distributed on the "Heresy of John MacArthur." It actually had about 20 different tapes, maybe 15 of
which was on the heresies that I supposedly teach. One of the major ones that I have been accused of
teaching is the denial of the Blood of Christ.
I don't know how to approach it, because it is so bizarre, but let me just say this,
--I believe that Jesus was 100% man, and as man He had human blood.
--I believe that when He died on the cross He shed that blood.
--I believe that it came out in His forehead, it came out in His side, it came out in the opened wounds in
His hands and His feet.
--I believe that He shed His literal blood on the cross.
--I believe that the blood that came out of His heart and the Pericardium around the heart, when it says,
"blood and water came out," in the piercing, was indicative of the fact that He was shedding His blood.
--I believed it was essential that He die a death that included bloodshed, because He was the perfect anti-
type of all of the Old Testament pictures of the sacrificial animal in which blood was poured out.
If you understand in the Old Testament that it says, "The life of the flesh is in the blood," then the
pouring of the blood is indicative that the life is flowing out. The shedding of blood is a very graphic
way to see the life flowing out.
I recently went hunting, and the only thing that I ever shot was a big elk, and I went over and watched the
elk die. You have this, at least I did, this tremendous sense that life is going out, as you watched that
blood come out of that animal--that was the picture in the sacrificial system, and that was the picture on
the cross, that Christ was giving His life--being poured out symbolically, in a sense, as His blood came
out, His life came out, not just symbolically, but really His life came out when His blood came out since
"the life of the flesh is in the blood."
So I believe in the literal death of Christ, the literal shed blood of Christ, that He was fulfilling the
pictures and symbols of the Old Testament in dying a sacrificial death.

Question
Now, what I said some years ago was that I do not believe that was something in that blood itself that
saves people, in other words, in the chemicals of it--that's what I said. I don't believe, for example, the
Roman Catholic Transubstantiation, where for example, the "cup" is turned into blood, you drink the
blood and it ministers grace to you--I don't accept that. I don't accept something magic, and nobody else
has in the history of Christianity that has been in the mainstream of the doctrine of Soteriology. We see
that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin, He died a sacrificial bloodshed death, but there is
nothing in the blood to save or Jesus could have bled on people and not died. He could have cut His
finger and that would have been enough if it is just the bleeding.
So, I said that, some years ago, and then it was taken out of context, and it was put into a magazine that I
didn't believe in the Blood of Christ and that was just enough for people who wanted to attack me to have
some ammunition.
Now, you have to know the bottom line, I was told some months ago that there was a prayer meeting
held by the faculty of a certain institution, and in that prayer meeting, the major prayer request was,
"Lord, help us find some way to discredit the ministry of John MacArthur," that was the prayer meeting.
They set about to find a way to discredit the ministry, and so they came up with that, and they have spun
that thing all across the country now, all around the world.
I believe exactly what the Bible teaches about the shed blood of Jesus Christ--no more, and no less. But I
believe that we are saved through the sacrificial death of Christ for our sins as our substitute, a death in
which He shed His blood. Every time I celebrate the Lord's Table and take the cup of communion I
praise God for the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I don't waver on that one bit, but again you have to
understand that this is a conspiracy folks--from beginning to end--this is a conspiracy of people who
want to discredit this ministry, for whatever reasons I am not sure, but that is what is behind it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Is it wrong and how would you tell a fellow Christian that it is, to get involved with some of these
multilevel marketing things, such as Amway, where you set your sights on certain material things, and
then come back and say it is all going to be for the glory of God, because when I get all of this money I
will help support retired pastors or I'll do this or I'll do that?
Answer
Here I am! But I am not going to retire. No, it is all a question of motive. Nothing is wrong with that
kind of thing if your motive is right, and who can say whether the motive is right--the Lord knows that.
If you are in it to get the biggest car, and the biggest house, and the biggest ring, and the biggest gold
watch, and the fattest diamond bracelet and parade. If you working at Sav-On sweeping to do that it is
wrong. Or, if you are underneath a car and that is your goal--that's not a good goal. It isn't a question of
what kind of an organization are you in--it's a question of what's in your heart. I know people in various
multilevel organizations who have pure motives, unfortunately, those organizations (many of them) tend
to corrupt their motives because all they do is to dangle materialistic goals in front of them. There are
people who resist that, and again it is a question of where your heart is. My wife washes our clothes with
Amway soap--great stuff, it's a good product. I think it is cheaper at the Price Club, but I'm not going to.
. .anyway it's a good product, and we get it from very lovely people and it is wonderful.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question: What is the right Christian stand on playing cards? -- John MacArthur
Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the
tape, GC 1301, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing,
Question
What is the right Christian stand on playing cards?
Answer
Now what about playing cards? Well, there’s nothing wrong with the card; the
card isn’t going to hurt you. It’s just a little card. The only I can say is this: if it
bothers your conscience to do it, don’t do it. Or if it’s going to make somebody
else stumble, don’t do it. Or if it’s going to make somebody else think less of
your testimony, don’t do it. But if you feel that it has not those factors—it isn’t
problematic—and you can do it to the glory of God, that’s between your
conscience and the community in which you exist and the people in which you
exist.
For example, if I were to go over to the middle of Africa and sit down among a
crowd of Africans and somebody pulled out a deck of cards and we were to sit
there and play, I don’t know, what do you play? I don’t even know how to play
the thing. But let’s say 21—I remember that one! Let’s say we all sat down in
the middle of Africa and played 21; do you think the Africans would be
offended? Not on your life! They wouldn’t have the faintest idea what we were
even doing. It certainly wouldn’t be any great offense to God, if we didn’t have
anything else to do in the burning sun than play a little 21.
But on the other hand, in the culture in which I live, if I were to be doing that,
somebody would stumble over it, so I don’t do it. A card in itself isn’t evil.
Tony Capoccia
Question: What is the right Christian stand on playing cards? -- John MacArthur
Box 119
Online since 1986

Is there such a thing as a Carnal Christian? -- John MacArthur

Question
"Is there such a thing as a Carnal Christian?"
Answer
Yes, in fact, there is no such thing as a Christian who is not at times carnal. Did
you get that? And if you're saying to yourself, "I have never been carnal," then,
"God have mercy on you."
But let me tell you what people mean by that. There was a definition of a
Christian as a Carnal Christian, as if that was a permanent condition. The people
in the Church used to teach that there were three kinds of people, Natural, Carnal,
and Spiritual. And they would define the Natural person as unregenerate,
unsaved, self on the throne, life in chaos, and sin everywhere.
Then there is the Carnal person. What's that? That's the Christian who still has
self on the throne. Christ is still in there somewhere, running around, but He is
not in charge, and the life is still in chaos. So the only difference between a
natural and a carnal person is that Christ is in there somewhere, but the life hasn't
changed.
And then thirdly, there is the Spiritual Christian. Self is off the throne, Christ is
on it, and the life is all in order. And so people came up with the idea that you
could be either a Carnal Christian or a Spiritual Christian. You know, once you

are saved you could say, "Well, I am going to stay a Carnal Christian, I like it
better."
And that brings in this whole idea of Lordship, because those are the people who
accepted Jesus as Savior, but not as Lord. Those are the people who said, "I don't
want to go to Hell, and I want you to save me from Hell and I want you to forgive
my sins, but I just don't want you to run my life.
And the old definition of a Carnal Christian was a person who believed in Jesus
for salvation, but didn't let Him be Lord, and didn't let Him run his life. That's
not what a Carnal Christian is. That isn't at all what Paul had in mind in
1Corinthians 3, not at all. Let me show you what it is.
There is only two kinds of people in the world. My grandfather use to say the
"saints" and the "ain’ts," that's it, Christians and Non-Christians, Believers and
Unbelievers. Now listen, the Natural man is the unregenerate. The Spiritual man
is the regenerate man. Read Romans 8, the Spiritual man is the regenerate. But
the Spiritual man can act in a fleshly way. Anytime you disobey the Lord, you
are carnal. Anytime you obey the Lord, you are Spiritual. Anytime you do what
you ought not to do, you are carnal. That means fleshy, you're operating off the
principle of sin. Anytime you do what the Lord wants you to do, you honor the
Word.
So carnality is not a permanent state of Christians who have not given Christ
Lordship. Carnality is simply a momentary experience of the Believer who is
disobedient to God. So it is not a state, it is simply a kind of behavior. And all
Christians at any given moment, right now, this moment here, are either Carnal or
Spiritual, depending on whether you functioning in the Spirit or in the flesh. If
you are sitting there and the Spirit of God is teaching you, and you are enjoying
what's happening, then the Spirit of God is at work, you're a Spiritual person.
If you're sitting there saying, "I don't like what he is saying, I don't buy any of this
stuff. I reject all this stuff. This stuff isn't true." And you have hostility in your

heart, and you may be dealing with sin, and you don't like what I said, I don't
know. Your flesh is reacting, that's Carnality. Understand?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"You've explained that Romans 1 deals with God's righteous judgment concerning the unsaved,
degenerate man, who are given over to a depraved mind. You have explained that Romans 2
concerns the basically religious or moral man, but who is still without Christ. How does, or how
will God deal with the back-slidden carnal Christian?"
Answer
Now we know how God will deal with the unregenerate, whether they are immoral or moral, whether
they are irreligious or religious. Right? Judgment! But how does God deal with back-slidden carnal
Christians? I think that there are four Scriptures that answer that for us, and I am going to give them to
you rapidly.
1. I believe God "chastens." 1 Corinthians 5, provides an illustration for us. It says there in verse 1, that
there is an individual in the church who is having a sexual relationship with his father's wife. That
probably is a term that refers to his stepmother, or it would say "his mother," so it was his stepmother,
and it nonetheless would be considered not only immoral in the general sense, but in the specific sense of
incest. And not only was this going on, but you are puffed up (verse 2), and haven't mourned over such
sin, but rather you look at it as if it was a notch in your belt.
And so, because of this, he tells the church (verse 4), "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you
are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
Now, the text says that this is a saved individual because in the end, in the "day of the Lord" the spirit is
going to be--what? saved. So, this is a believing person, but for the time he is to be delivered to Satan for
the destruction of his flesh, and this is to be done by the church (verse 4), "When you are gathered
together, and my spirit is present with you, and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ (power and
authority are the same thing)," when you are gathered together and you have the authority of Christ, as
the duly constituted church and you come across a sinful member--put him out of the church. That's the
first way God deals with a back-slidden carnal believer. The church is to turn that individual over to
Satan and there will be a chastening in the physical dimension, ultimately the spirit, or the soul being
saved because it is a believer.
2. Now there is a second factor that we need to talk about, relative to chastening, and that's in Hebrews
12:5. This is the element of chastening that is not so much the design of the corporate body of the church,
but is the individual attention of the Spirit of God Himself, in a personal chastening. It says, in the middle

Question
of verse 5,
" My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom
the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If you endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? And if He doesn't
chasten you, then you are an illegitimate child, and not a son at all. It is like a father Furthermore we
have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather
be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
And he goes on to talk about it. So there is, in the life of a carnal and disobedient Christian (and carnal
may not be the best term to use. The disobedient Christian I think fits better biblically), but when you
have a disobedient, back-slidden (is the word Jeremiah used, so that's a good word) Christian, you have
1. The responsibility of the Church to put that person out, if in fact they will not repent of such sin.
2. The Spirit of God personally gets involved in the life of that individual in a chastening manner.
Now, turn for a moment to 2 John 8, I want to show you a third thing that can occur in the life of a back-
slidden, disobedient Christian. Verse 8, 2 John, "Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked
for, but that you may be rewarded fully." What this indicates, is that a believer could come to the point in
his life where his disobedience caused the forfeiture of that which he had already gained as a reward,
previous to his disobedience. The Lord has given you a promise that there will be a reward for
faithfulness. If you are faithful He has given the reward, but He reserves the right to take it back, in light
of unfaithfulness. So there definitely will be chastening by the Lord. There should be chastening by the
Church. There will be a loss of reward; an empty-handedness if you will at the time of rewards at the
Bema Seat.
Under those things we could talk about a lot of other things: of course, you forfeit blessings, and joy, and
assurance, and all kinds of things that occur. But I guess we could sum it all up by saying, there is a loss
of the meaning and the meaningfulness of salvation. When a person is back-slidden, and disobedient, and
sinful, they not only lose the sense of their salvation and their assurance (that's why 2 Peter 1 talks about
making your calling and election sure by adding certain things to your life). They not only lose the sense
of their salvation, but they lose the meaningfulness of it, that is, the blessedness of it.
Now, I have to add another thing, after those four, the one other thing that happens, that God does to a
back-slidden, disobedient Christian (are you ready for this one?), is to forgive them in spite of their sin.
Aren't you glad to hear that? And the text is 1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you,
that ye sin not." And of course, we know that he is referring to believers whom he calls his dear children.
Don't sin! Obviously, don't be disobedient or back-slidden, "But if anybody does sin, we have one who
speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice (the
propitiation, the covering, the mercy seat), the "hilasterion" (Greek) for our sins, and not only for ours
but also for the sins of the whole world." So that if we do sin, Jesus Christ as our Savior is our covering
for our sins, and He has forgiven us all of our trespasses, Ephesians one tells us.

Question
So where there is sin and disobedience in the life of a believer there will be chastening by the Lord, there
should be chastening by the Church, there will be a loss of reward, and a certain empty-handedness at the
time of rewards, there will be a loss of the sense of being saved, and the blessedness of being saved, and
that's why you see John says "We write these things unto you that your joy may be. . . ." what? "full." But
on top of all of those things, we also have the promise that God will, in spite of our sin, forgive us,
because Jesus Christ has already paid the price even for the sin we haven't committed. And since the
price is paid, His death for us becomes a covering. Isn't that a great grace that God has given us? That's
why it is so important to affirm what we call eternal security, because the lack of eternal security strikes a
blow against the efficacy of the death of Christ.
Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur Collection" by:
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Obviously, we all believe that Jesus must be "Lord" for us to be saved--to have salvation. How does that
fit in, because we hear so often about Carnal Christians, what is a Carnal Christian? If Jesus is Lord,
then how can we be living a fleshly life?
Answer
You ask these big issues, these big questions. Let's start with one point--OK? Let me ask you a
question, "Is Jesus Lord?" [yes]. We don't need to debate that--right? People say all the time, "Well,
you know, I made Jesus Lord." I just go, "Wait a minute, you didn't make Him anything, you didn't
create Christ--He's Lord--period." Let me ask you a second question, "Can you obey Him?" [yes]. "Can
you disobey Him?" [yes]. "Does that change whether He is in charge?" [no].
So the Lordship of Christ is a clear cut thing in Scripture--very clear. I believe that there is no way to
divest Christ of His Lordship. Now, I know that there is a big debate about whether "curios" (Greek)
means "deity" and "deity" alone or whether it implies authority. I don't think there is any question that it
implies authority.
I was having lunch with a professor one day, and he said, "Well, I believe that all that "curios" (that's the
Greek word for Lord) means is "deity." I said, "OK, I don't agree with that because Thomas wouldn't
have said, 'My Lord, and my God,' that's redundant if they both mean deity, 'Lord' must have meant
something to enhance the thought of God--deity." I said, "Let's assume, however, that "Lord" only
means "deity." Then I said, "What does that mean?" "Are you telling me that doesn't mean that He is in
charge?" "Are you telling me that He is God, but He is just not in charge?" So, you don't gain a thing by
that.
The Bible is clear that Jesus is Lord and if "Lord" means "God" then "God" means that He is in charge!
So I believe that when you come to Jesus Christ--He is in charge of your life. Where this "Carnal
Christian" thing came in; I think where it became popularized was through a little book that Campus
Crusade put out a number of years ago (we used to call it the "Bluebird Book"), it had three little circles.
In circle number one you had an unbeliever. It was a little circle and there was a throne in the middle
and self was on the throne, and chaos in the life--that's an unbeliever.
Then you had another circle, which was called the Carnal Christian. You had a throne and self was on
the throne, and the Lord was in the circle, but He was over in the corner--that was the Carnal Christian.
In other words, he believed, but he was still in charge of his own life.
The third circle was the spiritual Christian--the little throne had the Lord on it and self was in the corner,
and everything in the life was orderly. What that conveyed was, that when you become a Christian you
can go into any of those two circles. Right? You can be a self-controlled Christian or a Lord-controlled

Question
Christian. That is what I react against. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a Christian with self
on the throne. I think that there are only Christians with the Lord on the throne--some are obedient and
some are disobedient.
What is a Carnal Christian? Well, if you mean a fleshly one--that's a disobedient believer, but that has
nothing to do with whether the Lord is one the throne or not. He is the ruler of your life. He is the
master of your life, it is only a question of whether you are obeying Him.
Now, let me tell you one other thing, I believe that when a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ, they
don't have the option to accept Him just as Savior and keep self on the throne. See, that's the argument
with the Carnal Christian idea--is that you can be saved and not necessarily have a changed life because
you are still running your life. In other words, it is as if salvation is only forensic, in other words, it is
just God writing your name on the list and saying, "Well, he's saved,"--nothing changes.
You can be disobedient. Just keep it simple: when you are saved it is a total transformation. Christ is on
the throne of your life and you are either obedient or disobedient. If you are disobedient--you are not
holy. If you are obedient--you are.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - On the Carnal Christian
Question
John, in our country right now, we have what’s called “false teaching on the carnal Christian.” In
I Corinthians 3, it says, “And Brethren, I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men
of flesh, as to babes in Christ.” And then it goes on to say “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food,
for you were not able to receive it. Indeed, even now, you are not yet able, for you are still
fleshly.” I think a lot of people would be benefited…if you could draw a distinction between the
biblical teaching on a carnal Christian or a fleshly Christian.
Answer
Well, the best thing you can do is forget the concept of Carnal Christian. Just forget that. Just wipe that
one out. Take your little diagram thing that you might have seen at some point which has Natural Man,
Carnal Christian, Spiritual Christian; just wipe that out if you can and look at the passage without that in
your mind and realize that what he is saying is this: "I couldn’t speak to you as spiritual men, but as men
of flesh.” Verse 3, “you’re still fleshly.” There’s jealously and strife among you—you’re fleshly!” And
you’re walking like mere men. All he is saying is, “Look, you’re spiritual. But I can’t speak to you as
spiritual because you’re sinful. See? He doesn’t say, “You’re not spiritual”; he says, “I couldn’t speak
to you as to spiritual men.” At any point in time in a Christian’s life, any point in time, he is either
spiritual—that is, living in accord with the Spirit—or fleshy, living in accord with his flesh. But, that
isn’t two types of Christian. That is one kind of Christian (there’s only one kind) who can either behave
by obeying the Spirit or obeying the flesh. See?
Now, the problem with labeling people as a “Carnal Christian” is this: that came to the fore in a little
booklet on the Spirit-filled life. And it had three circles in it, and this is where all this really came from.
Circle number one had a throne in the middle of the circle; had a big circle and a throne, a little chair. It
had an “s” on the chair, and the “s” represented “self.” Then there were little dots in the circle that
represented all the elements of life, and they were all in chaos. That was the “natural man,” unredeemed,
unregenerate…Right? Self is on the throne and life is chaos.
Then, circle number two had the same little throne, self was still on the throne, Christ was in the corner
(if a circle has a corner) down by the edge, and life was still in chaos. So, this was the “Carnal
Christian.” Self was still on the throne, Christ is in there, but not in charge. Now, that’s what I don’t
believe the Bible permits.
The third circle was the “Spiritual Christian.” There was a throne, on the throne was Christ, and self was

John MacArthur - On the Carnal Christian
somewhere in the circle, and the life was in perfect harmony. Now, the implication of that is that you
can be a natural man, unregenerate; or you can be a “Carnal Christian,” with you on the throne and Christ
down here somewhere; or you can be a Spiritual Christian, with Christ on the throne and you down here
somewhere, and that’s what you want to be. So you got to stop being a Carnal Christian and start being a
Spiritual Christian, and the implication was, there are two kinds of Christians.
Now, that implication has been carried through this whole system. The first kind would be a believer
who’s a non-disciple. The second kind would be a believer who is a disciple. The first one, according to
what they’re teaching today, would be a Christian with dead faith. The second one would be a Christian
with living faith. The carnal Christian would be a Christian with no fruit. The spiritual Christian would
be a Christian with fruit.
The thing that you have to reject is that there are two kinds! What you really have is one circle: Christ on
the throne, and chaos if you don’t obey Him, and order if you do.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Child Evangelism
Question
I’m not sure if you believe in the age of accountability or anything like that...
John Macarthur: Well, I sure believe you get to the point where you’re accountable, but I don’t think
there’s any given age. Every person might have a different point in time.
So, how do you describe to a young 4 or 5 year-old how they can make Christ Lord of their life?
Answer
Just simply that. I think if they’re anything a child understands, it’s the need to be obedient, right? I
mean, you just wouldn’t say to a child, “Look, don’t worry about anything. Just believe.” A child can’t
even grasp that. What does that mean? But if you say, “What Jesus wants to do is forgive your sin and
lead you and calls you to obey and follow Him, and do what He says”--a child understands that. That’s
simple. Just tell him, “You know, what you want to do is understand that Jesus loves you, that He died
for you, that He rose again, and He wants to guide you and lead you, and He wants you to give your life
to him in obedience”...I’ll promise you a 4 or 5 year-old will understand that.
And you always want to do that. I believe that children take steps towards God, and you want to
encourage those steps. Only God knows when the transaction of justification takes place, and
sanctification begins. Only God knows that, but just keep encouraging them in all those steps all along,
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
I came very late in life to understand this Lordship issue, and my question is really, How do
respond to people who say as a very young child they were saved, and yet the church there does not
even mention, other than...they don’t mention Lordship other than to say “Savior and Lord”? How
can you respond to the person who’s grown up in that sort of an atmosphere?
Answer
Well, of course, I grew up in that atmosphere too. It’s very difficult. The first thing you have to
understand is: salvation is a work of God, not necessarily visible to men in the actual transaction…it’s
made known in the fruit. So, I don’t know precisely at what point in time a person becomes a Christian; I
can’t know that. I can know when someone says, “I believe.” But, I don’t know whether that was really
the moment or whether that was an initial step.
So, when you look at a child, as I said earlier, you want to encourage children to believe. I can look back
in my life and I can honestly say there was never a time in my life when I did not believe. And every
time, as a little kid, that somebody said, “Ask Jesus in your heart,” I can remember saying, “Jesus, please
come in my heart.” I can remember that over and over: “In case you’re not there, please come in today.”
You know? I mean, I did that as a kid. I’d go to camp, the guy would give a message, and just to be sure,
you know, I’d say, “Lord, if you’re not in my life, please…” So, I’ve always affirmed and reaffirmed and
reaffirmed my faith.
To be honest with you, I don’t know the point at which that transformation actually took place. I can look
back in my life and say, well, there was always a love for God as far back as I can remember. There were
times of disobedience, but I can look back to the times when I was eight, nine years old, particularly that
period of time in my life--and say I began to have a tremendous sense of what was right and wrong--that
was not only my parents, but was my own; I began to feel that in my heart. But, I don’t know how to
identify that for each individual person--very, very difficult.
But, I do believe that there are a lot of folks who have looked back at a childhood point of belief and then
lived a life that disregarded Christ, and then gotten their life straightened out at some point in time, and
felt that they were saved as a child and just ignored it all those years, and went to some second
commitment, when the truth is probably that they never were saved until that point in their commitment
when they really came to grips with what it meant to submit to Christ. But only God knows that. That’s
why the doctrine of election is such a wonderful doctrine. If He’s going to redeem you, He’s going to

redeem you, and somewhere along that process God will work his saving work in your life.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1300-2.htm
Question
How can you know if a small child has been born again? What evidence?
Answer
Only one way according to Scripture and that is this: Matthew, chapter 18. And this is really the only
way… People are saying, “Well, how can you see the fruit of the spirit? I see my little kid and he says
he’s saved, but he doesn’t read his Bible all the time, he doesn’t pray, and lead family devotions, and,
you know, and I don’t see a lot of the fruit of the spirit in his life. Well, how do I know whether this is
just a child or whether he’s been saved?”
There’s only one way to know that a child can be saved and that’s because the Bible says he can.
Because he’s really too young to manifest all of the things that indicate it.
Jesus called a little child to him in verse 2 of Matthew 18, set him in the midst, and said, “Verily I say
unto you, except you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom
of heaven; and whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name, receives me”--now, watch--“for
whosoever shall offend one of these little ones who”--what? “Believe in me.”
There it is. Jesus said that a little child could believe in him. Listen to this: if somebody believes in him,
what is he? Saved. Can a child be saved? Yes--by the authority of the Word of God. Do you want any
better authority than that? When he believes, that is salvation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1300-2.htm [5/21/2002 8:49:19 AM]

Question
Question
In the morning on my "drive time" to work, right between my boss, Chuck

Swindoll, and my pastor John MacArthur, there is a gentleman that comes on
named John Wimber. I frequently find myself turning off his program, being
rather upset at his taking Scripture out of context. The last couple of days he has
been reading off stories how he cast demons supposedly out of Christians. My
question to you, "Do you consider Pastor John Wimber to be a Charismatic
brother who has a different perspective on the Scriptures than us, or do you
consider him a false teacher in the light of the passage in 1 Timothy that we have
been studying with you?"
Answer
I would say it is a good question. In my own mind, and I don't know if I can
isolate this, but when I talk about a false teacher or a false prophet I usually have
someone in mind who perverts the saving gospel. I would have to think about
whether that is consistently true in the New Testament text, but I think you might
find that that is at least the emphasis of a false teacher or a false prophet, someone
who leads you away from saving truth. So in the technical sense I would not see
John Wimber as a false prophet, in the fact that he will articulate and adhere to
the gospel--the saving gospel of Christ. He would not present another gospel, but
from there on he presents things that are not true.
He teaches a course at Fuller Seminary which is a very interesting phenomena,

because Fuller is moving more and more towards the Charismatics; because when
you go into liberalism, and when you begin to let go of the authority and
inerrancy of Scripture and you wind up with the vacuum of liberalism you also

Question
wind up with no real spiritual reality. And in grasping for some kind of spiritual
reality, some kind of (if you will) feeling or emotion--they have done two things
over the last few years: one, they hired a Catholic Priest with a Doctorate in
Spirituality from some Catholic University to come and teach spirituality and take
their students away to some monastery so they could learn spirituality. The
second thing that they have done is to bring in this Charismatic influence to try
and to infuse some feeling into the sort of the vacuous theology that they have
wound up with, and Wimber was that person. He began to teach a course called
MC-501. "Christian Life" or
"Christian Herald" magazine, about two or three years ago, did a special article
on that in which he teaches people how to heal and how to cast out devils, and he
sees tongues of fire coming out of the sky, and this big sword zapping people in
the head, and so forth.
He is definitely a Charismatic. He has a personal sort of warmth and gentleness

about his personality that I think is different than a lot of the sort of screaming
type of Charismatics. He seems to have some balance in his life in terms of his
life style that some of them don't, but I think basically he is really at a loss in
terms of Bible interpretation.
I heard him say one day that (and I am telling you this because you need to be
warned. So many people have asked me about him because he is on right before
we are), but I heard him say one day, "When you talk about miracles you can't go
to the gospel of John (this is almost a direct quote) you can't go to the Gospel of
John since John doesn't deal with miracles." And I almost fell off my car seat,
because the entire Gospel of John is one long series of miracles which are all
about proving, as John 20:31 says, "That Jesus is the Christ." So that kind of
stuff really is so tragic.
He has a personality that is attractive but you just have to know that his
understanding of the Gifts of the Spirit, his understanding of the, I guess you
could call it the Ontology of spiritual life, whatever, is not true to Scripture. I
don't know how people can keep telling themselves that they can cast out devils

Question
and heal everybody, when they know themselves that they can't--I mean they
can't or they would be at the hospital doing it. So they seem to always find a way
out, but you need to be very cautious in listening to him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What's Wrong with the Pentecostals and Charismatics
Question
I read an article in a "big city" newspaper, on the Pentecostal movement and I am still puzzled.
These people, true believers, and if they are true believers, what are they doing in this movement:
"Heal me right away or maybe I'll walk away from Jesus Christ." Can you shed some light on
that?
Answer
You are opening up a huge issue here of the Pentecostal Movement. The Pentecostal Movement, as a
movement, defined by its unique characteristics, is not Biblical.
Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all the people in it are not Christians, some of
them are, but those things that define the Pentecostal Movement are not Biblical. It is not Biblical to say,
that speaking in tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, and if you haven't spoken in tongues you
haven't received the Holy Spirit--that is not Biblical. It is not even Biblical to encourage people to speak
in tongues, as if that in itself, was some spiritual gift that everybody had to have. It is not Biblical to
believe that God is going to heal you. It is not Biblical to believe that some people have the power to
heal and can go into great places and knock people over, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that they
wield this great supernatural power.
So, what I am saying is: the defining characteristics that label Pentecostalism "Pentecostalism" as apart
from general Orthodox Christianity, are not Biblical. So the movement is defined by things that aren't
Biblical. If you, for example, compared it to the Reformed Movement. What distinguishes Reformed
Theology is an accurate theology; it goes back to the Reformation and it's based on an accurate
understanding of theology. What distinguishes Pentecostalism is an inaccurate, wrong interpretation of
Scripture, and all the distinctives are not accurately interpreted from Scripture. So you have a movement
defined unbiblically. At the heart of it, I think, there are masses of people who are unconverted--
unconverted--who couldn't explain the gospel, the way you heard it explained tonight. They could say
that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, but they have no idea just exactly how God used the death of
Christ to satisfy His justice and grant righteousness to those who believe. They do not understand
anything more than a very shallow and thin grasp of the gospel.
Many of them (and this has been reiterated to me by people who have come to our church, from other
large Pentecostal churches in the area) live under a strange and bizarre doctrine that they never articulate,
but it is definitive in the movement, and it is the doctrine of the "Sovereignty of Satan." It is inherent, at

least to contemporary "Charisimania"...Pentecostalism, by the definition of the current Charismatic

Movement, and the Pentecostals and the Charismatics are so blended now, you can't seperate them...but,
it is inimical to that system to believe that Satan is sovereign--not God. God would like people to be
saved but He is not sovereign in salvation. God would like to keep people saved but He can't, so people
can get unsaved on their own. God would like to solve the problems in the world but the devil keeps
messing things up. People in that movement are taught that when you get sick: it's the devil. When you
little baby gets sick: it's the devil. When you lose your job: it's the devil. When it's announced to you
that you have heart disease or you have cancer, or you have some other problem; when one of your
children goes astray, whatever it is: it's the devil. And so, you are living, literally, under the sovereignty
of Satan in a mode of constant fear. That's one very unbiblical element of that, so you're always trying to
"bind Satan;" you're always trying to cast out demons. God, in Pentecostalism becomes the victim. It is
a strange kind of thing where there is this pervasive fear of Satan. Parents who can't sleep, who live with
anxieties and fears that the devil is going to come in and make their baby sick at night. Or the devil is
going to get in their house, and they have to pray the devil out, or the demons out of their house, or bind
Satan some way. This is utterly unbiblical. We as believers have nothing to fear from Satan, in the
ultimate sense. It is God Himself who has made the blind and the lame, it says in the Book of Exodus.
The enemy of God, who is Satan, is God's servant. I don't know if you have ever thought of it that way,
but the devil is God's servant: he can only do what God allows him to do, and his borders and boundaries
are established by a sovereign God. There are some people who came to our church from out of this kind
of background, and they happened to come on a Sunday (I think), and when they heard me preach on the
sovereignty of God, they said it was the most liberating thing they had ever heard--to find out the "God"
was sovereign, that God was in charge, was totally opposite everything they had ever heard. Now that is
an aberrant theology that says that.
Pentecostalism, also because of its belief that people today can have the same gifts that the Apostles
have...Benny Hinn and whoever the "healers" are, he's sort of the prototypical healer today, it started out
with A. A. Allen, and Oral Roberts, and down to Morris Cerullo, and on and on it goes...Jimmy
Swaggart and Benny Hinn, and whoever it is. Benny Hinn is the latest edition of con men in that area.
This idea, that they believe that these men can do what the Apostles did: they have the power to heal, the
power to cast out disease...I heard Benny Hinn say, with my own ears, I heard it, "that if you have
somebody in your family die. Leave their body in the living room, take their body over to the TV, drape
their arms over the TV, because God is going use me to raise the dead through the television!" I can't
think of a more insensitive thing for a man to do, than to have some poor bereaved person drag the
corpse of their family member and drape them over the television, under some bizarre illusion that
Benny Hinn is going to heal them through the TV set--it's cruel, is what it is! But that is only the
extreme form of cruelty. There is a cruelty that goes along day after day, week after week, with this
bizarre expectation of healing, and then this false staging of supposed healings, that continue to raise
people's hopes, and all that does is create false hopes that are dashed to pieces. And much of the fallout
of that movement is people who reject the gospel, reject Christ, because they didn't get what they were
promised they would get.
As I said, the defining elements of the movement itself, what gives it its identity are unbiblical, and

yet at the core there are many in the Pentecostal Movement who are Christians who understand the
gospel. If you just took all the "Pentecostal stuff," the "Charismatic stuff" out, there would be a core
understanding of the gospel there, so I believe that some of them are Christians. The Lord knows how
many, but it is my own conviction, that the vast majority are not. And also, that those people who purvey
and ply the trade, particularly in the media, know they are deceivers, and they are very effective at it--
raising millions of dollars. One such preacher alone, T. D. Jakes, took in, personally, last year, 63
million dollars! They are trading on a certain desperation. That's why Jesus, when He sent out the
Seventy, said, "go and heal, but take no money." If you can heal people--you can be instantly rich.
People get instantly rich who can't heal, but pretend they can.
But at the heart of it, if you can just strip the trappings, there are some who know the gospel truth.
So I guess I would say, somewhere in that movement there is a true body of believers, not to be confused
with the Movement, which is full of schemers, and dreamers, and con men, and people with aberrant
theology, and false teachers who take advantage of people. And then people in the middle: there's the
serious, very serious errors of the Word-Faith Movement: Fred Price, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth
Hagin, etcetera, Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyer, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, who have an aberrant view
of the nature of Christ. They are the ones who say, that on the cross Jesus became a sinner, had to go to
hell and suffer for His sins for three days, and then the Father let Him come out of hell, and that is when
He was raised. They turned Jesus into a sinner who had to be punished for sin. This is a frightening
view of Christ. Also, Kenneth Copeland is the one who said, "That Jesus wasn't any more God than he
is!"
So you have aberrations all the way down the line. Of course, because the movement is defined by its
experiences and its phenomena, they don't ever deal with the aberrations. Nobody polices the
movement. You can turn on "Channel 40" [Southern California UHF TV Station], and you can see
them...they will literally advocate anything! They would advocate absolutely anything. Anybody can
come on there and say anything they want about God, anything they want about Christ, anything they
want about the Holy Spirit, anything they want to say about the work of God, any interpretation of the
Bible will stand. But what you can't do, is go on "Channel 40" and say somebody is wrong--that's
intolerable! And so that's why in some of their books, they call me a "Heresy Hunter." There is one
book that has a whole chapter on me as a "Heresy Hunter"--well, I am! And I thank them for the
compliment! [Applause]. I don't have any axe to grind with those people, I just am committed to the
truth, and I want to bring the truth to those people. It's really one of the wonderful realities that "Grace to
You Radio" penetrates into those people, who don't come to this church, but they turn on the radio, and
they get the books. The book, The Charismatics, that I wrote back in 1978, I think it was, later on we
wrote a new one called Charismatic Chaos . Those books have had a great impact, and continue to have
an impact on the hearts of people who are questioning the movement--they're in it, they are questioning
the reality of it.
As a final thought, one of the give-a-ways that there is something seriously wrong with the
movement is its breadth. It embraces anybody, and anything, and any view of anything that purports to
be of God. If you just say, the Lord told you this, or the Lord told you that, or you had a vision, or you
saw this, or you heard voices, or the angels told you--if you have the experience, you supposedly

experienced some of this supernatural phenomena, it will embrace you. The movement will take you in
no matter how bizarre your theology is.
I remember when Benny Hinn first wrote his first book, called Good Morning Holy Spirit (I think it was),
and in the book, he had nine members of the Trinity. It's not even good English to have nine members of
a Trinity! You can have a double-quartet plus one, but you can't have a Trinity with nine people--it's not
a Trinity. But in the book, he had nine members of the Trinity. He had the Father having three parts
(three persons), the Son having three persons, and the Holy Spirit having three persons, totaling nine. I
said to the publisher, who was having lunch with me, wanting to sign me to a book contract. I said to
him, "Why in the world did you publish that book?" "Why would you publish that?" And with a look of
incredulity he said to me, "What do you mean? We publish everything!" He didn't even understand the
question! It didn't even connect, for "What do you mean? We publish everything!" And I would say,
that has been pretty much the reality with the Pentecostal Movement, there is just no borders, at all.
The way the "movement" has perpetuated itself--it's an infection in the Body of Christ that is
spreading rapidly. It's a kind of "Spiritual AIDS." AIDS is a deficient immune system, and this kills
the Church's immune system! The Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement kills the immune system, because
it makes it a sin to question their theology. You see, the only way error can survive is if truth doesn't
prevail--right? It's the only way. The only way error can survive is if truth does not prevail. So how do
you get the truth out of the way? You have to silence the people who speak the truth. So how do you do
that? You have to turn them into "bad guys"--those people with discernment, those people who speak the
truth, those people who draw lines that are Biblical. You have to turn them into the "bad guys" the non-
spiritual.
I remember a radio program, where a man who was prominent in the Charismatic Movement said, "I
don't know much about John MacArthur, but I know one thing, he doesn't possess the Holy Spirit." And
that was on a radio talk show, and that created an interesting dialogue. I was being vilified as someone
who didn't possess the Holy Spirit, was not therefore of God, simply because I called into question some
of their unbiblical teaching. And what has happened is, they have been saying this long enough; they
have been working their way into the mainstream of Evangelicalism simply by attacking the critics, and
silencing the critics, and most people just rollover.
I can give you an illustration. In, about 1980, after I had written the book, The Charismatics, which was
a bomb when it came. It was the first book that was out really definitively taking on that movement, and
it just hit with thunder, but it was really an important statement. At the time, Moody Monthly, was a
monthly periodical put out by Moody as sort of a standard, fundamental, Evangelical magazine. They
said, "This is so important, we want to serialize the book." So the magazine picks up the book, they put
the cover of the book on the cover of the magazine, which had a circulation of...I don't know, let's just
say for the sake of argument, 150,000. During the time they serialized the book it went up 50%, so
maybe to 225,000--tremendous response, and this book was a direct attack on that issue. And Moody, at
that time, says, "This needs to be heard, this is discernment." Today, if I say on "Grace to You" anything
negative about the Charismatic Movement--the Moody Broadcasting Network will remove it from the
broadcast! Because what has happened over a period of time is that Evangelicalism has just rolled over,

because we have been vilified so much as being unloving, and heresy hunters, and divisive, and so they
literally have shouted, long enough and loud enough to silence people. And they have found their way
into the mainstream, and now they dictate what is "Politically Correct" to say within the body of
Evangelicalism.
Now that Evangelicalism is so softened up theologically; now that we have this case of AIDS, this
immune deficiency that can't fight off error--we can't stop the influx of disease--theological disease. The
latest is called the "Openness of God" (I am digressing, but I need to take you there for a minute). Have
you been reading about this? This is the last place you can attack. They have attacked the Person of the
Holy Spirit. They have attacked the Person of Christ. They have attacked the gospel. They have
attacked the authority of Scripture by adding to Scripture revelations, and visions, and Words of
Wisdom, and Words of Knowledge, and on and on and on..... And they have created a fertile ground
now for an all out assault on God, which is coming from some pretty heady places--the parade is being
led by Christianity Today, a magazine, which finds a very open climate to question God. The new view
of God is: God is not sovereign; God not only doesn't determine the future, He doesn't even know what it
is; that God is about as clear about the future as you are. He has about as much control over it as you do.
This is the redefinition of God!
I said to someone the other day, "That is the end! Jesus has to come soon! Where else do you go, when
you have attacked the nature of God?" I have a chapter in a new book that came out called, What Ever
Happened to the Reformation? I wrote one chapter, R. C. Sproul wrote one, a bunch of us wrote them,
and Sproul in his chapter says, "Call yourself a Christian if you want, but if you have the wrong view of
God--you're a pagan!" You're a pagan! That's idolatry! That's the last place you can go in heresy, is to
reinvent God! That climate to do that, I think is largely aided and abetted by the utter disinterest in
doctrine that has been created by this Charismatic pressure--Pentecostal pressure.
So, at the same time I say that, there are people in that movement who are Christians, and most of the
Evangelical Church doesn't have the discernment to know how to sort all of that out, and many of these
people don't either. They are subject to their leaders--like Hosea says, "Like people, like priests." They
can't rise above it, and so they just sort of take it in, but in their hearts they are truly trusting Christ for
their salvation. Surely there are true believers in that movement. I have said this before: You can take
the Charismatic Movement; you can take the "Seeker-Friendly Church Growth" Movement, and
somewhere in those movements there is a true church, not to be confused with the crowd.
But I think when you look at the legacy of the Charismatic or Pentecostal Movement, in history looking
back, it is not going to be, "Oh, they were speaking in tongues," that's true, but speaking in tongues, to
me, is a minor detail. In fact, I have even gone so far as to say, "If you have the choice between going in
your closet and mumbling in tongues, and going out and gossiping--go in your closet and mumble in
tongues! So I don't want to overstate the importance of that.
I don't think history is going to look back and define the impact of Pentecostalism in tongues; I don't
think it'll look back and define it in terms of healings, since everybody who goes into that movement,

with any kind of honest, analytical, and critical approach, and tries to find healings can't find them, and
that's documented many, many times over. But what is going to be history's verdict on the effect of
the Pentecostal Movement, is that the Pentecostal Movement caused the Church to become
disinterested in sound doctrine. And that ultimately, is the greatest impact, and that's Spiritual AIDS--
the Church no longer has a functioning immune system to recognize deadly error.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I am trying to understand how to articulate or teach to someone in the Charismatic Movement

about the following: When they are taught a story in the Old Testament, like Israel being in
bondage, they'll build a construct out of that and then say, "We were born into this bondage
principle," And then they will build a theology out of that, and I don't know how to articulate:
"No, what you just did was wrong. You misapplied Scripture. You built a construct out of thin
air."
Answer
This is an excellent question. This is their "stock and trade"...This is their "stock and trade." They
can't interpret the Scripture accurately and come up with their theology--it's not there! So, where are
they going to get it? Well, they have to invent it off of analogies, spiritualization, and allegory. This is
standard stuff. Most of those people have no Biblical education--no formal education in the languages of
Scripture. They do not have a sound hermeneutic, that is, a principle for interpreting the Scripture:
Historical, Grammatical, Literal interpretation, because it would never yield their system! So what
happens is, they use analogies to create their theology.
This is not new, but this is endemic in the Charismatic Movement. They will interpret portions of the
Scripture: the gospel or whatever, in a straightforward way. You know, Jesus went here, did this, said
that, said that--that's pretty straightforward.
But they will go to the Old Testament and "novelty is king" in the Charismatic Movement....right? I
mean, they are like those people in Athens who always wanted to hear "Some...new...thing!"--tickle their
ears. Now, how are you going to come up with a new thing if you just have the old Bible? Well, you
have got to find stuff that's not there, but you have got to use the Bible to do it. One of the things that I
commented on in my book Charismatic Chaos was a pastor, a prominent Charismatic pastor in Southern
California. He did a series on the Book of Nehemiah. You know what Nehemiah is about...right? It's a
story about Nehemiah who was the cup bearer to the king in the captivity in Babylon. The king makes a
decree: the people can go back; they go back under the leadership of Nehemiah--they build the wall.
Right? They rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and Israel, after 70 years of captivity is back restoring its
nation again, and Nehemiah is there. Right? Everybody is building their little section of the wall, and
some of the guys are armed, and they got the enemies, and Sanballat and Tobiah trying to thwart the
work. You know the story. The story is about Israel going back and rebuilding its country and its city
and its wall, and sort of reestablishing its nation again.

Well, this series on the Book of Nehemiah, went like this:
Nehemiah is the Holy Spirit. The broken walls are the fallen walls of human personality. The building of
the wall is the rebuilding of human personality. The mortar between the bricks is "tongues." The pool
(there was pool referred to in Nehemiah, in the city), the pool is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now,
there is what the Book of Nehemiah wants to teach! Nehemiah, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit, wants to come into
your fallen life, dip you in the pool of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and rebuild your life through
speaking in tongues! This was like eight tapes of this. And you know, people are sitting there saying ,
"This is deep. I have never seen that!" You know why they have never seen it? It's not there! It's not
there! But you see, the average person in the pew says, "Wow! This is fabulous insight!
This is bunk! This is a misrepresentation of Scripture, but this is the "stock and trade."
I remember years ago, when some guy came in for counseling here, and he said, "I am in a real bad
situation." This actually occurred.
MacArthur: "How did you get into that situation?"
The guy with the problem: "Well, I married the wrong woman."
MacArthur: "Well, why did you marry her?"
The guy with the problem: "Well, it was the sermon my pastor preached."
MacArthur: "Really? What was the sermon?"
The guy with the problem: "It was on the walls of Jericho."
MacArthur: "The walls of Jericho?"
The guy with the problem: "He [the pastor] said, the principle of Jericho is, that anything you want, you
march around it seven times and it'll fall to you!" "So, there was this girl and I really wanted her."
And so, literally, he found himself in a position where he could go around her seven times! And the
walls of her heart would fall down and they did and they got married. No wonder the guy was in
trouble. But see, that kind of novelty is the "stock and trade" of that Movement.
Let me tell you how serious this is, and I want you to understand this--this is like Bible Codes. This
is attributing to God things God never said! And that, my friend, is serious stuff!
You are not going to be telling people, "This is what God meant," if this is not what He meant! That's

pretty serious stuff. The only way you can deal with people like that is to say, "How is it that you know
that it means that?" And their answer is going to be, standard answer: "The Lord...told me!" And
now you've got no revelation confined here...you've got Pandora's Box--opened up!
How do you answer people like that? I think you answer them "right between the eyes"--"this is an
aberrant, unacceptable form of interpreting the Bible! This kind of spiritualizing, allegorizing is
serious error. In fact, that kind of stuff...I used to talk to pastors about this..."if you are going to
interpret the Bible like that, then you don't need the Bible! You don't need the Bible! You could use
anything! You could use "Little Bo Peep"
You could say, "You know the other night I was reciting 'Little Bo Peep' and the Lord showed me what it
meant. Little Bo Peep, she was little, but God can use the little!" You get the drift? "Little Bo Peep,
she lost her sheep. All over the world sheep are lost! People are lost! Did you ever met lost
people? Lost people over here, and lost..." That's exactly what they do! "And she didn't know where
to find them! Have you ever felt like that...you just don't know where to find them?
You laugh at that, but that is the "stock and trade" of that kind of preaching. "Ah, but they'll come
home!" I haven't figured out what to do with the "waging their tails behind them."
But I mean, we laugh at that, but that's the point is that the hermeneutic is aberrant to start with, and the
only way to deal with that is to say, "That is not an adequate way to handle the Scripture." I have said
this so many times to students, "The Bible is real people, actual history, normal language." You can't be
spinning off these wild fantasies at the expense of Scripture, and saying this is what God meant by what
He said, because you are putting words in the mouth of Almighty God, and that is not a trivial matter!
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Do you believe that Christ, as He exist now, is a material being? If so, do you believe that before He was
incarnate He also existed as a material being?
Answer
The answer to the first question is, yes, but not a material being as you know it, or I know it, because
there is a "body of resurrection" 1 Corinthians 15 again. There is a "body of resurrection," there is one
kind of body, and another kind of body, and another kind of body, and another kind of body. And there
is a body of birds, and a body of animals, and a body of resurrection. He [Jesus] said, "I am not a spirit,
you see the flesh and bones that I have." He went through the wall and yet He was there and they could
see Him and touch Him and feel Him and all that. So, He has a supernatural body, which is a visible
body--I do not believe He possessed that before the incarnation. I think "a body Thou hast prepared Me,"
He says in Hebrews. "A body Thou hast prepared Me." So, I don't think He entered into that body until
His incarnation and then fully became the Incarnate Christ and now is the glorified Christ--Son of Man,
Son of God!
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Day and Hour of the Lord
Question
Concerning your November 29th message on the fear of the wrath to come, you referred back to
Matthew 24, verse 36, “But of that day and hour, no one knows. Not even the angels of heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father alone.” It says “nor the Son”… If the Son and God are in and of themselves
the same being and they have perfect communion, why does the Son not know the day of the Lord?
Answer
Do you understand what we call the kenosis or the self-emptying of Christ? He became a man, He put
self-imposed limitations on Himself, and that was one of them. He put a lot of limitations on Himself. He
limited Himself spatially to a human body. In one sense, He gave up His omnipresence, right? He wasn’t
everywhere at the same time. He was in Jerusalem. He was in Galilee. He was up at Nazareth. He was in
the desert…He gave up His omnipresence.
He voluntarily gave up His omnipotence. He said, “If I wanted to, I could call for a legion of angels, but I
yield that up. He restricted His omnipresence, He restricted His omnipotence…why should we be
surprised that He restricted His omniscience? He purposely and willingly and personally limited himself
not to know that. As God, fully God, in His glorified state at this time, He knows. But, while He was on
earth, He didn’t know. That was a self-imposed limitation, as He limited, willingly, the exercise of His
divine attributes.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Jesus Christ
Question
We have been witnessing, my husband and I, to a neighbor who is Jewish and who comes from
Israel. We’ve been getting together with him and last time he brought up his Hebrew Old
Testament and my husband was reading with him through prophecies and he would read it in
English and the guy would read it in Hebrew. And they came to the 110th Psalm, first verse: “The
Lord said unto my Lord,” and so on. He says that word “my” is not there in the Hebrew at all and
the word “Lord” is not “Adonai” or “Yahweh” or anything like that, but it’s “Adoni,” which is just
like saying “sir” or it’s an address that you can say to anybody.
Answer
Well, “Adoni” is just a form of “Adonai.”
“So a Jew would take that as deity? Because he did not.”
Answer (continued)
I don’t know how to answer that question because I don’t know whether his Hebrew text is accurate, I
don’t know whether it’s been altered. I don’t know; I can’t verify that. I’m not familiar with that text in
Hebrew, by memory, to verify that. It sounds to me that you should keep doing what you’re doing
because that’s nitpicking
Now, it is true that the word “lord” means “sir”--that’s true--and in a secular context, a cultural context,
the word “Adoni” could be used “sir.” In the New Testament even, “Kurios” in the Greek,
(“Kuriea”(sp)--it’s often in the form of “Kuriea”(sp)) can mean “sir.” But, it’s usage in Scripture is
clearly prescribed in reference to deity, to God himself. And I would agree with this: that in Psalm 110:1,
if that verse stood alone, it would not necessarily be convincing. But when you compare--for example, if
you look at Psalm 110:1, the best approach there is to determine what that “lord” means. You determine
that, for example, “The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘Sit down at my right hand until I make thine enemies
thy footstool.’”
OK, the first “Lord” is unquestionably a reference to God. The Lord God says to some other Lord, “Sit
down at my right hand until I make all the enemies thy footstool.” Now the word “my,” as far as I know,

John MacArthur - Jesus Christ
is in the Hebrew text… I don’t what his text says. So who would David’s Lord be? Well, David was the
sovereign of Israel and remember what the Jews said in John 8? “We have never been in servitude to any
man,”--they had forgotten their captivities. But under David, they were in the glories of their great
kingdom. I mean, the kingdom wasn’t even divided yet so this was the great time of David’s kingdom.
David was the sovereign. So who would be David’s Lord? Who would be David’s sovereign? It would
have to be someone higher than David and that’s why we believe it is an intertrinitarian issue. But,
further, it says, “Sit down at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Now look at Psalm
2. And then it talks about “why do the nations rage, and people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the
earth set themselves, and rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Messiah, his king,
his Anointed." This is a messianic Psalm. And then in verse 6: “I have set my king on my holy hill of
Zion,” and who is this King? “The Lord said unto me, ‘Thou art my’” what? “‘My Son; this day have I
begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost part of
the earth for thy possession. And thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces
like a potter’s vessel,” and so forth.
So, here you have, similar to Psalm 110, the idea of the nations being made subject. Psalm 110 says, “I’ll
make the enemies your footstool.” Well, here is the exact thing happening and who is it? It is God
bringing the nations in subjection to “my Son”--to his Son. So when you parallel it with this, and verse
12 says, “Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish from the way.” So, whoever it is that the Lord in
Psalm 110 says He will make the people subject to is the same person in Psalm 2, and in Psalm 2 it is
clearly God saying, “It’s my Son,” and God’s Son is none other than the Anointed, the King, the
Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I would like you to explain the last chapter in 1 Corinthians
Question
I would like you to explain the last chapter in 1 Corinthians. I know that it is disciplinary to the
people of Corinthians, but why would Paul, in verse 22, say, "If anyone does not love the Lord, let
him be accursed?" I get the point or the idea, but he is talking to Christians.
Answer
Yes, he's talking to Christians with the recognition that in the Corinthian assembly there is always the
reality that some may not know the Lord. You have that in many, many places. I would stand in this
pulpit and say to you, "You are the Church, you are my Church," but I would say, "If any of you do not
love the Lord Jesus Christ--you are going to be cursed." He is speaking to a wider audience and
obviously there were people in the Corinthian Church. . . .for example, well, all through Corinthians, the
Corinthian Letter, it is apparent that they had a lot of problems. There were people, obviously, who
were claiming to be Christians, but one could make the argument that, if indeed they were making the
claim--they were lacking the reality.
I am thinking particularly of. . . .chapter 10 comes to mind, where he says in verse 12 (1 Corinthians
10:12), "Let him who thinks he stands take heed. . . ." What? "Lest he fall." Some of them were acting
immorally, some of them were in idolatry, and he is saying, "You know you better make sure your heart
is right!" And he uses the illustration of Israel--people destroyed in the wilderness, never entered the
Promised Land--sort of an analogy.
I think also in chapter 12, verse 3, it's indicating that some people, under some Satanic influence were
cursing Jesus! And he is saying if people are standing up and cursing Jesus, it is certainly not by the
Spirit of the Lord. So there must have been an awful lot of confusion in the Corinthian Church,
there obviously were people confused about spiritual gifts--confusing all kinds of pagan ecstasies, so
that it was very likely that what Paul is saying at the end is, "I don't care what your claim is--if you don't
love the Lord Jesus Christ--you are going to be cursed." I think that is the best way to understand that,
and that could be true of any church, or any congregation--you don't make the assumption that because
people are there, in that congregation, they necessarily all know Christ.
What he is saying is, "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ--let them be cursed." That just
reiterates God. . . .God would say that. And then he says, "Maranatha," to indicate that Jesus is coming,
so whatever you do, you better do, because there is an inevitability when the Lord comes in judgment.

Question I would like you to explain the last chapter in 1 Corinthians
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What about Christian Colleges?
Question
The Professor of the Christian Education Department, at Biola University, made this statement. “If
the Church was doing its job, we wouldn’t be here,” referring to attending Biola University. [What
I am saying is], if the church was doing its job I wouldn’t have to be going to Biola University.
Answer
I understand what the guy is saying. What he is saying is, if the church was providing the full range of
education you wouldn’t need that. I don’t agree with that. And I’ll tell you why I don’t agree with that.
A college education is not something that a church can provide. I mean we are not here to teach you the
wide range of academic subjects. But, I think a Christian college is a tremendous thing, because what
happens in a Christian college is you learn that wide range of academic subjects that prepare you for
career in life, but you learn it in the context of a Biblical perspective, which I think is really true
education-that’s true education.
So I think when Christian colleges come along side the Church, and they say, “Look, we want to teach
mathematics, and science, and history, and English, and business, and whatever else, with a Biblical
perspective, that, that is a tremendous assistance in the life in Church as young people are preparing for
all kinds of things in the world. I think there is a sense in which the church needs to be doing a better job
in theological training. But I don’t think the church can become a college or university and cover the
wide range of things that are there.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What about Christian Colleges?

Question: What are the basics for Christian Living? -- John MacArthur
Question
Please give some of the basics for Christian living. For instance, the scriptural viewpoint on
dancing, drinking, smoking, and miniskirts, etc.?”
Answer
Let me answer this--and I want to answer this lovingly and yet I want to answer it pointedly. Dancing,
drinking, smoking, and miniskirts are not the basics of Christian living. I mean that. They are not the
basics of Christian living. Do you know there are some very good Mormons who don’t do any of those
things and will spend eternity in hell? That’s right. Now listen to me. There are many people, and I mean
good people, Christian people who mean well, who base their entire spiritual life on what they do not do!
Did you know that? You know, “we don’t smoke and we don’t chew and we don’t go with girls that do,”
you know, "rudy-toot-toot," see. “We’re the boys from the institute,” see... In other words, their entire
orientation toward spirituality is what they don’t do.
And you know something? Usually they don’t do a lot of things. Mostly what they ought to do--they
don’t do, along with what they ought not to do… They don’t do, they just don’t do. I wish they’d start
doing what they ought to do, even if they want to keep on not doing what they ought not to do.
Beloved, I’ll tell you, let me tell you this: if you’re going around and you’ve got your thumb in your
mouth and you’ve got your security blanket and you’re tickling your nose with what you don’t do, I’d
like to take your blanket away and make you face the issue that your spirituality is not a matter of what
you don’t do! You say, “Are you saying it’s right to dance, drink, smoke, and wear a miniskirt?” I didn’t
say that. The Bible doesn’t say it’s right or wrong to do those things; the Bible doesn’t talk about those
things in that context. But I believe this: I believe that if you walk in the Spirit, the Spirit of God will take
care of those kinds of issues. But if you just base your spirituality on whether you do or don’t do those
things, then you have set up an artificial standard of your spirituality, you have probably bypassed true
spirituality, and you have suckered yourself into thinking you’re securely mature when in fact you’re
infantile.
Now, that’s hard stuff, but I believe that. I’m not advocating all these things; listen, I have very strong
convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong and I’ll tell you, I don’t do any of those things,
including wearing a miniskirt. And I want you to know that as a Scotsman, we have the right to do that.
Kilts have been in our family for years. But the reason I don’t do those things has nothing to do with
what I think the standards of the Christian life are; it has to do with what I think my testimony must be
before other believers.

When you go around and you start evaluating people’s spirituality by what they don’t do, you’re really
sitting in the wrong seat, doing the wrong thing, on the wrong basis. People say to me so often, “Do you
think it’s a sin to smoke?” Of course it isn’t a sin to smoke! Where would you ever get the idea it’s a sin
to smoke? You say, “But we’ve always thought it was a sin…” Listen, the Bible doesn’t say anything
about it! If you want to put leaves in your mouth and set them on fire, that’s… You know. I mean, I
heard one fellow say one time, “Who likes to lean down and kiss a girl and smell a camel?” You know…
I’m being facetious, but the Bible doesn’t say, “Don’t do that.” I’ll tell you what the Bible does say; it
does say, “Don’t gossip… Don’t backbite.” And the Bible does say, “Love the Lord your God with all
your heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and if you begin on that principle, maybe smoking can take care of
itself. But you see what I’m saying is people don’t do all these little things and they kid themselves into
thinking that that’s spirituality when all it is, is an inherited traditional legalism. True spirituality isn’t
that at all. But I believe, beloved, true spirituality, in its depth and maturity, takes care of those kind of
things.
Let me give you a little thought. You know the Bible talks about walking in the Spirit in the New
Testament? This is the key to the Christian life. Do you believe the Holy Spirit can guide your life? Do
you believe that we need to have a big thing here in Grace Church that says, “We don’t…we don’t…we
don’t…we don’t…we don’t…”? All we need to say is this: “We do walk in the Spirit.” You know, in our
house, I don’t have a sign in the kitchen that says, “Do not beat your wife. Do not maim the children.”
Do you know why? I love my wife, I love my children! That precludes the necessity for the rule.
Listen, when the apostle Paul wrote Romans 13, he said this: “Loving the Lord and loving your neighbor
is the fulfillment of all,” what? “The law.” So you see, the artificial standard of spirituality is the list of
what we don’t do. True spirituality is walking in the Spirit and letting the Spirit convict us of the things
the Spirit wants to convict us of--That’s his business.
Now, I’m talking about gray area things. Of course, we know some things are wrong. Clearly the Bible
defines many things that are sinful and wrong. You read them; there are lists of them in the New
Testament. But when we get into gray area things…You know, kids always say, “Do you think it’s a sin
to dance?” And you know, it’s an interesting thing, I said to this group of kids this week, I said, “You
know, before you were a Christian, you used to think you had to go to the dance, kind of dance with the
girl, get her in the right mood and then you could go out and neck. Then you became a Christian and you
realized you don’t dance; you just go straight out and neck, you see?” Yeah, well, you know, the whole
place just broke up. I mean, they knew exactly what I was talking about. I mean, there wasn’t one guy in
the building that didn’t understand that.
But you see, there’s the artificial standard of spirituality: we don’t do this. Oh ho, but what we do! See.
But that isn’t covered in the list. It’s very obvious to me, people, that for somebody to flop on somebody
else and wander around a floor with moody music playing is not conducive to spiritual growth. That’s
very apparent. I don’t need a rule on that; the Holy Spirit’s told me that very simply. I understand that
very clearly. And I realize too that a person’s clothing and how they dress is usually a revelation of the

depth of their spirituality, but don’t let your dress become your standard of spirituality.
You see, Jesus said in John 15, “Hereby is my father glorified that you bear,” what? “Much fruit.” You
know what fruit is? Well, you can look about and you find that fruit is good works (Colossians). Fruit is
not only good works; fruit is attitudes. And so I’ve divided fruit into two things: action fruit and attitude
fruit. You know what attitude fruit is? Galatians 5: “The fruit of the Spirit is,” what? All attitudes: love,
joy, faith, and so forth… Goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, self-control. That’s attitude fruit. Now
watch. The result of attitude fruit is action fruit. If you do action fruit without attitude fruit, that’s
legalism. Did you get that? Because you’re cranking it out in the flesh. If you walk in the Spirit, the
Spirit produces the right attitude that’s produces the right behavior.
If you’re just out there subscribing to some code, bypassing the attitude, that’s legalism. Now mark it.
The legalists and the truly liberated, godly, Spirit-filled Christian may do the very same things. One does
them in response to the Holy Spirit; the other does them to try to buy favor with God. Do you see the
difference?
Well, this is an important issue and I don’t think that you’d want to ever get in the place where you
evaluate your spirituality by what you don’t do--very, very dangerous.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

The Church at the End of the Cold War
Question
How do we explain the anomaly, that the church is growing and alive in Communist countries, and
that the evangelical church is almost completely dead where democracy has ruled?
Answer
A remarkable sidelight to the staggering political changes that have remade our world in recent months is
the emergence of a vibrant Christianity from behind the Iron Curtain. All over the Communist bloc,
where atheism was official dogma for half a century, the church is growing and alive. I have personally
seen evidence even in China that the church there is thriving--even though for the most part it has been
forced underground.
By contrast, in "free" Europe, where democracy has ruled, the evangelical church is almost completely
dead. Biblical Christianity there has long since ceased being a significant force. Atheism and humanism
have taken over. Public policy is governed almost totally by philosophies that are intolerant of and even
hostile to the truth of Scripture. It is happening in America, too.
How do we explain this anomaly? Maybe freedom isn't all it is cracked up to be.
I am certainly not in favor of totalitarianism. But we who live in free societies need to understand the
dangers inherent in the system that gives us our freedom.
It is more than a curiosity that the church has flourished behind the iron curtain while dying in the West.
The reasons are clear. Lacking any visible external threat to our faith, we in the free world have lost any
sense of subtlety of the enemy and how he attacks. We have grown careless and apathetic. We have
become concerned more with our own comfort and well-being than with the command of Christ that we
should follow His steps.
How such a thing could happen is no great mystery--especially to those who have lived for Christ under
Communist persecution. There, the cost of following Christ is understood from the beginning. Shallow
conversions are unthinkable in a society where identification with the Savior can cost you your job, your
family, your freedom--even your life.
Our culture, on the other hand, has made way for a brand of Christianity where taking up one's cross is
optional--or even unseemly. Indeed, many members of the church in the Western world suppose they can
best serve God by being as non-confrontive to their world as possible.
Having absorbed the world's values, Christianity in our society is now dying. Subtly but surely
worldliness and self-indulgence are eating away the heart of the church. The gospel we proclaim is so
convoluted that it offers believing in Christ as nothing more than a means to contentment and prosperity.
The offense of the cross (cf. Gal. 5:11) has been systematically removed so that the message might be
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/endofcoldwar.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:49:33 AM]

made more acceptable to unbelievers. The church somehow got the idea it could declare peace with the
enemies of God.
That kind of thing could happen only in a free society.
Let me share with you a letter I received recently from a Masterpiece reader:
Dear Brother John,
I read your article "Deadly Trends of Popular Christianity" (Jan/Feb 90) and I am sorry to say, but I agree
with you one hundred percent. Until 1980, I lived in Romania, being exposed daily to the persecution,
mockeries, insults, etc.
I come in this country considered by me with a high spirituality, with so many Christian churches,
activities, radio, TV, etc., to find what I call easy Christianism. I understood if I speak up, people in the
church do not like to hear and I was accused about being divisive. To me it is no wonder, because we
really are living the last days.
It is sad when you see what is happening here in the United States, while in those opposed countries the
spiritual life is taking really off the ground. In this way, if the Lord will not return in the next ten years, I
would not be surprised if Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union will send their missionaries here in the
States.
I am also writing expressing my frustration too. I am in an church that for the last three and a half years
has met in a rented building. All of a sudden the building was put for sale. What was the decision of the
elders of this church, after "consulting" through surveys, personal discussions, collective discussion with
about seventy people (the size of the church)? To disband the church because they said thirty-three
percent of the above number wanted to move to different churches because ours did not deal with "their
problems, their needs, their hurts, their disappointments"--exactly what you said.
I look back to Romania, amazed to hear that 200,000 people kneeled in the downtown city of Timisoara
(the city where the uprising started) cried, "God is with us" and repeated after a Christian man the prayer
"Our Father," which was not publicly said since the Communists took over that country.
Just an example: in the capital of Bucharest my former church has almost 1000 members in a small
building where only 300 people can be crowded, many of them standing up Sunday mornings three
hours, Sunday night two hours, Thursday night two hours, etc.
And here in the United States people decided to disband a Bible-believing church. I almost cannot
believe.
The same week I got that letter, a leading Soviet scientist--a believer--was a guest in our church. He told

me that he routinely teaches creation science to his students in Russia and has never encountered any
opposition. He was shocked to discover that in America teachers are forbidden by law from teaching
anything but evolutionary theory. That should at least challenge our notion of what constitutes true
freedom.
Western Europe, where the Protestant Reformation was born, has become the world's neediest mission
field. The awful reality is that with the Iron Curtain now gone, the Communist nations, not the "free"
ones, offer the greatest spiritual hope for Europe.
Meanwhile, if the church in America does not get back to biblical Christianity, we will soon see the end
of our influence for Christ as well. It is not really far fetched to imagine that ten years hence,
missionaries from Romania might be evangelizing America.
Everyone is astonished to see how rapidly the face of the modern world is changing. What few Christians
seem to realize is how frighteningly fast the church is declining at the same time. In what may be the
greatest days of missionary opportunity ever, much of the church has been caught unaware.
We must wake up. The cold war may be over, but the spiritual battle rages on. We cannot afford to be
indifferent. We cannot continue our mad pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification. We are called to fight
a spiritual battle, and we cannot win by appeasing the enemy. A needy world needs to be confronted with
the message of salvation, and there may be little time left. As Paul wrote to the church at Rome,
"It is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we
believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of
darkness and put on the armor of light (13:11-12).
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
John, in your radio notes on The Dynamic Church you give Seven principles
for doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way, (1 Corinthians 16). One of
those principles is an acceptance of opposition as a challenge. You said to
accept opposition as a challenge. Paul said, “I will tarry at Ephesus for a
great door is opened to me and there are many adversaries.” Then you
quoted G.Campbell Morgan as saying that if you have no opposition in the
place you are serving, then you are serving in the wrong place. Then you are
quoting again, you say, “Find a church where the Word of God is not taught
or a church that doesn’t have a biblical leadership structure and instruct
them in the truth.” Now, I can see your viewpoint as a pastor, but what
about lay people? Were you making that statement to pastors and those in
leadership or to lay people?
Answer
That’s a good question. When I made that statement I was speaking to pastors and
those in leadership. To lay people I’d say, “If you are not being taught the Word
of God faithfully, get out of there and get someplace where you can you can.” But
you see, what happens with young men is…I’ve had so many young guys come
to me and say, “Well, I don’t want to go to that church, they’ve got problems.” I
always say to them, “If you find a church that doesn’t have problems don’t go or
they’ll have problems.” If they have already reached perfection, stay away, you
could only mess it up. The typical young pastor wants a perfect situation and
what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 16 is, “I have to stay in Ephesus because
there is so much trouble here. I have got to get it straightened out.” The challenge
of the ministry is not to go where everything is as it ought to be, but to go where
everything isn’t as it ought to be and make it what it ought to be. Now there are
limitations to that. You can go in and fight a losing battle and wind up throwing
your pearls before swine all the time.

Question
Well, I’d just like to state that I just resigned as an elder from a church
where for about three years. I tried to get my point of view across and I
always quoted Scripture. They could not counteract that, but [still] there was
no change, so I left.
Answer (continued)
If you are in a church where people refuse to respond to the Word of God, that’s a
problem, even from a preacher’s standpoint. There are churches like that, where
you are bouncing this stuff off of rocks. There’s no question about that, I mean,
the apostle Paul shook the dust off his feet, remember? He left and said, “I’m
going to the Gentiles because you will not hear.” So, there is that possibility. But
I agree with you, if you are in a situation where you bring the Word of God to the
situation and they’re not interested in that, you need to be in a place where you
can be fed and you can be taught. I’m glad you asked that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Finding a Good Church
The following "Question" was asked about a recent Radio Study: A Member's Guide to Growing a
Stronger Church, and "Answered" by John MacArthur Jr. A copy of the tape series can be obtained by
Question
I am frustrated by the weaknesses in my church, but what can I do if there isn't a strong church in
my area?
Answer
When there is a choice between a church with a strong doctrinal foundation and one with a questionable
one-though both may have problems-we recommend you go with the one with the stronger doctrinal
foundation. It is easier for Christians to exercise their gifts and repair problems in the context of doctrinal
truth than in one where error blows around those we seek to help (Ephesians 4:14). But what does a
person do if his church is doctrinally sound but weak in other ways?
First, we recommend getting involved in a good fellowship or Bible study group where a person can
study God's Word along with other committed believers. If possible, find a ministry within the church
that has qualified godly leadership whose faith and life you can emulate. All church leaders have a
scriptural responsibility to be an example to believers. Hebrews 13:7 says to "remember those who rule
over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their
conduct." Peter exhorted the elders to "shepherd the flock of God…serving as overseers, not by
compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to
[them], but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3). When you need counsel and help with the Word
of God, seek out those who are godly examples and know Scripture.
Secondly, even though many Bible believing churches have problems, the Bible assumes that every
believer is to be involved in a local church. We would not encourage any believer to stop attending
church simply because the church is weak. Continual worship and fellowship with other believers is
crucial, as is regular observance of the Lord's table.
Thirdly, to influence churches toward a more biblical ministry, we encourage believers to get involved in
whatever way and at whatever level possible. A Christian shouldn't allow himself to get so busy that he
loses his focus on spending time in God's Word and in prayer. He should not pull back but remain
involved and allow God to use his personal devotion and Bible study to fuel his involvement. If the door
is open to teach the Bible in some area of ministry, he should do it. He should carefully and
enthusiastically teach God's Word as it ought to be taught. He should obtain some good commentaries
and Bible study resources to help with that task.
Last, but not least, if no "official" position is available to exert a positive biblical influence, do not
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/FAQ1.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:49:36 AM]

overlook an extremely important but often neglected area of ministry-prayer. The ministry of prayer is
not popular with many in the church-in fact, it's hard work. But prayer is foundational to all we do and
stand for. Furthermore, it is effective and brings glory to God. Believers in strong and weak churches
alike need to commit themselves to faithful prayer for other believers in the church.
Believers should remember to pray especially for their pastors and elders (their church leaders), even
those who may seem misdirected (they need our prayer even more). We should pray that God will direct
them back to His Word and will and lead them to discard unbiblical ministry fads. We should pray for
their personal prayer life and Bible study. We can encourage them by sending a card to thank them for
their labor of love and let them know we are praying for them. In 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 Paul wrote,
"And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and
admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. Be at peace among
yourselves." God will bless the believer's obedience to His Word in this matter.
An extension of such a prayer ministry might be the practice of sending cards to various people to let
them know you are praying for them. We can approach them on Sundays or phone them during the week
and ask what specifically we can pray for them. When we lack specifics, we can pray for their walk with
God, their sanctification, their personal holiness and testimony, their usefulness in ministry to others,
their love and joy in the Lord, and all of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives (Galatians 5:22-23).
Church members can pray for God to develop and strengthen their relationships both with leaders and
laymen in the church. As relationships are forged, we usually find increased opportunities to give input
and to express our biblical concerns pertaining to personal and church issues. Most people are far more
receptive to someone with whom they have a good relationship. If we are viewed as one who is merely
critical, our input is generally not welcome. So it is important to pray for good relationships with the
leaders and members of the church.
Every believer should also develop a consistent evangelistic prayer life. We should faithfully pray for
neighbors and co-workers within our sphere of influence and friendships. We should be seeking the
salvation of all men whenever and wherever we have opportunity. No believer is exempt from the
ministry of evangelistic prayer, and our prayers should reflect God's desire for the salvation of all men
(see 1 Timothy 2:1-8).
It is exciting to consider all the options available to Christians in imperfect churches. Those who engage
in a faithful, fervent ministry of prayer for their weak church will be encouraged by the opportunity God
has given them to have an impact there. When believers attend church with a view to ministering to
others, it transforms their attitude about church attendance. It is no longer duty and drudgery. They not
only want to be at church, but they feel they must be there to encourage others in biblical living and
ministry. This kind of involvement develops and stimulates further personal prayer life and Bible study.
When believers develop their ministry within the body of Christ, it cultivates a much deeper gratitude
within their hearts. They can even find themselves giving thanks to God for the sometimes misdirected

efforts of pastors and church leaders. And perhaps they could become the very influence that God uses to
stimulate their church toward a more biblical ministry.
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 15:58
© 2000 Grace to You
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Attending Church
Question
Why should I attend church?
Answer
The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of local assemblies. In fact, it was the pattern
of Paul's ministry to establish local congregations in the cities where he preached the gospel. Hebrews
10:24-25 commands every believer to be a part of such a local body and reveals why this is necessary.
"And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own
assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see
the day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:24-25).
It is only in the local body to which one is committed that there can be the level of intimacy that is
required for carefully stimulating fellow-believers "to love and good deeds." And it is only in this setting
that we can encourage one another.
The New Testament also teaches that every believer is to be under the protection and nurture of the
leadership of the local church. These godly men can shepherd the believer by encouraging, admonishing,
and teaching. Hebrews 13:7 and 17 help us to understand that God has graciously granted accountability
to us through godly leadership.
Furthermore, when Paul gave Timothy special instructions about the public meetings, he said "Until I
come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching" (1 Timothy 4:13).
Part of the emphasis in public worship includes these three things: hearing the Word, being called to
obedience and action through exhortation, and teaching. It is only in the context of the local assembly
that these things can most effectively take place.
Acts 2:42 shows us what the early church did when they met together: "They were continually devoting
themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." They
learned God's Word and the implications of it in their lives; they joined to carry out acts of love and
service to one another; they commemorated the Lord's death and resurrection through the breaking of
bread; and they prayed. Of course, we can do these things individually, but God has called us into His
body-the church is the local representation of that worldwide-body-and we should gladly minister and be
ministered to among God's people.
Active local church membership is imperative to living a life without compromise. It is only through the
ministry of the local church that a believer can receive the kind of teaching, accountability, and
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-whychurch.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:49:37 AM]

John MacArthur - Attending Church
encouragement that is necessary for him to stand firm in his convictions. God has ordained that the
church provide the kind of environment where an uncompromising life can thrive.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-whychurch.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:49:37 AM]

John MacArthur - When to Leave a Church?
Question
When should a person leave a church?
Answer
Leaving a church is not something that should be done lightly. Too many people abandon churches for
petty reasons. Disagreements over simple matters of preference are never a good reason to withdraw
from a sound, Bible-believing church. Christians are commanded to respect, honor, and obey those
whom God has placed in positions of leadership in the church (Heb.13:7, 17). However, there are times
when it becomes necessary to leave a church for the sake of one's own conscience, or out of a duty to
obey God rather than men. Such circumstances would include:
If heresy on some fundamental truth is being taught from the pulpit (Gal. 1:7-9).
If the leaders of the church tolerate seriously errant doctrine from any who are given teaching authority
in the fellowship (Rom. 16:17).
If the church is characterized by a wanton disregard for Scripture, such as a refusal to discipline members
who are sinning blatantly (1 Cor. 5:1-7).
If unholy living is tolerated in the church (1 Cor. 5:9-11).
If the church is seriously out of step with the biblical pattern for the church (2 Thess. 3:6, 14).
If the church is marked by gross hypocrisy, giving lip service to biblical Christianity but refusing to
acknowledge its true power (2 Tim. 3:5).
This is not to suggest that these are the only circumstances under which people are permitted to leave a
church. There is certainly nothing wrong with moving one's membership just because another church
offers better teaching or more opportunities for growth and service. But those who transfer their
membership for such reasons ought to take extreme care not to sow discord or division in the church they
are leaving. And such moves ought to be made sparingly. Membership in a church is a commitment that
ought to be taken seriously.
Tony Capoccia
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-lvchurch.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:49:38 AM]

John MacArthur - When to Leave a Church?

Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-lvchurch.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:49:38 AM]

John MacArthur - Church Membership
the tape, GC 1359, titled "How to Function in the Body" A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing,
Question
In many cases people are a little bit confused and it comes under this area, "...of admonishing, forsaking
not the assembling of yourselves together." What is a proper definition of "local assembly" or "local
church"? Some people feel it's five miles, ten miles and they have very definite feelings about that.
Answer
I think any time two Christians...any time Christians get together in a local community they can
constitute a church. A church is a place where there are elders, where there are teachers, where there's a
congregation. It can be, if you're two Christians on a desert island, that's a church, that's a local assembly.
If there's five thousand Christians in a church, that's a church. Very hard to define that because of
denominations and different churches. So the important thing to realize is that you are a member of the
total body of Christ and you are to attach yourself to a local assembly.
What you're asking is can a guy come from 35 miles away and still be a part of a local assembly? Yes, I
don't think that's the issue. I don't think the distance his house is from the assembly is the issue, God can
use him there and use his gifts there and use his abilities there as well as anywhere else. There are
advantages to being close, obviously, for the sake of ease of involvement.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Why or is it necessary to join a local church?
Answer
That's a good question. Why is it necessary to join a local church? For many reasons. Number one, it says
in Hebrews 10:25, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some and much
more as you see the day approaching." There is a command there to attend the assembly of Christians.
Very important. So we are to be involved in an assembly of Christians.
Now from the historical argument I'll take it a step further. There is never seen in the New Testament a
Christian who doesn't belong to a local assembly. There is no such thing in the New Testament. Every
one of them belong to some local assembly. And that becomes the pattern. And we know that they had
lists in those local assemblies of their people. They had, for example, Paul wrote to Timothy and talked
about the widows' list, that they had an actual roll of widows. We know that there were between the
churches letters of recommendations sent commending one member to another church when he left a
certain area. So we do know that they kept rolls and they kept lists of the people who were in their
congregations. And there is no such thing in the New Testament as a Christian who doesn't belong to
some local assembly.
Now beyond the statement of Scripture and beyond the argument of history, you have thirdly the fact that
Hebrews 13 says that all Christians are to submit themselves to the rulers over them. And we know that
Christ rules through the local assembly, the church. If you are not submitting yourself to some rulers of
Christ in the church, then you're disobedient to Hebrews chapter 13. Let me just read that to you so you
understand what it says. "Remember those who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the
Word of God, whose faith follow." You're to be under these people who are rulers, elders in the church,
and you're to follow their faith. Verse 17, "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves
for they watch for your souls." Here again you have the statement that the congregation is to be
submitting to elders and leaders. And that assumes that you'll be in a local congregation to be able to do
that. No Christian is a law unto himself, just autonomous running around. They all historically were in a
local congregation. The Bible says not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together. We are to come
together. In the early church they came together the first day of the week, for sure, and probably several
other times during the week for fellowship. And the reason we do this is because Hebrews 10 says we
stimulate one another to love and good works. When you stay away, you grow cold. You need that peer
pressure, if you will, that spiritual stimulus that comes from the community of Christians. In fact, in the

earliest years of the early church they met every day.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Korean Church (Paul Yonggi Cho)
Question
About a year ago, a friend of mine came to me and let me read one of his books called The Fourth
Dimension—it was written by Dr. Paul Cho, the pastor of the world’s largest church. I was very
distressed as I read the book. My question to you is, have you read the book? And what do you
know about the man?
Answer
Paul (David) Yonggi Cho is a Korean pastor, a pastor of the world’s largest church, I guess. At least
they have a lot of people going there; they have probably 200,000 members or something. And part of it
is a Korean phenomenon; it’s a cultural phenomenon.
Yes, I have read much of what Cho has written. I have interacted with a lot that’s been written about
him. In fact, I just finished last night, sitting in my easy chair, reading a book called The Seduction of
Christianity by Dave Hunt, a book which I had prior read when it was in manuscript form—it was about
twice as long and had a lot more to say until the editors got a hold of it, you know… But, in that, he
deals very, very carefully with men who are on the Christian scene who are in one way or another
deceiving people. Men like Kenneth Hagan, Kenneth Copeland, Frederick Price, Robert Schuller, and
Paul (David) Yonggi Cho.
Cho comes across on the surface as an evangelical and he identifies very overtly with evangelicals, but if
you begin to look deeply into his theology and his viewpoint, you see that it basically is syncretistic. It’s
an eclectic: it’s a collection of all kinds of things. It’s strongly Pentecostal-Charismatic. It is strongly
into what Hunt likes to think of as “forms of sorcery, white magic, and the occult.” It is also infused with
some of their old traditional ancestor worship and some of their old religion.
For example, they have this place called Prayer Mountain, where people go for hours and hours and
pray. We would say, “Isn’t it wonderful that they pray?” but if you were to go there, you would see them
doing this kind of thing, which is a genuflecting and repeating the same thing over and over, hour after
hour.
So, he is a highbred of many things. It’s difficult to put the finger on it because there are times when he
will articulate the gospel as we know the gospel. But, it is laced with all of that
“health/wealth/prosperity/healing” kind of thing that’s sort of a white magic approach. In other words, if
you put all the right gimmicks together and say all the right words—in fact, much of that stuff is almost

John MacArthur - The Korean Church (Paul Yonggi Cho)
like a mantra in “TM” where you just keep telling yourself something is true over and over and over
again. You keep reciting it and claiming it, and claiming it, and claiming it, and claiming it, until it
happens.
So I do not believe that Cho is a full, thorough-going, biblical evangelical. I think he is a syncretistic
eclectic who’s collected a whole lot of different things. He has a high appeal in his nation, because a lot
of things that those people look for and experience in their own culture are made available through that
religion and there’s a promise of health and wealth and happiness, which is always a ticket to some
amount of success. But I don’t want to deny that in the middle of it all, he articulates the gospel and no
doubt that has an effect on people, a positive effect. But that’s what makes it difficult.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
What is the significance of the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament as opposed to ear
piercing?
Answer
What is the purpose of circumcision? The best way to say it is this, we learn by object lessons, okay?
Especially in a more primitive time in the unfolding of God’s revelation in the Old Testament God gave
His people many, many object lessons, didn’t He? I mean, just their whole religion was a series of object
lessons. Life was filled with ceremonies and ceremonies and ceremonies and ceremonies, ritual upon
ritual upon ritual. There was this thing to do and that thing to do and the other thing to do and this was
symbolic in so many, many cases. Every animal that was ever sacrificed was a symbol of the ultimate
sacrifice of Christ, right? Every cleansing, every washing of a pot, washing of a pan, washing of the
hands, washing of the feet, every ceremonial washing they went through was a symbol of the inward
washing of the heart. In the Old Testament economy, God was always giving out outward symbols to
identify what He wanted to say about inward responses and inward attitudes.
Now circumcision is one of those very same things. And circumcision was a symbol of cleansing and
when a child, a baby, was born, on the 8th day the foreskin was removed and it was in a way, a symbol of
the removal of sin from the life. In other words, God was saying to them….and you do it all the time, all
the time…it’s painful, it’s bloody and so forth and so on…and the picture was that what God is doing
here is giving you a symbol of what He wants to do in your heart and that’s why the Bible says
circumcise your hearts! You know? Cut off that which contributes to your uncleanness. Cut that off so
that the outward symbol is only a sign or an indication of what God wanted done in the heart, and He
makes that very clear throughout the Old Testament. Circumcise your heart. Circumcise you hearts
comes the cry of the Old Testament. And so circumcision was just another one of God’s symbols and it
was a very dominant one. Every child that was born went through that and it was a way to constantly
remind the people that there was an inner reality of cleansing that God was after.
It was a physical identification because of the fact that it was unique to the people of God. Every animal
sacrifice was also an identification of a child of God in the Jewish era. A covenant child. There were
many of them. They grabbed onto that and that became the mark. I think by the time you get to the New
Testament, that was more an aberration of God’s intention than anything else, because they had lost the
meaning of it and they were just doing it and it became for them a symbol of God’s blessing, no matter
how they lived. And so what they did was they never did bother to circumcise their hearts. They never

Question
did bother to take care of the inside. They thought themselves to be right with God based on what they
did on the outside. And that’s why in Romans chapter 2, Paul says in verse 28, "he is not a Jew who is
one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but He is a Jew who is one
inwardly and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter," you see. So what they had
come to was just a symbol without any meaning, without any impact and so the basic symbol was a
symbol of cleansing.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Cloud of Witnesses
Question
I have a debate going with another believer that people who die--believers who die and go to
heaven--that they’re watching over us. Now, is that something to do with the great cloud of
witnesses?
Answer
Believers who die--there’s nothing in the Bible to indicate that they’re watching over us. There’s nothing
to indicate that they are even aware of what’s going on down here--nothing whatsoever. In fact, there’s
every reason to assume they know nothing about what is going on down here. They are, to put it in the
words of the old hymn, “lost in wonder, love, and praise.” Once they have entered into the presence of
the Lord, you know, “absent from the body, present with the Lord,”; “to depart and be with Christ”--once
they’ve left here and entered into the presence of the Lord, there is absolutely a total disconnect from this
world. There is no indication in Scripture that they have any further knowledge of or awareness of the
things going on in this world.
If, in fact, that were the case that would invade their perfection with imperfection. That would invade
their holy environment with sin. That would invade their perfect fulfillment with dissatisfaction. So,
there is nothing in the Scripture to indicate that that is the case and everything in the Scripture to indicate
that when you leave here, you go into the presence of the Lord in which there is fullness of joy
forevermore and your fellowship is with the church triumphant.
In Hebrews, chapter 12, it talks about the fact that we are encompassed about by a great cloud of
witnesses. Now, to understand that, you need to only look at the cloud of witnesses that are identified in
the prior chapter. Hebrews 11 lists all those people-“the heroes of faith” we call them--from Abraham
and Sarah, which is a long passage, and Moses and all the way down to the prophets Isaiah and etc., etc.--
Gideon and Barak and Jephthah and all those heroes of the faith. And in what sense are they a cloud of
witnesses? They’re not a cloud of witnesses in the sense that they are sitting around witnessing us. Some
preachers used to preach that they’re like filling a big heavenly stadium and we’re running in a track
down here and they’re all rooting us on--that is not the image there. The picture there is that they are
witnesses to the validity of living by faith, they don’t witness us; they witness to us about the validity of
faith.
In other words, they chose faith over everything. Abraham chose to believe God over his own common
sense, Moses chose to disdain the court of Pharaoh and to believe God to his own suffering, and many of

John MacArthur - Cloud of Witnesses
those others are listed there who stopped the mouths of lions, who were sawn in half like Isaiah, who
yielded up their lives to death and were martyred. They are all witnesses to the validity of living by faith
in God. And so what we have in that cloud of witnesses is the whole Old Testament history of all the
people who were benefited and blessed because they lived by faith. Their testimony is to the power of a
life of faith! It’s not that they are “watching us.”
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Could you talk about children and communion, and should they wait until they’re baptized to take
communion?
Answer
I think it’s so hard to know, specifically, in the life of a child when they reach the age when genuine
salvation occurs. I mean, I watched my own four children growing up--never did they rebel against
Christ. At what point was their childlike faith saving faith? I don’t know. But as soon as they wanted to
participate, we were willing to let them. And, I think they need to come to a certain level. I remember the
first time my father had a conversation with me about it--he’s reminded me several times--and he said,
“We’re going to the Lord’s Supper tonight and we want you to come and it’ll be your first time.” And I
said, “Well, I hope they don’t have peas.” And, his basic response was, “I think we’ll wait a while.”
So, what I’m trying to say is, there may be an appropriate time to start letting a child participate--when
they understand. I think it can be instructive, and I don’t think you should become necessarily legalistic
and say, you know, “Baptism is the entrée into that.” I think it can be instructive at a time when children
understand its meaning and they believe in their hearts that they believe. I mean, it would be hard to say
to a seven or eight-year-old who says, “I love Jesus and I’ve asked him into my heart,” “Well, I’m not
sure this is really true, and we don’t know whether we ought to let you do this.” If it’s their good
intention to honor Christ and they understand that we’re remembering His death and resurrection, then I
think the intent of their heart is consistent with the intent of God in the service, that that’s good
instruction. And then they’ll reach a point at some juncture when that saving faith is real and that service
has its full meaning to them.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

Question
What would you say to encourage those who would want to take communion but for medical
reasons could not? But they felt discouraged because they couldn’t do so. What I mean is, it would
not be healthy for them to do so, so how would you encourage them in such a way…that because
medically, it would be a danger to their health. Like say, if somebody needed to be fed
intravenously because they couldn’t swallow or for other reasons. In what way would you
encourage them--you know, encourage them that it’s not a negative thing to not do it if you can’t.”
Answer
That’s a good question, and I don’t think I’ve ever been asked that question. But, I understand that. Let
me give you a parallel question, and that would be the question that comes to--and I’ve faced this
question a number of times and it sort of broadens the picture a little bit--there have been people who
have come to Christ in a very severe and final illness, maybe days, maybe hours, maybe just a few weeks
from death, that are in no way capable of being baptized. They miss that ordinance, and yet, certainly,
God knows the spirit of obedience and the heart of obedience.
And I would just say that the desire in the heart to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, the desire in the heart to
exalt the cross and exalt the Savior on the cross…certainly God counts as the act, where the act is
impossible. You understand that? If a person cannot do, because it is impossible for them to do, what
they would otherwise do, that the Lord does understand. If a person doesn’t have the capacity to swallow,
obviously they can’t eat the bread and they can’t drink the cup. I don’t think we need to sort of reduce it
to an IV drip--I don’t think that’s required. I think the heart attitude counts for the act because it’s the
heart that God looks at anyway.
I remember a dear old lady in her 90s that I had the privilege of being with when she embraced Christ in
the hospital. She was in her 90s, and another lady had encouraged me to go there, and I gave her the
gospel and she responded to the gospel and she repented. After we talked a little bit about that, she said
to me--she said, “I wish that I could be baptized. I really wish that I could be baptized. Well, she was in
the throes of death already and didn’t live very long after that. It was an impossibility to immerse her, but
I’m quite confident that the intent of her heart was sufficient to indicate to God the spirit of obedience
that was there. Because of physical compunctions, it was unable to be fulfilled, but God looks at the heart
in a matter like that. Where we have the capability to do what God has asked us to do, we do it. Where
we don’t have the capability, the intent of the heart is sufficient to satisfy Him, I’m quite confident.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Communion
Question
I have a question regarding the Lord’s Table. You made reference this morning to a person
perhaps not taking the Lord’s Table if they haven’t been baptized. We have the admonition that
we should examine ourselves, and then afterwards, there’s a warning about we’re not judging the
Lord’s body correctly. And you made reference tonight to Hebrews 10. Sometimes I’ve heard a
person say that they didn’t take communion because they’ve realized there’s something wrong and
they wanted to fix it or they wanted to do something about it; and others say that the reason we
examine ourselves is to be, you know, as honest as we can about our sin, but as long as we
confessed it, then we really--we’re all lenient, you know. We can’t make moral rectitude of
ourselves before we take communion. So, how would you apply this?
Answer
Yeah, good question, I would say, “what you can do something about, do something about before you
take the table.” If you can do something about it to make it right, do that! There are some things that you
don’t need to do anything right about. I mean, you just need to stop doing wrong. But when there is
something that can be rectified, some place where restoration can occur, that needs to be done.
And how does that apply to the warning about not judging the Lord’s body?
Answer (continued)
Well, I think it’s the idea that if you know that there is some breach that you can make right, there is
something that you can do that is right, some act of obedience like baptism, some terrible offence against
someone or you know someone has against you, you can go and make it right, that that’s important
because if you don’t do that, you have trivialized that to some degree and you’ve trivialized the Lord’s
Table and there may be chastening in that.
Tony Capoccia

John MacArthur - Communion
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - forgive or confront?
Question
How can we know when it is best to forgive or confront?
Answer
That's a good question because most people seem to err on one side or the other. Some people think it is
best to overlook every offense and take pride in their tolerance. However, Paul confronted the
Corinthians for tolerating sin in the church and rebuked them for failing to deal with a man living in sin
(1 Cor. 5).
On the other side of the issue are people who confront over any slight infraction and make themselves
intolerable. Are there any biblical principles to help us make the right choice? Yes! Here are six
guidelines to help you know whether to forgive or confront.
Whenever possible, especially if the offense is petty or unintentional, it is best to forgive unilaterally.
This is the very essence of a gracious spirit. It is the Christlike attitude called for in Ephesians 4:1-3. We
are called to maintain a gracious tolerance ("forbearance") of others' faults. Believers should have a sort
of mutual immunity to petty offenses. Love "is not easily angered" (1 Cor. 13:5, NIV). If every fault
required formal confrontation, the whole of our church life would be spent confronting and resolving
conflicts over petty annoyances. So for the sake of peace, to preserve the unity of the Spirit, we are to
show tolerance whenever possible (see 1 Pet. 2:21-25; Mat. 5:39-40).
If you are the only injured party, even if the offense was public and flagrant, you may choose to forgive
unilaterally. Examples of this abound in Scripture. Joseph (Genesis 37-50), David (2 Sam. 16:5-8), and
Stephen (Acts 7:60) each demonstrated the unilateral forgiveness of Christ (Luke 23:34).
If you observe a serious offense that is a sin against someone other than you, confront the offender.
Justice never permits a Christian to cover a sin against someone else. While we are entitled, and even
encouraged, to overlook wrongs committed against us, Scripture everywhere forbids us to overlook
wrongs committed against another (see Ex. 23:6; Deut. 16:20; Isa. 1:17; Isa. 59:15-16; Jer. 22:3; Lam.
3:35-36).
When ignoring an offense might hurt the offender, confront the guilty party. Sometimes choosing to
overlook an offense might actually injure the offender. In such cases it is our duty to confront in love
(Gal. 6:1-2).
When a sin is scandalous or otherwise potentially damaging to the body of Christ, the guilty party should
be confronted. Some sins have the potential to defile many people, and Scripture gives ample warning of
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-pillars2.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:49:49 AM]

John MacArthur - forgive or confront?
such dangers (see Heb. 12:15; 3:13; 1 Cor. 5:1-5). In fact, Scripture calls for the church to discipline
individuals who refuse to repent of open sin in the body, so that the purity of the body might be
preserved (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5).
Lastly, any time an offense results in a broken relationship, confrontation of the sinner should occur. Any
offense that causes a breach in relationships simply cannot be overlooked. Both the offense and the
breach must be confronted, and reconciliation must be sought. And both the offended party and the
offender have a responsibility to seek reconciliation (Luke 17:3; Matt. 5:23-24). There is never any
excuse for a Christian on either side of a broken relationship to refuse to pursue reconciliation.
The only instance where such a conflict should remain unresolved is if all the steps of discipline in
Matthew 18 have been exhausted and the guilty party still refuses to repent.
(Adapted from John F. MacArthur, The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness, [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998], pp. 123-33)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-pillars1.htm
Question
What is the secret of contentment?
Answer
If you belong to Christ, like the apostle Paul you can and should learn the secret of a contented life.
When Paul wrote "godliness with contentment is great gain" he wasn't just speaking philosophically (1
Tim. 6:6). He had learned the secret to contentment in every circumstance of life (Phil 4:11-2). While
that secret eludes most people, it need not elude any true believer. For those who are willing to learn,
here are six steps to a contented life from the life and teaching of Paul.
First, learn to give thanks in all things. Paul had learned to give thanks in every circumstance and he
exhorted all believers to do the same. Thankfulness is first of all a matter of obedience (1 Thess. 5:18;
Eph. 5:18), but it is also a characteristic of a Spirit-filled believer (Eph. 5:18-20).
Second, learn to rest in God's providence. If we truly know God, we know that He is unfolding His
agenda and purpose in our lives. He has sovereignly determined each part of His plan for us so that we'll
be benefited and He'll be glorified (cf. Rom. 8:28). We should not be surprised or ungrateful when we
experience trials because we know that God sees perfectly the end result (cf. 1 Pet. 4:12-13).
Third, learn to be satisfied with little. Paul had learned to make the choice to be satisfied with little, and
he knew it was important for others to learn to make that same choice. In 1 Timothy 6:6 Paul exhorted a
young pastor with these words: "Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing
into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we
shall be content." Paul understood that covetousness and contentment are mutually exclusive.
Fourth, learn to live above life's circumstances. That's how Paul lived. In 2 Cor. 12:9-10 he wrote, "Most
gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take
pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I
am weak, then I am strong."
Paul didn't take pleasure in the pain itself, but in the power of Christ manifested through him in times of
infirmity, reproach, persecution, and distress. We also should learn to take pleasure in the power of
Christ in times of distress.
Fifth, learn to rely on God's power and provision. The apostle Paul wrote, "I can do all things through
Christ who strengthens me"; and Jesus said He will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5). Like Paul,
we can learn to rely on Christ's promise. He faithfully infuses every believer with His own strength and

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-pillars1.htm
sustains them in their time of need until they receive provision from His hand (Eph. 3:16).
Finally, become preoccupied with the well-being of others. Paul summarized this mindset in Philippians
2:3-4, where he wrote: "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but
also for the interests of others."
A self-centered man is a discontented man. But the soul of the generous man, the man who lives for the
interests and benefit of others, will find blessing upon blessing in his life (see Prov. 11:24-5; 19:17; Luke
6:38; 2 Cor. 9:6).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

How old does the Bible say that the earth is? -- John MacArthur
the tape, GC 70-3, titled "Questions and Answers" -- A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing,
Question
I have been following the Bible Science Panel and they spoke of the age of the earth in different years.
By analyzing the "so and so begot so and so" and all of that, how old does the Bible say that the earth is?
Answer
One of the things that we have passed down to us was what was known as "Ussher's Dates," there was a
man named Ussher, and he did some calculations based upon the genealogies of Genesis, and many of
those genealogies early in Genesis tell us how old people were. He figured that all out and estimated
therefore, that everything sort of began in 4,000 BC and it's 6,000 years old. The problem with that is:
the genealogies are not necessarily comprehensive genealogies. In other words, it may say, "So and so
was the son of so and so" and skip three generations, in other words, he is really a great-grandson. So we
can't isolate the chronological history of the world down to the specifics of the genealogies, because there
are definitely points at where the genealogies skip. But even with genealogical consideration we
wouldn't be anywhere near beyond 10,000 years. Because, as I said, Ussher's date came down to 4,000
just using the genealogies, and if you expand them a little bit, it won't be much beyond that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
As you know scientists measure the distance of stars and planets in light
years. If the universe was created six to seven thousand years ago, how can
there be stars whose light we are now seeing, which has taken 5 billion years
to get here, if they didn’t even exist 6000 years ago?
Answer
I can give you a simple answer to that question. God not only created the planets,
but He also created their light and He not only created their light but He created
the full span of their light to reach the earth instantaneously. In other words, if
God is able to create the universe, He certainly can stretch the light as far as He
wants in that creative act. Do you understand what I am saying? In other words,
God doesn’t say, “Well, I have the power to create the light, now I’m going to
have to hang around for 10 billion years until the light gets where I want it to go.”
The point is that if God can create the light, He can create the light, not only
where it originates but where it reaches. And there is evidence to that effect.
I am not a scientist. You can come to the college and ask George Howe, the head
of the Science Dept., who is the former head of the Creation Research Institute,
and he will probably sit you down and give you a 4-hour lecture. That’s a big
question, it’s a bigger question than it appears, because what you are saying is
true in every part. For example, when God created Adam, did He create an
embryo? Did He create a fetus? Did He create a child? Did He create a young
man or a full grown adult? Well, He created a full grown adult. And when He
created Eve, He didn’t create a little baby and say, “Adam, she’s nice, but you’ll
have to wait 21 years.” He created a grown woman. And when God created
animals, He created grown animals. When He created creation, for example on
the day that He created all the plants, did He create all the seeds in the ground and
then everybody waited until the plants grew. No, instantaneously He created a full
mature creation, so when you look to the stellar heavens and you look at the space
and the planet and the stars and the light and all of the things that are a part of
that, He instantaneously created that in it’s full maturity, so that there is no

Question
necessity to have time for all of those light years to bring the light to our vision.
The system of measurement assumes uniformity, but we believe in catastrophe

and catastrophe is the fact that God creates instantaneously a whole universe of
fully mature creation, so that the universe is six days old after He starts, as fully
mature as it is right now. It’s instantaneously created in its maturity. It’s not
created in a series of embryonic forms which must evolve and evolve and evolve
to get where they need to be. So, it’s a fully mature world an universe that He has
created.
Well, I guess I don’t understand that.
Answer (continued)
Well, of course you don’t. Nobody understands that. But we believe that and you
see the evidence from every angle, indicative of the fact that we live in a very
new world and a new earth and a new universe and that’s what science is over
and over again demonstrating. The only way that can happen is to have a fully
created universe. Now, let me take you a step further.
There are only two possible views of creation. One is that creation, as we know it
today, is the result of a sequence of time and uniform change. Right? Which is the
evolutionist’s view. You have uniformity. In other words, you look at a bunch of
strata, you look at a cliff with all the strata, right? And you say, well it took so
many billion years for this and then so many billion years for this…either that or
there was a tremendous catastrophe. A catastrophic event that literally shaped the
face of the earth in an instant, and biblical creationists believe that there were two
great cataclysmic events that shaped the earth. Event #1 was a six day creation of
a fully matured earth and universe. That is catastrophic. Now science looks at that
and based upon the theory of uniformity, they’re looking at the world and they’re
seeing it change right now and so they project the changes back into time and
they want to take them all the way back until there was nothing and that strings

Question
them out billions of years because they don’t allow for a catastrophic event. But
uniformity is not necessarily true. You can’t prove that that’s true.
The second great catastrophe was what? The flood. The universal flood, which in
one fell swoop, when God drowned the entire world, shaped and reshaped the
whole earth and out of that flood came the great ice age and the icebergs…the
whole shot. The earth was dramatically shaped instantaneously in the catastrophe
of the flood. So as a result of that, you cannot apply to all of the past history of
the earth and the universe a uniform system of change. You have to allow for
catastrophe. An instantaneous catastrophe in creation and an instantaneous
catastrophe in the flood. Instantaneous is a little bit longer.
But, even if it was catastrophically created…that star…the light would still

take as long as the scientist says it would.
Answer (continued)
No, not if God created the light in its full span. He didn’t just create it here. He
created it in it’s full span. He created it all the way along the path.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was
without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the
spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. What does it mean, “God
said, Let there be light?”
Answer
Okay, let me see if I can answer that. Now when God created, He created
everything in six days and one of the things He created was light. Now I don’t
know how to tell you all of the scientific things but you know what light is, right?
Because you know when it’s on and you know when it’s off. So God created light
all by itself and it wasn’t until later that He created the sun and the planets and all
of the other things that hold the light. So first God created light all by itself and
then later He created all of the planets and stuck the light on them, so when you
look up into the sky you see the light attached to the planets and the sun and the
moon and the stars and all of that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
How did God get into the universe to create all of us?
Answer
You want to know how God got into the universe to create all of us? Let me tell
you something. He didn’t get into the universe. There was no universe. Now
listen carefully. God always was. He never started. He always was. Do you
understand that? He always was. And then one day He created the universe, so He
was in existence before He created the universe. He was never born. He never had
a beginning. He never had a start, because He always was and He always was and
He always will be. That’s what we mean when we say God is eternal. He never
started and He never ends. Now we understand that, but we don’t understand that.
Because for us we only understand things that have a beginning and an ending, so
it’s hard to understand somebody who always was and never had a beginning, but
that’s the way it is with God. So the God who always was, one day created a
universe and then once He created it, it was easy for Him to come in and make
you and me and everything else.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
A ray of light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and light from the edge of the milky way, would
then take 100,000 years to reach here. If that is so, then our world would need be quite quite old,
because we see those that are so far out there, and we couldn't see them unless those 100,000 years
were fulfiled, in order to be in our sight. Don't get me wrong, I believe God created the heavens
and the earth, and I am not at all a creation-evolutionist, but what I do hear, is that the earth is
about 7-10 thousand years old. Please, if you can at all clear any of this up for me, I would much
appreciate it. Question: hence to all that above, the earth, the universe, would be much much older
than only a handful of a thousand years--yes or no?
Answer
No, at best, it's just a few thousand years ago. Many a scientist comes along and says, "I've got a problem
with with a young earth. What about the speed of light? God created a star out there and it's X number of
light years away--it would take a million years for it to get here! The light can' t get here! The fact that
we can see the light of the star way out there indicates that millions of years must have gone by."
Well, how about this for a wild solution. God not only created the star, He created the light in between
there and here. Does that sound impossible? Well, if that's too simplistic, let me give you another
solution. Hang on.
Research has been done on the speed of light. They've done it in kilometers. The speed of light is
generally accepted as being 299,792.458 kilometers per second or, rounding it off, 300,000 kilometers a
second. A light year is the distance light travels in a year. Thus, a star might come into being a million
light years away from the earth but couldn't actually be observed until a million years later because it
would take that long for the star light to reach the earth from outer space. If this is the case, then the solar
system has to be immensely older than the few thousand years indicated by the Genesis chronologies.
This fact would seem to remove the biblical chronology from serious consideration if we're going to have
any honest assessment from science.
Well, let me tell you why that doesn't work. First--this comes from some interesting, fascinating research
by an Australian scientist named Barry Setterfield--listen to this. "Arguments that the speed of light has
been slowing down and thus traveled much more rapidly in the past would indicate a very young
universe, in terms of thousands rather than billions of years." Barry Setterfield, an Australian scientist,
proposed the decay in the speed of light in his writings called "The Velocity of Light in the Age of the
Universe"--according to Setterfield, the first careful measurement of the speed of light was made by a
Danish astronomer, Riemer, in 1675, and then by an English astronomer, Bradley, in 1728. It's been
measured many times since then and is said to have reached an equilibrium at the number I gave you a
moment ago. The data indicate that the speed of light in 1675 was about 2.6 faster than today and that it
continued to decline until 1960 when atomic clocks began to be employed to measure it. Setterfield
charted a rate of about 5.7 kilometers decrease in velocity per second between 1675 and 1728 and 2.5

Question
kilometers per second decrease between 1880 and 1924 and he kept charting the decrease. He worked out
a curve tracing the decay of the velocity of light.
He postulates that at the time of creation, the speed of light was 5 times 10 to the 11th power faster than
now. So that light once traveled 7 million times faster than it does now. On this basis, Setterfield figures
the earth was created about 4040 plus or minus a hundred years. At the time of creation, the speed of
light was going so much faster than it does now. If the speed of light has indeed decayed, along with
everything else, then the most basic empirical measurement of the age of the solar system would fit
precisely into the genealogical chronologies of Genesis. Wow. You just take those same figures, put
them on a curve, you have light being almost instantaneous 6000 years ago.
Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. Moreover, assuming that's correct, that would explain why the dates
derived from various types of radioactive measurements on physical, geological elements, such as the
half life of uranium 238, decaying into lead over millions of years, would all be skewed. The velocity of
an electron in its orbit is proportional to the speed of light. Everything changes. What appears to be old
isn't old at all if you understand this immense fact. Hence, radiometric ages in rocks, meteorites, and
other astronomical objects in conventionally allocated years can all be predicted by the high initial value
of C and accommodated within a 6000 year framework.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Rewards in Heaven and Suffering in Hell
Question
I was recently startled by a couple of friends, who I thought were believers, when they started
talking about the people who existed on the earth before Adam and Eve. I’d never been confronted
with that before. Could you give us scriptures that confirm--well, straighten that out.
Answer
I just was looking in my Bible and just before Genesis 1, I have a blank page. Don’t you? So, mine
doesn’t say a word about those folks. That’s a figment of somebody’s imagination. Probably--just to grab
one little thought--probably, possibly…people like that have been influenced with the fact that maybe
there was some angelic occupation of the earth.
Have you ever heard of the gap theory? The gap theory was the idea that there was, originally, some kind
of creation, and then it become “tohuw” and “bohuw,” without form and void, and then God remade it.
And in that pre-gap sort of creation, there was some kind of angelic constituency on earth. That is
impossible to prove from scripture. It is highly speculative at best. There is no reason to assume anything
other than the fact that you have six days of creation. Prior to that, you have nothing…nothing…then six
days of creation, and on the sixth day, you have man, and that’s where the occupancy of the earth begins.
There’s no reason to assume anything other than that.
When we come back to earth for 1,000 year reign, will we be able to heal people or will [only] Jesus
be able to heal people?
Answer (continued)
Well, when we come back to the earth, for the thousand-year millennium--will we be able to heal people
or, will Jesus do it? Well, I think Jesus will do it, for sure, because when Jesus healed the first time He
came, He was giving them a taste of the kingdom. Do you remember Him saying that? He said, “You
have literally tasted the good things of the age to come.” Hebrews 6 says that. Now, did Jesus heal alone
or did some of His disciples heal? Some of his disciples did, didn’t they? So, what do you think about
that? Maybe the next time He comes, some of His disciples are going to heal too. That’ll be pretty neat,
wouldn’t it? I think so too. So, it’s possible that we might be able to do some healing.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Believer's Crowns
Question
A few weeks back, you were teaching and you mentioned that the crown of the believers was not a
physical, material crown, but that of the joy that we have in leading someone to Christ. I just was
wondering how that fit in with this verse in Revelation 3:11. Speaking of the Church of
Philadelphia, it says, “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have so that no one will take your
crown.”
Answer
What he’s saying there--well, he’s certainly wasn’t meaning a physical crown or they’d be going around
like this, holding onto it. What he is saying is don’t default in your spiritual life and forfeit your reward.
John says the same thing--II John 8 I think-“Look to yourselves that you lose not the things which you
have wrought but that you receive a full reward." You can earn a reward and lose it. And that reward, the
crown of rejoicing, for example, is not a crown that says rejoicing; it is a crown, which is rejoicing. The
crown of life is not a crown that says “life”; it is a crown, which is eternal life. That crown’s your life!
That’s what that means. And when he says, “Don’t let anybody take your crown,” what he means is don’t
let anybody lead you down a path of sin that will somehow lessen the potential of your eternal reward.
That’s what he’s saying.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I’d like you to comment on a teaching that Jesus descended after His crucifixion into Hell, that He
had to suffer down there.
Answer
Yes, that’s Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagen stuff. And that’s not true. They have been saying all kinds
of bizarre stuff. I deal with that in my book called Charismatic Chaos. That is more of the terrible, gross
error that has come out of Kenneth Hagen, Kenneth Copeland--that whole group of people, the word-
faith movement…that Jesus somehow had to go to Hell to atone for sin.
First of all, it says that when He was on the cross hanging there, He said, “It is finished.” He didn’t say,
“I am finished.” He said, “It is finished.” And, there’s a big difference, right? And, there’s nothing in the
scripture that says He went down there and suffered.
What it does say--what it does say…Peter tells us that Christ, in His flesh, was in a grave. His spirit went
and preached to the spirits in prison. And I believe that is a reference to the demons that are in the pit,
Tartarus, the place of bound demons. And I believe while His body was in the grave, He was alive--His
spirit was alive. And He descended into that place and while Hell was having a party celebrating His
death, He showed up to tell them that He was alive and had conquered. And He proclaimed His triumph
to them.
Colossians 2 says the same thing, “He made principalities and powers subject to Himself.” There they
were celebrating His death, and He showed up to mess up their party and to tell them that He was alive.
It was triumphant arrival; not one in which He had to suffer in Hell to atone for sin. That is a
blasphemous teaching that miscomprehends and misrepresents the atonement on the cross.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question: Self-Realization Fellowship a cult? -- John MacArthur
Question
“Is the Self-Realization Fellowship a cult? I have looked through some of their
books and have some family involved.”
Answer
Let me just respond by saying the Self-Realization Fellowship, to the best of my

knowledge, has been around for quite a long time. I remember when they first
began to occupy a facility on Hollywood Boulevard, down at the back of what
used to be the old Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, right across from the new Kaiser
Hospital (and that has been about 30 years ago) they have been around a long
time.
What they basically are is sort of an offshoot of Eastern Mysticism. I think

originally its roots have to do with India Mysticism (from India). It's a sort of
"Science of the Mind" kind of thing; "Self-Realization" gives it away. You sort
of sit and meditate yourself into meaningful being. I don't know that there is
much more that you can say about it. It would be a lot of Eastern Mysticism,
probably be involved with some kind of Transcendental Meditation to one degree
or another, but as I have pointed out in the past, the bottom line of that kind of
thing is that it is a self attaining to a level of righteousness or a being, which is
supposedly sufficient. So it is a religion of man's own invention, but it would be
a form of Eastern Mysticism.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question: Self-Realization Fellowship a cult? -- John MacArthur

Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a brother-in-law who is involved with a church somewhat on the cultic side I believe. He has
given me a couple of verses that their group believes that the Tribulation occurred in 70 A.D. and that
"this generation" in Matthew 24:34, "geneautos" (Greek) as he puts it, means "this generation" and that
the word "millennium" does not necessarily mean 1,000 years. Can you give me something to say to him
that would turn him back around?
Answer
I would say to him, "Expose yourself to some other material. If you really want to know the truth then
don't get locked into that situation. Be willing to study some other sides to that." Obviously, he is in the
wrong place and he doesn't have the wherewithal to make the decision himself so he becomes a victim of
whoever teaches it.
There is nothing that you can say about an isolated thing like that. You would have to take the guy back
and teach him Hermeneutics, in other words--you have got to learn how to interpret the Bible--this is
back where we started tonight. If you don't know the principles to interpret Scripture it is for sure that
you are going to come up with the wrong answer--it's for sure, it's a guarantee if you don't know what
you are doing.
It is amazing. You couldn't fly an airplane without training, and you couldn't operate on someone
without training, and you couldn't run a computer system without training, and you couldn't do a lot of
things without training, but people think that they can pick up the Bible and tell you everything that it
means "off the top of their head." If they have got any personality or any charm or any dynamics they
can get a bunch of people to follow them. It is the old story in California, "Grow a beard, say you are
Moses, and you will have 50 followers in a half an hour." You can build your own little Kingdom and
keep unloading on them as long as you keep them happy and make them think that they are really into
the deep stuff--you got them. Again, it is tragic that people don't know how to interpret Scripture, and
the best thing that you can say to someone like that is, "You need to expose yourself to some alternatives--
read some things." Give them some good things to read. Let them listen to tapes that we preached on
that or someone else has. Say, "If you are really objective and want to know the truth--listen to this."
Find out if he is open. If he is not open you are stuck, if he is then maybe you can feed him some stuff
that will help to see where his error is.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Question

Online since 1986

Question
Question
About a year ago a friend of mine came to me and let me read one of his
books called, The Fourth Dimension. It was written by Dr. Paul Cho, the
pastor of the world’s largest church. I was very distressed as I read the book.
My question to you is, “Have you read the book?” and “What do you know
about the man?”
Answer
Paul Cho is a Korean pastor, pastor of the world’s largest church, I guess. At least
they have a lot of people going there. They have probably 200,000 members or
something. Part of it is a Korean phenomenon, it’s a cultural phenomenon. I feel
that basically, I have read much of what Cho has written, I have interacted with a
lot that’s been written about him. In fact, I just finished last night, sitting in my
easy chair, reading a book called The Seduction of Christianity by Dave Hunt. A
book which I had prior read when it was in manuscript form and it was about
twice as long and had a lot more to say until the editors got a hold of it, you
know. But, in that he deals very, very carefully with men who are on the Christian
scene, who are in one way or another deceiving people. Men like Kenneth Hagen,
Kenneth Copeland, Frederick Price, Robert Schuller, and Paul Cho. Cho comes
across on the surface as an evangelical and he identifies very overtly with
evangelicals, but if you begin to look deeply into his theology and his viewpoint,
you see that it basically is syncretistic, it’s an eclectic, it’s a collection of all kinds
of things. It’s strongly Pentecostal/Charismatic. It is strongly into what Hunt likes
to think of as forms of sorcery, white magic and the occult. It is also infused with
some of their old traditional ancestor worship and some of their old religion.
For example they have this place called Prayer Mountain, where people go for
hours and hours and pray, and we would say isn’t it wonderful that they pray, but
if you were to go there, you would see them doing this kind of thing, which is a
genuflecting and repeating the same thing over and over, hour after hour. So, he
is a hybrid of many things. It’s difficult to put the finger on it because there are
times where he will articulate the Gospel as we know the Gospel, but it is laced

Question
with all of that health, wealth, prosperity, healing, kind of thing, that’s sort of a
white magic approach. In other words, if you put all of the right gimmicks
together and say all right words…in fact much of that stuff is almost like a mantra
in transcendental meditation (TM), where you just keep telling yourself
something is true over and over and over again. You keep reciting it and claiming
it and claiming it and claiming it and claiming it until it happens, so I do not
believe that Cho is a full thorough going Biblical evangelical. I think that he is a
syncretistic eclectic who has collected a whole lot of different things. He has a
high appeal in his nation because a lot of the things that those people look for and
experience in their own culture are made available through that religion, and there
is the promise of health and wealth and happiness, which is always the ticket to
some amount of success, but I don’t want to deny that in the middle of it all, he
articulates the Gospel and no doubt that has an affect on people…a positive
affect. But that’s what makes it difficult.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question on Adam's Rule over the Earth -- John MacArthur
Question
In Genesis 1:28 it says that God gives Adam the command that says, "Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth, and subdue it." In Genesis 9 he tells Noah to "multiply and fill the earth," there
is no indication of subduing it. Why is that not mentioned, and is that part of the whole kingdom?
Answer
Well, I think when Adam in his innocence was created, he could rule the whole of creation--he was king
of the earth! It was a question simply of having access to the whole of God's created environment, and he
could be fruitful and multiply the earth. He could sort of oversee that replenishing, and he could subdue
it in the sense that he harnessed all of its assets and powers and all the things it yielded and control that--
he was the king. He could do that because the earth was a willing servant, but as soon as you have the
"fall" then immediately, thorns, and thistles--and man in order to control a tiny piece of ground has to
work by the sweat of his brow to even eke out a living.
So by the time that you come to Noah, Noah can multiply children and replenish the earth, but it is
impossible to imagine that he could totally control it, because it's cursed. That has to do with the curse.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I was wondering if you could help me with two verses I have been having a problem with exegesis on
Question
I was wondering if you could help me with two verses I have been having a
problem with exegesis on, it would be Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, it's Saul when
he’s on the road to Damascus, where it says, “and they that were with me
saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him
that spoke to me.”
Answer
In Acts 9:7 it says they heard the voice. In Acts 22 it says they didn’t hear the
voice, and what you have to understand in putting those two together, I remember
when I went through the book of Acts, is they heard the voice, but they didn’t
hear what the voice said. In other words, they heard, if you will, an uncertain
sound. They heard a voice but couldn’t articulate what the voice said. But the
intent of it is to say that they heard the voice without hearing what the voice said.
So in one place you could say, “They heard the voice.” and in another, you could
say, “They heard not the voice of God, in the sense of having heard what He
said.”
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question: What is the right Christian stand on dancing? -- John MacArthur
Question
What is the right Christian stand on dancing?
Answer
Now, I don’t want to get into this in a long detail. Let me just say this, dancing is
in the Bible, to start with. There’s no question about that! David danced before
the Lord. There was dancing and praising God in Psalm 150. In the Old
Testament, there was dancing that was exalting and praising the Lord.
Now if you were, however, to use that as a defense of modern-day dancing, you
would find yourself ill pressed to do that. The dancing that was done in the Old
Testament was done by an individual before God as the full expression of joy!
I’m not even too sure that there were any particular steps! I don’t think
somebody did—you know, when they got really blessed—they did the “funky
chicken” or whatever that thing is, you know… I don’t think they had a new
wave of Hebrew dances swinging through the lands.
What it means is that they praised God by the expression of the body! They just
abandoned themselves to the joy that was theirs in God. There wasn’t any
indication that it was ever a partner thing or there ever was anything closely or
remotely related to sexual stimulation involved. But, on the other hand, if you
study Old Testament history, you’ll find out that they pagans danced orgy dances
and the whole key to what they were doing was to stimulate the sex drive.
That’s what we’ve inherited today, not the worshipful expression of the body as it
frees itself to just glorify God and to express its joy as it spins and twirls and
jumps and leaps and praises God! You know who would do the dance in the New
Testament? The guy in Acts that got healed. He was dancing all the way through

Question: What is the right Christian stand on dancing? -- John MacArthur
the temple, leaping and jumping and praising God! Now that God likes. But
hanging on somebody and going around a smoke-filled room with the lights out
while somebody sings a suggestive song isn’t remotely related to the Word of
God.
You know, we used to say when we were at Christian school—I went to a

Christian school that didn’t have any dances, you know—we were really well
protected. A guy became a Christian, you know, and he said, “You know, we
used to go to the dance because we’d take a girl out and take her to the dance, get
her all warmed up, and then we could go out and neck.” He said, “Then when I
became a Christian, I realized you don’t dance, you just go right out and neck.”
Yeah, true, right? The point is, anything—anything!—that in any way stimulates
desire for another person physically, outside marriage, outside that which honors
and glorifies God in every part, is to be disregarded and turned away from
totally. Totally. And believe me, the way the world sets up dances, they aren’t
dances to praise God. That’s the only kind of dancing Israel ever did.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Dating
the tape, GC 1301-E, titled "Bible Questions and Answers--Part 7." 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-
Question
What about dating? Is it normal or abnormal?
Answer
For some guys at Grace [Grace Community Church], it’s definitely abnormal! You know, we have this
running problem of guys at Grace who won’t date and many lovely young ladies, very frustrated. I see
some red ears, you know… Obviously, we’re not Aunt Martha’s Lonely Hearts Club and people don’t
come here just to find a mate, although in the process they do. In case you wonder whether anyone does
date around here, it seems to be that they do because we marry somewhere between two and four couples
a week! So somebody is dating-I don’t think they’re blind weddings, frankly; I think there has been some
planning.
And so, you know, it’s not as if it isn’t working out, but I know there is a certain frustration that we’ve
talked about in regard to this… So let me give a simple answer if I can.
I think that there is one reason why perhaps our young people in the college department and career and
maybe high school too, I don’t know, but perhaps the one reason why they are not as involved in that is
the fact that we have a high ideal of marriage, number one. And I think that we’ve tried to teach that-
we’ve tried to convey that. We have discipline people who have had their marriage break up and where
we felt there was sin, publicly. I think and I hope and pray that our young people have a very high ideal
of marriage and they see a tremendously important reality in the commitment of one person to a person
of the opposite sex. I think maybe the fruit of all of this has been that they see that thing as such a high
and lofty thing that it’s very difficult to treat it as a social occasion-that’s one reason I think.
Secondly, I think we also reject the world’s flippant, self-styled approach to easy-come, easy-go
relationships between the sexes. I think that we’re more oriented toward ministry and more oriented
toward the spiritual dimension than we are toward the socializing aspect of it. I spoke at a church in this
area one time, I spoke to their singles-college and career and all-and they weren’t even interested in what
I was saying. That’s hard on me because, you know, I mean, I’m used to being, you know, speaking
where people are interested! And I went in there-they were bored to death! They were all sitting there,
you know, and just looking at their watches because there was a party going on afterwards! They just
wanted to get to the party, see, that’s why they were there. They weren’t a church that was concerned
with Bible study and the week before me the speaker was Steve Allen! So, I realized that I was out of my
element and I said, “Open your Bibles” and there wasn’t a sound, you know. I mean, there wasn’t a Bible
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:51:22 AM]

in the place so, you know… There I was doing my little exposition all alone.
So, I don’t think that we are in the situation of seeing ourselves as a social entity, but rather as a group of
people in ministry. I would say also that perhaps because we’ve carried this thing a little too far, we tend,
when finally somebody does date, we tend to say, “Aha! There’s something going on!” See, you know.
“He likes her, hmm, and we’ve got them married before they’ve even, you know, finished their miniature
golf.” I mean, two lines of bowling doesn’t constitute engagement….
So, I think there are some reasons, but I would just add that I think that dating is acceptable in our
society. It’s not biblical. In the biblical generation, of course, the father and the mother arranged
everything and of course that’s the way it ought to be, but we’re trying to work with it. I think that dating
can be beneficial because it develops an understanding and a sensitivity to the opposite sex and it helps
you to develop a sense of social etiquette, a sense of communication with those of the other sex. God has
always designed that a man and a woman would complement each other in terms of filling out needs and
so forth and I think a young man can be a great assistance to a young lady and in many ways of
complementing her life and broadening his own experience. I think it’s good to teach yourself how to
give and how to build up somebody else and how to minister to somebody else. Certainly to be with a
person of the opposite sex is to prepare yourself in some sense for the giving that is marriage. To learn
how to do that is very important.
So, I think it’s good. I think there ought to be a stimulation in that area, to minister to each other, to learn
how to gracefully deal with a person of the opposite sex, to learn how to be sensitive and gentle and to
learn how to be responsive and to learn how to give a little to somebody else. It’s easy if all you ever do
is spend your time with your own friends to develop a very isolated lifestyle that may wind up making
you a difficult person to be married to in the long-run. And after all, if you’re going to be married, you’re
going to spend your life giving yourself to someone of the opposite sex; a little practice wouldn’t hurt.
I would also caution that it would be wise if you would make sure you choose your dating very carefully,
very carefully. Make sure you find the biblical pattern and follow it. The Bible says a lot about who you
pick. When you’re picking a partner, there are several things you ought to remember:
1. Number one, pick a person on the basis of their reputation.
Proverbs 22:1 says, “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” Associate with someone with
a very good reputation.
2. Secondly, someone whose appearance is what it ought to be.
Looks reveal character. The Bible talks about a “proud look”; the Bible talks about a “wanton look.”
Isaiah 3:9 says, “The show of their appearance does witness against them.” So reputation and
appearance…

3. Speech.
“Out of the abundance of the heart”-what?-“a mouth speaks.”
4. Clothes.
I Timothy talks about modesty: “clothes will reveal a vain heart.”
5. Companions.
One really great way to tell somebody’s character is to find out who they run around with-who are their
friends.
And all of these things ought to come into your choice as you chose someone to be with, to socialize
with, and to minister with.
I would also encourage you to date in a group setting and to avoid a situation where you might be
tempted to compromise your purity and your Christian testimony. So, I’m for dating! I mean, that’s what
I did; I dated my wife and look how it all turned out! You know, fantastic! I thank God for that process
because in our life it worked right into the will of God and it can still work that way as it has in many,
many of yours.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I want to ask you a question about the term the "Day of the Lord." I was always
looking forward to that, in a sense as a good thing to come, and then as I started
looking in it I don't think it's a very good thing. I am glad that I won't be here for
that, but in Amos 5:18, when it says, "Woe unto you that desire the Day of the
Lord," an so I have a little confusion with it.
Answer
Let me tell you just basically and I will give it to just as simply as I can. Let me
put it this way, simply: the Day of the Lord is any day when the Lord moves in
wrath and judgment. It is not purely an eschatological term related to the Second
Coming. It is a broad enough term when referring to the Second Coming to
encompass some good things, like the rapture of the Church and the glory of the
saints. But the Day of the Lord is primarily a judgment term. It is as if it is
contrasted to the day of man. You got you day buddy, but God is going to have
His day. And in His the essence of it is judgment. Now, I believe that in the past
there have been many Days of the Lord. Every time God moved in, in a
holocaust of judgment to one degree or another, that was the Day of the Lord. I
think there is coming in the future a great Day of the Lord, which will have some
good features to it, but which by virtue of the title, "The Day of the Lord," really
puts an emphasis on judgment.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Question
Question
I go to a Bible Study and we were discussing 2 Thessalonians, and we got into chapter 2, and discussing
the Rapture. I have always been along the lines of a "Pre-Trib" Rapture, and I got into chapter 2 there,
and some things seem to contradict themselves. If you could just comment on what the "Apostasy" is,
and what "The Day of the Lord" is.
Answer
Chapter 2:1 of 2 Thessalonians, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter. . . ." What was happening in the Thessalonian Church was that some people
were fearful that they had missed the Rapture. They were afraid that they had already missed it, so Paul
is writing to inform them that, that has not happened. So verse 3, says, "don't let anybody deceive you,"
don't let anybody tell you that you have missed the Rapture, and not only that, but the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
The whole idea of that phrase in verse 1, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering
together to Him" maybe a more comprehensive statement, but it certainly would include, I think, the
Rapture. The whole idea--they were being told that everything had happened and they had been left out.
"So don't let anybody deceive you, that's not going to happen, until first of all there is an 'apostasy,' and
the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called
God. . . ." I just think what he is saying there is: the whole idea of the coming of Christ cannot come to
fullness and fruition until these things take place--and they have not taken place.
[The 'apostasy'] is a progressive falling away from the truth. In the first place, I don't think that it is the
Rapture--some people believe that it is the "snatching away," they make it the rapture. I think it is an
"apostasizing." Now the question is, "Is it an apostasy in the Tribulation, after the Rapture, or is it an
apostasy that begins before the Tribulation?" I think the answer to that is that it is before [the
Tribulation], because it says, verse 7, "the mystery of iniquity is already at work." So the mystery of
iniquity is already at work; the apostasy, in a sense, is already at work; the culmination of all of this is the
coming of the Lord--don't think that it has happened because the rest of this stuff hasn't even unfolded
fully yet: the "man of sin" hasn't been revealed, and so forth.
The "Day of the Lord" is always associated with judgment, and what he is saying is, that the judgment
has not happened because this hasn't happened. It's not a question that sorts out the Rapture here, I don't
see that you can sort that out, he's just saying, somebody may be telling you that you have missed it all--
whatever, part of it. But, I'm telling you that the final end hasn't come, the "Day of the Lord," the time of
judgment he focuses on hasn't come, because the "man of sin" isn't revealed, and so forth. He is not
necessarily saying that you are going to see that, he's just saying that it can't of happened because this
event has not taken place.

Question
Let me just say this, this question comes up a lot. Second Thessalonians is basically a book that needs
great intense study, it's got some very unique features in trying to sort out all these factors. But, in
general, I believe that the Pre-tribulation Rapture is the only doctrine that makes any sense in Scripture.
You can come to Scripture, and you can "shoot it down," I mean you can follow some of the people that
has wanted to postulate a Post-trib Rapture, a Mid-trib Rapture, or whatever, that means that we are
going to be raptured at the end of the Tribulation, or in the middle, rather than before. But the problem
is, you can knock down the Pre-trib theory by reinterpreting words and reinterpreting verses, but you will
find it (I do anyway) almost impossible to build up a Post-trib theory--it just doesn't survive scrutiny.
So, I really believe that the Church will be raptured first, then the Tribulation, and then comes the Lord in
judgment. And I think that is all that the writer here is saying, is that you didn't miss that, because before
that happens there has to be the "falling away." Now, some people say that, that is the rapture--the
"catching away," and they say that "apostasia" (Greek) means "rapture." I don't feel that way, I think it's
apostasy, "and then the man of sin, who opposes and exalts himself," and it's already working that way--
verse 7 says, "but then that wicked one will be revealed, and lying wonders," and after that is going to
come the "Day of the Lord." So, I don't think the Rapture is even in the discussion really, I think that he
is just talking about the "Day of the Lord," of course, before that will be the Rapture.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have been reading in 1 Timothy 3, about the qualifications for elders and
deacons, and I find nowhere from verses 8 to 13 where it says that a deacon can
be a woman, because it says, "Let deacons be the husband of one wife."
Answer
Let me tell you what that means--all right? So you are wondering why there are
women deacons? Verse 11 is a key verse. I just wrote a book on deacons and
rather than try to cover everything (it will be available this week, so could you
pick one up on Sunday maybe or next weekend)--I go through all the whole
process of discussing it.
If you will look at verse 11, he's talking about elders and then he sort of shifts
gears and talks about deacons, verse 9, and the qualifications basically are the
same. In fact, what I found in my study was that the difference, the only
difference that I could find between and elder and a deacon basically was skill in
teaching the Word of God, and refuting those who taught error. In other words
the primary distinction between an elder and a deacon textually, is that unique
ability to handle the Word of God that is a God-given gift. The spiritual
qualifications really aren't any different: it takes just a godly and virtuous a
person. We might also conclude that deacons don't have to be leaders like elders,
but that's wrong, because they have to have demonstrated, in verse 12, that they
can rule their children and their own house. So I don't see a difference in
leadership capability between an elder and a deacon; all I see is a difference in the
skill in which they can articulate the Word of God.
But verse 11, in the midst of the discussion here says, "Even so," and it uses the

Question
word "women," rather than wives--wives would be an arbitrary translation, "are

to be serious, not slanderers, sober minded, faithful in all things." And it is my
conviction that the reference there is directly to those women who serve in a
deacon role. The word "deacon," by the way, is a very general term in the Bible--
it simply means "servant." "Phoebe" in Romans 16:1 is called a deacon, and she
was a woman obviously. "There are other women who served with me in the
gospel," Paul says, he uses the verb form of the same word.
So, I think that the women are mentioned there in verse 11; and there are some
reasons in the Greek text why it seems to me that that is a separate group isolated
out from the rest, so that he talks about elders, he talks about deacons, and then he
talks about the women who serve as deacons also. So I think there is room for
that. Early church history corroborates that in that they recognized deacons
calling them, I guess in English we call them, deaconesses.
By the way, the footnote too on that "husband of one wife"--that is in the Greek
text a "one-woman man." I think a lot of people have misunderstood it because
of the "Authorized" translation. It isn't saying that in order to be qualified to
serve in the church you have to have one wife, because that's not a spiritual
qualification for anybody. You could be an outright pagan and have one wife.
That doesn't qualify anyone for anything. That would be the only non-spiritual,
non-leadership thing thrown in; but what the text says is a "one-woman man."
The issue is not, "have you only had one wife," the issue is, "is the one you have
the one you are committed to?" The issue is, are you a one-woman man? There
are plenty of people in the world who have only one wife, but they have a whole
lot of interest in somebody who isn't their wife.
I heard today about a church in our area where the pastor and the assistant have
just been caught in affairs with different women. They blew the whole leadership
of the church. Now that is not a one-woman man. He may have only one wife;
he may have only had one-wife ever, never a divorce, but he's not a one-woman
man. You show me a one-woman man and I will show you a man who has got
spiritual integrity. You show me a man who is only married to one woman and I
can't tell what he is.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question What are some of the key things God looked at when He just said
Question
What are some of the key things God looked at when He just said, “Enoch
walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” And is there anyone
else who has ever lived with the same spiritual characteristics in their lives?
Also, a second part of that is, you mentioned something about God taking
some of His loved ones, awhile ago, and one was Moses, for disobedience.
Now both of them, one went with a body and one without a body, they both
went to heaven or went to be with God. What’s the difference?
Answer
Yes, that’s a good question. It’s just like the discipline in the church, "some of
you are weak and some of you are sickly," and then the final "coup de grace,"
some of you sleep. Those people are in better shape than the weak and sickly.
You know if the ultimate chastisement of a sinful believer is death, I’d rather be
with the Lord than to have a terminal illness. So I don’t know the answer to that
question, really.
All that I can say about Enoch is that Enoch walked with God: and he was not;
for God took him. Now, that is an amazing statement! What it seems to say to me
is that one day God took a walk with Enoch, and He had such a wonderful time
with the guy, that He walked with him all the way to heaven. I mean, I don’t
know what else to say. Somewhere along the way, Enoch got transformed. A
parallel to that would be Elijah who was taken up in a whirlwind of fire. I mean,
he went for a chariot ride and ended up in glory. So you have those two people
who were uniquely taken to the Lord. I think you are going to have a whole lot
more in the rapture. I think what you see with Enoch and what you see with
Elijah in a single illustration is exactly what’s going to happen with the rapture of
the church. We are just going to take off! So I don’t think it’s that uncommon. I
think it’s an illustration and I don’t think it’s to say that Enoch was a perfect man
who didn’t need to be transformed. I think he was transformed in the process
because he was a son of Adam and Adam was fallen and so was Eve and so he
bore the sins of his nature.

Question What are some of the key things God looked at when He just said
Now as to what’s the difference, in a very real sense there is no difference. There
is no difference, unless there is a difference to be in heaven in your glorified body
as over against just your spirit, waiting for your glorified body. You see, Enoch
went in in a glorified form…he got transformed on the way up…there was no
body anyplace. The same with Elijah. Every other saint who dies, his spirit goes
to heaven and his body is here. Moses, too, was buried, you remember, in the
mountain. So he would be without the full expression of his eternal glory until
Daniel 12 comes to pass, the resurrection to life everlasting that will come to the
Old Testament Saints. So the difference would be in the ability to express the
fullness of glorification in that glorified form.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In the Bible, when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and then in Hebrews 9:27 I saw that it says,
“And in as much as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment”….how can
we explain that because Lazarus was dead, but then had been raised from the dead, so that would
mean that he would have to die a second time?
Answer
The question he is asking is how can it be that the Hebrews 9:27 passage is all-inclusive, “It is appointed
unto men once to die," if Lazarus, in fact, died twice. I’ll ask you a question, Todd, what about Enoch, he
didn’t die at all? So, you’ve got at least one person who never died at all and you’ve got Lazarus who
died twice, and you not only have Lazarus but a lot of other folks who died twice. In fact anyone who
was ever raised from the dead died twice. When Jesus died on the cross it says the graves were opened
and all kinds of Old Testament Saints came back to life, so they had to die twice.
Then you have the people that Jesus raised, the daughter of Jairus and the son of the widow of Nain. You
have the ones that were raised by Elijah, the prophet from the dead. All of those people died twice. Then
you have to answer the question about what about the “rapture”--a whole population of Christians aren’t
even going to die once. They’re going to be raptured to heaven.
So, what we assume then, from all of that biblical data is that the statement of Hebrews 9:27 is a general
statement to which there are by God’s design, certain exceptions. And we need not fear that. It’s still true
that it is appointed unto men once to die. That is the norm. Men die. It is extremely unusual when they
don’t die and we can count on death. In fact, in history you can count the people that didn’t die by just
counting Enoch and maybe Elijah was translated in a whirlwind, but there are less than a handful out of
the millions and millions that have died. And of those who have died twice, that’s also a very small
group of people who were raised from the dead and yet in the future there will be a whole group of
Christians who will miss death because of the rapture. We’d like to be in that group wouldn’t we? But,
we just know that the principle of Hebrews 9 is still true, that men die and they die once and then they
face God’s judgment. So we take it as a general principle in that regard.
Tony Capoccia
Question
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
My question is concerning the death of Christ. I know that the word-faith people are teaching a
very erroneous teaching on the death of Christ and His going to hell and being born again, and so
forth. But, it seems like some sound teachers are denying the spiritual death of Christ, to kind of
dispute what the word-faith people are saying. I’d like you, if you would, to answer the question:
Did Christ die spiritually on the cross? And, what are some of the scriptural texts in regard to
that?
Answer
Well, spiritual death is usually defined as separation from God. In that sense, I would say, yes, Christ did
die spiritually. We know He died physically; I mean, that’s obvious, because they crucified Him and He
yielded up His spirit, right? And they ran a spear into His side and out came the pericardial fluid, mixed
with blood, which indicated probably that His heart had burst. And so we know He died physically.
What, beyond that, what He experienced was a separation from God. And, I believe, in that sense, there
was a spiritual alienation--there was a spiritual death. Spiritual death is alienation from God, and Jesus
articulated that when He said, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” I think, in the
experience of bearing sin in His own body--literally, Paul says, “Being made sin for us”--the separation
occurred. And so, I think there was a spiritual element to His death. Now, obviously, His nature was not
defiled. Ok, now that is the caveat that you have to place there. While He bore the sins of many, He
Himself never became a sinner. That’s the mystery of it. He was made sin, in the sense that all of our sin
was placed upon Him, but He Himself was not culpable, so that His death was a voluntary
substitutionary death and not one for His own iniquity.
And that’s where the word-faith people just completely misrepresent the death of Christ. They have
Christ dying on the cross as a sinner, then going to hell--this is what Kenneth Copeland, for example,
teaches--going to hell, and there suffering punishment for His sins, and then being born again and
coming back to the world on His resurrection morning. But, you’re right, in disputing that, we cannot
dispute the reality that Christ was made sin, and in being completely covered with sin, He was alienated
from God, which is the essence of what spiritual death is.
Besides the reference in Matthew, do you have any other scripture that would talk about that

Question
separation? I know in Psalm 22--that’s a reference.
Answer (continued)
Yes, because that’s where he drew that from, from Psalm 22. Just off the top of my head I am trying to
remember if there’s any specific one…my mind is drawn to Colossians, chapter 2, where it says that the
“certificate of debt” (verse 14) “consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us, which was the
accumulated sin, the debt that we had accrued against God, He has taken it out of the way, having nailed
it to the cross.” I think, again, what this is saying is that the whole body of sin was placed upon Christ
and nailed with Him there. And I think it’s just inherent in that, that there will be an alienation from God,
as He bears this sin.
Another text that comes to mind is in Hebrews, where we see Christ depicted as the scapegoat, as the one
who has to suffer. You remember, outside the camp…remember the scapegoat? The high priest would
put his sins on the scapegoat, and then he would be taken outside of the camp, indicating that sin was
taken away. Christ is the scapegoat; He suffers without the camp. And there again you have the same
concept of alienation, where he is sent out into the wilderness bearing sin. But, I can’t, just off the top of
my head, think of any other specific statement with that regard. Do you have any in mind?
Well, the verse in 1 Peter, chapter 3, verse 18, “For Christ also has suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that He might bring us to God.” And then it says, “being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit”…and I’m wondering--that “quickened by the Spirit”--what is that?
Answer (continued)
Now, what I think that means, and what I think you have to hold there (and that’s why I wouldn’t refer
this verse particularly to this issue)--I think it simply means, He was dead physically, but He was alive in
His spirit. In other words, that would be true of anyone who dies, right? I mean, you can kill the body,
but you can’t kill the soul. And I think that’s what it means, that His body was killed, but His soul did not
go out of existence. So, when we talk about spiritual death, we’re not talking about someone’s soul going
out of existence. And, it tells us there that “being alive in the spirit, He then went and made a
proclamation to the spirits in prison.” It is true that He did go to the abode of demons, but He didn’t go
there to suffer, He went there to preach.
So, all that’s saying is that, while His body was dead, the real Christ was still alive. That doesn’t speak of
the alienation that He experienced on the cross in bearing sin. Good question, thank you.
Tony Capoccia

Question

Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
We witness, my husband and I, to a neighbor, who is Jewish and he comes

from Israel. We have been getting together with him and the last time, he
brought out his Hebrew Old Testament and my husband was reading with
him through prophecies, and he would read it in English and the guy would
read it in Hebrew, and they came to the 110th Psalm, the first verse, “The
Lord said unto my lord… and so on…and he says that word “my” is not
there in the Hebrew at all. And the word Lord is not adonay or yahweh or
anything like that but it’s adoni, which is just like saying sir or it’s an
address that you can say to anybody.
Answer
Well, adonay is just a form of adoni. I don’t know how to answer that question
because I don’t know whether his Hebrew text is accurate. I don’t know whether
it has been altered--I can’t verify that. I am not familiar with that text in Hebrew,
by memory, to verify that. It sounds to me that you should keep doing what you
are doing, because that’s nit-picking. Now it is true that the word lord means sir.
That’s true and in a secular or cultural context, the word adoni could be used as
“sir”. In the New Testament, even “kurios” can mean “sir,” but its usage in
Scripture is clearly prescribed in reference to deity to God Himself. I would agree
with this, that in Psalm 110:1, if that verse stood alone, it would not necessarily
be convincing. But, when you compare, for example, if you’ll look at Psalm
110:1, the best approach there is to determine what that Lord means and you
determine that, for example, “the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right
hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Okay, the first Lord is
unquestionably a reference to God, but the Lord God says to some other Lord,
“sit down at My right hand until I make all of the enemies thy footstool.” Now,
the word my, as far as I know, is in the Hebrew text, I don’t know what his text
says.
So who would David’s Lord be? Well, David was the sovereign of Israel and do
you remember what the Jews said in John 8? “We have never been in servitude to

Question
any man”--they had forgotten their captivities, but under David they were in the
glories of their great kingdom. I mean the kingdom wasn’t even divided yet. So
this was the great time of David’s kingdom. David was the sovereign, so who
would be David’s Lord? Who would be David’s Sovereign? It would have to be
someone higher than David and that’s why we believe it is an intertrinitarian
issue. But further it says, “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies
thy footstool.” Now, look at Psalm 2. It talks about, why do the nations rage and
the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the
rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Messiah, His King,
His annointed." This is a Messianic Psalm. And then in verse 6, “I have set my
king on my holy hill of Zion.” And who is this king? "...the Lord said unto me,
'Thou art my,'" what?…. "'my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and
I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost part of the
earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash
them in pieces like a potter's vessel,'"and so forth. So here you have similar to
Psalm 110, the idea of the nations being made subject. Psalm 110 says, "I’ll make
the enemies your footstool." Well, here is the exact thing happening and who is
it? It is God bringing the nations into subjection to His Son. So when you parallel
it with this and verse 12 says, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish from
the way.”
So whoever it is that the Lord, in Psalm 110, says He will make the people
subject to, is the same person in Psalm 2, and in Psalm 2 it is clearly God saying,
“it’s My Son,” and God’s Son is none other than the Annointed, the King, the
Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question

Question about Exorcism -- John MacArthur
Question
To what extent do you believe that cases of epilepsy and lunacy, today, are due to demon possession, and
would it be possible to cure these illnesses by casting out these demons through exorcism?
Answer
I think, personally, from just understanding the New Testament record, and knowing that demonic forces
are powerful, strong, and the fact is that we do "wrestle against, not just flesh and blood, but
principalities and powers," according to Ephesians six--I think a lot more mental illness and a lot more
aberrant and abnormal behavior can be attributed to demonic work than we ever imagine.
I think a lot of it is "functional disorder." A lot of it, such as epilepsy, can definitely be due to a physical
problem, rather than a spiritual problem. But what can be diagnosed as epilepsy can usually be diagnose
as such by virtue of some physical things. Today, we have sophisticated enough diagnostic techniques to
do that. But, I think that there is behavior that might appear to be epileptic that definitely could be
demonic.
The answer to the question, "Do I feel that a lot of it could be eliminated by casting out demons?" I don't
believe necessarily, today, that the Lord calls us to cast out demons. I believe anyone who comes to
Christ will be freed from that, and any Christian who is obedient to Christ will be freed from that. It's not
a question of having to go around and cast those out--that was a very unique ministry of Christ and the
Apostles in a sovereign way. Christ just spoke to demons and they left, and the Apostles as well. I think
today, we have no such ministry existing in the Church, but the promise, "Resist the devil and he will
flee from you," and we come to Christ, "Greater is He that is in us, than he that is in the world."
Yes, I do believe that much of mental illness is a result of demonic and Satanic activity, but it is hard to
just isolate it, because it is a result of sin, it is a result of willful choices made by human beings, and it
certainly involves Satan. If we knew the truth, then we would know that standard psychological answers
don't solve that problem. I think, we basically, in our contemporary psychological approach to these
problems have come to the fact that, for the most part, psychology doesn't help. So, if you have severe
problems, what will happen--and I can tell you that I have been in mental institutions all around this area,
calling on people and visiting people and so forth--inevitably what happens when a person goes in there
is, they don't have any cure--they just give them medication to calm the symptoms--they can't deal with
the problems.

Question about Exorcism -- John MacArthur
I just got an article the other day across my desk, which I have started to read, which basically talks about
psychology and its inadequacy. There is another new book called "Psychological Seduction" written by
the man that is the Chairman of the Psychology Department at Boston College (I think it is), who is a
very respected academician who says psychology, as such, the whole business is "bunk," because it has
shown now that they can't get to the problems just through psychological means. As a solution it doesn't
really work.
So, I think the reason it doesn't work in many cases (sometimes it does--people just need guidance), but
the reason it doesn't work is because the forces there are greater than can be dealt with, with just human
information or human technique--and I think that it is supernatural. But I think the answer is to "Come to
Christ" and then to live an obedient life. I don't want to oversimplify, but I think that that's it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I happened to be getting my hair cut and my hairdresser was relating different experiences of his and he began by saying
Question
I happened to be getting my hair cut and my hairdresser was relating

different experiences of his and he began by saying that he was on some trip
with some friends and he started having “Word of Knowledge” from the
Lord and he got these visions and stuff. Then he went on to say that the Lord
was giving him a Word of Knowledge that this friend of his, who supposedly
is a Christian, was dealing with demons that were inside of him of lust and
homosexuality and different things, and he began talking about how he
really feels that if you have a spirit of anxiety or anything it's not of God, so
therefore it’s of the devil. He was saying that he feels that he needs to deliver
all of these people of demons. I told him that I didn’t really agree with him
because I feel that, you know, it’s a case of sin and the flesh and everything
and I didn’t agree that demons could be inside of a Christian, living inside of
a Christian, if the Holy Spirit was there. And I think by the time I left he
thought that he had to deliver me of a spirit of a demon of rebellion or
something, I don’t know, but is this something that you’ve come across?
Answer
Yes, there was a guy back in Florida by the name of Don Basham, who
propagated this quite extensively in several books and it was picked up by some
other people, I think Derrick Prince and a few other people in a very sort of fringe
charismatic group got into this. And I wrote about this in one of my books, that
this guy was looking for the demon of postnasal drip, you know and really crazy
stuff.
Now, I don’t want to underplay the demonic world and it may well be that
demons are involved in all that kind of stuff, but the ridiculous part of it is to
assume that this guy can run around telling the demons what to do. You know, I
mean, I’ve tried to cast demons out of people when I was younger and foolish,
now I’m old and foolish, but, I tried to do that and they wouldn’t go anywhere. I
mean, I remember Jerry Mitchell and I, we had a girl there and she had all kinds
of demons and they kept talking and yelling, and we tried sending those demons

everywhere. We sent them to the pit, to Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, we sent

them to the desert, we sent them everywhere and they didn’t go! They didn’t go
anywhere. We had absolutely no authority over demons. We are not apostles, we
can’t heal the sick and we can’t tell the demons what to do. And the fact of the
matter is we really don’t need to do that because the only reason a person would
be under that kind of demonic influence would be if they had, by virtue of sin in
their life, given access to that. It’s as simple as James says, “Resist the devil and
he will flee!” OBEDIENCE! It’s the whole issue.
So, to me it’s superfluous to go around casting devils out of people. In fact, in the
entire New Testament, in the life of Christ, He did that and of course in Matthew
10 he says I give you power over disease and the power to cast out demons, but
apart from the apostles that was never done. There is never any indication in the
epistles of Paul where he says to people in the church go around casting demons
out. If someone is sick, cast demons out, or if someone’s anxious cast the demons
out, if somebody’s nose runs, cast the demons out.
I believe that all of our spiritual warfare is bound up in Ephesians 6, where they
have the armor of God. You put on the armor of God and you resist the devil,
….we’re wrestling with principalities and powers and so forth…but the answer to
that comes in spiritual readiness, in holiness, in virtue, in obedience and all of that
kind of thing. But that is a preoccupation of certain sort of far out charismatics, in
fact more than we would probably like to admit. And the fallacy of it is, one that
everything is the result of a demon. Now, you read Galatians 5 and you don’t see
that. But the works of the flesh are these, and then it lists all of the things that are
the works of the flesh. Can he cast out the flesh? Not hardly, so that’s ridiculous
to reduce everything to that kind of a simple thing. He no doubt, is a victim of
bad teaching, like so many people are, and may mean well, but he may get
himself into a situation that would be spiritually very dangerous if he thinks he
can confront demons on their level and tell them what to do. He may wind up
having more problems with them, than the people he is trying to help. But, it’s not
an uncommon thing.

Everything seems to be an attack, anything that happens, like a trial, seems

to be an attack.
Answer (continued)
That's the second point I want to make, that is, that there is a certain sense of
irresponsibility built into that view, which says, “I’m not really responsible for
the problems in my life, demons are.” That’s not where God lays the
responsibility. I have no fear of being possessed of a demon. I have no fear of
being overrun by demons. I really believe in my heart and you, if you think about
it, would believe it too, because of the nature of the ministry God’s given us, that
if the demons could take over my life, they would. Do you believe that? I believe
that, if the demons could take my life, they would. I remember when this girl
kicked my until my shins bled and this voice kept screaming out of her, “Get him
out of here, not him, not him, anybody but him…,” screaming at me, so I know
that the demons know whose side I’m on. And if they could take over, they
would. I know they would. They’d do the same with anybody who is in a position
of spiritual leadership. They want to stop the kingdom. But I don’t have any fear
of that.
What I fear in my life is not demon invasion, what I fear is that I would be
disobedient and sinful, so my objective is not to run around looking for demons
that I can send to the pit. My responsibility is to look at my own life and to be
sure that I am obedient to God. To always believe that everything that goes wrong
is an attack of the devil in a sense is irresponsible. And it’s unwise, because you
are really not looking where the real issue is. So there is a vulnerability there.
This is a typical illustration of the absolutely disastrous plethora of terrible

teaching that exists in the name of Christianity. If there is any one thing that
literally drives me right up the proverbial wall, it is the junk that I hear being
taught. It’s frightening to me and I don’t know how the Lord can allow it, but
there is so much of it. And you know the Christian radio…we can all say we are
thankful for Christian radio, but Christian radio has given a platform to the

biggest pile of bologna that’s imaginable. I mean, I listened to a fellow, and he

may love the Lord, I don’t know, but I listened to a guy this morning who comes
on before I do on K-Bright (KBRT?). I could not believe what he was passing off
as Biblical scholarship! It was absolutely irresponsible! He made one statement,
for example, he said I want to refer to the book of John, which of course does not
really major on the miraculous. That is an absolutely inane statement! The gospel
of John, the whole thing is a record of a series of miracles! But, this guy doesn’t
even know and he is passed off as an expert! He teaches a course in how to heal
at Fuller Seminary. So, I’m appalled at this and it’s a terrible burden on my heart
that. Sometimes I wish that they’d wipe all Christian radio, I mean, that would
send us away too. Of course my real wish is that they’d just wipe out some of it
and not all of it. (laughter from audience). It’s really tragic and you know we see
it in our radio ministry and tape ministry because of the tremendous amount of
mail we get from people asking questions. There are so many confused people.
And you know, how many of you people have come out of a background of
confusion where you didn’t understand the Word of God? Right? I mean just out
of curiosity how many of you came out of that kind of a background where you
were taught the wrong things of God. The devil knows what he’s doing! He is not
attacking Christianity, he’s joining it. I mean, that’s the subtlety of it. He
disguises himself as an angel of light. So, I mean, I didn’t mean to preach at you,
you are a nice girl.
Thanks! Can I have two points clarified then? Christians can’t be possessed
by demons…or controlled?
Answer (continued)
Let’s put it this way. Demons could get inside Christians and do a lot of damage,
because in Acts 5 Peter said to Ananias, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to
the Holy Spirit?” Satan himself, filled the heart of Ananias, who was a Christian.
I don’t like to use the word possessed because that speaks of ownership and we
were bought with a price and we belong to Christ, but demons don’t have to stop

outside our ear. Somehow they can be very active. We wrestle, that’s hand to
hand combat, with principalities and powers Ephesians 6:12 says. So I don’t
know what you mean by possessed. I think demons can get in Christians and
mess them up if they give them place; if they give them opportunity for that. But I
think the solution to that is not exorcism. The solution to that is obedience.
Confession of sin. I have said to people, which is worse? To have a demon
fouling up your life or to be disobedient? People will always say, “Oh, to have a
demon!”. I say no it’s the same thing, because the solution is the same! Confess
you sin, turn from it and walk as you ought to walk. So that’s a hard question to
answer because I don’t want to assume that….well, people say, you can’t have
the Holy Spirit and a demon in the same place. Well, you could have the Holy
Spirit and sin in the same place. Right? So, let’s not use the word possessed
because that speaks of ownership and we belong to Christ. That we don’t want to
forget. But let’s say the demons can be very, very hard on Christians if they give
place to them by sin.
And we can’t, in today’s age, exorcise demons out of people? Is that what
you’re saying?
Answer
I don’t think there are any formulas to do that and that’s what exorcism was.
Using formulas, saying certain words, secondly I don’t think we can, in an
apostolic, miraculous way, command demons out of other people. I don’t think
we can do that. Jesus could, because He literally could cleanse a person of their
devils and He passed that on to His apostles, but I don’t think it went past that.
The signs of an apostle were those. The signs of an apostle were miracles,
healings, and mighty deeds 2 Corinthians 11:11.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question on Witch of Endor
Question
In 1 Samuel 28, King Saul went to the "Witch of Endor," (woman medium, one who mediates
between demons and humans), and the witch conjured up Samuel from the dead, supposedly, and
the question always is, "Was this really Samuel?"
Answer
The text does not say. I will tell you that it is my own conviction that it was not Samuel, but that it was a
demon impersonating Samuel, and that this medium simply conjured up a demon impersonator. In my
experience I have been in a bizarre conversation with a demon on one occasion who said he was Jesus.
So it is not surprising, and by the way there are countless records of demons making such claims--to be
Christ. One only needs to go back to somebody like Charles Manson, to remember that this man, who
obviously is under the control of demons, quite frequently identifies himself as Jesus Christ. So for a
demon to identify himself as Christ or as Samuel would not be out of the ordinary.
The question comes up, however, in the passage, about the fact that Samuel's response was appropriate,
and so the question is, "if this was a demon, then why did the demon say the right thing?" Answer, that's
the deception of demons; as we have said about false religion, "It's right just enough to be deceptive."
It's like the clock that doesn't run that's right twice a day.
Look at the demon possessed girl in Acts 16, what did she say? What did she say about Paul and his
companions? She said, "These men preach the truth." Why would a demon say that? Because that's the
subtlety of demonism--they want to be accepted. The demon in the woman said that, because the demon
wanted the people to believe that this woman was part of the kingdom, that's the subtlety of it.
So I would take it that this was not Samuel; this was a demon impersonating Samuel saying the right
thing for the purposes of deception.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question on Witch of Endor

Online since 1986

Question In Romans
Question
In Romans, chapter 1, verse 18, it talks about the sin of man, but verses 18-32...I don't understand
it when in verse 21, it says, "For they knew God..."...in verse 22, "They became fools, therefore
God gave them over..."...in verse 25, "for they exchanged the truth..."...the "theys" and the
"thems," and then it says in verse 28, "God gave them over to depraved minds..."...I thought we
were born utterly depraved. Who is the "they" and when did this happen?
Answer
What you are asking about Romans, chapter 1, is,"Is this the personal experience of every unbeliever or
is this a chronological picture of human history?" I personally would opt out for the fact that what you
are seeing here is a chronological picture of world history. So, what you have from the beginning is that
man, after he was created, was obviously created with the knowledge of God. Adam knew God, right?
And Eve knew God, and their family knew God, and so in that earliest generation of human history, God
had planted in the heart of man and in the environment of man the evidence of His existence, His power,
His Godhead and so forth. But man then began to decline and what you have here is the chronology of
man who originally worships God, knows God--even looking at Adam. Even Adam, after the fall, still
knew who God was, still recognized the voice of God, that's why he hid from Him, still understood the
law of God. His children, Cain and Abel, understood the revelation of God. Abel obeyed the revelation
of God, Cain violated the revelation of God, but then you have as you move toward the flood, the terrible
decline of the human race and by the time you get to Genesis 6, God drowns the whole civilization,
because they have gone so fast from the knowledge of God to a reprobate mind. That moved very fast
and from that point on the whole of civilization, really has been in that situation. When you have a
restored civilization from the loins of Adam, after the flood, still by the time you get to Genesis chapter
11, they are building a ziggurat, a temple of false idols and God has to scatter them and change their
language. So, what you have to see here is not the pilgrimage of every person from the knowledge of
God to ignorance, but the pilgrimage of mankind, from an intimate, unfallen state to idolatry and that
reprobate process ending up with a whole civilization of reprobate people who just keep reproducing
each other.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Did Jesus violate the dietary laws in the Old Testament when it says in Mark 7:19, the last clause, "Thus
he declared all foods clean." Is that a violation of the dietary laws? This is brought up also, I might add,
by a lot of Rabbinical antagonists to the Christian faith.
Answer
Jesus never violated anything. Jesus wrote it and had the right to edit it anyway He wanted. You are
asking about that incident about Jesus saying, "Don't be concern about what you eat," in effect? "It is not
what goes into the man that defiles him, it is what comes out of the man that defiles him." The
statement, "purging all foods," is not even a proper understanding of that text. "It enters not into the
heart, but into the stomach, and goes out into the draught," which means the "toilet" in effect. "Purging"
the food as it goes through the body, that has nothing to do with setting aside the dietary system. But,
again, I think, what you have to keep in mind, is that Jesus here is saying that dietary laws are not really
the heart issue at all--it is not what you take in that defiles you, it is what comes out of what's inside of
you that defiles you. So, I don't think that has any reference there.
In Acts 10, God definitely sets aside the dietary laws. In the experience of Peter the sheet comes down
with all the clean and unclean things, and you remember in the vision, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat!" And he
says, "Lord, I have never eaten what is unclean." And the Lord said, "Call thou not uncommon what
God has cleansed." So, I think the dietary laws are set aside clearly in Acts 10. I don't think there is any
statement regarding Jesus where He overtly sets aside all of that, that's not until the Book of Acts.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Discernment
Question
What is biblical discernment and why is it important?
Answer
In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error,
right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In
other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.
First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: "But
examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." The
apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).
According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.
The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one's ability to exercise discernment in every area of his
or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all
manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful
and disobedient living-a certain recipe for compromise.
Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to
measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God's Word, and they unwittingly
engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a
decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them
throughout their day.
Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God's Word provides us with the needed
discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God "has granted to us everything pertaining
to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence"
(2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the "true knowledge of Him," that we have been given everything we
need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but
through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes
through God's granting "to us His precious and magnificent promises" (2 Peter 1:4).
Discernment-the ability to think biblically about all areas of life-is indispensable to an uncompromising
life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His
precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being "tossed here and there by waves, and carried
about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14).
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-discern.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:51:38 AM]

John MacArthur - Discernment
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-discern.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:51:38 AM]

Question on Confrontation -- John MacArthur
Question
I have a question on Matthew 18:15-17 that has to do with confronting another brother. There are three
steps that are outlined in those passages [four steps actually--the final one being putting them out]. The
first, go to your brother in private and try to win him over; the second, if he won't listen to you take two
or three witnesses so that every word my be established; the third, if he won't listen to you in a group go
to the church and tell them, and if he won't listen to the church, then you are to treat him as a Gentile or a
tax-gatherer. How do we treat Gentiles or tax-gatherers?
Answer
What you have to understand is those are basically terms that reflect an outcast. Gentile is used here not
in the sense of a racial slur but in the sense of an unbeliever--someone outside the covenant. In other
words, treat them like an unbeliever. The tax-collector was the most despised person in the nation of
Israel. You see, what you have to understand is that Rome had taken control of Israel, and Rome made
Israel into a province and, of course, put Pontius Pilate in there to sort of be the Roman governor and
exact Roman order and Roman law.
In order to carry out the Roman occupation there was a tax collecting process, and what happened was
the Roman government sold franchises to willing Jews to exact tax from their own people. That is what
Matthew did, he was what the text called a "Little Mokhes"--he was a tax collector--what the Hebrew
would call that. He was a man, in behalf of Rome, took taxes from his own people. Well, the oppressed
Jews, under the yoke of Rome, literally thought that that was the epitome of being a traitor. Here was a
Jew buying into the franchise to collect taxes from his own people to pay an oppressing government--in
their view. Furthermore, they oppressed the people in taking those taxes.
You remember the story of Zacchaeus, don't you? You remember that when Jesus came to his house he
made all kinds of vows and promises that he was going to pay back fourfold everything that he had
taken, and he had extorted from the people and overcharged them and he was going to do it all, give it all
back, multiple times. And then the Lord said, "This day has salvation come to this house." So, the
people literally despised the tax collector because, in a sense, he had sold his birthright as a Jew to Rome
for money, and was exacting taxes out of his own people, which they saw as oppressive and invasive. So
when Jesus says, "Treat this person as a heathen and tax collector," He means, treat them as somebody
that doesn't belong and somebody who is an outcast.
Now, if a person is in the church and they follow up in sin, and sin, and sin, and they won't repent when
you go through the process--you treat them like an outsider. You treat them like someone who doesn't
belong--you don't let them come in--1 Corinthians 5, "A little leaven does. . . ." What? "Leavens the
whole lump." You don't want them around. You want them to be treated as if they were heathen and as
if they were an outcast.
Now, furthermore, let me go a dimension beyond that. I believe also, that we have to treat people who

Question on Confrontation -- John MacArthur
are heathen and tax collectors or outcast with some consideration for what they need to be, so I would see
in that even the implication that you might pursue them that they might cease to be a heathen and cease
to be an outcast. So I think that there might even be an evangelistic intent in that, that we go after them
as we would an unbeliever. How do you treat a heathen and a tax collector?
Hopefully, you don't curse them. Hopefully, you compassionately call them to salvation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Does God "punish" the redeemed people? This is a question I just found out yesterday. . . .it
amazed me, because my Bible Study leader said, "That He does not punish redeemed people." I
always thought that He did. The Bible says, "To whom the Lord loves he scourges and chastises."
Answer
It depends what you mean by "punish." He scourges, He chastises. I don't think anywhere that the text
translates the word "punish," but it is basically the same thing in one sense--it's not a final punishment.
The best way to say it is, in terms of Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who
are in Christ Jesus." There will be no ultimate punishment. The ultimate punishment has been already
given to us. Where? On the cross. OK, to say that we had to be ultimately punished would be to say that
Jesus Christ had inadequately borne our punishment. 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, talks about the fact that
the Lord chastens those who have defiled His table. Hebrews, chapter 12, which you are referring to
says, "To whom the Lord loves He chastens, and every son He scourges." Then in 1 Corinthians 11, it
says that if we would chasten ourselves then we wouldn't be chastened by the Lord.
So, yes we would like to call it a "remedial chastening" rather than a punitive or a condemning
chastening, in other words it is to conform us more to Christ. It's remedial, in the sense that it instructs
not to do that. So, yes the Lord does bring chastening into the life of a child of His, in fact, if He didn't it
would be tragic, because we go off on some tangent of sin and we would never want to turn back,
because we would never feel His chastening.
He said that there was a difference between chastising and punishment.
Answer (continued)
OK, then he's making a distinction that he can make if he explains what he means. There is no final,
ultimate damnation, obviously, but there certainly is chastening.
Tony Capoccia

Question

Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Church Discipline
Question
I have a question and that is in rebuking a brother and going to him in love if he is in sin or having
problems, and trying to help him out of his problems, and he is stubborn or just doesn't...he's not seeking
help nor wants any, what is the responsibility of myself for someone else at that point?
Answer
If you rebuke him and he does not confess the sin and turn from the sin, then you follow the pattern of
Matthew 18. You take two or three witnesses. If they don't hear it, then you tell it to the church, which
means you may tell it to a group of Christians, to the elders of the church and they should go deal with it.
If they don't deal with it, then it says you treat him like a heathen and a tax collector, Matthew 18, put
him out.
The other passage indicating what would be if he does respond somewhere along the line, then you
would love him and restore him as a brother, Galatians, chapter 6. But if he does not respond, then you
turn him away. Second Thessalonians 3 has the same issue. If your brother will not do what is right, then
you admonish him as a brother but you sever your fellowship with him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
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

Question
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

Question
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?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I was wondering if you could articulate for me your own personal theology? I know that you came
from a dispensational background, and I was wondering if you could talk about, kind of like, the
history of your studying the Bible and being confronted with covenant theology, and how you’ve
sort of come to the conclusions you’ve come to, and when that happened?
Answer
Well, let’s see. I was born at a very early age, and fortunately was born near my mother. And let’s see,
what else. I…I was raised in a dispensational environment; there’s no question. People used to say of me,
“His hope is built on nothing less than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press.” And, I sort of grew up in that
dispensational environment. But, as I got into seminary, I began to test some of those things. I have been
perhaps aptly designated as a leaky dispensationalist. Or, the Reformed people who want to claim me as
Reformed, say I’m Reformed, but confused. Here’s my dispensationalism--I’ll give it to you in one
sentence: there’s a difference between the church and Israel--period! If you understand that, you
understand the essence of what I believe is a legitimate, biblical dispensationalism. That permits a
kingdom, that demands a kingdom, and that makes you premillenial. Because if you believe there’s a
distinction between Israel and the church, then the church is not Israel, and if the church is not Israel, the
promises of a kingdom of Israel have to come to pass, and that’s why you have to have a kingdom. I
came to understand that more narrow definition of dispensationalism while in seminary, at least to begin
to understand it, and found that my study of scripture over the last 30 years has yielded an affirmation
that that is in fact correct.
At the same time in seminary, I began to be exposed to reading among more Reformed theologians, and
found myself drawn toward carefully examining the scripture. And over the years of exegeting the
scripture (now 25 years here), it has again yielded to me a Reformed theology. But, it is the byproduct of
exegesis. I’ve always said a man has no right to claim a theology if he’s not an exegete because how can
you know what the whole is if you can’t interpret the parts?
So, it’s been a process. I was convinced of it when I started and I’m more convinced of it now as I’ve
gone through the text. I was convinced of it when I started because I read so many noble men who have
held that view. It was more at that point hero worship, and now it’s become my own.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Biblical Dispensationalism vs Popular Dispensationalism
Question
Could you define biblical dispensationalism and contrast that with (if there’s any contrast to be
made)…with popular dispensationalism?
Answer
Yes, biblical dispensationalism as compared to popular dispensationalism. Popular dispensationalism

isn’t very popular…any more. But the old popular dispensationalism--and some of you know that the
word “dispensation” simply refers to stewardships--and the idea was that God functioned, through the
history of redemption, in different ways.
For example, the old dispensations were innocence. In other words, there was a time before the fall when
man was innocent. And God mediated His rule on earth to man in an innocent condition and treated him
as innocent. Then came sin, and then you had conscience. The dispensation of conscience meant that
God was working with man, who now had a conscience that could tell right from wrong. That’s why he
made clothes, covered himself, hid in the garden--he had a guilty conscience.
Then, in order to control man, God brought in the next dispensation, which I think was human
government. And God ordained certain systems of government to control this sinful being--to wrap him
up, tie him down…and part of that human government had to do with capital punishment, which was
really the first criminal law that God instituted: if people take life, you better take their life as well, and
that will preserve the dignity of man and respect for the image of God in created men. So, then you have
human government. Human government was then followed by the dispensation of law, which is followed
by the dispensation of grace, which is followed by the dispensation of the kingdom, which is followed by
the dispensation of the eternal state--the new heavens and the new earth. All in all, there were seven
dispensations that somebody figured out and laid them all out that way.
That’s fine. I mean, I can look at that, you can look at that, right, and you can say, “Well, that’s fine, I
can see God working with Adam before the fall, working with Adam after the fall…God working with
Moses before the cross, during the time of the law, God working after the cross, through the new
covenant in Christ. I can see God working uniquely in the kingdom and then finally in the eternal state.”
We all can see that.
It’s what you do with those categories that becomes problematic. Some of the old-fashioned
dispensationalists made those categories too hard and fast. And they also assumed that maybe God saved

people different ways in different times. There were people who believed that there was no grace in the
Old Testament and there’s no law in the New Testament. And they drew these hard and fast lines. That
kind of dispensationalism has really been refined and there are only vestiges of it hanging on today--it’s
being very often redefined. It’s not that it’s wrong to see those ways in which God operated; it’s just
wrong to put too much into them: to come up with different means of salvation and all kinds of different
covenants by which God saves…it gets too complex and you can’t support it scripturally.
That’s what made, for example, people say, “The book of Matthew has nothing to do with the church.
The book of Matthew is irrelevant to us. It has the sermon on the mount, for example: it’s all about the
kingdom age, it’s all about the millennium--it tells people how to live in the millennium…don’t pay any
attention to it now, it’s not for us.” That’s a form of dispensationalism.
In fact, when I wrote the book, The Gospel According to Jesus, some people, one very prominent Bible
teacher came to me and said, “What do we care what the gospel according to Jesus was? We’re not in
that dispensation. That was the dispensation of the New Testament. We’re in the dispensation of the
church that started at Pentecost” (they’ve got that dispensation; I should have added that one) “We’re in
the dispensation of the church. Jesus lived in the prior dispensation; what He taught is only relevant to
His dispensation and the kingdom to come when He’ll return, and it isn’t relevant to us, so your
arguments about the gospel according to Jesus don’t matter to us. The sermon on the mount tells us how
to live in the kingdom age or the future, or how to live in the past when Jesus is on earth; it says nothing
about the church.”
That’s the danger in dispensationalism: it begins to hack the Bible up and cut it into pieces. And then
there’s all kinds of forms of that known as hyper-dispensationalism, Bullingerism, the Campbellites, and
all those people who just got carried away. They eliminated baptism, they eliminated the Lord’s table
because they said that stuff is in the past dispensation, not the present dispensation…you start chewing
the Bible up and splitting it into little pieces.
Now, what is a proper dispensational viewpoint? I’ll put it to you very simply. The whole of my
dispensationalism can be stated in one sentence: it is a distinction between the Church and Israel.
Period. That is it. That’s really all you need. And in the new book called Faith Works, “the Gospel
According to the Apostles” is a chapter on dispensationalism, which will answer your question. And, I
think all we need to do is keep the church and Israel distinct. And, secondly, if you just wanted a little
corollary, see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant. There is more continuity
there than the old dispensationalists who said there is discontinuity. At the end of the old covenant,
whack! You have the end of law, you start the new--it’s all grace. I see there’s much more of a flow.
There’s grace in the old, there’s law in the new. In the old, they were saved by grace; Noah found grace
in the eyes of the Lord, did he not? And that’s how he was redeemed. Abraham believed God and it was
counted to him for righteousness. Salvation was always by grace through faith, even in the dispensation
of law, the age of law. And today, we’re under grace. We’re not under law as a means of salvation, but
we’re obligated to keep the law out of obedience to God.

The overlap if very clear. So, I see more continuity there (and I don’t want to get too technical here) than
the old dispensationalists, but maintaining the clear distinction between Israel and the church, which is a
hermeneutical issue. If the Bible says that God is going to give a kingdom to Israel, I believe He means
Israel and not the church. So, we have to maintain that hermeneutical distinction. And, beyond that, you
really don’t need to go. If you just distinguish between the church and Israel, you’re going to be safe.
That’ll carry you all the way from the past clear through eschatology and you won’t lose your moorings.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In Malachi, chapter two, this has been bothering me for quite a while. In verse eleven, it talks
about the people of Judah who have divorced the wife of their youth and have married the
daughters of a foreign god. And it goes on into verse fifteen where it says that the people who have
done this--not one of them have had any remnant of the Holy Spirit. What I was wondering, how
does this carry over into the New Testament, as far as a person who claims to be a born-again
Christian, if they were to do something like this--is this saying that they were never really saved to
begin with?
Answer
Not necessarily. You see what he is doing here is pronouncing judgment upon an ungodly, unregenerate
people, for the most part. Because over in chapter three, there is a very interesting statement made in
verse sixteen. After all these pronouncements of judgments, it says, "Then they that feared the Lord
spoke often one to another, and the Lord harkened and heard it and a book of remembrance was written
before Him for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name, and they shall be mine." In
other words, the Lord knew out of the nation who were the true believers, and He says "They will be
mine in the day that I make up my jewels and I will spare them as a man spares his own son that serves
him," and so forth and so on. But the other people are going to be judged: In verse one, chapter four,
"When the day comes it burns like an oven," and all of that kind of stuff, and so forth.
So, He's sorting out the wicked from the saved, the wicked from the redeemed, if you will, and when He
writes all these indictments, and there's a whole bunch of indictments for different things. Back in
chapter one, you notice in verse six, He says "even a son honors his father, and even a servant honors his
master, why don't you honor Me?" He is therefore revealing these people as unregenerate people--they
don't honor God, "and the priests despise My name. And then you say 'What way have we despised Your
name?' 'You offer polluted bread upon My altar.'" In other words, they were giving lame sacrifices,
instead of bringing the first of the flock they were bringing some crippled lamb or some diseased lamb
that they wouldn't eat anyway and offering that to God. Then further, He talks about some of the other
things they have done, and He comes down into chapter 2, verse eleven, and He says, "Another thing you
have done, you have committed an abomination by profaning your marriages," in other words, you have
divorced your wives and gone off and married the daughter of a foreign god--you have married pagans,
and again He's marking out these as those who don't honor God--those who offer polluted sacrifices,
those who have defiled hearts, so He's talking about unredeemed people, and that's what He means down
in verse fifteen, just like you said, when He says, "None of you possess the Holy Spirit (is one way to
translate that verse). So He is talking about unregenerate people.

Question
Now, having said that, let me say this, this is characteristic of an unsaved person, but it doesn't mean that
a Christian couldn't do the same thing, because any sin that could be committed, short of denying God
and denying Christ, could be committed by a Christian. Right, I mean, none of us is completely
invulnerable to committing any sin. I mean, we would respond differently to the committing of that sin
than this person would, and we might repent and turn from it, but any Christian could commit that sin. So
divorce is not a sin, that when you see it being committed you can say, "Well, that's not a Christian,"--not
necessarily true.
I'll tell you another illustration to prove it to you. The Corinthian church was full of people, he calls them
"saints" in chapter one, 1 Corinthians, "saints, holy ones, you come behind in no gift of the Spirit" he
says, "you lack none of the Spirit's ministry, but many of you," he says, "have committed fornication, and
some of you (he says in chapter five) have even committed incest with his father's wife. So those kind of
sins can be committed by believers, and that is why we are warned in 1 Corinthians, chapter six, "not to
join ourselves to a harlot, because if you join yourself to a harlot, you join the Lord to a harlot. If you are
one with the Lord and you unite with a harlot, you have made the Lord one with that harlot, that's to say
then that a Christian could do that. But the Lord is undefiled--it's kind of like--I've used the illustration of
a sunbeam shining into a dump--the sunbeam can shine into the dump, but the dump isn't going to affect
the sunbeam.
So a Christian could commit any sin but these people in Malachi were definitely people to be judged by
God, because they were dishonoring His name--an unbelieving people.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What's your view of divorce and remarriage?
Question
What's your view of divorce and remarriage?
Answer
In Matthew 19, Jesus states that God ordained the institution of marriage, and He has decreed that in
every marriage, the husband and wife are to become one for life. Divorce destroys the marriage and thus
breaks asunder a union God Himself has established (Mark 10:9). "I hate divorce," says the Lord (Mal.
2:16).
Jesus' teaching on divorce is clear. He restricted divorce under most circumstances, and He forbade the
remarriage of those who divorce on improper grounds, calling such remarriage adultery: "But I say to
you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery;
and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt. 5:32). The word "unchastity" in that
verse is the Greek word porneia, "fornication"--which includes all kinds of gross sexual immorality.
The Old Testament contained a few provisions governing the remarriage of divorced people (Lev. 21:11,
14; Deut. 24:1-4). The rabbis had taken these laws and broadened them to permit divorce for virtually
any reason. Under the rabbinical laws, if a wife displeased her husband in any way, he was entitled to
divorce her. Jesus stated that this was never the purpose of Moses' Law. In fact, Jesus teaching on
divorce was given specifically to refute the rabbinical loopholes. Furthermore, He so rigidly opposed
divorce, that when He had completed His teaching, His disciples concluded that it would be better never
to get married (Matt. 19:10)!
So God's utter hatred of divorce is very clear in Scripture.
Nonetheless, there are two extraordinary cases in which Scripture teaches that God does permit divorced
people to remarry.
First, note that Jesus Himself included this exception clause: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matt. 19:9, King James Version,
emphasis added). He allows an exception in this one case, only "because of the hardness of your hearts"
(Matt. 19:8). Clearly, Jesus is treating divorce as a last resort, only to be sought in the case of hard-
hearted adultery.
The apostle Paul allows one more reason for divorce: if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer, the
believer is under no obligation in such a case (1 Cor. 7:14). This would free the abandoned spouse to
remarry.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/divorcere.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:51:49 AM]

John MacArthur - What's your view of divorce and remarriage?
But we must emphasize that apart from those two specific, exceptional cases, divorce is not sanctioned in
Scripture.
More extensive answers to this question are available in John MacArthur, The Fulfilled Family (Chicago: Moody, 1981); and,
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23,(Chicago: Moody, 1988).
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/divorcere.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:51:49 AM]

John MacArthur - Divorce
The following "excerpt" was made by John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 80-254,
titled "The Recipients of Christian Invincibility" Romans 8:28. A copy of the tape can be obtained by
Question
Is it true that Christians and non-Christians have the same rate of divorce?
Answer
Some reporter called me a few months ago and said,
Reporter: There is a new study, a new survey that indicates that divorce among Christians is the same
as divorce among non-Christians. This survey has been done, this poll has been taken and it has been
determined that Christians are divorced at the same rate that non-Christians are divorced in America.
What do you think of that?
John MacArthur: I don't believe it--I do not believe that.
Reporter: But this is what the survey says!
John MacArthur: I don't care what the survey says--I don't believe that.
I don't believe it, and in fact, I believe that is to dishonor the Lord, to say that the power of Christ is zero
in a marriage--the power of the Holy Spirit in a marriage. I don't believe that. I do not believe that true
Christians get divorced at the same rate that non-Christians do.
Well, it showed up in a newspaper and the guy who took the poll wasn't happy, because he thought I was
questioning his integrity, so he wrote me a very, very strong letter. I have a large "strong letter" file--this
is one, "How dare you question me! How dare you question the integrity of this poll!" Well, I said, "I'll
question it on this basis: Who did you ask that question too? If you just surveyed the people who
'claimed' to be Christians--that doesn't count, and I might suggest to you that you don't know who the
true Christians are."
So I didn't buy it at all. And what irritated me about it is that this is a dishonor to God! Because it
denigrates the power of God in the life of a believer, with regard to the marriage! It wasn't a question
whether you get your statistics right, it's a question of dishonoring God! You can't say that the power of
God has no effect on marriages! I said, "You don't do that." Well, now it has become an evangelical
urban legend--every time I turn around--I heard a secular news reporter say on the television the other
day, "Well, now it has been proven that divorce among evangelical Christians or among Christians is the
same as non-Christians." Now we are just another statistic. This is to say that God has no power in a

John MacArthur - Divorce
marriage?
When divorces occur in our church [approximately 10,000 members] and they occur occasionally here--
very often it is because somebody in the marriage who professed Christ--didn't know Him. If you go out
and survey people in "churches" across the spectrum from Catholic to Protestant, and denominations,
etc., etc., etc, who knows what you are going to get?
The same company that does the surveys is the company that surveyed the people who said, "We don't
want Bible teaching anymore in the pulpit." Now what does that tell you about that crowd--if they don't
love the Word of God?
Well, since it keeps showing up I am going to have to write another letter because I think there are
people who are buying into this and it's a dishonor to the Lord. I am not at the point of making whips
and things [reference to earlier comment in the sermon about Jesus making a whip and cleansing the
temple because God was dishonored], but I just feel like occasionally "whipping" out a letter. I am a
small voice but just coming to the defense of the character of our God. I think that is what Psalm 69:9
means, "...that zeal for Your house has eaten me up..." I am really consumed by my zeal for the glory of
Your Name and the reproaches that fall on You fall on me. When you are dishonored I feel the pain!
That's how you know you love God--that's how you know you love Christ, when Christ is dishonored, it
bothers you.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question: What is the Bible’s standard of divorce? -- John MacArthur
Question
What is the Bible’s standard of divorce?
Answer
You know, there’s a tape on that that covers it in great length and if you really
want to know it in detail, you need to get the tape. But let me draw your attention
quickly…
Deuteronomy 24 is the first passage that deals with this issue. In Deuteronomy
24:1, “When a man taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find
no favor in his eyes because he’s found some uncleanness in her, that he write her
a bill of divorcement, given in her hand, and send her out of his house.” Now,
here the Bible provided for divorce. This is the first indication of divorce. From
the beginning, God didn’t want it that way. From the beginning, it was not so.
But, in the beginning, God designed that a man and a woman should leave their
parents, cleave to one another, and they two should become one flesh, and that’s
the way it ought to be for good.
But because of the hardness of hearts, according to what Jesus said, God had
permitted a bill of divorcement and under certain circumstances this could
happen. In Isaiah 50:1, God recognized a bill of divorcement. In Jeremiah 3:1,
God refers to this passage in Deuteronomy, again indicating that He had
permitted it and He had allowed it.
So, it was a bona fide act of God and it was done because of the hardness of
hearts. God did not want to force people to have to maintain a shameful
relationship. He is merciful and He desired to release the innocent one from a
bond of a shameful union.

Now, there were some cases where absolutely no divorce was permitted. You’ll
find those in chapter 22:13-19. So, God was very explicit. But the very fact that
there were cases in which divorce is stated to be not permitted indicates there
would be other cases where it would be permitted.
Now you see here this statement “a bill of divorcement” in verse 1. It was
mandatory in the case of dismissal and had several purposes. One, it was a
testimonial to the innocence of the one who was released. Two, it gave evidence
of legal freedom to remarry. Three, it protected the woman’s reputation. It was a
certificate of innocence. The right to freedom then (because of innocence), the
right to remarry, and the protection of a reputation were at stake.
Now, some say, “What is uncleanness?” because that’s the first grounds for
divorce. Is it sexual adultery? Not really in this text. The reason I say that is
because when somebody committed adultery in the Old Testament, what was the
judgment? Stoning. So, divorce wasn’t the response to adultery; stoning was.
Uncleanness then would be shameful and—notice this, this is important: those
people knew that if they committed adultery, they would pay with their life. So
you know what the temptation was to do than? Everything short of that. See?
Everything just up to that point. And so the temptation would be to just go
almost that far. Well, in a shameful union, God wanted to permit a release for an
innocent party in the case where the partner was doing that continuously and
always stopping short lest he lose his life or she lose her life, but still shaming
and shaming and shaming. Do you see?
But Jesus took that thing and qualified it even further in Matthew, chapter 5, and
He removed the uncleanness and brought it to this… In Matthew 5:31: “It hath
been said , ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement,’ but I say to you”—and here Jesus really supersedes the Old
Testament—“anybody that puts away his life except for the cause of fornication,”
that is, sexual involvement, “causes her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced commits adultery.”
There’s only then one ground for divorce, according to Jesus. That is adultery.

That’s all.
Now, in I Corinthians 7:10-11, you have the further word on divorce. It says
there: “Unto the married, I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife
depart from her husband.” God doesn’t want people separating. “But if she
depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” And again you
see God says, “If they’re apart, let them be rejoined.”
But, verse 15: “If the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or sister is not
under bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace.” The only other
case Paul allowing here for divorce is where you have the case of an unbeliever
who leaves. He departs, let him depart; a believer is not “in bondage.” He is not
in bondage. And so this seems to indicate a freedom from that union.
So we find then that the only legitimate causes for divorce in Scripture would be
adultery or an unbeliever who departs… And probably the implication is
departing because they cannot tolerate Christian faith. The Lord doesn’t want a
Christian to have to endure constant punishment, year after year, for his faith in
Him.
All right now, as I say, that’s covered in further detail in the tape.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Doctrines
Question
How can we determine what doctrines are essential and what are they?
Answer
To begin with, the strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers
who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point
of fundamental doctrine.
But what message will determine the content of our gospel testimony? The biblical message of
instantaneous justification through faith alone-or a system of rituals and sacraments that are supposed to
convey grace to the participants with no guarantee of ultimate salvation? What authority will we point
people to? The Scriptures alone-or a papal hierarchy and church tradition? Those two gospels are flatly
contradictory and mutually exclusive.
All these considerations determine what message we proclaim and whether that message is the authentic
Gospel of true Christianity. Therefore we are dealing with matters that go to the very heart of the
doctrines Scripture identifies as fundamental. Can we get more specific? Let's turn to Scripture itself and
attempt to lay out some biblical principles for determining which articles of faith are truly essential to
authentic Christianity.
I. All Fundamental Articles of Faith Must Be Drawn from the Scriptures
First, if a doctrine is truly fundamental, it must have its origin in Scripture, not tradition, papal decrees,
or some other source of authority. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are "able to make thee wise
unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15, KJV). In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can
learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly
fundamental. It is able to make us "adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). If there
were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.
The psalmist wrote, "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psalm 19:7). That means
Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual
truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the
written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in
God's Word.
This, of course, is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura-Scripture alone. According to the Bible
itself, no supposed spiritual authority outside "the sacred writings" of Scripture can give us wisdom that
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-essentialdoctrines.htm (1 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:51:53 AM]

leads to salvation. No papal decrees, no oral tradition, no latter-day prophecy can contain truth apart from
Scripture that is genuinely fundamental.
II. The Fundamentals Are Clear in Scripture
Second, if an article of faith is to be regarded as fundamental, it must be clearly set forth in Scripture. No
"secret knowledge" or hidden truth-formula could ever qualify as a fundamental article of faith. No key is
necessary to unlock the teaching of the Bible.
The truth of God is not aimed at learned intellectuals; it is simple enough for a child. "Thou didst hide
these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes" (Matthew 11:25, KJV). The
Word of God is not a puzzle. It does not speak in riddles. It is not cryptic or mysterious. It is plain and
obvious to those who have spiritual ears to hear. "The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple" (Psalm 19:7).
The point is not that every fundamental article of faith must be supported with an explicit proof text. The
doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and it is very clear in
Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of
Scripture.
This does not mean that a doctrine must be non-controversial in order to be considered a fundamental
article. Some would argue that the only test of whether something is essential to true Christianity is
whether it is affirmed by all the major Christian traditions. By that rule, hardly anything of any substance
would remain to distinguish the Christian Gospel from the "salvation" offered by pagan morality or
Islamic theology. "There is much truth in the remark of Clement of Alexandria; 'No Scripture, I
apprehend, is so favorably treated, as to be contradicted by no one.'" (Herman Witsius, Sacred
Dissertations on the Apostles' Creed [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993 reprint], 1:21)
III. Everything Essential to Saving Faith Is Fundamental
Third, a doctrine must be regarded as fundamental if eternal life depends on it. Scripture is full of
statements that identify the terms of salvation and the marks of genuine faith. "Without faith it is
impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of
those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). That verse makes faith itself essential to a right relationship with
God. It also expressly identifies both the existence and the veracity of God as fundamental articles of the
Christian faith.
Elsewhere we are told that eternal life is obtained through the knowledge of the true God and Jesus
Christ (John 17:3; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Since Jesus Himself is the true God incarnate (1 John 5:20; John
8:58; 10:30), the fact of His deity (and by implication the whole doctrine of the Trinity) is a fundamental
article of faith (see 1 John 2:23). Our Lord Himself confirmed this when He said all must honor Him as
they honor the Father (John 5:23).

The truths of Jesus' divine Sonship and Messiahship are also fundamental articles of faith (John 20:31).
Of course, the bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental doctrine, because 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells
us, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."
Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of
Christ. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him
from the dead, you shall be saved."
And according to Romans 4:4-5, justification by faith is a fundamental doctrine as well: "Now to the one
who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work,
but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (emphasis added).
In other words, those who seek acceptance before God on the ground of their own righteousness will find
they fall short (Romans 3:27-28; Galatians 2:16-3:29). Only those who trust God to impute Christ's
perfect righteousness to them are accounted truly righteous. This is precisely the difference between
Roman Catholic doctrine and the Gospel set forth in Scripture. It is at the heart of all doctrine that is truly
fundamental.
In fact, an error in understanding justification is the very thing that was responsible for the apostasy of
the Jewish nation: "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they
did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Romans 10:3). Is that not the precise failure of
Roman Catholicism? But "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (v. 4).
In chapter 5 we will return for a closer look at the doctrine of justification by faith.
IV. Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental
Certain teachings of Scripture carry threats of damnation to those who deny them. Other ideas are
expressly stated to be affirmed only by unbelievers. Such doctrines, obviously, involve fundamental
articles of genuine Christianity.
The apostle John began his first epistle with a series of statements that establish key points of the
doctrine of sin (hamartiology) as fundamental articles of faith. "If we say that we have fellowship with
Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1:6). That condemns wanton
antinomianism (the idea that Christians are under no law whatsoever) and makes some degree of
doctrinal and moral enlightenment essential to true Christianity. A second statement rules out the
humanistic notion that people are basically good: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving
ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (v. 8). And a third suggests that no true Christian would deny his or
her own sinfulness: "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us"
(v. 10).
First Corinthians 16:22 makes love for Christ a fundamental issue: "If anyone does not love the Lord, let

him be accursed." And a similar verse, 1 Corinthians 12:3, says that no one speaking by the Spirit of God
can call Jesus accursed.
The truth of Jesus' incarnation is also clearly designated a fundamental doctrine: "Every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus
is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:2-3). "For many deceivers have gone out
into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver
and the antichrist" (2 John 7). Those verses by implication also condemn those who deny the Virgin
Birth of our Lord, for if He was not virgin-born, He would be merely human, not eternal God come in the
flesh.
And since those who twist and distort the Word of God are threatened with destruction (2 Peter 3:16), it
is evident that both a lofty view of Scripture and a sound method of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics)
are fundamental tenets of true Christianity.
V. The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed up in the Person and Work of Christ
Paul wrote, "No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1
Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine
Christianity. Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a christ who is not the
Christ of Scripture.
How are the fundamentals of the faith personified in Christ?
With regard to the inspiration and authority of Scripture, He is the incarnate Word (John 1:1, 14). He
upheld the written Word's absolute authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ Himself established sola Scriptura
as a fundamental doctrine when He upbraided the Pharisees for nullifying Scripture with their own
traditions: "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with
their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the
precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.… You nicely
set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (Mark 7:6-9). Our Lord had much to
say about the authority and infallibility of the Word of God.
In the doctrine of justification by faith, it is Christ's own perfect righteousness, imputed to the believer,
that makes the pivotal difference between true biblical justification and the corrupted doctrine of Roman
Catholicism and the cults. That is what Paul meant when he wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). It is also why Paul wrote that Christ is become
to us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30), and it is why Jeremiah called Him "The Lord our righteousness"
(Jeremiah 23:6). The Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, is our righteousness (Jeremiah 33:16). That is the very
essence of justification by faith alone, sola fide.
Of course, all the fundamental doctrines related to the incarnation-the Virgin Birth of Christ, His deity,

His humanity, and His sinlessness-are part and parcel of who He is. To deny any of those doctrines is to
attack Christ Himself.
The essential doctrines related to His work-His atoning death, His resurrection, and the reality of His
miracles-are the very basis of the Gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Hebrews 2:3-4). Reject them and you
nullify the heart of the Christian message.
The fundamentals of the faith are so closely identified with Christ that the apostle John used the
expression "the teaching of Christ" as a kind of shorthand for the set of doctrines he regarded as
fundamental. To him, these doctrines represented the difference between true Christianity and false
religion.
That is why he wrote, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not
have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). Far from
encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of
spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11).
So What?
It has not been my purpose here to attempt to give an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. Such a
task is beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, the attempt to precisely identify and number such a
list of doctrines would be an extremely difficult thing to do. However, a reasonable list of fundamentals
would necessarily begin with these doctrines explicitly identified in Scripture as non-negotiable: the
absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura), justification by faith alone (sola fide), the
deity of Christ, and the Trinity.
But what are we to do with this understanding? First of all, we should resist any temptation to wield these
doctrines like a judge's gavel that consigns multitudes to eternal doom. We must not set ourselves up as
judges of other people's eternal fate.
On the other hand, we must recognize that those who have turned away from sound doctrine in matters
essential to salvation are condemning themselves. "He who does not believe has been judged already"
(John 3:18). Our passion ought to be to proclaim the fundamentals with clarity and precision, in order to
turn people away from the darkness of error. We must confront head-on the blindness and unbelief that
will be the reason multitudes will one day hear the Lord say, "I never knew you; depart from Me"
(Matthew 7:23). Again, it must be stressed that those who act as if crucial doctrines were of no
consequence only heap the false teacher's guilt on themselves (2 John 11).
We have no right to pronounce a sentence of eternal doom against anyone (John 5:22). But by the same
token, we have no business receiving just anyone into the communion and fellowship of the church. We
should no more forge spiritual bonds with people whose religion is fundamentally in error than we would
seek fellowship with those guilty of heinous sin. To do so is tantamount to the arrogance shown by the

Corinthians, who refused to dismiss from their fellowship a man living in the grossest kind of sin (1
Corinthians 5:1-3).
We must also remember that serious error can be extremely subtle. False teachers don't wear a sign
proclaiming who they are. They disguise themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). "And no
wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (vv. 14-15). In view of the current hunger for
ecumenical compromise, nothing is more desperately needed in the church right now than a new
movement to reemphasize the fundamental articles of the faith.
(Adapted from John F. MacArthur, Reckless Faith [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997], pp. 108-17)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

What is Dominion Theology? -- John MacArthur

Question
"What is Dominion Theology?"
Answer
Have you heard about that? Dominion Theology, that's a new label, for a new
kind of theology, and there are always new theologies. Dominion Theology
comes in a lot of forms, but I think what you are probably talking about is John
Wimber, who is now advocating a new kind of Dominion. Let me give you this
very simply, ok?
Dominion Theology, espoused primarily by John Wimber, who is networked

through a group of churches called "The Vineyard Churches," basically is saying,
"That as believers, we are to take power over Satan and demons, we are to
exercise dominion over them." There is another kind of theology, that is existing
today, that is called "Liberation Theology." It is a form of theology that says,
"That the Church is to take dominion over the institutions of the world." That's
another form of Dominion Theology, or Kingdom Theology.
And what it basically says is that the Church's mandate is to take over the
institutions of the world, that's the Liberation Theology side. What Dominion
Theology says is that we are to take over the Powers of Darkness; we are to take
over the demons; and we are to take over the spirits; and we are to dominate
Satan. We are to take dominion, and that's why they talk about "Power

Evangelism" and "Power Healing." In other words, he trains people, supposedly,

to invade the Satanic World and take dominion over demons.
That we as Christians, by living in the natural world, and by just moving around
in the visible world, have failed to exercise the power that we have, to literally
take over the Satanic World. You hear them talk about, "Binding Satan," have
you heard that? "Binding demons; Pleading the Blood on demons; Pleading the
Blood on Satan; Taking dominion over, not only demons, but all of the
institutions of the world, that are infiltrated and influenced by demons.
And they believe that whatever people's problems are, tend to be demon
in-duced. And it gets extreme, no matter what it is, it’s a demon, and you have to
take dominion over these demons. And that is why they talk about Power
Evangelism. They say that you cannot evangelize without signs and wonders.
You have to overpower the demonic world, and demonstrate your divine power to
the lost, in order for them to be saved. Power Healing, break the bondage of
demons and so forth.
It is unbiblical. We are never told, never told, to take dominion over demons.
We are told by James, "Resist the devil and he will" what? "Flee from you." We
are never told to bind Satan. We are never told to bind demons. We are never
told to plead the Blood on Satan and demons. Listen to Jude 9, "Michael the
archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses,
did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke
you.'" Even Michael, who is "superan-gel," did not dare rebuke Satan. But rather
said, "Lord, you take care of him." And if Michael, as a holy angel, does not take
to himself the exercise of authority over fallen angels, where would we find a
mandate to do that?
The Bible simply tells us, that if you want to deal with the enemy, you put on the
whole armor of God, right? You put on the whole armor of God, and you'll be
able to stand against the wiles of the devil. We are not called to take dominion
over the institutions of this world. We are not called to take dominion over

demons and over the devil. We are called to get on our spiritual armor, to resist
that demonic world and trust in the power of God, who does take care of them.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Should Christians drink Wine Coolers? -- John MacArthur

Question
"Should Christians drink Wine Coolers?"
Answer
Perhaps some of you were hoping that this question didn't come up. "Should
Christians drink Wine Coolers? Let me give you just a brief response to that.
A Wine Cooler is an alcoholic beverage. It is my own personal conviction that I

do not drink alcoholic beverages, of any kind, at any time. And there are several
reasons why. And they are not in a particular spiritual order.
Reason number one is the fact that, I believe the Bible warns very, very strongly
about drunkenness, and very, very strongly about losing control and dissipation,
Ephesians 5:18, "Be not drunk with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled
with the Spirit." If I am going to be under the control of something, I want it to
be the Holy Spirit, not some substance.
Beyond that, I am convinced after studying the Word of God and studying the
backgrounds around the Word of God, that the wine which was imbibed in the
time of the New Testament, and even in the Old Testament, was highly diluted
with water, 5 to 1, 6 to 1, 7 to 1, 8 to 1. They really drank water if you want to
see the true picture, and they simply purified the water, by putting a little bit of
fermented wine in it, because it killed whatever else would be in the wine, that

might cause them some physical problems.
It was not the normal drink of the time of our Lord, for people to drink unmixed
wine. You read in the Bible about two kinds of drink, wine and "strong drink."
"Strong drink" was unmixed, and those who drank "strong drink" drank it for the
purpose of drowning their problems. The wine that was consumed in the Bible
was very definitely mixed with water extensively. Because you lived in a warm
climate, the Land of Palestine was hot, the very fact of thirst could contribute to a
high consumption of wine. In order to prevent drunkenness, they mixed it with
water, so that your body could not hold the amount that it would take to inebriate
you.
So that is simply to point out to you, that I don't think you can advocate wine
drinking from the Bible, unless you have diluted it sufficiently with water, as they
did in Biblical times.
The other reason, that I will give to you, as to why I don't believe that Christians
should drink wine, is simply because of what the Apostle Paul says, "The
Kingdom of God is not food and drink," Romans Chapter 14. And he says, "If
anything that I eat and drink offends my brother, I won't do it." Now I have lived
long enough, to have dragged enough people out of saloons; to have tried to
"patch up" enough shattered devastated lives; to have tried to put together
families and marriages that have been devastated by alcohol, to have a healthy
hatred for it.
And since we live in a culture where alcohol is only an option and not a necessity,
it seems to me, without particular constraint, for us to consume that kind of
beverage. I certainly would not want to be responsible for giving someone else
the idea that it was ok to drink alcoholic beverages and then watch them, in an out
of control way, be destroyed by what they saw me do.
And so in deference to a weaker brother, and in deference to not making someone

stumble, I choose not to do that. And since there is no compelling reason to do it,

because there are so many other things to drink, it has no place in my life.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I have been here in this church
GRACE.
Question
I have been here in this church [Grace Community Church] for quite some time, and I remember
back when we used to call the Sunday that Jesus rose from the dead "Resurrection Sunday," and I
would like to know why we went back to using the name of a pagan goddess?
Answer
That's a good question. Let's call it "Resurrection Sunday"--I buy that--that's good! Put that in the
bulletin--whoever does the bulletin. Thank you for asking--we always called it "Resurrection Sunday."
In fact, we used to give out little tags you can put on your lapel saying "He is Risen" and have
everybody wear them for a week. We might do that now, but it is a little more complicated, for in those
days we did not have quite as many people, but it is "Resurrection Sunday"--let's call it that. Good point.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Women Elders?
Question
Can women serve as elders in the church?
Answer
We don't believe there's a place for women elders in the church. When the apostle Paul said that a
woman should not "teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12), he did not follow that
statement with a cultural argument. Rather he went all the way back to creation to show that women
weren't intended to dominate men (vv. 13-14). The reasons he gave are that the woman was created after
the man, and that she was deceived when acting independently of his leadership.
Paul goes on to say in 1 Timothy 2:15 that "women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if
they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." That verse is not talking about women's
eternal destiny, but means that they are saved from being second-class citizens through the privilege of
rearing children. God designed a woman to fulfill a role in the home that no man ever can (Proverbs
31:10-31; Titus 2:4-5).
Our society's current thinking on the woman's role is contrary to the priorities revealed in the Bible.
Genesis 3 explains why that conflict exists. After the Fall, God told the woman, "Your desire shall be for
your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16). Genesis 4:7 helps us to understand what that
verse means. There God told Cain, "Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must
master it." Exactly the same phrase is used in both passages. So in the same way sin tries to dominate us
all, fallen women desire to overpower their husbands, and fallen men tend to oppress them in the same
way sin oppresses the sinner. The intended balance, of course, is achieved when men and women lead
and submit in a godly manner (Ephesians 5:22-33).
For further study:

John MacArthur, God's High Calling for Women (tape series), "The Subordination and Equality of Women" (tape 1844), "The Role of the Godly
Woman" (tape 1845).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-womenelders.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:53:19 AM]

John MacArthur - Women Elders?
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-womenelders.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:53:19 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-election.htm
Question
What does the Bible teach about election?
Answer
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is
unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen
faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our
knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this
state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love
God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward
God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in
the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total
hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what
Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws
him."
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read,
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as
many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things
spoken by Paul."
Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image
of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He
also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to
Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having
been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-election.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:53:20 AM]

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for
salvation."
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according
to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all
eternity."
Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events.
This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses
those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined."
And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these
arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge,
it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old
and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as
Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says
Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the
Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him.
The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew
them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and
answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left
to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen
lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not
eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not
under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the
offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever
will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved.
First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all
should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out"
(John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and
on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose
some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot
answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's

sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Election
Question
[A very young Child]: I listened to your sermon last Sunday, and I was wondering, why didn't God
choose everybody to be saved?
Answer
Kids always ask those questions. Adults don’t ask them because they’ve learned there’s no answer.
Why didn’t God choose everyone to be saved? You know something, honey? I don’t know. I don’t know.
But, I’ll give you a basic answer, Ok? And the basic answer--and I hope you can understand this--the
basic answer is: because He got more glory for his own name by doing it the way He did it. God does
what He does for His glory. And somehow, in some way, God is glorified in what He did, and that’s why
He did it.
Let me tell you something else: does God ever make a mistake? Is God ever wrong? Is God loving? He
is. So, whatever He does fits into his character somehow. And if it’s hard for us to understand, that’s not
God’s problem; whose problem is that? That’s our problem, isn’t it? Because we just don’t have the
ability to understand that.
So there are some questions you just can’t answer--that’s one of them. Ok? Thank you, honey.
You know what the Scripture says: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked”--God says that. See,
that provides for me the tension. I don’t understand that question. I don’t know the answer to that,
because I don’t know the mind of God. And so, it’s at this point that I trust God--I trust his character. I
don’t know how God can have no pleasure in the death of the wicked and will let the wicked die. I don’t
know how on the one hand God can say in Isaiah 46:10, “I do all my good pleasure” and then say, “I
have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” I don’t know that. And that’s the tension.
Let me put it to you very simply: all men born in Adam are born with the sin nature, and because they
bear a sin nature, they are all damned to hell. It is our sin in Adam and the nature we bear because of that,
that condemns all men to hell. As all men go to hell, God, in his marvelous grace, saves some. The rest
are damned, but not simply because of the sin in Adam--primarily because of the sin of unbelief. John 3
says, “You are condemned already because you”--what?--“believe not.” Now, this is where the tension
comes.

John MacArthur - Election
Salvation is by the elect, predestined, purpose of God. Damnation is by the unbelief of men. Now you
say, “How do you resolve that?” I don’t resolve that! I can’t resolve that. But, I know God is perfect and
He resolves it perfectly and that’s the best we can do with it.
So, what do we do? When we’re saved, who do we thank? God. And when men go to hell, who do we
blame? Them. You say, “I don’t understand that.” That’s right. And neither do I. The implications are
this: if I’ve been saved, I praise God, I rejoice, I thank him; and when I go to an unbeliever, I don’t say,
“Are you elect?”--like Spurgeon said, pull up their shirt-tail and see if they have an “E” stamped on their
back. I go to them and I say, “You’ll be damned by your unbelief” and I plead with them to “believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” And I leave the resolution to God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - End Time Events
Question
I just have a brief three-part question. It’s concerning Revelation. The first part is, almost every
biblical scholar at this point and time believes that the economic community, which is beginning
next week, is the second Roman Empire. And, the antichrist is supposed to arise out of that. Is
there any hints to where he’s going to come from? And also, will the rapture happen before these
events take place or will we see the antichrist come to power?
Answer
Well, from my viewpoint, the rapture will happen before the disclosure of antichrist. He really doesn’t
show himself until halfway through the tribulation. And I believe the church is raptured prior to that
time, so it would be three and a half years ahead of that event at least, and maybe a little bit ahead of
that.
Secondly, with regard to the European Economic Community, I hate to say--you know, people say,
“Well, that’s the ten toes of Daniel”…the problem is that there are 13 nations in the common market, and
we assume that the image there, of course, representing that final form of the revived Roman Empire, is
the final form because Christ, the Stone cut out without hands, comes and crushes that. So, it is the final
form of human government, a reconstituted Roman Empire, which would mean nothing more than a
revived Europe--the focus of all the world will be there.
Whether the fact that there are 10 toes means there can only be 10 nations… I mean, I wouldn’t want to
be real dogmatic on that. I wouldn’t want to say, “Well, if there are 13 now or 12 now, it’ll all go back to
10 eventually.” Not necessarily. What you have there is still reconstituted old Roman Empire territory in
a revived Europe.
What really fascinates me is that this never really was a full-blown Roman revival until Eastern Europe
fell, because Eastern Europe was also a part of that massive Roman Empire, which extended all the way
from England on the west, clear to Balbeck, which is east of Beirut! Way into the Arab world…was once
a part of that empire. So, I believe what we are going to see is a revived Europe, which is the ground
from which the antichrist will rise. And I believe he will be a great leader, a great speaker, a charismatic
type of personality… As to who he will be, we don’t know. There’s no way to know specifically.

But also, since there’s 13 now, isn’t there supposed to be three leaders that fall and one small…one
rises up out of…?
Answer (continued)
“Sure, and again, that might happen.”
And the second part is, if the rapture happens before, I suppose we wouldn’t have to worry about
the mark of the beast as well, correct?
Answer (continued)
Right, that is correct. And the reason we take a view that the rapture will happen before is…well, there’s
a lot of reasons, but let me give you just one technical reason. I believe the 24 elders pictured in heaven
when the tribulation begins represent the church, so the church is in heaven, represented in the 24 elders,
when the tribulation on earth begins with the breaking of the seven seals. Secondly, I believe that the
breaking of the seven seals is the wrath of God, and the scripture promises that we will be kept from the
wrath of God.
So, those are some of the reasons, and there are others with reference to the nature of the church, the
nature of Israel, and the purposes of God in the future.
And, the third part is, if the people are raptured up, and after the tribulation and the new kingdom
is set, there’s supposed to be a new kingdom on earth, the New Jerusalem… Supposedly there will
be people who are not in the angelic form still on earth. The people who are raptured--are they
going to be back on earth?
Answer (continued)
“Yes, we’re coming back. We’re coming back.” The New Jerusalem descends out of heaven like a bride,
and we’re the bride that makes that a bride city. We come back, we come back in glorified bodies to
people living on the earth in normal bodies, and we’ll have an interchange with them, very much like the
Old Testament saints did with the angels.
Tony Capoccia


Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
There seems to be a big problem in the church today, concerning the doctrine of eternal security.
Most Christians, Charismatics, and even Evangelicals, believe you can lose your salvation. Now,
one of the arguments they use is Revelation 3:5 which says, "He who overcomes shall thus be
clothed in white garments and I will not erase his name from the book of life and I will confess his
name before my father and before His angels." Now they point out two things. Number one, that
overcome is in the present tense and that means that you have to work in order to keep your
salvation. They also say that God has an eraser and He will use it to remove your name from the
book. Now please comment on this verse and also explain what Moses meant in Exodus 32:32,
when he said, "But now if Thou wilt, forgive their sin, and if not please blot me out from Thy book,
which Thou hast written.
Answer
I love that verse in Revelation 3:5. That is the greatest verse. That’s one of the best verses in all the Bible
on eternal security. I don’t know how those people can do that with that verse. People say, "Well, you see
right there, you’re liable to get your name blotted out of the book." Now I want to explain that verse. In
Revelation 3:5 it says, "he that is overcoming"….he that is an overcomer….now how do you get to be an
overcomer? Who wrote Revelation? John.
So we ought to ask John. "John, what is an overcomer? What are you talking about? What do you mean
by this?" Well John will tell us that "we have overcome," verse 4 of 1 John 5, John says, "For whatever
or whoever is born of God is overcoming the world." So the overcomers are the people born of God.
"And this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith." So saving faith makes us an
overcomer. Saving faith makes you an overcomer--you are born of God. So now in verse 5 of Revelation
3 we know what he is talking about. The one who is a Christian, who by faith in Jesus Christ has been
born again, has overcome the world. The world is no longer his master, he is an overcomer. That’s the
definition of a Christian.
So he says the one that is an overcomer, the same will be clothed in white raiment. Is that conditional? Is
there any other condition except being an overcomer? No. If you are an overcomer, and you overcome by
your faith and you are born again, then you will be clothed in white raiment. That is an absolute fact.
There are no other conditions to that. The day will come when you enter into the glory of the presence of
the Lord and He will clothe you in the brilliance of pure and holy reality forever and ever. "And I will
not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before His
angels." Now what the Lord says here is not that He will blot out our name, but that He will not. Now

Question
how you can get eternal insecurity out of that, I do not know. He says, "I will not do that." Now where
did He get that? This is written to the church at Sardis and at Sardis they had a basic principle in terms of
the city and citizenry that many cities of the ancient world have. When you came into the city you were
written on the rolls of the city and you were identified as a member of that city and that was an honor.
You belonged to that place but if you committed some criminal act, or if you discredited yourself, or if
you dishonored the city in any way and brought reproach upon it, they would erase you out of that city
roll and you then would be dispossessed and disenfranchised. You would be, if you will, a man without a
city. And what God is saying is that they may do that to you in Sardis, but I’ll never do that to you. No
matter what you do, if you have put your faith in Me and are by virtue of saving faith an overcomer, you
will be clothed in white garment, which was used for very honored people in the city, for the highest
honor the city could give, I promise to do that and in no condition will I ever do to you what men do to
men. I will never blot you out, but I will affirm you; I will confess you before my Father and before His
angels. This is a gilt edged guarantee that you can’t lose your salvation so when they pick on that verse
they are in real trouble.
Now you were asking about Moses and Moses is saying, "Oh Lord if you don’t do something with this
people, blot my name out." He is really saying, essentially, the same thing Paul said in spirit in Romans
9, where he says, "I could almost wish myself accursed for the sake of my kinsmen, my brethren, Israel."
In other words, I could almost come to the point where I say God I am so about the salvation of Israel
that, "damn me and save them". Well, that’s really what Moses is saying. It isn’t necessarily that he is
articulating some theological concept. What he is saying is, "Oh Lord, my passion runs so deep, I have
such a great concern for this people that I wish you’d do something for this people and oh God, if you are
not going to do anything for this people that I love I can’t bear the burden--just eliminate me." This is the
outcry of an impassioned heart and you don’t find the doctrine of insecurity in that outburst of passion.
There is nothing Moses says there about whether or not that could happen. He is just pouring out the
emotion of his own heart.
And when you want to affirm the doctrine of security there are two passages that I would recommend to
you that are unanswerable. John 10 and Romans 8. In fact we did a series, a rather protracted series on
Romans chapter 8 on the security of the believer. Anybody, I believe, who could sit and listen to that
entire series and not believe in the security of true salvation, has an unwilling mind and that may be the
problem. And then I think part of the reason people believe in insecurity is because they can’t explain
certain people’s behavior. In other words they say well what about my Aunt Ethel. She came to church
for a long time and then totally bombed out and they don’t know what happened, so they explain it as the
loss of salvation. The Bible explained it as "never having had it". Right? 1 John 2:17, "They went out
from us because they were not of us. If they had been of us they would have continued with us, but they
went out from us that is might be made manifest that they never were of us." So I don’t think that
Revelation 3 does anything but affirm the fact that the Lord is going to do for us what He promises….a
white raiment, He’s going to keep us in His book forever, confess us before God and angels and men
may blot people out but God doesn’t do that.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Can a Christian lose their salvation?
Question
We were members here until about five years ago when we moved to Utah. In an adult Sunday
school class in our church back there, we were going through the Book of Galatians. In chapter
five, which I was teaching a couple of weeks ago, we came to Galatians 5:2 and 5:4, which talk
about the consequences of accepting circumcision or coming under the Jewish law, or doing
anything legalistic. Paul writes in verse two that “Christ is of no benefit to you that were severed
from Christ,” verse 4, “you are fallen from grace.” I got into quite a discussion with a fellow in the
class about whether this meant you could lose your salvation, which was the position he took-in
fact, he got so upset that he got up and left. I just wanted to ask how you would have dealt with
that situation? What would you suggest to me?
Answer
First of all, again, you’re back to context, and I think what he’s saying here--Galatians five--he’s writing
to believers and yet he knows that in the wings are the Judaizers, those people who went around saying
“we’re Christians, but we believe before you can enter into Christ, you have to keep the mosaic law and
go through the physical rite of circumcision.” So, this is adding law to grace, and Paul’s viewpoint is
always if you add law to grace, you nullify grace. I mean, that’s clear in Romans 3 and Romans 4. As
soon as you add any law to grace, you’ve nullified grace. As soon as you say, “Yes, salvation is by grace
if you do this and if you do that,” and there is some kind of temporal action that you can do, like keep
mosaic ceremonies and get yourself circumcised, and that’s part of salvation, you have now nullified
grace.
So, what he is saying is, if you are receiving circumcision, believing that this is contributing to your
salvation, then Christ is of no benefit to you. In other words, you have now forfeited a salvation purely
and only by grace and you’ve clouded the issue by your works. You are now saying, “Yes, it is grace
plus my works and that negates the only means of salvation, which is grace.” In verse four, you are really
severed from Christ…if you’re seeking to be justified by law, you have now fallen from the grace
principle. He doesn’t mean you were saved and now you’ve been lost; you have fallen away from the
only means of salvation, which is the principle of grace.
Circumcision was a very important symbol, but it was not a means of salvation. But, those Judaizers
were trying to make it a means of salvation. Does that cover it?

John MacArthur - Can a Christian lose their salvation?
I was wondering if you thought those verses had any relevance to believers once they’re saved, and
if so, what that was.
Answer (continued)
Well, if you say that, then you’re going to say that Christ is of no benefit to a believer. And, in verse
four, that he has been severed from Christ. If I’m going to say this is going to be applied to a believer,
now I’m going to have to say the believer somehow lost his salvation. But, I don’t want to presuppose
that you can’t lose your salvation and read it into the text. What I want to say is, Paul has been preaching
through this entire book: salvation by grace. I mean, back in chapter 3, he said, “Look, you began in this
Spirit; you can’t be perfected by your flesh.” I mean, being justified by the Spirit through grace, you’re
not going to be perfected by the law through works. The principle of comparing grace to law goes
through this whole book. And I think all he’s saying here is, “Look, Christ set us free to be free. Keep
standing firm. Don’t let somebody come along and tell you your works are going to save you, because if
you get into that, you’re going to fall away from the grace principle, which is the only thing that can truly
save, and you’re going to be cut off from Christ. I think to go beyond that is to read anything into the
text.
Obviously, it has some implications. You could say, “Well, for a Christian, if I try to live in the flesh, I’ll
get cut off from the power of Christ,” but I don’t think that’s what this is saying.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Do you believe that all Christians will get into the kingdom, no matter how they live?
Question
I have a question from Matthew 8:12. It says, “the sons of the kingdom should be cast into outer
darkness, where there’s weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I came from an organization where they
teach that there are born-again Christians who, because they don’t live a holy, godly, Christian
life, can forfeit the kingdom and wind up in this place of outer darkness. Do you believe in this? Or
do you believe that all Christians will get into the kingdom, no matter how they live?
Answer
First of all, I don’t believe that kind of stuff, that Christians are going to wind up cast out of the kingdom,
weeping, with gnashing of teeth. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and I have
lost none of them,” John 6. None of them are going to be lost--none of them. Paul said, “Being confident
of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus
Christ.” Paul said, “What shall separate you from the love of God? Nothing. Life, death, principalities,
powers--nothing,” Roman 8, “shall separate you.” Nothing. And, you’re saved because you were chosen
in Him before the foundation of the world, that you might become like Jesus Christ. That is not going to
be interrupted.
Now, you can’t lose your salvation. That’s clear as it can be in scripture. Second point: a Christian, by
very nature, and by very desire, longs to live a holy life. That’s not the perfection of His life, but that’s
the direction of it. So, a Christian--a true Christian--isn’t going to choose to live like that, or he’s not a
true Christian. Right? Because a true Christian loves God, hates sin, and desires to obey. Doesn’t love
God as fully as he should, doesn’t hate sin as much as he should, doesn’t obey as often as he should, but
that’s the desire of his heart or her heart. If you’re truly saved, you’re going to pursue the right thing,
you’re going to pursue the things of God, and you can’t lose your salvation.
Just one more question? Who are the “sons of the kingdom” there in Matthew 8:12--who’s that
talking about?
Answer (continued)
Jews. Jews, who had every right by birth into the line of Israel to inherit the kingdom promised to Israel,
but they were going to wind up cast out of the very kingdom which was their inheritance and their

John MacArthur - Do you believe that all Christians will get into the kingdom, no matter how they live?
birthright because they rejected the Messiah. They rejected Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Eternal Security
Question
Is it possible for redeemed people to lose their salvation?
Answer
The Bible says no. One who is saved "has everlasting life, and . . . is passed from death unto life" (John
5:24). Eternal life by definition cannot be temporary. It is the present possession of all those who have
truly trusted Christ. Romans 8:28-39 reveals clearly that there is nothing in the universe that can separate
the elect from the love of God. The One who chose to save you "is able to keep you from stumbling, and
to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 24).
According to Scripture, people who profess to know Christ at one time but later deny Him were never
really saved to begin with. First John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us;
for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be
shown that they all are not of us." A true believer will never depart from the faith (Philippians 1:6), so
those who do so are revealing that they were never truly saved (John 8:31; Hebrews 3:14).
Even true Christians can sin, however, and because of that may lack assurance of salvation (Psalm
51:12). A failure to grow spiritually can also rob us of the confidence that we are God's children (2 Peter
1:9). But anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit is secure eternally, because He is the "deposit guaranteeing
our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:14).
For further study:

John MacArthur, Eternal Security (tape series).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-redeemed.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:53:28 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-redeemed.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:53:28 AM]

Question
I understand about salvation, that we do have salvation, we don't lose it. But I've been asked on Matthew
24, verse 10, where it says that many will fall away in the last days. Is that referring to Christians?
Answer
Well let's look at it. Matthew 24:10, just turn in your Bibles so we make sure we get the right context.
And, of course, here you're talking about the time of the Tribulation so the church has already gone by
this time, out of the world. "And then shall many be offended and shall betray one another and hate one
another. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold. Many false prophets shall
rise and deceive many. But he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved."
Now some say that what you have here is the unveiling of the false...in other words, under pressure
people who attach themselves to Christianity during the time of the Tribulation under pressure of attack
from the beast and whatever else, they begin to drop off. Others say it has direct reference to Israel. For
example, in the first half of the Tribulation there is going to be a pact between Israel and the Antichrist.
And everything is going to be peaceful and wonderful and there may be there's a reconstruction of
religion in Israel. And they're going to be worshiping in their temple again. And all of a sudden the beast
comes in the middle of the week and he destroys that thing, in verse 15, "The abomination of desolation
takes place." And it may be that at that time those who are not really followers of the truth, those who are
not really believers in God are going to be made manifest cause they're going to bail out. So I don't think
it has reference there to Christians. I think it has reference to those who have attached themselves...and it
can be to Israel as well as the possibility of being attached to Christianity.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
My question [is] on Revelation 3:16, where it talks about the Lord spewing you out of his mouth if
your works are neither hot nor cold. I’m wondering how that relates to “once being saved, always
being saved”?
Answer
Well, first of all, you have to understand that he’s writing to a church, "To the angel of the church in
Laodicea write: I know your deeds, you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold or hot. So
because you are lukewarm, and neither hot or cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” What he is talking
about here is not a Christian losing his salvation, but a church losing its witness. He’s talking about
a church losing its impact, losing its identity--and it did. And if a church doesn’t take a strong stand, it’ll
lose its power, it’ll lose its presence, it’ll lose its place in the community--that’s the issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I was taught before, when I used to go to a different church, that once you become a born again--
once you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you can never lose your salvation. But it
seems like, after listening to all your preaching, that being a Christian is not just saving by grace;
you have to constantly work hard to be a Christian, to obey. So that means a Christian could still
go to hell?
Answer
No. No. They were right at your other church. Once you become born again, that’s it forever. We’re not
talking about working hard to be a Christian; we’re talking about working hard to honor God as a
Christian. I mean, just a simple analogy: if I’m born into a family, I don’t have to work to be a son. I’m a
son! But, my parents would like me to be a good one, a useful one, a helpful one, a respectful one, an
honoring one, and that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about living your Christian life to the
glory and honor of God and to your own blessing and eternal reward.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
My question relates to "Discipleship Evangelism" [DE]. After you go through

DE and you begin to train others, you find yourself losing your fear to witness or
to present the gospel to others, to the point where you really become bold. Even
to where you start to challenge the cults. My question is: Is this a problem when
you begin to pray and ask the Lord to lead people into your life, and the next
thing you know, you see Mormons knocking at your door and Jehovah
Witnesses? Well, should we be greeting them and having them come into our
homes? I know we are not supposed to be cordial to them. I just want to know
what the Bible says about that and in your opinion.
Answer
Let's take a look at what the Bible says. Turn first of all, to 1 John, chapter 2, and
this is a good place to start. Just to put things in perspective, he says in verse 12
of 1 John 2, "I write unto you little children;" he uses a general word "tekna"
(Greek) which basically means offspring. It doesn't identify any particular age.
So, he's writing in general to all who are children, "Your sins are forgiven you for
His name's sake," that is, all the redeemed. Then he sorts out this whole
collective group of children into their various spiritual ages: "fathers" are
identified as those that "have known Him that is from the beginning." And then
"young men" are identified as those "who have overcome the wicked one," who is
Satan. And then "paidia" (Greek) infants, another word for children in verse 12,
actual infants, "because you have known the Father."
Now, he sorts everybody into three categories: you're either a spiritual infant who
knows the Father, "Da Da," that's spiritual "goo-goo." You know God--that's it.
On the other end of the spectrum is a spiritual father who has plumbed the depths

Question
of the eternal God; "he knows Him who is from the beginning." We are all on the
way from being an infant to being a spiritual father. We don't want to be an
infant very long, Paul says in Ephesians 4, that they are, "tossed too and carried
about by every wind of doctrine." We would like to be a spiritual father, mature,
comprehending the truth of God, and knowing God in an intimate way. That is,
we know the God behind the page. We are not stuck just with what the Bible
says, we understand the God behind it; we've come to the place that she was
asking about where we begin to know God in a personal and intimate way--
beyond just the Word.
But the middle step of growth he identifies as being a young man who has
overcome the wicked one. Now, in what sense has a spiritual young man, at the
growth point in his spiritual life that this identifies, "overcome the wicked one?"
Verse 14 explains it, "I have written unto you (middle of the verse) young men
because you are strong." How did you get strong? Because the "Word of God. . .
." What? "Abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one." Now, you
asked a simple question, "With what does the wicked one occupy himself?"
Well, according to 2 Corinthians 11, Satan is primarily disguised as an angel of
what? Of light. I think his primary occupation and primary function is in the
realm of false doctrine and false teaching and false religion; therefore, what a
spiritual young man is, in my mind, is one who has overcome the wicked one in
the sense that he no longer is weak in understanding the faith to the point where
he can be victimized in his doctrine.
It is inevitable, and I have seen this in my own experience, that when someone
reaches that level of understanding the Word of God, understanding what he
believes and having overcome the wicked one in terms of false religion it is very
frequently manifested by an aggressive approach towards evangelism,
particularly to people who are in systems of false doctrine. That's very common.
As a pastor, I can tell you, I can almost label a guy when he gets to that level,
because invariably he wants to take on the cults, and he wants to straighten
everybody's theology out, because he's there, in terms of understanding. Cults
aren't a problem to me; they can't woo me away; they do not confuse me at all,
because I have become strong in the Word of God and I have overcome the
Question
wicked one in that sense of his deceptiveness.
I am still on the way to becoming that spiritual father. So that's a very common
thing.
Now, what do you do when you are in that situation? Well, first of all I think it is
important for us to preach the truth. I don't think that we need to go in and defend
that Biblically. Right? We are to be able to (Peter says) "give an answer to every
man that asks us of the reason for the hope that is within us." Right? 1 Peter. So,
when anybody comes along, I don't care what cult they are in, we should be able
to answer them with a reasonable answer in meekness and fear, with reverence,
but nonetheless a direct answer. We should even be able to confront them as we
are encouraged in Titus to confront the heretics. So I don't see anything wrong
with that.
The thing that you don't want to do is get in the position where you become the
student and they become the teacher. If you can set the ground rules--fine; if you
can't then I think that you don't want to victimize yourself, because you do not
want to expose yourself to unsound doctrine. You do not want to expose yourself
to the kind of thing that Paul says, "Eats like a gangrene and begins to consume."
Also, you don't want to be gracious to them to the point where, as John the
Apostle writes in his epistle, "You are actually bidding them Godspeed and
therefore becoming a partaker of their evil deed." So it all depends on what the
ground rules are.
Now, we have to realize several things: realize number one, these people are
victims. They are victims. They are deceived people and they desperately need
the truth, so if there is some way in which you can get to their vulnerability and
establish the ground rules by which you can give them the truth--that's the seed
planted. You shouldn't shun that if you are a spiritual young man, if you are at
the point where you can do that. But at the same time you don't want to expose
yourself to their gangrenous kind of teaching, and you do not want to give them a
platform. Let me tell you something: they don't need the reinforcement of
restating their system again, and reassuring themselves by our inability to respond

Question
adequately to it. So, whenever they come around me the ground rules are always
the same: "I would be happy to tell you what I believe--if you are open to that,
but if you not--I am not interested in what you believe."
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
You have always taught here that the purpose of the Church was to "equip the saints," yet recently
you stated that the main purpose of the Church was to "reach the lost," and if that is true, then
why don't we have more emphasis on evangelism here at Grace Community Church?
Answer
The edification of the Church, the building up of the saints is so that they can be more effective in
evangelism. The edification of the saints is not the end, it is the means to the end. Now evangelism
doesn't occur in a vacuum; effective evangelism occurs out of a transformed life. It is back to that same
old idea, that if I am going to make the transforming power of Jesus Christ convincing, I have got to
demonstrate how He transformed my life. Right? So the most effective evangelistic weapon (apart from
just simply speaking the gospel); the most effective evangelistic tool that we have is a transformed life--
that is our testimony.
So the purpose of the Church, then, is to edify the believer; to build him up towards Christ-likeness, so
that he manifests the product that he is going to promote. Nothing is more ineffective in Christian
evangelism then somebody proclaiming the transforming gospel of Jesus Christ, and living as if Christ
couldn't transform anybody, or hadn't transformed him. So we are built up in the faith so that our
testimony is strong, and that there is credibility in the gospel that we preach: that Jesus Christ indeed can
change a life.
Now, let me tell you something else. Sometimes we overestimate what is necessary in the specifics of
the proclamation. Sometimes we think, "well. I have never known how to share the gospel, until I finally
learned this little formula, this little "DE" [Discipleship Evangelism] formula, or some other formula,"
when the fact of the matter is, that's not true. First of all, your transformed life; your mature Christian
walk; the evidence of God at work in your life; you spiritual attitude; your love for people; your genuine
devotion to Jesus Christ and to the life of the Church, lays a tremendous groundwork with the people that
know you, and the simplest word, such as, "Jesus Christ died for me and He changed my life, and He can
change your life," is a proclamation of the gospel. It's a starting proclamation.
I think it is one of the sad realities in the Church, that everybody doesn't know how to present the gospel
clearly and fully. But it is also one of the sad realities of the Church, that we sometimes underestimate
the capability that we do have--it may take us a little longer to get to the point, but if you are in Christ,
and you know Christ, then you know how you came to know Christ. You may not be able to say it as

Question
well, as if you had been refined and trained to say it, but keep in mind that's really kind of the icing on
the top. Jesus never sat His disciples down and said, "Here is a little tract, and I want you to memorize
it." The Apostle Paul, never any where in the New Testament, in any of his 13 epistles said, "Here is the
formula that I want you guys to use. Here are the five steps to being a Christian." He doesn't do that
either. Rather the whole of the New Testament unfolds the sweeping reality of redemption through Jesus
Christ, and we who are saved know why we are saved, and you don't want to underestimate your ability
to articulate that. You may not have it as refined as you would like, but listen carefully--it is not
necessarily the refinement or the formula that God uses--it is the truth that He uses.
Somebody may go out and give a very simple, and maybe not a chronological organized presentation of
the gospel, but it hits the good soil and the person is converted. You can go out and have the slickest
memorized presentation of the gospel, and if God isn't working in the heart of that individual, then it's
falling on hard ground. So, don't underestimate that.
Well, I know that is sort of a long answer, but first of all we must build up the saints to make our
message credible. "Let your light so shine before men that they may . . . ." What? "see your good works
and glorify your Father who is in heaven." And that's what Paul was doing. The reason we preach all the
time "edification," is because we preach the New Testament, and that's what it is, but the goal of that
edification is to build up the saints to proclaim the truth. I wish more people would get involved in "DE"
because I think it is so helpful to have a concise way to articulate the gospel. But don't underestimate
your ability to do that, and realize that the credibility of your life lays the platform on which individual
testimony becomes believable.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
The question comes really from my daughter. She was studying the Word the
other night, and it is 1 Samuel 18:10, "Now it came about on the next day that an
evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul." Her question is the "evil spirit,"
for as far as she is concerned, there is no evil coming from God, it only comes
from Satan.
Answer
All that you have to do to explain that is to let her know that no evil spirit, and no
devil, and no demon, anytime can ever do anything, except within the larger
picture of God's allowing. That "evil spirit" was from God only in the sense that
the devil was from God, when the Lord allowed him to go and test Job. You
remember when the devil came before God and said, "You don't have anybody on
this earth who will be faithful to you if given the circumstances that I can create."
And God said, "Yes, I have one faithful servant (Job 1) Job." And God said to
the devil, in effect, "You go and do whatever you want to Job." Of course, it was
all within the limitations of God's will, and of course, he did, and as a result of
that Job's faith was strengthened, and Job proved to pass the test.
That illustrates the same idea: an evil spirit comes from the Lord, only in the
sense that no evil spirit, no demon, no devil himself can act in this world
independently of and outside of the allowing will of God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

The Importance of a Good Example
Question
How important is a good example?
Answer
I was profoundly impressed by an item I saw buried inside the sports pages recently. A high school
basketball team from Rockville County, Georgia, had easily won the state championship, rolling over all
their opponents. A few weeks after the championship game, the coach, studying the team's grades,
noticed for the first time that one of his third-string players had failed some courses. The youngster was
academically ineligible for the basketball team.
The coach remembered that late in one of the semifinal matches, with his team leading by more than 20
points, he had put that player in the game. The ineligible man had played only a few minutes. His
participation had in no way affected the outcome of the game. But it was technically a violation.
The coach was in a distressing predicament. If he revealed the infraction, his team would be stripped of
the championship. He could keep quiet and hope no one noticed. After all, the violation was a mere
technicality--the team would have won anyway. It was unlikely anyone outside the school would ever
discover the offense.
Yet the coach realized the player involved surely was aware of the breach of rules. It was possible that
the whole team knew and thought their coach had purposely ignored the eligibility guidelines.
The coach said from the moment he discovered the violation, he knew what he had to do. He never even
pondered any alternatives. His priorities had been set long before this. He realized that the championship
was not as important as his team's character or his example to them.
He reported the infraction, and the school forfeited the state championship.
I'm sure it was painful to give up the title, but the coach believed his first responsibility was to be a good
example to his team. If he covered up the truth, his players would believe he had flaunted the rules.
Winning a state championship at the expense of his integrity was not worth the price. Too many young
lives could be adversely affected.
"Winning means nothing anyway unless you do it by the rules," the coach told incredulous reporters.
After the school surrendered the championship trophy, parents and team boosters chipped in to buy a
new, larger trophy. This one does not say "State Championship," but in my opinion it stands for
something far more important.
Young People Represent a Sacred Trust
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/goodexample.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:53:37 AM]

I wish all coaches, teachers, and parents understood that young people are our most valuable resource.
The complexion of the world a generation from now will be determined by the youth of today. The
example they receive from those who influence them will determine whether they embrace or discard
right values.
Whether you are a young person yourself or someone who influences them, you have a solemn
responsibility to be a good example.
The Bible clearly emphasizes this truth. In the Old Testament, all Israel was charged with the task of
teaching God's law to the nation's youth (Deuteronomy 6:7). Scripture says every parent's highest duty is
to train his children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it
(Proverbs 22:6). And a basic requirement for those in spiritual leadership is that they demonstrate the
ability to train their own children properly (1 Timothy 3:2-4; Titus 1:5).
There is no question about the importance God places on being the right kind of example to children and
young people. Eli, a priest in the Old Testament, was severely judged by God because he had failed to
train his sons in the way of righteousness (1 Samuel 3:13). Although he had basically been a faithful
priest, he had failed as a father, and God ultimately struck him dead for it.
You Can Be a Good Influence
Being a good example is a responsibility all of us share-- not just parents, coaches, and other authority
figures. There is great insight in the words of the apostle Paul to a young minister: "Let no one look down
on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of
those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:12).
Those words affirm both Timothy's youthfulness and his obligation to influence others for good. Even as
a young person, he was commanded to be a good example.
Note the progression: "speech, conduct, love, faith and purity." Those words envelop every conceivable
sphere of influence. Paul wanted Timothy to be constantly aware of the impact of his words and actions
on others.
The fact is, we all are an influence on people around us, whether we're trying to be or not. Almost
everything we say or do affects our friends and family either for bad or for good. They will reject or
accept our values, depending on how clearly and consistently we demonstrate our commitment.
Christians often speak of being a "good testimony." The word testimony usually makes us think of verbal
witness, but being a good testimony for Christ means much more than just talking about Him. If actions
speak as loudly as words, how we live is more important than what we say in influencing people for
Christ. A testimony for Christ mandates that we live lives of obedience to Him.

The Toughest Standard of All
I want to focus especially on the issue of purity. It's the last word in Paul's list of influential
characteristics, but in many ways it is the acid test. Assuming everything else in a person's life is right--
even "speech, conduct, love, [and] faith" (1 Timothy 4:12)--purity remains the ultimate criterion of a
good example.
In baseball, if a pitcher goes nine innings and gives up only four hits, we would normally think he pitched
a great game. But if those hits are all home runs and the pitcher loses the game, our estimation of his
performance will not be nearly as enthusiastic.
A person who bombs out in the area of moral purity is like the pitcher who keeps giving up the long ball--
no matter what else he does that's good, we're going to rate him as a failure.
One who fails at purity fails at everything. Paul wrote to Timothy, "Flee from youthful lusts, and pursue
righteousness" (2 Timothy 2:22). Peter amplified the warning: "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage
war against the soul" (2 Peter 2:11).
Nothing combats the soul more fiercely than moral impurity. It undermines any good influence we might
otherwise have, shatters credibility, and annuls the positive message of "speech, conduct, love, [and]
faith." That is why it is so damaging when a church leader fails morally.
Moral impurity almost always begins in the mind. People who fall into immorality are predictably those
who have nurtured impure thoughts. What we sow in our thought life--good or evil-- will inevitably bear
fruit in our behavior.
Therefore even "hidden" impurity will ultimately affect the kind of example we are.
It is intriguing that Paul warns Timothy about "youthful lusts." Temptation to lust can be overwhelming
to young people. Isn't it interesting to note that this was true even in Timothy's day? Paul realized that as
a young person, Timothy would be particularly susceptible to impure desires.
Lustful desires and provocative images, together with pride, are the chief characteristics of our world
system (cf 1 John 4:16). Modern society does all it can to amplify the power of lust, through advertising
designed to capitalize on evil desires, entertainment that heightens illegitimate passions, and a value
system that belittles moral virtue.
All of that sets the tone for the forces that influence today's young people. The result is an almost
irresistible pressure to compromise--especially in the area of purity.
And so contemporary young people desperately need good examples of purity, integrity, and sound

character. Sadly, there aren't many positive examples.
You can be one. Whether you're a young person or elderly, you're affecting the young people in your life.
Have you considered what kind of example you are? Are you a positive or a negative influence?
The Battle in Your Mind
Scripture acknowledges the ferocious battle we must wage to keep our minds pure. And God's Word
offers the means of winning that battle. Here are some key verses to memorize and meditate on if you're
struggling with impure thoughts:
"...be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which
is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).
"Thy word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee" (Psalm 119:11).
"But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night" (Psalm 1:2).
This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that
you may be careful to do all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then
you will have good success" (Joshua 1:8).
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - James 2 vs. Romans 4
Question
Does James 2 contradict Romans 4?
Answer
The most serious problem these verses pose is the question of what James 2:24 means: "You see that a
man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." Some imagine that this contradicts Paul in Romans
3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." John Calvin
explained this apparent difficulty:
It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of
righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by
obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word,
he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all
believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of
works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good
works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of
them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that
the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good
works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.]
James is not at odds with Paul. "They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they
stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel." [Alexander Ross, "The Epistle of James and
John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.]
In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now
he is stressing the importance of faith's fruit--the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces.
Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith.
Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote,
"Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:15); and "Having
been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error
James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith.
When Paul writes, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight," (Rom. 3:20),
he is combatting a Jewish legalism which insisted upon the need for works to be justified;
James insists upon the need for works in the lives of those who have been justified by
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-james2.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:54:09 AM]

faith. Paul insists that no man can ever win justification through his own efforts. . . . James
demands that a man who already claims to stand in right relationship with God through
faith must by a life of good works demonstrate that he has become a new creature in
Christ. With this Paul thoroughly agreed. Paul was rooting out 'works' that excluded and
destroyed saving faith; James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of
saving faith in daily life. [D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody,
1979), 175.]
James and Paul both echo Jesus' preaching. Paul's emphasis is an echo of Matthew 5:3: "Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." James's teaching has the ring of Matthew 7:21: "Not
everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My
Father who is in heaven." Paul represents the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount; James the end of it.
Paul declares that we are saved by faith without the deeds of the law. James declares that we are saved by
faith, which shows itself in works. Both James and Paul view good works as the proof of faith--not the
path to salvation.
James could not be more explicit. He is confronting the concept of a passive, false "faith," which is
devoid of the fruits of salvation. He is not arguing for works in addition to or apart from faith. He is
showing why and how, true, living faith always works. He is fighting against dead orthodoxy and its
tendency to abuse grace.
The error James assails is faith without works; justification without sanctification; salvation without new
life.
Again, James echoes the Master Himself, who insisted on a theology of lordship that involved obedience,
not lip-service. Jesus chided the disobedient ones who had attached themselves to Him in name only:
"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46). Verbal allegiance, He said,
will get no one to heaven: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven;
but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).
That is in perfect harmony with James: "Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who
delude themselves" (1:22); for "faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17).
[Excerpted from Faith Works]
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Faith
Question
How can we know if our faith is real?
Answer
The Bible provides a clear understanding of genuine saving faith-true faith produces good fruit. In His
parable of the soils and the seed, the Lord Jesus taught that, while unbelievers are unfruitful, those who
are saved would bear fruit. In this parable, three of four soils produced fruitless plants, vivid pictures of
receptions of God's Word that never resulted in salvation.
In contrast, fruit-bearing plants thrive in the good soil that pictures a redeemed heart. Jesus said, "But he
who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears
fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" (Matthew 13:23). All believers are
fruitful, even though not equally fruitful.
The Bible also describes what good fruit looks like. The following chart lists the characteristics of
genuine saving faith. In essence, it serves as a guide for spiritual fruit inspection. If you are unsure about
the reality of your faith, please take the time to study this chart, taking care to read each of the
accompanying Scripture passages.
The Character of Genuine Saving Faith
2 Corinthians 13:5
I. Evidences That Neither Prove Nor Disprove One's Faith
● Visible Morality: Matthew 19:16-21; 23:27.

● Intellectual Knowledge: Romans 1:21; 2:17ff.
● Religious Involvement: Matthew 25:1-10
● Active Ministry: Matthew 7:21-24
● Conviction of Sin: Acts 24:25
● Assurance: Matthew 23
● Time of Decision: Luke 8:13, 14
II. The Fruit/Proofs of Authentic/True Christianity:
● Love for God: Psalm 42:1ff; 73:25; Luke 10:27; Romans 8:7
● Repentance from Sin: Psalm 32:5; Proverbs 28:13; Romans 7:14ff; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 1 John 1:8-
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-faithreal.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:54:10 AM]

10
● Genuine Humility: Psalm 51:17; Matthew 5:1-12; James 4:6, 9ff.
● Devotion to God's Glory: Psalm 105:3; 115:1; Isaiah 43:7, 48:10ff.; Jeremiah 9:23, 24; 1
Corinthians 10:31
● Continual Prayer: Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18ff.; Philippians 4:6ff.; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; James 5:16-
18
● Selfless Love: 1 John 2:9ff, 3:14; 4:7ff.
● Separation from the World: 1 Corinthians 2:12; James 4:4ff.; 1 John 2:15-17, 5:5
● Spiritual Growth: Luke 8:15; John 15:1-6; Ephesians 4:12-16
● Obedient Living: Matthew 7:21; John 15:14ff.; Romans 16:26; 1 Peter 1:2, 22; 1 John 2:3-5
If List I is true of a person and List II is false, there is cause to question the validity of one's profession of
faith. Yet if List II is true, then the top list will be also.
III. The Conduct of the Gospel:
● Proclaim it: Matthew 4:23

● Defend it: Jude 3
● Demonstrate it: Philippians 1:27
● Share it: Philippians 1:5
● Suffer for it: 2 Timothy 1:8
● Don't hinder it: 1 Corinthians 9:16
● Be not ashamed: Romans 1:16
● Preach it: 1 Corinthians 9:16
● Be empowered: 1 Thessalonians 1:5
● Guard it: Galatians 1:6-8
(Adapted from John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 2190)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
What is the nature of true saving faith?
Answer
Scripture is everywhere clear-the one thing a person must do to be saved is exercise "true saving faith" in
Christ. Faith is the instrument that God uses to bring individuals into a saving relationship with Himself.
That is not to say that faith is the basis of our salvation; rather, it is the channel by which God grants
salvation. Noted theologian B. B. Warfield said, "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but
in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests…It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but
that Christ saves through faith."
Faith comes to the believer as a gift from God. It is not something that individuals are capable of
mustering up on their own. Were faith a work of man's own doing, man would be in a position to take
partial credit for his redemption. But such a concept is foreign to the writers of Scripture. Paul
anticipated that men would tend to boast of their part in salvation when he wrote that faith (one of many
components of salvation) "is the gift of God…that no one should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). As Charles
Haddon Spurgeon was fond of saying, salvation is "all of grace."
Faith comes as a result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit-He quickens our hearts to believe.
Apart from the new birth, there can be no true faith. Therefore, faith, though it manifests itself in action,
comes as a result of God's work in us. God grants us faith and that faith is evidenced by our walking in
the good works that "God [has] prepared beforehand" for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10).
The Bible says that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. However, the Bible does not
present faith as simply "mental assent to the facts of the gospel." True saving faith involves repentance
from one's sin and a complete trust in the work of Christ to save from sin and make one righteous. The
Reformers spoke of three aspects of faith: recognition of the truth claims of the gospel, acknowledgment
of their truthfulness and exact correspondence to man's spiritual need, and a personal commitment to the
Lord Jesus Christ who, by virtue of His death, provides the only sufficient sacrifice for one's personal sin.
Any one of these three aspects of faith, taken by themselves, is insufficient to meet the biblical definition
of saving faith. However, the presence of all three components together results in saving faith. In other
words, saving faith consists of mental, emotional, and volitional elements. Saving faith involves both the
mind and the will.
In addition to calling us to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament uses several figures of
speech to describe the nature of saving faith. Perhaps the most vivid of those figurative references is
found in Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-savefaith.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:54:11 AM]

righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (Matthew 5:6). In that passage, Jesus likens true faith to
hungering and thirsting. The unbeliever, by virtue of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, recognizes
his or her dire need of nourishment and refreshment and comes to Jesus begging that He fill the need.
That is a beautiful picture of faith. First, there is recognition of Jesus' claim to be the "bread of life" (John
6:35) and the possessor of "living water" (John 4:10). Next, the unbeliever is convinced that Jesus'
promise is really true and that it corresponds exactly with his profound hunger and thirst. Finally, the
unbeliever acts-he begs Jesus to satisfy his hunger and quench his thirst. True faith hears, believes, and
actively responds.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-savefaith.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 8:54:11 AM]

Question
What kind of things do and do not prove the genuineness of saving faith?
Answer
Churches today are filled with people who hold to a faith that does not save. James referred to this as a
"dead faith"-meaning a mere empty profession (James 2:17, 20, 26). Paul wrote to the people in the
church at Corinth to test or examine themselves to see if they were truly in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).
As important as it was in Paul's day, how much more important it is for people in our churches today to
put their faith to the test and to make sure they have not been deceived.
But where do we start? By what criteria do we determine true from empty faith? What are the
distinguishing marks of genuine saving faith? Surprisingly, there are a number of popular standards or
tests that really don't prove the genuineness of one's faith one way or the other. So before we look at the
tests that prove genuine faith, let's take a look at some popular tests that neither prove nor disprove the
genuineness of one's faith.
Here is a list of seven conditions that do not prove or disprove the genuineness of saving faith. One can
be a Christian and possess these things or one may not be a Christian at all and still possess them. While
they don't prove or disprove one's faith, they're important to know and understand so you will not be
deceived.
Seven conditions that do not prove or disprove genuine saving faith.
1. Visible Morality
There are some people who just seem to be good people. They can be religious, moral, honest, and
forthright [trustworthy] in their dealings with people. They may seem to be grateful, loving, kind and
tenderhearted toward others. They have visible virtues and an external morality. The Pharisees of Jesus
day rested on visible morality for their hope and yet some of Christ's harshest words were directed at
them for this very thing.
Many who possess visible morality know nothing of sincere love for God. Whatever good works they
appear to possess, they know nothing of serving the true God and living for His glory. Whatever the
person does or leaves undone does not involve God. They're honest in their dealings with everyone-but
God. They won't rob anyone-but God. They're thankful and loyal to everyone-but God. They speak
contemptuously and reproachfully of no one-but God. They have good relationships with everyone-but
God. They are like the rich young ruler who said, "All these things [conditions] have I kept, what do I
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-genuinefaith.htm (1 of 7) [5/21/2002 8:54:13 AM]

lack?" Their focus is on visible morality, but that visible morality doesn't necessarily mean salvation.
Jesus told one of the Pharisees "you must be born again" (John 3:6), not "you must put on an external
morality." People can "clean up their act" by reformation rather than regeneration-so reformation in itself
is not a mark of saving faith.
2. Intellectual Knowledge
Another condition that can be misleading is intellectual knowledge. People can possess an intellectual
understanding and knowledge of the truth and yet not be saved. While the knowledge of the truth is
necessary for salvation, and visible morality is a fruit of salvation, neither of these conditions by
themselves translate into true saving faith. People can know all about God, all about Jesus, who He was,
that He came into the world, that He died on the cross, that He rose again, that He's coming again, and
even many details about the life of Christ-and still turn their backs on Him.
That's what the writer of Hebrews was warning against in Hebrews 6:4-6. There were people in the
church who knew all about God and understood gospel truths. They even had a measure of experience
with gospel truth. They'd seen the ministry of the Holy Spirit at work in people's lives-and yet knowing
all of that, they stood in grave danger of turning away and rejecting Christ.
In Hebrews 10 the writer warns this kind of man that he is treading underfoot the blood of Christ by not
believing what he knows to be true. There are many people who know the Scriptures but are on their way
to hell! A man cannot be saved without the knowledge of the truth, but possessing that knowledge alone
does not save.
3. Religious Involvement
Religious involvement is not necessarily a proof of true faith. According to Paul there are people who
possess an outward form (a mere external appearance) of godliness but who have denied the power of it.
They have an empty form of religion. Jesus illustrated this when He told of the virgins in Matthew 25.
They waited and waited and waited for the coming of the bridegroom, who is Christ. And even though
they waited a long time, when He came they didn't go in. They had everything together except the oil in
their lamps. That which was most necessary was missing. The oil is probably emblematic of the new life;
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They weren't regenerate. They had religious involvement but were not
regenerate. A person can be visibly moral, know the truth, be religiously involved, and yet not possess
genuine saving faith.
4. Active Ministry
It is possible to have an active and even a public ministry, and yet not possess genuine saving faith.
Balaam was a prophet who turned out to be false (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). Saul of Tarsus (later becoming
the apostle Paul) thought he was serving God by killing Christians. Judas was a public preacher and one
of the twelve disciples of Christ-but he was an apostate. In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus said, "Many will say

to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and
done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me,
you who practice lawlessness!'" Those whom Jesus spoke of had been involved in active and public
ministry-but Jesus said he never knew them. Sobering words indeed.
5. Conviction of Sin
By itself, even conviction of sin is not a proof of salvation. Our world is filled with guilt-ridden people.
Many even feel badly about their sin. Felix trembled under conviction at the preaching of the apostle
Paul, but he never left his idols or turned to God (Acts 24:24-6). The Holy Spirit works to convict men of
sin, righteousness, and of judgment, but many do not respond in true repentance. Some may confess their
sins and even abandon the sins they feel guilty about. They say, "I don't like living this way. I want to
change." They may amend their ways and yet fall short of genuine saving faith. That's external
reformation, not internal regeneration. No degree of conviction of sin is conclusive evidence of saving
faith. Even the demons are convicted of their sins-that's why they tremble-but they are not saved.
6. The Feeling of Assurance
Feeling like you are saved is no guarantee you are indeed saved. Someone may say, "Well, I must be a
Christian because I feel that I am. I think I am one." But that is faulty reasoning. If thinking one is a
Christian is what makes one a Christian, then no one could be deceived. And then, by definition, it would
not be possible to be a deceived non-Christian, and that doesn't square with the whole point of Satan's
deception. He wants people who are not truly saved to think they are. Satan has deceived multiplied
millions of religious people into thinking they are saved even though they are not. They may say to
themselves, "God won't condemn me. I feel good about myself. I have assurance. I'm ok." But that
doesn't necessarily mean a thing.
7. A Time of Decision
So often people say things like: "Well, I know I'm a Christian, because I remember when I signed the
card," or "I remember when I prayed a prayer," or "I remember when I walked the aisle" or "went
forward in church." A person may remember exactly when it happened and where they were when "it"
happened, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Our salvation is not verified by a past moment.
Many people have prayed prayers, gone forward in church services, signed cards, gone into prayer
rooms, been baptized, and joined churches without ever experiencing genuine saving faith.
These are seven common conditions or tests that don't necessarily prove or disprove the existence of
saving faith. What then are the marks of genuine saving faith? Are there some reliable tests from the
Word of God that enable us to know for certain whether one's faith is real? Thankfully there are at least
nine biblical criteria for examining the genuineness of saving faith.
Nine conditions that prove genuine saving faith.

1. Love for God
First of all a deep and abiding love for God is one of the supreme evidences of genuine saving faith. This
gets to the heart of the issue. Romans 8:7 says "the carnal mind is enmity [hostility, hatred] against God;
for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Thus, if a man's heart is at enmity with God
there is no basis for assuming the presence of saving faith. Those who are truly saved love God, but those
who are not truly saved resent God and His sovereignty. Internally they are rebellious toward God and
His plan for their life. But the regenerate person is set to love the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and
strength. His delight is in the infinite excellencies of God. God is the first and highest affection of his
renewed soul. God has become his chief happiness and source of satisfaction. He seeks after God and
thirsts for the living God.
By the way, we must be careful to distinguish the difference between that kind of true love for God that
seeks His glory from the kind of self-serving love that sees God primarily as a means of personal
fulfillment and gain. True saving faith doesn't believe in Christ so that Christ will make one happy. The
heart that truly loves God desires to please God and glorify Him. Jesus taught that if someone loved their
father and mother more than they loved Christ, they were not worthy of Him. In Matthew 10:37-39 Jesus
put it like this: "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son
or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me
is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."
(Matthew 10:37-39)
The question then is this: Do you love God? Do you love His nature? Do you love His glory? Do you
love His name? Do you love His kingdom? Do you love His holiness? Do you love His will? Is your
heart lifted when you sing His praises-because you love Him? Supreme love for God is decisive evidence
of true faith.
2. Repentance from Sin
A proper love for God necessarily involves a hatred for sin that leads to repentance. That should be
obvious. Who wouldn't understand that? If we truly love someone we seek their best interests. Their well
being is our greatest concern. If a man says to his wife, "I love you but I could care less what happens to
you," we would rightly question his love for her. True love seeks the highest good of its object. If we say
that we love God, then we will hate whatever is an offense to Him. Sin blasphemes God. Sin curses God.
Sin seeks to destroy God's work and His kingdom. Sin killed His Son. So when someone says, "I love
God, but I tolerate sin," then there is every reason to question the genuineness of his love for God. One
cannot love God without hating that which is set to destroy Him. True love for God will therefore
manifest itself through confession and repentance. The man who loves God will be grieved over his sin
and will want to confess it to God and forsake it.
In examining our faith we should ask: "Do I have a settled conviction concerning the evil of all sin? Does
sin appear to me as the evil and bitter thing that it really is? Does conviction of sin increase in me as I

walk with Christ? Do I hate it not primarily because it is ruinous to my own soul or because it is an
offense to the God I love? Does the sin itself grieve me or am I only grieved over the consequences of
my sin. What grieves me most-my misfortune or my sin? Do my sins appear to me as many, frequent and
aggravated? Do I find myself grieved over my own sin more than the sins of others?" Genuine saving
faith loves God and hates what He hates, which is sin. That attitude results in real repentance.
3. Genuine Humility
Saving faith is manifested through genuine humility. Jesus said blessed are those who are poor in spirit,
and those who mourn [their sin], and those who are meek, and those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness (Matthew 5:3-6)-all marks of humility. In Matthew 18 Jesus said that "unless you are
converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew
18:3). True saving faith comes as a little child-humble and dependent. It is not the man who is full of
himself who is saved, but the man who denies himself, takes up his cross daily and follows Christ
(Matthew 16:24).
In the Old Testament we see that the Lord receives those who come with a broken and contrite spirit
(Psalm 34:18; 51:17; Isaiah 57:15; 66:2). James wrote: "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the
humble" (James 4:6). We must come as the prodigal son, broken and humble. Remember what he said to
his father-"Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called
your son" (Luke 15:21). Those possessing genuine saving faith do not come boastfully to God with their
religious achievements or spiritual accomplishments in hand. They come empty-handed in genuine
humility.
4. Devotion to God's Glory
True saving faith is manifested by a devotion to God's glory. Whatever believers do, whether they eat or
drink, their desire is to see God glorified. Christians do what they do because they want to bring glory to
God.
Without question Christians fail in each of these areas, but the direction of a Christian's life is to love
God, hate sin, to live in humility and self-denial, recognizing his unworthiness and being devoted to the
glory of God. It is not the perfection of one's life but the direction of a life that provides evidence of
regeneration.
5. Continual Prayer
Humble, submissive, believing prayer is mark of true faith. We cry "Abba, Father" because the Spirit
within us prompts that cry. Jonathan Edwards once preached a sermon titled, "Hypocrites are Deficient in
the Duty of Secret Prayer." It's true. Hypocrites may pray publicly, because that's what hypocrites want
to do. Their desire is to impress people-but they are deficient in the duty of secret prayer. True believers
have a personal and private prayer life with God. They regularly seek communion with God through

prayer.
6. Selfless Love
An important characteristic of genuine saving faith is selfless love. James wrote, "If you really fulfill the
royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well" (James
2:8). John wrote, "Whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart
from him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17). If you love God you will not only hate
what offends Him, but you will love those whom He loves. "We know that we have passed from death to
life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death" (1 John 3:14). And
why do we love God and love others? Because this is the believer's response to His love for us. "We love
Him because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Jesus said we will know that we are His disciples by our
love for each other (John 13:35).
7. Separation from the World
Positively, believers are marked by a love for God and for fellow believers. Negatively, the Christian is
characterized by the absence of love for the world. True believers are not those who are ruled by worldly
affections, but their affection and devotion is toward God and His kingdom.
In 1 Corinthians 2:12 Paul wrote that "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is
from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." In 1 John 2:15 we
read: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of
the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15). True saving faith separates one from the pursuits of this world--
not perfectly, as we all fail in these areas, but the direction of a believer's life is upward. He feels the pull
of heaven on his soul. Christians are those whom God has delivered from the power of darkness and
conveyed into the kingdom of His Son. The believer is marked by the absence of love or enslavement to
the satanically controlled world system (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 1:13; James 4:4).
8. Spiritual Growth
True believers grow. When God begins a true work of salvation in a person, He finishes and perfects that
work. Paul expressed that assurance when he wrote in Philippians 1:6, "being confident of this very
thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ."
If you are a true Christian, you are going to be growing-and that means you are going to be more and
more like Christ. Life produces itself. If you're alive you are going to grow, there's no other way. You'll
improve. You'll increase. The Spirit will move you from one level of glory to the next. So examine your
life. Do you see spiritual growth? Do you see the decreasing frequency of sin? Is there an increasing
pattern of righteousness and devotion to God?
9. Obedience

Obedient living is not one of the optional tracks given for believers to walk. All true believers are called
to a life of obedience. Jesus taught that every branch that abides in Him bears fruit (John 15:1-8). Paul
wrote that believers "are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). That speaks of obedience. We are saved unto
the obedience of faith (see 1 Peter 1:2).
How can we know our faith is genuine? Examine your life in the light of God's Word. Do you see these
characteristics in your life? Do you have a love for God, hatred for sin, humility, devotion to God's glory,
a pattern of personal and private prayer, selfless love, separation from the world, the evidence of spiritual
growth and obedience. These are the real evidences of genuine saving faith.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Myself and some of my friends have been discussing for the last couple of weeks, do I exercise faith
as a result of the fact that I am regenerate or does God regenerate me as a result of the fact that I
exercise faith?
Answer
“A.” You exercise faith because He awakened your dead heart.
And how would you show that to someone in Scripture if they didn’t want to believe that?
Answer (continued)
Ephesians 2:1-10; the whole chapter.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Fantasy (Harry Potter)
Question
I wanted to know what you thought [about] Harry Potter.
Answer
Well, to be honest with you, it rarely ever enters my mind so I don’t have a lot of thoughts about Harry
Potter.
You know, first of all, you could say that is silliness, foolishness. Fantasy is folly to me. Of all the things
that could be learned in the world that are helpful, fantasy doesn’t fit into that category. I’m not even
much of a devotee of people like C. S. Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia and Tolkien and others that
have some kind of Christian overtones. Just give me a good dose of reality; you can forget the fantasy. I
really can’t build my life on a fantasy. I have to build my life on reality. People have asked me through
the years if I want to write novels, you know, and I say, “What do I write fiction? Who needs fiction?” I
don’t want to write fiction. I don’t even like to marry fiction with fact or reality with non-reality because
I think that’s confusing. So, you know, from that standpoint--just a common sense standpoint--it’s silly.
It’s Superman, at best. You know, it’s the Green Hornet…was big when I was a kid. It’s Spiderman. It’s
anything that’s not real where you have a certain element of miracles.
And then you add the more serious matter that you’re now dealing with a world of spirit beings and
you’re now into the fringes of the demonic realm and I think that’s a very serious thing. I don’t think
that’s helpful, I don’t think that that’s necessary.
You know, you could sit back and say that this Roland gal is a good writer--very, very clever. You don’t
sell millions and millions of books unless people like reading them. She’s a very talented writer and you
could sit back in a critical way--I could read those things and appreciate art for art’s sake. But I think for
young children to be exposed to that kind of fantasy world, for young people to get lost in all of that, is
really, in a way, to check out of reality and the more and more people that check out of reality, the less
and less likely we are to have an influence on their lives.
I don’t think people need to get caught up in it, you know, whether it’s Star Wars or any of that hocus
pocus stuff that deals with things that are fantasy. I don’t think it’s helpful to people and I think
particularly children don’t need to think that there’s some mystical spirits moving around in the world,
even if Harry Potter in the end is a good guy. I think there is spiritual reality in the world and they ought
to know what the spiritual reality is; forget the fantasy.

John MacArthur - Fantasy (Harry Potter)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In Matthew six, it talks about giving alms, and further on it talks about when you are praying, and
then it says, "when you fast." It looks as though that fasting should be just as regular as praying
and giving alms, and I wondering how we should be applying fasting in today's day and age.
Answer
Well, I think fasting is a very important part of Christian experience. He's talking about verse 16, of
Matthew 6, "Whenever you fast do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do." A Couple of things to
say about fasting:
First of all, fasting is never commanded, prayer is: "pray without ceasing," "praying always, with all
prayer and supplication," "watch and pray," repeatedly we are called to pray, we are commanded to
pray. We are never commanded to fast. In fact, fasting is obviously identified with unique
circumstances. The best way to illustrate that is: when the disciples of Jesus were confronted by the
Jewish leaders, the Jewish leaders said to Jesus, "Why don't your disciples fast?" Now, it was typical of
devout traditionalist Jews to fast twice a week. You remember that the Publican in Luke 18, said, "I fast
twice a week," so he was following, not the Biblical prescription, but the traditional prescription, that if
you wanted to be spiritual, that you fasted twice a week. You deprived yourself of food twice a week,
and to them that was emblematic of holiness. So the Jews came to Jesus and said, "Your disciples don't
fast! Why?" Well that's very interesting. Jesus' response was, "When the bridegroom is with you, you
don't fast, in other words, this is not a time for fasting, because this is a time of joy. Jesus was telling us
that fasting is an unique experience that is identified with times of grief, and sorrow, and pain, and
isolation, and loneliness, and fear--those kinds of times that would not exist while you were walking
around in the presence of Jesus Christ.
So the first thing to remember is, that fasting, at least in the teachings of Jesus, was for those times of
great need, those times of great stress. You say, "Well, Jesus isn't here now!" Yes, but it is still true that
having left, He said to His disciples, "When I go I'll send the Comforter, another Comforter, one like
Myself, even the Holy Spirit." In fact, the Holy Spirit is so much like Him that He said, "I will come to
you," and He has come to us in the form of the Holy Spirit.
So for those who are believers, for those who are walking with Jesus Christ, we experience His presence
at all times. Fasting then is not a normal course of life for us, because we enjoying the fullness of the
blessing of the presence of Christ. However, having said that as the general pattern, and acknowledging

Question
that fasting is not commanded in the New Testament, fasting is in the Bible, associated with times of
great concern, and great sorrow, great anxiety, and great prayer--all of that kind of issues in prayer, and
fasting is always associated with prayer. It is not isolated from prayer, it is a part and parcel of times of
prayer. So I think that the time to fast is of course those times when we are swept up in prayer, to the
degree that we are we are so somber, so serious, so engulfed, that we have no desire to eat, and no desire
to satisfy and of the cravings of the flesh. In fact, in times like that it may be that the flesh doesn't have
such cravings, because one is so overwrought with prayerful concerns.
I think that is all we can really say is in the New Testament about fasting; that there are times when it
wouldn't be appropriate to fast, because you are enjoying the fullness of the presence of God and all of
His blessing; there are times when it would be appropriate to fast, and that would be associated with
times of importunity, which means times of relentless prayer and concern about those matters that are on
our hearts.
I can give you some personal experiences from my own life when great crisis come into my own life;
fasting is a somewhat normal response to those kinds of exigencies. The longest time of fasting that I
ever experienced in my life was a nine or ten day fast, in which I ate nothing. That was at a time when I
was in great concern and prayer over the fact that my son Mark had been diagnosed as having a brain
tumor, which could be fatal. He was in his last year of college, I think it was his last year, and of course,
it was a tremendous amount of concern over that, and there was just a sort of a very immediate response
to fast and pray on behalf of that kind of serious situation, and come before the Lord, and God was so
tremendously gracious during that time.
I remember when the doctor told me, the neurosurgeon at Cedar-Sinai (hospital) that it could be fatal, it
was just immediate that I wanted to come into the presence of the Lord and beseech Him. First of all,
naturally, you pray for the well-being of your son. You ask the Lord, "Are you sure that You have the
right kid? This is a good one, You know you could use him down the road." I prayed and fasted, and of
course Patricia [John's wife] was aware. Mark was not aware of the seriousness of his tumor situation.
But during that time I can honestly say that I spent nine days taking him back and forth to the clinic
while they were doing non-evasive techniques to determine what this tumor was, before they drilled a
hole in his skull, and went in and actually got inside, because the implications were so severe, because it
was near the optic nerve, and the pineal gland, and things like that. They didn't want to do any invasive
things, and so those were times of intense prayer. You could see a flow going from, "Lord, spare his life,
and so forth and so on," to a sort of a middle ground in a few days, where you are saying, "Lord,
whatever your will is, whatever your will is," and by the time that I got to the end of it, I was saying,
"You know this world isn't a fit place for anybody, He belongs to You, take him out." You know, you go
through the whole process--I conducted his funeral about 100 times--just going through the process of
yielding up to the Lord this young man.
I remember being up in my office on a Wednesday night. It was the ninth day, the next day the doctor
was going to tell me the results of all the tests, and they were done at the Frank Norris Clinic, over at the
USC Medical Center, by the finest cancer specialist around, and pediatric tumor specialist, and all of
that. I was waiting for the next morning, and for the first time I was actually hungry. It was the first time

Question
that I actually felt any hunger pangs. And I actually got hungry sitting up there, it was on a Wednesday
night, it was between the end of the day, and the office was closed, and Wednesday night services were
going to start in an hour or so. I was up there, and everything was locked up, and I was just praying and
thanking the Lord for the perfect peace, that if He was going to take him to heaven--wonderful, glorious
for him, and we would rejoice in that.
There was a knock on my door, and I don't even know how anybody got in there, because there are like
four sets of double doors you have to go through, and they were all locked. And a lady was knocking on
my door, and I was so surprised, because everything else was closed in the office. So I went to the door
and opened the door, and there was a lady standing there, who had been in the church for many years, but
who had never been in my office ever. I greeted her, and said, "Hi, how are you?" And she said, "Pastor,
I saw your light on up here, as I was going by, and I thought you might be hungry, and I brought you a
sandwich. And I think I said something like, "Ahhhh...Ahhhhhh" I don't think it was any more coherent
than that, it might have been less coherent than that actually. That woman had never given me a cookie,
that woman had never done anything, she had never been in the office. I didn't even know that she knew
where my office was, but somehow the Lord had impressed upon her heart to make me a Bologna
sandwich, and I took that sandwich in a little bag, and I went back to my desk, and I said, "So, Lord, You
are that involved in my prayer life that when the fast is over, You deliver the sandwich." I mean, that
was a pretty profound moment for somebody who is not very mystical. I just rejoiced that God had
concluded the fast in a most appropriate and gracious way. I mean, I just couldn't bring myself to going
down to In-N-Out [A popular California fast-food Hamburger restaurant], or something, it seemed too
carnal--it needed to be something more.
I only say that, to give you that little recitation, to say, that there are great times of fasting, that come
along with great times of prayer. The next morning the doctor called me, and he said, "We are happy to
tell you this is a benign epodermoid (sp.), it is a piece of misplaced skin tissue, it is not any problem at
all, it is not even anything to worry about. We are just rejoicing down here, we really like your son, and
we are so happy for him, and we just wanted to let you know that all the news is good, and we don't think
it is a problem, and never will be a problem." I was so thrilled, I went to the college where Mark was,
and I told him. And then I told him the whole story, and he hadn't known all the behind the scene details
about the potential fatality, that they had told me about. He said to me, "Why do you think the Lord put
me through that?" I said, "Put you through that! You didn't know what I knew. The question is, Why
did the Lord put me through that?" Of course, the answer to that is, in order that the Lord might
accomplish His purposes in our hearts and draw us to Himself. So God put Himself on display and was
gracious in that regard.
Three years ago, you know, Patricia had a car accident, broke her neck, they gave her less than 5%
chance to live. That was another time when prayer just kind of takes over your life, you just go into
instant communion, unrelenting communion with God, and food has no place, as other kind of
indulgences and things that entertain us don't.
So I think fasting needs to be associated with times of prayer. I say that carefully, because I think some
people think that if you just arbitrarily don't eat, that there is some spiritual virtue in that. The fact of the

Question
matter, we ought to fast more, because we ought to be more concerned to pray more strongly about more
things. So the real issue, I think, is in the prayer area.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Jesus Christ: Firstborn
Question
I have a question from Colossians, chapter 1. They refer to Christ being the “firstborn of all
creation” in verse 15, and then in verse 18, they refer to Him as being “firstborn of the dead.” I
understand “firstborn of the dead,” but what is “firstborn of all creation?”
Answer
The word “firstborn” is the word ‘prototokos.’ It doesn’t mean “first in chronology”; it means “first in
preeminence.” It means of all the people that have ever been born of creation, He is the primary one.
Okay? It doesn’t mean chronology--that’s what you’re asking, right? And when it says He was firstborn
from the dead, hey, there were other people who got resurrected before Him, weren’t there? Sure. In the
Old Testament… So, ‘prototokos’ means “the primary one,” “the supreme one.” And probably a better
way to translate it would be “He is the Image of the invisible God, and the Supreme One of all creation.”
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Jay Adam's new book on forgiveness that came out in 1989 is in the Book Shack [Grace
Community Church's book store] . He clearly teaches in accordance with Luke 17:3, “Be on your
guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” He teaches that you have
to have a heart always for forgiveness, yet there are many, many fine Christian theologians that
take a different point of view, their point of view being that forgiveness is there, it is consummated
just in my mind and it doesn’t need to be that the sinner come and ask for forgiveness. Could you
clarify this?
Answer
I think that it’s both. I think that I have to forgive in my heart--that takes care of my heart attitude--but
until that sinner comes and repents to me, that relationship will never be restored. So it’s a two-
dimensional forgiveness. I don’t want to bear a grudge. If you sin against me, I have to forgive you in my
heart even as God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven me. So, I do that willingly. But I will never be able to
have a right relationship with you until you come to me and seek the forgiveness that opens up the
relationship.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question: What is Christian Freedom? -- John MacArthur
Question
What is Christian freedom?
Answer
That is a really important question. What is Christian freedom? I think there were a couple of people who
asked this… First of all, let me go with you to John, chapter 8, and let’s look at the total picture of
Christian freedom. You’d have to go to verse 30 to begin with. John 8:30: “And as Jesus was speaking
these words”-- and marvelous words they were about who He was -- “many believed on Him. Then said
Jesus to those Jews who believed on Him, ‘If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples really’”
or “for real” -- “alethos”, “truly.” “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you,”-- what?
“Free.”
Now notice, first of all, that freedom is a result of truth. You take a guy (and this is the way I usually
illustrate this) who’s got a very, very complex math problem and he’s got this assignment that he’s got to
turn into his professor the next day and he’s in an advanced mathematics class or an advanced something
or other that has to do with math… And he’s got to get his problem done.
So, he starts about 8:00 and he keeps this problem going and he’s got a bunch of x’s and y’s and all this
kind of stuff, and he’s trying to put the whole thing together. And he struggles and he struggles and and
he struggles--you know what happens? The guy is a slave to his problem, isn’t he? And let’s say he
comes to the conclusion and he gets an answer and he goes back and checks his answer and it’s wrong.
He’s still a slave.
About 3:00 in the morning, he gets an answer and he goes and checks it about five ways and it’s right.
He’s free, right? He’s only free when he’s discovered the truth. That’s all. You see, freedom is a result of
knowing the truth. There is no freedom apart from knowing the truth because the search goes on. A man
is never liberated from the dilemma until he arrives at the solution! So, Jesus said to the Jews, “You guys
are still fuddling around with the problem! You’re still playing religious games! If you would listen to
me, you would know the truth and the truth would set you free from the tremendous problems you have
imposed on yourself by your legalism.”
You see, their legalism--they were satisfying themselves in the fact that they were working out a problem,
instead of being satisfied with an answer. And of course, they said, “We are Abraham’s seed and were
never in bondage to any man! How sayest thou, ‘We shall be made free’? Why, we’ve never been slaves
to anybody.” Oh really? Ho. Have you forgotten that you were slaves to Egypt, slaves to the Babylonians,

slaves to the Greeks, slaves now currently to the Romans? “We were never slaves to anybody”? Check
again.
And then Jesus said, “Worst of all,” verse 34, “verily, verily I say unto you, whosoever commits sin is
the” what? “Slave of sin.” You are slaves to sin. You see, as long as you sin, you sin, you sin, you never
get a solution so you never get free from the bondage of sin! When the solution to sin comes, sin’s power
is broken, sin is forgiven, you’re free. The problem is solved. Isn’t that really what contributes to
Christian peace? I mean, if you stop and think about it, what is the greatest thing to know about as a
Christian? It is to know that you’re free from the consequences of what? Sin. You’re free!
So, first of all, Christian freedom has to do with finding the truth in Jesus Christ and being liberated.
But taking it a step further than that, how far does our freedom go as Christians? There’s a lot in the New
Testament about Christian liberty and about what Christians are free to do. You know, some people have
taken this idea of freedom and just gone crazy with it. “Well, I’m saved and, boy, the Lord’s going to take
care of me so I’ll just do what I want to do.” I heard one man who said--I think it was the week before
last--he said, “So what if I do wrong? The Lord’s forgiven me in the past; He’ll forgive me again.”
You know what that says to me? That says, one, he doesn’t understand freedom; two, he doesn’t really
love the Lord… Because if he loved the Lord, he couldn’t tread on his love like that. You see, if you love
somebody, you don’t stomp their grace, do you?
So, you see, what is the boundaries of Christian liberty? Are we free? Listen, I Corinthians says, “All this
are lawful.” Did you know that? You say, “Where is it? That’s my life verse; I’ve got to find that one.
Where is it?” I’m not going to tell you. Chapter 6. But, all things are lawful, but all things aren’t
expedient. Now there’s got to be a boundary. All things are lawful, but I’ll not be brought under the
power of any.
Where does Christian liberty fit into this thing? Just how free are we? Well, I want you to know
something exciting--Romans 6. In Romans 6:14, it says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you for
you’re not under the law, but under grace.” So you’ve been freed from sin… “In what sense? Are you
saying that as a Christian I never sin?” Is that true? Some people say, “Well, as Christians, Romans says
we’re free from the law. We have been made free from sin. That means that sin doesn’t bother us
anymore.” I have actually heard that preached… That we have been made free from sin; sin doesn’t
bother--listen, when you become a Christian, sin will bother you a lot more than it did before you were
saved.
Being free from sin doesn’t mean you’re free from the actuality of it; it means you’re free from the
penalty of it! You’re free from the wages of it. Why? Because you died with Christ. How many times can
a person die? Once. And when sin comes to me and says, “MacArthur, I’m going to kill you for your
sin,” I say, “Sorry, I already died.”

“When did you die?”
“I died the day I received Jesus Christ: I was crucified with him, nevertheless I live. I died in Jesus Christ
on the cross. It’s your tough luck I also rose from the dead.”
You see, that is the death! I died in Christ when I gave him my life! I was buried, right? That’s Romans 6.
And I rose and I walk in newness of life! I have paid the penalty in Jesus Christ by my union with Him.
Sin has no claims on me. Sin can’t touch me. I still sin; it just has no ultimate penalty. I’ll tell you
something else: I don’t sin that grace may abound. God forbid.
So we are free from the power of sin, we’re free from the wages of sin, free from the penalty of sin. Now,
I want to take this freedom to Romans 14 and 15. Because here, you see, you run into another area: how
free are Christians? You know, some people say, “Well, we’re Christians. Man, we’ve got liberty, we can
do what we want to do,” you see. And these are the same people who are always saying that you
shouldn’t feel guilty for anything. You just do what you want to do! And you know, you’ve even got
people who claim to be Christians and claim so much freedom that they can have sexual relationships
outside of marriage and they can just about do anything they want without any theological problem.
Believe me, they don’t escape guilt, they don’t escape chastisement, but they at least have fit their
theology to rationalize along with their behavior.
But in Romans 14, you have this idea of freedom and how does it work together with the Christian’s
commitment. Now, let me just say this to begin with: there are several principles here regarding freedom.
The first few verses of the chapter--in fact, I guess we’d have to consider the first thirteen verses probably
as one unit of chapter 14--really tell us that we’re free in Christ. But there are some other things that go
along with it.
It says, for example, in one, “Him that is weak in the faith receive even not to doubtful disputations, for
one believes that he may eat all things; another who is weak eats only herbs.” You’ve got some people
who eat meat and others who are vegetarians. “Let not him that eats despise him that eats not; let not him
who eats not judge him that eats, for God has received them.” In other words, the big issue isn’t what you
eat or what you don’t eat--and those were issues in those days. That’s right.
Listen, a Jew became a Christian, he went over to a Gentile’s house and they had roast pork. Well, he got
apoplexy; he couldn’t handle that! And oftentimes the Gentile would just sticking it in and turning it, you
know, saying, “Hey, we’re free, fella,” you know… “Have a little pork!” See? I mean, he couldn’t handle
that. You see, too many years, too many years had gone by when he had been circumscribed to the law.
Well, in Acts, chapter 10, when the Lord came to Peter and spoke to him in the sheet and said, “See all
those animals there? They’re all clean. Go ahead. Rise, Peter, kill and eat,” Peter says, “I have never in
my life eaten anything unclean!” The Lord said to him, “Don’t you dare call unclean what I’ve cleansed!”
That was tough for Peter. I imagine the first ham sandwich he ever ate went down hard. Boy. So you see,
there was a freedom there, there was a liberty there, there was no more dietary laws, there was no more

the clothing law of the wool, and so forth and so on… There was no more kitchen cooking laws… All of
that stuff had been set aside, all the peculiarities of Israel had been set aside in the institution of the
church.
So those outward laws were gone. And yet the Jews couldn’t handle those things and when they saw
some people doing certain things, it grieved their spirit.
He goes further and He says in verse 4, “Who are you that judges another man’s servant? To his own
master, he stands or falls. Let every man be judged by God. One man esteems one day above another;
another man esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
When I was a little kid growing up in Philadelphia, I could not read the funny paper on Sunday! You
know that’s true in some cases now? Do you know there was a choir that came to a church back there
where I went to church as a little boy and they sang on a Sunday morning and in the afternoon, some of
them went into the drugstore to make a phone call, and nobody in the church came back that night to hear
them. They had violated the Lord’s Day. Well, there’s no law you can’t make a phone call on Sunday!
But you see, they had this little box in which they had to fit everything.
And so, some people regard a day above another. What happened here? Well, some of the Jews were still
upholding the Sabbath and some of the Gentiles were saying, “Oh, you legalists! We’re free of the
Sabbath; we’re going to go out and go fishing.” Some of the more liberated Jews even, who had matured
in the faith, were exercising their liberties. But He says, “Look, if he the regards the day, he regards it to
the Lord, and he that regards not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord
for he giveth God thanks, and he that eateth not to the Lord, eateth not and giveth God thanks.” In other
words, it doesn’t matter! These aren’t even consequential gray-area things!
So you’re free. You’re free to do whatever you want. “Ahhh,” you say, “I like that. Free to do whatever I
want, yeah… All things are lawful.” Hmm.
There’s a second principle. The first principle is you’re free. The second principle is don’t offend. Now
that really ties it down, doesn’t it? That’s right, verse 13, “Let us therefore not judge one another
anymore, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s
way.” Hey, maybe I think I am free to do all those things, but maybe if I didn’t do them, I might be more
loving toward my weaker brother who doesn’t yet understand his liberties. You see?
There are some gray areas where these things apply. “I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,” Paul
says, “that there is nothing unclean of itself.” Boy, that is a very interesting statement. Now watch: things
are not evil of themselves. Is money evil? No, no. Is the fruit that comes from the tree, from the vine,
from the grape evil? No, it’s just fruit that comes from the grape. You say, “But it gets alcoholic!” Who
gave it the property that causes it to get that way? You say, “Well, that was somehow in the creation.”
Well, maybe it was in the fall, but it’s here… But it isn’t evil.

You see, it isn’t the fruit of the grape that creates the problem; it’s the guy who imbibes the fruit of the
grape that is the problem. The thing of itself is not the problem. You see, things are not unclean! Things
are neutral things! One man could touch the thing and make it into an evil thing; another man could touch
the thing and it could become a holy thing. The difference in wine is the difference between the wino and
the communion service. You see?
This summer when we went to Israel and they didn’t have any grape juice, we had to have real live wine
at the tomb of our Lord! I know that there were people in other groups who were going, “Oh, Martha, oh
see…” you know. Can we, can we dare? Do we? See, the thing of itself is nothing! It is the communion
we were celebrating of our blessed Lord. I mean, if you happen to be in a land where there’s no Welchs,
you make do, right? I mean, it really isn’t that big of a deal. You see, it isn’t the thing itself; it is the man
who had the thing in his hand that is the problem!
“There’s nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth it to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” In
other words, if he’s determined it in his mind, the best thing for him to do is avoid it. There’s no sense in
violating your conscience, and if you haven’t matured to the place where you understand that freedom,
don’t violate your conscience.
Ah, but verse 15, “If your brother is grieved with your food, you’re not walking in love. Destroy not him
with your food for whom Christ died. Let not your good be evil spoken of for the kingdom of God is not
food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Sprit. And then he says in verse 19, “Let
us therefore follow after the things which make for peace and things with which one may edify another.
For food, destroy not the work of God.” In other words, just so that you can have something to eat or
something to drink, verse 21, “It is good neither to eat meat nor to drink wine nor anything by which thy
brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak!”
Listen, he doesn’t say it’s evil to drink wine. No, he doesn’t. I know there are some people who think it is
a cardinal sin to drink wine! It doesn’t say that in the Bible. It doesn’t say that. Now, I hope I didn’t shoot
you down too bad… But it doesn’t say that! What it does say is, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine
or anything that will make your brother stumble, be offended, or be made weak.” The reason the Bible
doesn’t say it’s evil to drink wine is because wine of itself isn’t evil; it’s just wine, it’s just there. You
say, “But don’t you think it’s a sin to drink wine?” Listen, friends: the sin is to violate the conscience of a
weaker brother. The sin is to depreciate your testimony. That’s the sin. And if any of those things make
my brother stumble, then I will not do those things.
The thing in itself is nothing, but the thing becomes a forbidden thing if it wounds or grieves another
brother. That’s all he’s saying! You know, some people can say, “Well, I’m free in Christ, I can do as I
want. I can carry on like I want. I can drink as much as I want whenever I want in front of whomever I
want,” and you know what they do? They offend somebody! If you love your brother, Paul says, you
won’t do anything to make him stumble. This is the whole point.
In verse 1 of chapter 15: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” In other
words, you know, even if you have the liberty to do some things, don’t do them… Just to take care of the

weaker brother. You know who the weaker brother is? Not a new Christian; a legalist. A legalist. “And
let every one of us please his neighbor.” Who’s the example? I love this, verse 3, “For Christ pleased not
himself.” Christ didn’t do the things that He wanted to do always, but the things that He knew would be
good for man.
So, what are the principles? You’re free; don’t give an offense; maintain a clear conscience before God--
this is God’s standard. Yes, as a Christian, you’re free… That’s true. But your freedom should never get
to place where you exercise it to the wounding of another person. Peter says in his epistle, “Never use
your freedom as a cloak of maliciousness.” Don’t use your freedom to hurt other people.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, on the surface there appears to be some difficulties. In
Luke chapter 1, how can we be assured that Luke is tracing the genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s
decent? And also can you recommend a book that deals indepth with the genealogies of Matthew
and Luke and attempts to harmonize them?
Answer
Matthew gives a genealogy in chapter one. Luke gives it in chapter 3. We believe that Matthew gives the
genealogy of the Lord, through the line of Joseph. And that the best explanation of the line of the
genealogy of chapter 3 of Luke is that it is the genealogy of Mary. Now, the key thing is that you have to
study those in detail. There are many, many good sources. I would suggest to you that if you are looking
for a good source, William Hendriksen’s commentary on Luke is excellent. He has an excellent section
on that particular genealogy.
The real problem with it--it’s different than the genealogy of Matthew 1. It’s different. There are
different names, so we know that we know that it takes a different turn. You have to realize this, Joseph
is in the line of David and so is Mary. But Joseph came down through a different family. In other words,
you have David here and off of David, children, and off of them children, so you’ve got a lot of ways you
could still be a son of David or a child of David or in the Davidic line. Joseph comes through one of
those channels. Mary comes through another. We know that because the names in the genealogy are
different. So they’re coming down through different lines. The reason we assume that the Matthew
genealogy is indeed the genealogy of Joseph is because that’s exactly what it says in verse 16. Jacob
begot Joseph. So it tells us it’s down to Joseph.
Now when you come to Luke, what is most interesting is that the genealogy of Matthew starts with
David and goes to Joseph. The genealogy of Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards, tracing it the
other way. But what is intriguing is that it never says Mary and that’s where the confusion comes. It says
in verse 23 of Luke 3, “And Jesus, Himself, began to be about 30 years of age, being as was supposed,
the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat, and then it starts going backwards. Now, what
you have to recognize there is genealogies, for the most part, do not incorporate the name of the woman.
The reason that Joseph’s name appears here is because it is normal to place him in the line through His
father. Mary is not mentioned because this was not normal to trace that through the woman, but what is
stated here is very unique, because it says, “Jesus, Himself, began to be about 30 years of age, being as it
was supposed, the son of Joseph.” So this genealogy does not trace it through Joseph, it says he was only

Question
supposedly the son of Joseph. And so we believe that such a statement is a statement that is attempting to
be consistent with a male genealogy and yet demonstrate that in fact it is not Joseph that is the issue here,
but Mary, and she, though unnamed is there in the implication of the fact that He was only “supposedly”
the son of Joseph.
And the difference in the two fathers--you have Jacob begetting Joseph in Matthew and you have a Heli
begetting…the one who begets Jesus. So you have two different fathers. So we are sure that this is the
genealogy of Mary. And what’s marvelous about it is that Jesus Christ is the One who should rule every
way you look at it. He comes through the Davidic line by His father. He comes through the Davidic line
by His mother. You say, “Is that important?” It’s extremely important in Jesus case and I’ll tell you why.
Because you’ve got your right to rule through what member of you parents? What parent? Your father.
Your father gave you the right to rule. I mean that’s the way it is. And so Jesus, then had to be the son of
Joseph legally, but He could not be the son of Joseph physically, because Joseph was in a part of the
Davidic line that came through a man named Jeconiah, and Jeconiah had been cursed and it was said that
no son of Jeconiah would ever reign. And so He had to be in that line, but He couldn’t be of that line. In
other words He couldn’t be born of the heritage of Jeconiah but He had to be in that line to receive the
right to rule. So Joseph gave Him the legal right to rule, without giving Him the polluted line of Jeconiah.
So He got His genetic right to rule through Mary, who was also of David and His legal right through
Joseph. So every element of those genealogies is essential to Christ’s right to the throne.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Genesis Chapter 6 - Nephilim (Giants)
Question
I want to ask you, in Genesis 6, if the Nephilim giants didn’t survive the flood, how come when
Caleb and Joshua and the spies went to Canaan, they found the Nephilim giants there? And also,
why are there so many interpretations of Genesis 6?
Answer
Well, the fact that there are so many interpretations of Genesis 6 means that a lot of people have gotten it
wrong…right? Because there is only one proper interpretation. I understand that because there are some
obscurities in the passage. It’s helpful to me, however, to know that most of the views that are different
than the one that I hold have come later in history, that the earliest views of Genesis 6 that we can find
(even among rabbis, to say nothing of early church fathers) viewed the “sons of God” as angels. So, by
taking, as we did when I went through that, the “sons of God” as fallen angels-demons-who come down
and possess men, who then take wives and really desire demon involvement, and have children-that’s to
show the depth of the fallenness of man: he engages himself with demons willingly.
I think that in the context of what Satan was doing in Genesis 6 is the best interpretation. It’s consistent
with what he tried to do in the garden as we pointed out at the time. But, it says that at that time there
were “giants on the earth in those days” and it uses the word “Nephilim.” The term is from a Hebrew
verb “to fall” and it has to do with powerful beings that crush somebody. This is not a race of people; this
is just some powerful people, some powerful men who fell on others in the sense of overpowering them-
that’s what I put in the note and that’s exactly what I believe is accurate.
They were already on the earth when children born of these unions of demonically possessed people
came out. They were “mighty men.” It says, “The products of those unions were mighty men and men of
renown.” There were in ancient times mighty men and men of renown born to those unions. But, there
also were these Nephilim, these powerful, powerful conquerors. The idea is that they are threats and
dangerous… It just describes them because we want to know something about the pre-flood society.
There were oppressive, I suppose you could say even deadly, men in that day. They were powerful, I
suppose you could call them conquerors or warriors.
And so that word “Nephilim” is describing them. Later on, when the spies went into the land and they
came back to report what they had seen, they simply said, “There are Nephilim there.” They didn’t mean
that they were the children of Nephilim, as if they were a race. “Nephilim,” because of its usage here,
was sort of a word that they all knew was in the scripture and they knew that it referred to giants. And so

John MacArthur - Genesis Chapter 6 - Nephilim (Giants)
when they came back and wanted to report that essentially the Canaanites were unconquerable, they
simply said, “They’re Nephilim.” They just took that word in its generic sense-in its general meaning-
rather than having it refer to some race. They couldn’t have been children of Nephilim; Nephilim was not
a race, it wasn’t a tribe, and it couldn’t have had any children that lasted until that time, as you said,
because the flood drowned everybody but eight people.
So, it’s just a term that has to do with warriors-powerful, deadly, fearful kind of men. In Joshua and
Caleb’s day, the spies who didn’t believe they could conquer Canaan wanted to make their point as
strongly as they could and so they said, “They’re like the giants, like the Nephilim that are mentioned in
Genesis, chapter 6.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Giving
Question
The question I have is [concerning] Matthew 5:42, “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn
away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Does that mean we give to everybody that asks of
us?
Answer
I think that’s a general principle, yes: give to him who asks of you. The assumption is that he’s not trying
to take advantage of you. The assumption is that the need is real, that the need is genuine. What you’re
really asking is, “If I see a beggar, do I give money to a beggar?” That’s not the point. There’s a general
principle and that is the principle that when someone has need--legitimate, genuine need--and they come
to you and ask for that need to be met, and you have the resource to do that, then you should do that.
Let me just say this. One of the principles that I operate on as I travel around the world is never to give
any money to a beggar. None. Because when you do that, you make begging successful. And, when
begging is successful, it becomes a career. When we were in India, for example, little children come up
and literally hang on your clothes, hang on your arm, with these great, big, dark eyes, and they plead with
you for money, and of course, you realize that around the corner is the guy who owns all of these little
kids, who has them doing this, and collects 75% of everything that they collect. And, it’s an absolutely
massive enterprise. You find that in most third world countries of our time. So, you have to be very
judicious, and very careful that you don’t "grow a beggar," that you don’t feed that kind of a thing. But,
where there is a situation you know to be a genuine need, and you have the opportunity to meet that need,
you’re to do that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
This morning you said in the sermon a couple of times, “it’s not what can you get, but what can
you give to the church.” That makes perfect sense to me, but if you can help me out: I was listening
to one sermon by a pastor (he preached here at Shepherd’s Conference last Spring) and he was
saying--he kind of took that thought to another level and said that there’s nothing we as sinful
people can give to God, but we indeed give to him by receiving from him and getting from him, and
in reference to that, Isaiah 55:1, where God says, “Come, you who have no money, buy and eat.”
But I have no money; how can I buy?
Answer
Well, just to harmonize that, if we couldn’t give God anything, why are there so many commands in
Scripture? The one thing we are told to give him is whatever He asks for, true? And He tells us to
worship him, He tells us to adore him, He tells us to praise him…over and over and over and over. He
tells us to honor him, He tells us to love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, He tells us to
love our neighbor, He tells us to serve him, He tells us to confess our sins to him, to repent--I mean,
those are commands! Every single command, everything you obey in the Scripture is an act in which you
are rendering to God something God asks from you.
David said, “I will not give the Lord that which costs me nothing.” David said, “I understand that
whatever I give to the Lord has to be sacrificial”; David understood you give to the Lord. I think you can
get caught up in a bit of a semantical game, you know, in taking everything to its philosophical end.
Ultimately, we don’t give God something in the sense that He lacks it! I mean, our giving is simply a
recognition that He lacks nothing. We are giving him, not to fill up what He doesn’t have, but to show
appropriate respect to who He is and what He does have. Do you know what I’m saying?
Yes. So, in encouraging someone else toward church membership, I can say that you need to give
or God needs something from you?
Answer (continued)
God doesn’t need anything; He demands some things. It’s not like, “OK, God, I know you’re hurting in
this area. You know, I know your church is weak and you need a few good folks--I’ll be one.” No…no,

it’s not that you’re filling up something God lacks. It’s that you’re doing what He commands you to do.
That’s what you’re doing. By that, you are rendering him the proper respect, you are acknowledging his
absolute and utter sovereignty over your life, and you’re giving him the glory that He’s due.
My children, when they’re grown up and little, they can’t give me anything I don’t have! Even at my
birthday, my wife bought everything…worse than that, she used my money to do it! My children can’t
give me anything that I lack, but when they give me something, it is a demonstration of the depth of their
love and their affection and their respect and their honor for me.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Can God Change His Mind?
Question
There are several places in Scripture where it says, “It repenteth God that He made man”; “It
repenteth Him that He made Saul king”; and if I could squeeze in another one that’s related to
Saul, God sent, on several occasions, an evil spirit to Saul. Can you comment on all that?
Answer
Sure. That’s what we can anthropomorphisms. The reason I use that word is not to give you a long word,
but to give you a word to explain. Anthropomorphism is two Greek words, “anthropos morphae.”
“Anthropos” is the word for man: anthropology. “Morphae” is the word for body; you talk about an
endomorph, an ectomorph, a mesomorph--different shapes of the human body. So, anthropomorphic
means that you refer to God in terms of a man’s body or a human body. It is simply a device by which to
say something about God, who is otherwise indescribable, inexplicable.
For example, in the Scripture it says, “The arm of the Lord is not shortened and it cannot heal.” Does
God have an arm? No. It says, “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth.” Does
God have eyes? No. He’s a spirit, "The Spirit has not flesh and bones." It talks about his feet, it talks
about even his appearance, as if He were a man. Sometimes it talks about God as if He were a bird. It
talks about the “everlasting wings” and He “covers you with his feathers.” God is not a man, God is not a
chicken, God is not an eagle, God is not a pigeon, God is not a bird, but in order for us to comprehend in
our minds something true about God which is otherwise indescribable to us, the Bible writer chooses to
speak to us in terms which we understand. So, very often when you read in the Scripture, for example,
that “It repenteth God that He made man,” all that is saying to us is that from our vantage point, we
understand that that means, God felt bad, so bad about the condition that if He were a man, He would say
to himself, “I wish I’d never made them.” But obviously that is not “ipso facto,” how God feels, because
if that’s how God felt, He’d know He’d feel that way because He knows everything, and if that’s how He
really felt He never would have made them in the first place.
So, you’re simply dealing with an anthropomorphic concept. We, from our viewpoint, will understand
when God says, “I’m sorry I ever made them”; we understand that emotional expression because what
that means is they are a major disappointment to me. And so we don’t want to make more of that.
Now, in the case of Saul, God permitted an evil spirit into Saul’s situation, but that shouldn’t surprise us.
God permits the devil and evil spirits all the time. Remember our discussion of that not long ago? How
that, in the case of Job, Satan goes to God and says, “Let me after Job and I’ll destroy his faith,” and God

John MacArthur - Can God Change His Mind?
says, “Have at him”; Satan goes to the Lord and says, “Let me get after Peter and I’ll sift him like
wheat,” and the Lord says, “Have at him”; and Satan goes to God and says, “Give me Paul and I’ll tear
him up,” and Paul starts to be hindered and hindered and hindered by Satan? Sure. God will, for his own
eternal purposes and his own glory and the advancement of his kingdom, permit those evil spirits,
including Satan himself, to function within the framework of God’s confining sovereignty.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question My question is on Romans 6
Question
My question is on Romans 6:3-4…could you explain how that fits into the
whole picture of the Gospel? I am quite familiar with the deity of Christ and
the Trinity and the bodily resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15, but what is it
when you accept Christ into your heart and how is that transferred and
could you kind of go over the Gospel and explain it?
Answer
First of all we want to see what the verse says, “Don’t you know that as many of
us as were baptized” or literally a better way to say it, “immersed into Christ.”
Now we talk about immersed in ways that don’t refer to water. We say a guy was
immersed in his studies, right? Or he was immersed in his music, and that’s the
idea here. So don’t we know that as many of us as were immersed into Jesus
Christ, now there is a new term in the book of Romans, for what it means to be a
Christian. It means to be literally immersed into Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:17 says,
“He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit…right? Galatians 2:20 says, “I am
crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me and the
life which I live, I live by the faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave
Himself for me. So I don’t live any longer, Christ lives in me and I live in Him. In
Philippians, Paul over and over again says that we are IN Christ.
So there is a sense in which, when you become a Christian, you are immersed
into Jesus Christ. You are placed into Jesus Christ. Now, what does that mean?
Verse 4 explains it. We are buried with Him, through that immersion into death
and as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life. So when you received Christ, at that moment, a
divine miracle occurred by which you were immersed into Christ. In that
immersing into Christ, again a divine miracle, you were literally placed on the
cross, so that somehow in God’s plan and God’s purpose and God’s mind, you
were placed on the cross with Christ, you died with Christ, you literally were
buried with Christ and when He rose from the grave, you rose from the grave
also. The wages of sin is what? Is death. That meant you died. So you payed “in

Question My question is on Romans 6
Christ” the wages of sin already, that’s why you’ll never die again. That’s why
the law has no hold over you and that’s what He goes on in the rest of the chapter
to explain. That’s why no judgment will ever come. You’ve been judged. You’ve
died, you’ve paid the penalty. It is appointed unto man, what? Once to die. You
did it. You died in Christ, so the wonderful truth of the Gospel as it’s indicated in
Romans 6:3-4, is that by faith in Christ you are immersed into Christ, you
literally die in Christ, you rise in Christ and then you walk in Christ…so that the
life which you now live is not your own, but you live by the faith of the Son of
God, who loved you and gave Himself for you. Therefore, you can say at the
beginning of that verse, I am crucified with Christ, nonetheless, what? I live, yet
it’s not I, it’s Christ that lives in me. Okay? Good question.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

New Page 1
Question
Could you talk about the proper place for the "sinner's prayer" (inviting Jesus into you life to be
your Savior), perhaps as a demonstration of faith, but not equal to faith, and could you also explain
the dangers in the misleading use of the "sinner's prayer" and receiving Christ, and perhaps
touching on Revelation 3:20 as well?
Answer
Let me start with Revelation 3:20. In the technical sense, Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door
and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him,
and he with Me." The context of Rev 3:20 is that Jesus is knocking on the door of the "Church"--it's not
really a specific illustration of how to evangelize somebody. Jesus is speaking to the Church; He is
concerned about the character, or if you will, the lack of character of this church. Just to put the context
together for you; so you'll remember, I'm sure, the church at Laodicea: "lukewarm...I'll spit you out of my
mouth...you say you, 'are rich, and have wealth and don't need anything,' and yet you are wretched and
miserable, poor, blind, and naked," and all of that. And then He says, "Behold, I stand at the door and
knock!" I want to get in the church, is what He is saying--I want you to receive me as Lord of the church--
He wants to come into the church and work there. It's not really the human heart that is the issue there,
although I think that you can extrapolate and say, "the Lord wants entrance into the life of a sinner; He
wants to come in and cleanse that sinner; He wants to come in and wash that sinner, and that does take
you to John 1:12.
John 1:12 is a very clear verse, it says, "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become
the children of God." What does it mean to receive Christ? Well, when you talk about saving faith, you
are basically talking about three things, there are three components:
1. Is to comprehend the facts, the truth of the gospel.
2. Is to believe that they are true.
3. Is to engage yourself in appropriating them for your life.
So it would be to say, "I understand the gospel; I understand Jesus died; I understand He rose again; I
understand (what I said this morning) that He is a member of the Trinity, who came into the world
through the virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died a substitutionary death, rose from the dead, and the

New Page 1
Father approved of His work so perfectly, that He raised Him, gave Him the name "Lord", seated Him at
His right hand, from which He now reigns over His church, interceding for them, and will return and
establish His kingdom. I believe that--that's true.
You say, "I understand that, I comprehend that." Secondly, you say, "I believe that; I believe that is fact,
that is spiritual reality. Third, "I place my life and my eternity on the reality of those facts, by
acknowledging Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I think there is an element of reception at that point.
It is a receiving of the truth, as the truth; it is believing it and it is appropriating it in a personal way. I
don't think that it is inappropriate to say, "Christ, I want you to come and take command of my life. I
want You to be my Savior, I want You to forgive my sin. I acknowledge You; I confess you as my Lord.
I want You to save me. I want You to come and indwell me, because you have the promise of Acts 2:38,
that when someone hears the gospel, and when they repent, it says, "You shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit, or the Spirit of Christ." So you could pray and say, "Lord, I want You to save me, I confess You
as my Lord. I believe in the gospel, I believe that You are the Christ who died for me, I acknowledge
that, I want You to save me, I want You to be the Lord of my life, and I want the Spirit of God to take up
residence in my life.
But all of that must be cast in a very important perspective, and this is, I think, maybe the best answer I
can give to your question, as to how you approach someone.
In the end, salvation is a work of God--is it not? And I think the best illustration, in the New Testament,
of a sinner coming and praying the "sinner's prayer" is the publican, again in Luke 18, who said, "God be.
. . ." What? "merciful to me a sinner." And I think we always have to understand that salvation is God's
prerogative. It is not automatically mine because I articulate a formula with my lips--it is mine because
God graciously grants it to me. In the end I must ask for that gift to be given.
What I do, when I am talking to someone about Christ and when I want to lead them to, not only
understanding the truth, but believing the truth is the truth and then making a personal commitment to it,
to receiving Christ, to appropriating it, to confessing Him as Lord, is at that point to say to them, "I
encourage you, if you believe the gospel, and you believe it is the truth, and you are ready to put your life
in the hands of the Savior, that you ask Him, now, to save you. Rather than telling Him you are
qualified; that you ask Him to save you." That to me is the sinner's prayer.
I remember when I was called down to this little Riverside Hospital, down south of here, one night, and it
was late, and I was going home. It was like seven o'clock, and I thought, "Well, I better go right away." I
went into this hospital room and there was a guy in the bed, and I could see immediately he was dying of
AIDS. Of course, there were other homosexuals in the room, in fact, there was a homosexual aide from
the Hollywood AIDs Center, whatever it is. And there was a homosexual male nurse there, and then
there was one of this guy's consorts or lovers there. And I walked in the room and walked over to the
bed, and introduced myself to David Chastain (sp.), who had called and left his name and said, "I am
dying, please, somebody told me you could help me prepare for death," and so I went.
I walked in the room and the other three were gone--very fast. I said, "David, I want to know why you

New Page 1
called me." He said, "Because I am dying and I'm going to go to hell." He said, "I know it, because I
know the gospel." He said, "I was raised in a Christian family. I went two years to a Bible college, but
for the last twenty years I have lived as a homosexual." And he said, "Every minute of it I have known it
was wrong, I have know it was sin, and I have known that I have dishonored God. I don't deserve to be
saved; I have defied God. I have denied the gospel my parents taught me and now I am on the brink of
death and I want God to save me, but I need some help." So I took his hand and I said I want you to tell
me what you understand about Christ, and he articulated the gospel clearly. And I said, "Do you believe
that? Do you believe that Jesus Christ actually died on the cross as a sacrifice for sin, to satisfy the
justice of God on behalf of sinners who believe? Do you believe that He rose from the dead literally, and
that God therefore affirmed the perfect sacrifice by the resurrection--do you believe that?" He said, "I
believe that." I said, "Then you know the truth; you have heard it and you believe it. Only one thing
remains, and that is to cast yourself on the mercy of God. God is not bound to save you. You have
defied Him, but Jesus said this, "Whoever comes to Me, I will in no wise . . . What? . . .cast out." I
reminded him of that, and I said, "All I can tell you to do is to plead with God to save you, and I'll plead
with you."
And so he launched into this prayer, and it was an amazing prayer, and he went through the recitation of
his wickedness and his evil (not specifically, but generally) and how he had defied God and ignored the
gospel of his youth, and how he had defied his parents, and how he had remembered how his mother had
prayed for him so long, and here he was having come to the end of this horrible wicked lifestyle. Now he
was crying out to God to save him and he knew he wasn't worthy and he just prayed with tears and
passion. And all the time he was just wringing my hand as I stood by the bed. Then I prayed, and I just
said, "God be merciful to him, a sinner. He comes, You know his heart. It must be that the Father is
drawing him, at least it seems such, if indeed this is the work of the Father to draw this penitent--then
save him." And that's what I prayed, and probably the prayers of both of us took 20 minutes.
At the end of that time we said "Amen," and his rather rigid body sort of relaxed after the prayer, and he
just looked off at the wall. I said, "What are you looking at David?' He said, "I am looking at the
calendar." I said, "Why?" He said, "Because I never want to forget the day of my new beginning." That's
a quote. He said, "I really believe the Lord has forgiven me."
He had five days to live, as it turned out. He spent those five days witnessing to everybody around him,
and I spent a portion of those five days hauling material down to him, which was like a cram course for
heaven--you know. I kept saying, "You know, you are going to get all this in a few days--you know.
What's the hurry? He said, "I just want to know, I just want to know. He just had a hungry, hungry heart
for the truth.
That's how I approach that, rather than saying to somebody, "Here's a little prayer on this page. Pray it
and you are in." It's not like, "O.K., I prayed the prayer and I'm qualified!" It's like, "God be merciful to
me a sinner!" Isn't it? I think that's the way you approach it. O.K.?

New Page 1
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
You have made a statement on one of your tapes, "that anyone who says, that they can get to
heaven any other way than through Jesus Christ, really doesn't understand the gospel." Later you
stated, with regard to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together Unity Movement), that, ". . . . of
those men that were arguing from ECT's side (reuniting Evangelicals and Catholics), these men
understand the gospel, but what they are really not willing to commit to is the fact that Jesus
Christ is the only way to get to heaven." My question to you, in respect to these men, who in the
past we have consider great theologians, what is the bottom line as far as the pronouncements of
Scripture against these men?
Answer
This is a big question and I'm not sure that I can answer every aspect of it concisely, but let me say it this
way. Some of you know what we are talking about: these guys that are coming along saying, "We are
Christians, we are Evangelicals, but we also think that all the Catholics are saved, and the Greek
Orthodoxs are saved," and then in this book, The Ecumenical Jihad, "when we all get to heaven, we
may find the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Confuciusists, the Atheists who sought for truth, and the Jews,
and they are all going to be there, and what they didn't know about Jesus down here got sorted out when
they got there."
And the question is, and it is a very legitimate question, and it's a question that I battle in my own mind,
the question is, "Are these people Christians who advocate this kind of thing?" If somebody says a
Muslim might get to heaven, does that mean that they are not a Christian? That's the real question. If
somebody says that a Catholic might get to heaven, does that mean that they are not a Christian? And at
this particular point I can't go so far as to say that. The point that I was trying to make on the tape is this,
I know these men and I know they believe the gospel, and they understand the gospel, and they can
articulate the gospel, but what I don't understand is . . . they believe the gospel, they believe the gospel is
the means of salvation, they understand justification by grace through faith alone, they can articulate it
better than I can, they have written books on it. And I know that if you believe that, then you are saved,
and they believe that. What I don't understand is how they can have this other category of people, and
say about them, "Well, I know they don't believe that, but they might make it anyway." And that really is
your question.

Question
Well, isn't that another gospel?
Answer (continued)
Well, there is no other gospel, and they wouldn't say that the Muslim way is the gospel or any other thing
is the gospel. It's sort of like those people who say, "I believe the gospel, I'm saved, I heard the gospel, I
believe it, I commit my life to Christ by grace through faith, but (I have heard people say this through the
years), but those people over there in Africa, who never heard anything, surely God has some way to deal
with them differently because they have never heard about Jesus Christ. It is sort of like that kind of
mentality.
I guess the ultimate question is, "Can a person understand the gospel, be saved, and have bad theology
elsewhere"--answer: Yes, unfortunately that's true. When I ask these men, and I asked them personally,
"The doctrine of Justification by grace through faith alone, do you believe that?" "Yes, we believe that,
absolutely." "Do you believe that is God's means of salvation and that alone is God's means of
salvation?" "Well, yes, we believe that." "Well, then how can you make this other statement. How can
you dichotomize your thinking and create this other possibility over here?' It just seems to me like it is a
kind of schizophrenia. And I don't want to deny them the salvation that they personally affirm, but at the
same time it is incomprehensible to me, that if you say salvation is by grace through faith alone, that you
can turn right around and say something else to some other group. I don't know whether they feel some
emotional pressure to do this that causes them to compromise the gospel on that front, which in their
heart they believe. Maybe it's not a lot different than somebody who believes the gospel is the gospel,
but maybe in a conversation, with somebody they don't want to offend, mitigates the real gospel a little
bit so as not to offend their friend. Maybe it's just that gone mad--I am not sure what it is.
But again, God has to sort all that out, and God knows the heart, and I don't know the heart. I just know
we need to be faithful to the gospel as it is revealed in Scripture. But it is very disappointing, it's
extremely disappointing to all of us. I got a letter from one of those men, who said all those kinds of
things about "Jihad", and he said, "MacArthur has got the wrong end of the stick." Well, I don't know
what that means, but it is the only end I got handed, because if you read that thing (ECT Document), if
there was another end then I would have taken it, but that stick had one end, and that is the end they gave
me, so I don't know what that means.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

Question
Question
John, I want to thank you for the things that we have all been learning about our response to the
government. I understand what you are saying about how we need to back our government, even though
it is not the best government, even though it is not a Christian government--there is no Christian
government--only Christian people. I also understand when you say that we shouldn't be into full-time
political, even Christian political activism, even though there are some people who are employed--
Christians employed full-time in politics. But now, my question is, "What about people who are
interested in some of the political things that are happening, say the 'Gay-rights' bill, or right now there is
a bill open for public comment on, 'Rights for Newborn Children' who have some physical deformity, and
they are allowing them to die. And so that's open for public comment, and I am wondering what is our
responsibility to the government, to let our legislators know how we feel?"
Answer
I think that I may have said this, maybe not clearly enough, I believe that we need to take every means
available to us as citizens to effect change in country--legally. Every time you have an opportunity to do
that--you need to do that. As a conscientious Christian, if there is any way that you can legally protest
against abortion--I saw in the "Daily News" today that Tom Bradley says, now he is going to appoint
more Gays. He is going to be giving more Gay appointments. He is sorry that he has overlooked the
Homosexuals. Well, that's sickening to me, and I am sure that it is to all Christian people, but I am not
going to go down and shoot Tom Bradley. But if there is a forum where I can say what needs to be said,
and then I want to say that. If there is a letter that I can write then I need to write that letter. If there is a
vote that I can make, then I need to make that vote. If the Lord called me to be involved in government,
or in civil service as a policeman, or as a County Prosecutor, or a District Attorney, or I don't know what--
working even as a Legislator or something. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The thing that concerns me is the illusion that Christians banding together, using political means, can
bring the Kingdom or expedite the Kingdom. What happens is, they start out with good intentions to be
involved in moral issues, and I am not against that. I think Christians ought to stand up against Abortion
and Gay-rights and the ERA, and a lot of other things. I really believe that we ought to take our stand on
those issues, but somehow, what happens is, in the midst of wanting to take the right and legal means to
take a stand and preach and proclaim against sin--we get diverted into the illusion that we can change our
country by effecting changes in the political system. I mean, we want to vote, and we want to vote
together on some things. We ought to know, for example, who are the legislators in the State of
California who are "Pro-Abortion" and we ought to let them know where we stand.
It is a fine line. I know in my own case, if I feel that I need to write a letter to a Senator--I write a letter.
If I feel that I don't care to do that--I don't do that. But I want to use every legal means, every means
within my power. I want to teach and preach here so that it is very clear what we believe, and we make a
statement, and we teach our people what their stand should be in the world. What bothers me is I know
many pastors who have literally abandoned the church, and abandoned the pulpit, and abandoned

Question
studying the Scriptures, abandoned teaching the Bible--to run around and get themselves associated with
the Mormons, and the Moonies, and all these cobelligerents to gain certain religious freedom. To
paraphrase, "What shall it profit the Church if we gain our freedom and lose our message?" I mean,
what's the point? So, we just have to be sure that we are clear what our message is. What I am saying too
is, because my government isn't all that it ought to be doesn't mean that I can shoot people in my
government, or that I can be an unruly citizen, disobey the law, not pay my taxes, and so forth.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Sunday night, "On the Christian's Responsibility to Government," you used the example of the Early
Church as a standard for the Christian community these days. Well, about the tenth observation made by
the historians, in that day, was that the Early Church was indifferent to the world's temporal materialism
and political systems. Now, my questions is, how does the "Salt Shaker" stand in relation to the example
set by the Early Church, which basically segregated themselves from government?
Answer
That's a good question. We have a little "Salt Shaker" that comes out each month and we are back to this
same idea. The only thing you will find in the "Salt Shaker" are issues related to Biblical truth and
morality, in other words, sin as over against righteousness. We are not going to put in there issues about
whether they ought to pave Roscoe Blvd--write your Congressman. Or, whether they ought to allow
certain laws to pass related to schools, or education, or budget, or zoning, in other words, what we are
dealing with is moral issues when we feel there is "due process" by which we can articulate the Christian
perspective.
Now, in the last couple days, Sam Erickson (sp.) has been here. I was talking to Sam about how he fits
because you see he is the head of the Christian Legal Society, which basically is a group that functions in
Washington; a group of Christian lawyers who go into the courts and lobby for the Christian viewpoint.
Again, what they are doing is taking "due process" of law in an honorable and reasonable way,
demonstrating Christian character and Christian testimony, and articulating a Christian viewpoint on
these issues--now that's very vital, and that's what we are asking people to do in the "Salt Shaker." That's
not political, that is taking a voice in moral issues that face our nation and giving the Christian
perspective.
The editor of the "LA Times" one time said to me (he was coming here--the owner), he said, "why don't
you ever use the platform there to 'get on the bandwagon' for some of these really important political
issues?" I said, "Because the only thing that I want to talk about is what God talks about. Everybody has
got their opinion--I think God has the right to be heard in the midst of all of this." And all we want to do
is to articulate the Biblical view, and it is key for us to have Christian lawyers who will go into a
courtroom, for example, when a debate is going on and give a Biblical viewpoint to an issue that is
confronting the nation. Right now the Christian Legal Society has three cases before the Supreme Court
of the United States, in which they articulate the Biblical view, but they do so with a great sense of
graciousness. Let me give you an illustration.
They put out a magazine "Christian Legal Society" and in it was an ad for an attorney wanted by some
law firm. It said, "A Christian legal firm would like to hire a Christian attorney etc." One of the Jewish
groups, which by the way are behind a whole lot of this stuff because there is that ancient antagonism to
Christianity, and we understand that and we love them anyway, but we understand there is an antagonism
there. So, this group called up the Christian Legal Society and said, "How dare you? It's unethical for

Question
you to put a 'Christian Lawyer' in there, that's discrimination, etc." So, the Christian Legal Society called
them back in the next day or so, Sam said. He said, "I just want you to know that we want to be sensitive
to you. We don't want to be a discredit to the legal profession, and if that is an offense to you in our
magazine [then] we won't put that there any more." And he said, the girl was an attorney who listen to
him in the Washington office who broke into tears, that anyone would be that conscientious.
It doesn't matter to them [Christian Legal Society] because their magazine only goes to Christian
attorneys, so they know what they are saying, but rather than make war--they would seek to make peace
and express themselves in a gentle way, but when it comes to standing for truth, they need to be there to
speak. So, what happens is they treat those people with kindness on that level, but when they get into the
courtroom, and those people are crying for the Humanist viewpoint, they say this is what we believe is
right based on the Scripture and the tradition that has been established by Christianity.
It's a question of morality as over against just partisan politics and views on things that aren't moral
issues.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Is there any such thing as a healthy sense of guilt? -- John MacArthur
Question
Is there any such thing as a healthy sense of guilt?
Answer
That’s a good question. When is it right and when is it destructive? Well, there’s a lot of talk about that
and there are a lot of people trying to get off the hook on the area of guilt. Not too many years ago, there
was a great big blow-up in evangelical circles over the factors of guilt; and people were going around
saying that the Christian should never feel guilty for anything--that we have been forgiven, totally
forgiven, totally liberated, totally set free--and that any guilt is artificial, unreal, and self-imposed and can
do nothing but destroy us. It really bordered on antinomianism, or lawlessness.
Is there such a thing as healthy guilt? Yes, there is. That’s like asking, “Is there such a thing as healthy
pain?” All pain is good. It’s good in this sense… You say, “Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m not so
hot on it.” Well, pain is good. It’s good because it tells you your body has a problem, right? If you don’t
feel any pain, you just go on injuring yourself and you don’t know what you’re doing.
I don’t know what you call it, but there is such a disease as that. There is such a problem as people who
can’t feel pain and they can be terribly ill and have no idea; therefore, they can seek no remedy. And so it
is that in the area of spiritual life, in the area of the soul, a soul needs to be warned when it’s sick. I really
praise God for guilt--real guilt--because I want to know when I have violated God’s law, don’t you? I
don’t want to go blissfully on in disobedience and stupidity! I want the chimes to go off, and man, they
do… Don’t they?
You know, you can tell yourself, “I shouldn’t feel guilty, I shouldn’t feel guilty”; go out and sin and see
how you feel. You’ll feel guilty. God put that in you. That’s grace.
Now, if you can’t forgive yourself when God’s forgiven you, if you understand that God’s forgiven your
sin and you’ve confessed it and repented of it and it’s still hanging on and pounding your brain, then
you’ve moved from real guilt into psychological guilt and that’s destructive! Do you know what that
means? That means you won’t forgive yourself and if you won’t forgive yourself, you’re better than God--
you’ve got a god-complex--because God forgave you. The Bible says, “He removed your sin,” what? “As
far as the east is from the west and buried them in the depths of the sea, and He remembers no more.”
And listen; if God’s forgotten my sin, I’m sure not going to let myself get bothered by them. Real guilt is
what I feel what I ought to feel; Psalm 51, “When my heart is broken.”

Is there any such thing as a healthy sense of guilt? -- John MacArthur
God wants a broken and contrite heart when there’s real sin. But once sin is repented of and once sin is
turned from and sin is taken care of, God doesn’t want us playing god with our own lives and
browbeating ourselves with needless, destructive psychological guilt. Forgive yourself; God has.
So, there is a need for real guilt. Incidentally, Psalm 51 is the best Psalm to study on the area of guilt.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Overcoming Bad Habits
Question
How can I overcome a bad habit?
Answer
A bad habit is usually connected to wrong beliefs and attitudes. We should not want to change a habit
only because it is embarrassing, expensive, unhealthy, or makes us feel guilty--rather we should want
God's greater purpose for our life to be fulfilled. Until we deal with the underlying wrong beliefs that
weaken our resistance to the bad habit, we will have only limited success in overcoming it.
The Christian must see that bad habits are ultimately spiritual issues. We must not hesitate to call them
sins. And we need to realize that the means of sanctification described in Scripture (chiefly the Word of
God and prayer) are essential for overcoming such habits.
We are responsible for our own sin--including those sins "which so easily beset us." The fact that we do
something wrong habitually does not relieve us of responsibility. On the contrary, it may make the sin all
the worse. So we must take personal responsibility for our own habits and not shrink from calling them
sin.
Sinful habits are not insurmountable problems for the Christian. After all, the Holy Spirit indwells us and
is working to conform us to the image of Christ. And if God be for us, who can be against us? (Romans
8:31) Furthermore, Galatians 5:16 says that if we "walk by the Spirit, [we] will not carry out the desire of
the flesh." And 1 Corinthians 10:13 is a promise that God will not permit us to be tempted beyond our
ability. If we make use of the resources provided by God through His Spirit and His Word, we can attack
any habit knowing that we can win.
Let me make some practical suggestions for overcoming bad habits that I think you will find helpful.
First of all, remember that sin begins in the mind. James 1:14-15 compares a person falling into sin to a
fish or animal that is caught with bait. It sees the bait, desires it, and is trapped in the process of grabbing
it. Likewise, sins that ensnare us begin in the mind. The person who steals first thinks about the thing he
wants. He then thinks of a plan for getting it. After he has schemed in his mind, he takes it. He could
have stopped the sin in his mind before it became completed in his action. That's why Scripture
commands us to renew our minds (Romans 12:2), to think about good things (Philippians 4:8), and to
meditate on the Word (Psalm 1:2).
Defeating a habit also requires changes in lifestyle. We are to make no provision for the flesh (Romans
13:14). The person who wants to stop smoking should throw away all his cigarettes and not buy any
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-habit.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:09:08 AM]

John MacArthur - Overcoming Bad Habits
more; the person struggling with sexual sin should get rid of any suggestive materials in his possession.
Avoid the company of those who have the same problem (1 Corinthians 15:33), and avoid the places and
circumstances which tempt you.
Finally, don't try to battle a bad habit alone. Develop relationships with more mature Christians who will
encourage and support you (Galatians 6:2). Spend time in prayer with them. Ask them to "check up on
you" regularly, and be honest about your failures (James 5:16).
Biblical change is not just turning away from sin; it is turning toward righteousness. The person who lies
must speak the truth (Ephesians 4:25). One who steals must not only stop stealing, he must work and
give to others (verse 28); and one whose language is unwholesome must learn to edify others (verse 29).
Do not just stop sinning--start doing what is right. The good habits you build will replace the sinful ones.
For further study:

Erwin Lutzer, How to Say No to a Stubborn Habit (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1978).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-habit.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:09:08 AM]

Question
Question
In First Corinthians, where they talk about women are supposed to have something on their head when
they are praying and whatever. Why doesn't that pertain to today?
Answer
In regards to 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, about a woman having her head covered; what Paul is referring to
there was, in the Corinthian time there were distinctive ways in which a woman demonstrated her
submissiveness. A woman demonstrated her submissiveness with her hair--the covering of her hair--
women had long hair. He says, "Doesn't even nature tell you itself, that, if a woman have long hair, it is a
glory unto her." But in those days a woman wore a covering, and the covering was the symbol of their
submissiveness. And the women in the Corinthian thing were going through a sort of an "ERA Equal
Rights" movement, and they were throwing off their covering and shearing off their hair.
Carcopino (sp.) in his book on daily life in Rome said, "They were running around bare-breasted with
spears--sticking pigs, and climbing poles." Women's Lib isn't anything new--they were doing it then too--
trying to be macho, wanting to get equality with men. So, Paul was saying to them, "Look, you want to
be sure that in your society, if a covering is a symbol of submissiveness--you keep your covering on,
because you want to demonstrate your womanliness and your submissiveness by God's design." And
then he just supports that by saying, "Can't you see that God has designed a woman's hair to be unique to
a woman?" And of course the argument scientifically is that a woman's hair grows faster than a man's
hair does--demonstrating that God's intention for a woman is uniquely her hair. I think that says to us
today that a woman (some of you are going--"Oh boy, I hope my hair is long enough!"), I am not saying
that, what I am saying is that a woman's should be distinctly feminine, and a woman's demeanor distinctly
feminine, and whatever it is in our culture that demonstrates femininity and a woman's unique God
intended role is how a woman ought to look.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a little boy who is going to Christian School--he's in Kindergarten. It has

come to my attention that they are going to be making "Jack 'O Lanterns," for
Halloween and "Black Cats." I talked to his teacher and she said that "at
Christmas they make Santa Clauses, and Easter Bunnies on Easter." I told her, I
said that, "This is why my son is in Christian School--I want him to be separated
from this. I teach him at home that we are not supposed to be a part of Halloween
or this and that, but yet you are compromising, or contrary to me, to what I am
saying and it is confusing him." "Mommy, why can't I do this; they are doing
it?" And he understands he is in a Christian School. I have an appointment to
talk with the principle of the school tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock--can you
give me some advice?
Answer
I think that's good. Well, I think you're right. Why create the unnecessary
confusion? "Jack 'O Lanterns," and "Cats," and "Witches," and "Devils," and
"Demons," and people dressed up in funny costumes and all of that. That is all
out of paganism. In fact, I wrote a whole thing on that one time--I don't know if
we have any of those around any more. The terrible mixture of Old Church
festivals with pagan festivals, you know, like the Saturnalia feast of the pagans
that got all mixed up with Christmas and that kind of thing. I think that it is good
to keep those things distinct, and I think you're right to go talk to the Principle. I
think it is a simple an issue as basically saying, "Look, this is a Christian School
so let's celebrate the things that speak of Christ and the Word of God, and set a
different pattern."
What we have always done with our kids in reference to Halloween, is to give

Question
them some kind of alternative when they were little (now they don't care). But
when they were little we wanted to do something as a family that would be even
more special than what everybody else did; and if you can create that for your
own child he's not going to have any problem with what the others are doing if
you do something with him that is even better. But I would definitely speak to
the people and let them know how you feel about that; I think that is very
important.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question What does hate mean
GRACE.
Question
What does hate mean, when God says He "hates Jacob?" Does He actually hate the person or does
He hate what the person does?
Answer
You remember in Romans, chapter 9, God says, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." It doesn't
say He hated Jacob, as the question indicates, but He says, "I love Jacob and I hate Esau." Now the
question is, "Does God hate the person or does He hate what the person does?" Well, what does John
3:16 say, "For God so loved the whole world." So we know that everyone falls under the general
category of the love of God, but there are a number of times in Scripture when God is expressed as
"hating." I was thinking of Psalm 5:5 where it says, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes;
Thou dost hate all who do iniquity." Then over in Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the
wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates." Then over in Psalm 26:5, "I hate the assembly of
evildoers." In Proverbs, an even more extensive statement is made in that familiar text of chapter six,
verse sixteen, "There are six things which the Lord hates, seven are an abomination to Him: haughty
eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run
rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers." And then, of
course, in Proverbs 8:13, you probably have something which makes it very clear. It says, "The fear of
the Lord (or true worship of God) is to hate evil; pride, arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted
mouth I hate."
Now in all of these cases you can see clearly that what it is that God hates is not the individual but--
what? The sin. He even lists the sins that He hates. When a person persists in those sins, it is the sin in
the sinner persisted that God hates. Even God says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." The
New Testament says that "The Lord does not desire that any should perish." And so it is the sin that He
hates. In Jeremiah, I was just thinking of chapter 44, verse 4, it says, "I sent all my servants the prophets
again, and again, saying 'Oh, do not this abominable thing which I hate.'" It is the deed of the sinner that
the Lord hates. It is the act of
sin that the Lord hates. But, it is also true that the sinner who does not repent, who continues in the sin
will feel the fury of God's hatred. In Malachi 1:4, it says that, "The Lord," towards people who sin, "is
indignant forever."
So God hates the sin, but if the sinner persists in the sin, then the sinner feels the hatred of God. With
regard to Esau, I might just say as a footnote, nowhere in Genesis does it say that God hated Esau--it
doesn't say anywhere that He hated Esau. It was only after Esau had chosen sin and abandoned God for
many, many years--over a thousand years before God would look back and say, "Esau have I hated." By

Question What does hate mean
that time it was clear to all where Esau stood. So once the sinner is inexorably and finally identified with
the sin, then the sinner feels the hatred of God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Gift of Healing
Question
My question essentially arises from your presentation of Luke, chapter 4, this morning. As I drove
home, I thought about this quite a bit; then I got home, thought about it some more, and I’m still
thinking about it. So, the question in synopsis, in the line of reasoning, goes essentially something
like this: if Christ (as you presented this morning) heals by one of two ways in His earthly ministry-
it’s either by direct touch [or] divine intervention, where people are coming to Him in essentially a
petitionatory manner and making requests of Him. He is either making a touch or someone else is
making a direct petition to Him, person to person. And then He is, by word, healing some distance
from where He is standing. Knowing that Christ is completely raised from the dead-He lives
forever and lives on our behalf now, and has ascended to the right hand of the Father-what then, if
anything, keeps Him from, either by the petition of the individual who is directly afflicted, or one
on His behalf, through the petition of prayer, keeps Him from essentially doing the same thing
where He heals supernaturally, directly, and completely, even though He is not physically present?
Answer
That’s a very good question, and I made somewhat of a reference to that this morning in the first hour,
but not in the second. My wife pointed out to me that that would have been helpful if I’d have said
something about it, so I’m glad you asked the question. I may comment on that next week. There are a
number of ways that I need to approach the question, in order to give you a full answer. The first one is
this: no one is saying that Christ cannot heal. I was talking about the gift of healing, which He exercised
on earth for the purpose of demonstrating his Messiahship and revealing Himself to be the One who had
power over the physical world, which the Messiah must have if He’s going to grant to us a glorified body.
So, I’m not saying He couldn’t heal. But, the gift of healing, which Jesus demonstrated, was unique to
Him, the 70, and the apostles, and even diminishes with the apostles, as I commented on this morning.
Paul met Trophimus when he was sick, and left him sick. So, even in Paul’s case, the power to heal had
diminished as his ministry went on. I was talking about the gift of healing; that is, somebody here has the
power to heal. Jesus had it and He gave it to those who were around Him who were His representatives,
in order to affirm that the gospel that He was bringing and they were preaching was in fact from God.
The gift of healing was the specific issue to deal with in the life of Jesus.
The question of whether Jesus can still or does still heal is a different question. And the answer to the
question is He can do whatever He wants. But, mark this; this is very important to notice: there is no
healing ministry that Jesus can do now that can prove that He is the Messiah. Because there is no
way that even if He does heal somebody, that it is necessary to connect that with Him. He’s not here. You

can say to someone, “You know, I had cancer and I prayed, and I don’t have it anymore.” That’s your
belief, but that doesn’t say anything to the public at large; that doesn’t say anything to people about the
power of Jesus Christ because there is no natural connection between what happened to you and Jesus.
He’s not there, He isn’t speaking, and He’s not touching, and He’s not visible.
So, the purpose of Jesus’ miracles was clearly demonstrated: it was His voice and it was His touch
connected to that healing. And it was not arguable because there were vast crowds in most cases who saw
the touch and heard the voice. Jesus was making that necessary link that was really not arguable. Today,
somebody says they were healed… Somebody might say, “Well, your view is that God did it. My view is
you were lucky.” A Christian Scientist could say they were healed (and they do) without medicine, and a
Moron could say God healed them… It might have been certain physiological things that were going on.
Somebody could say they were healed by Allah. Somebody could say they were healed by praying to
Buddha. Somebody could say that the witch doctor healed them or the Shaman healed them, or whatever
it is. And you might say, “Well, that’s your belief.” And somebody comes along and says, “I had an
illness and God healed me”; we, as believers, might affirm that, but that does nothing to demonstrate the
deity of Jesus Christ, which was the purpose of those miracles. It does nothing to unarguably enforce the
authority of Scripture because there’s no immediate connection. Do you see what I’m saying? So, it can’t
achieve that purpose. So, we set that whole thing aside.
Then we come back to the issue of “does the Lord heal believers who pray for healing?” And the
answer to the question is He can do whatever He wants to do. That is not, however, a major emphasis in
Scripture. In fact, if you go through the New Testament and try to find a verse that says, “pray for people
to be healed,” you won’t find one. It’s not explicitly part of what we do as believers. Paul prayed for the
deliverance of the thorn in the flesh; didn’t get it. In James, we have a situation where “if any is sick
among you”--which I think has to do with being spiritually wounded, spiritually weak… But even if we
grant that it’s some kind of sickness, it says, “Go to the elders of the church and let them pray over you,
and confess your sins.” So, in that case, if we take it as a healing, it would be a healing connected to some
chastening for sin. The elders of the church pray on behalf of the person; the person confesses the sin; and
when the sin is dealt with, then the reason for the chastening can be set aside.
But, apart from the passage in James, there is no command for us or demand of us to go to God and ask
for physical healings. Can we do it? Of course we can do it. We can “cast all our care on Him” in the
general sense; that’s part of our “care.” We can go before the Lord and say, “Can you glorify yourself in a
physical healing or a recovery? Put your glory on display…” And the Lord may choose to do that. There
are times when people are restored and when they become well when they’ve been ill, and the doctors
can’t give a natural explanation to that. But, there is no guarantee and there is no--let’s put it this way: it
is not the normal thing. I personally have never seen a quadriplegic walk out of a wheelchair, or a
paraplegic move limbs that weren’t moved. I’ve never seen someone completely blind who could see as a
result of prayer, or completely deaf who could hear as a result of prayer. I’m not saying God can’t do
that.
The idea that I was trying to point out this morning is that miracles are very, very rare, extremely rare, not
at all to be considered as normal course events. So, I do believe that we can go to the Lord and say,

“Lord, you know, I’m praying for my dear friend who’s ill.” The Lord may through medicine, He may
through His own power, working through the healing of that body for His own purposes, bring about
restoration. You remember that Paul, when Epaphroditus was sick, he said, “Epaphroditus was near to
death” but he said “the Lord delivered him”--remember that? And the Lord spared Paul the pain that his
death would have brought on Paul, and as well allowed him further usefulness.
So, I do think that for God’s purposes, providentially--not in some massive kind of flow of miracles that
are all around us--but at times, providentially, God can spare the life of a believer through medicine,
through the restorative power of the body, even through His own supernatural intervention. And we have
every right and every reason to ask God to do that, because those are the kinds of cares that we can cast
on Him.
Thank you. I just know it seemed to me this morning you were making the presentation to deal with the
certain heretical doctrinal line of thinking, rather than just extrapolating from what was in the text. And I
asked this question essentially from an ulterior motive because my girlfriend is an MD specializing--she’s
a director of a major trauma unit here in Los Angeles. She tells me about times where there are people
that come in, they go through the whole ultrasound process (she does a very, very thorough examination
before they send them off to surgery) and she says sometimes that they go back and they do a second one.
You know, when they’re shown physical symptoms of a certain disease. And she says later on--one, two
days later maybe--there will be no signs. So, she questions me about that, saying, “What essentially has
happened here?” And I essentially give her the reasoning that one of three things has occurred. Either
one, you made a mistake--she doesn’t like that one. Point number two, the person never really had it--you
essentially diagnosed something else that was correctable or whatnot. And the third one, actually, is that
God did a providential action that was essentially nondependent upon the theology or the relationship that
that person has to Christ in eternity, and it’s completely separate. Would you agree with that?
Answer (continued)
Well, I think that’s reasonable. The other thing would be that the typical thing of the amazing
recuperative powers of the body. I think the diagnosis issue is really big; I think, you know, the medical
science is very advanced, but doing the right diagnosis--I mean, you can miss the diagnosis, and then
when you look for what you thought was there it’s not there. I think all of those are very right. There’s
just a little sidelight on this.
I’ve been doing some work on--I’m going to do a book on the origins and the beginnings and all (we’ve
talked about that), and recently I’ve been digging into things that are way beyond my mental capability.
But, I’ve been studying a little bit about what’s called “zero-based energy.” Zero-based energy is so--it’s
so beyond comprehension. Let me see if I can define it in a simple way. If you can create a vacuum, a
perfect vacuum--now, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of everything but space, okay? You have
space with nothing in it. In other words, that would be a vacuum; there’s nothing there. There’s nothing

there but empty space! There are no nothing there…no molecules…nothing. I mean, it’s hard to conceive
of that. There’s no air there, there’s no hydrogen, there’s no oxygen, there’s no chemicals, there’s no
nothing…it’s just empty space--a vacuum.
They have been able to do this experimentally. What is absolutely mind-boggling to me is that when they
create a complete and perfect vacuum and they study that vacuum--let’s say of a molecule--what they see
in there are oscillating waves of energy. But, there’s nothing there! What is this? Well, the power is so
great--and I don’t have this right; I’ll get this down exactly when I get the book done… I’m still working
through the material…but it’s something like, they calculate that the amount of energy, the amount of
what they called “zero-based energy” in one molecule would be enough to keep the stars of the universe
lit for some number of millions of years. That’s in one molecule!
That’s the kind of energy that exists in the universe. Now, understanding that, and understanding when
the Bible says “Almighty God” and the “power of God,” that that just blows our minds, just add up every
molecule in the universe and imagine what His power is like! For Him to do a little tweaking on your
anatomy is not a major problem. So, this is where Einstein, you know, at the end of his life, died in total
disappointment…because he got all the way down to that and he couldn’t define it because it doesn’t
have a chemical definition and it is God who upholds all things by the word of His power.
I only say that to point out the fact, look: there is energy the likes of which we cannot even comprehend.
And if God chooses to activate, at any point, that massive energy in the recuperative process of the body--
who’s to say He can’t do that? But, again I say, no matter what’s going on in the trauma ward, I doubt
whether people who had their legs chopped off are getting new ones and I doubt whether quadriplegics,
whatever is going on diagnostically or recuperatively, who have their spinal cord cut, are getting up and
walking out. I really doubt that. I doubt whether people who have lost their eyes can see, and so forth and
so on. These kinds of things the Lord does, but this is not an age of those kinds of dramatic miracles that
were protected and preserved for that unique explosion that demonstrated the arrival of the Messiah.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
Question
I want to read a couple of verses first and then ask you a question. The first one
is in Mark 11:23; Jesus is saying, "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this
mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but
believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him." And now
in Romans 10:10 it also says, "For with the heart man believes." And then in
Mark 12:30 it says, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." I don't
want to doubt with my heart, and I want to believe with my heart, and I definitely
want to love the Lord with all my heart, but I don't understand exactly what is a
heart? I don't know--it's not this physical thing that pumps blood.
Answer
That's terrific. What is a heart? You know we have so much cultural garbage
piled around the heart in our world. You see them on the bumper stickers, you
know with beagles, and dogs, and parakeets, you know--I, and then a heart,
"love" K-Mart, or whatever it is. We associate the heart with emotion--that's our
problem. "I love you with all my heart" means "vooom" you know? Whatever,
more than something that's cold and decisive, it's something that's emotional, but
that is not the Biblical use of the term "heart."
The best way to understand it, the best way to simply your question is this: the
heart is the core of our being in the Scripture. It is that part of us which "knows"
and "thinks" and "feels." The Old Testament says, "As a man thinks in his heart,
so is he." I believe the heart is really the equivalent of the mind. I think when
you look at loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and
strength, you cannot sort out all four of those things and say "this is this" and

Question
"this is this" and "this is this" and "this is that," and we got four little deals in us
all going independently. I think what he's doing is simply trying to get the
message across that we have to love God with every fiber of our being, and every
perceivable and imperceptible dimension of existence. But the heart is the
composite essence of my thinking processes: I think there, I know there, I
understand there, and I feel there. It is not emotion without mind--that's what I
am trying to say.
Now, if you want to talk about emotion you are going to find in the Hebrew
culture that the emotion is, in the Bible, translated in the Authorized Version
"bowels." You go back to the Song of Solomon, and when his lover comes to the
door and he's at the door and he says, you know, in effect, "I feel my love for you
in my bowels." That doesn't sound too romantic, frankly, and if you try that on
some girl she will probably slam the door in your face. The truth of the matter is,
that is where you feel your emotion, that's where you feel your emotion. You
know you have 1 John 3:16, "If you say you love God and your neighbor has
need and you shut up your bowels of compassion," in other words, you don't feel
any emotion, you're not hurting over his need, "how dwells the love of God in
you?"
So, I would say that in a general sense the Hebrew understanding was that the
heart was representative or equivalent to the mind--to the thinking capabilities.
That means that you can only love God in the sense that you know God, or know
about Him. Therefore, the more I know about God, the more capable I am of
loving and adoring and praising Him. The more I know about God, the more
ready I am to believe Him for everything, because I know Him. I cannot know
God, I cannot trust God for something in a vacuum of ignorance. Do you know
what I mean? I can't believe He will deliver me unless I know that He is a God
that has proven to be a deliverer. I can't believe that He will strengthen me unless
I know that he is a God of great strength. I can't believe that He will comfort me
unless I know Him to be the God of all comfort. But when I know that, it is my
knowledge about God that controls my responses.
That's where Habakkuk was in chapter one; he's crying out to God, "How long

Question
am I going to keep crying God, come down and judge this bitter and hasty nation,
the Caldeans. Come down and revive your people Israel." And then God says,
"I'm going to use the Caldeans to judge the Israelites." And he says, "I don't
understand it, why don't you revive your people? Why are You judging them?
How can You judge them with this bitter and hasty Caldean nation?" He's got a
terrible problem and so he steps back and starts to recite what he knows about
God. He uses the term Almighty God: he talks about God's eternity, that is, He
was before the problem and He'll be after the problem.
He uses the term of God's covenant-keeping character. He says, God is too holy
to look on iniquity; He cannot look upon sin, and God doesn't make mistakes,
therefore. As he begins to recite in his own mind his theology proper, his
knowledge of God; it begins to control his emotion and his feeling so that, finally,
in chapter 3, after he has recited all the history of what God has done, he says in
effect, "If everything in the world goes to pieces I will continue to rejoice in the
Lord of my salvation." "I mean, if all the crops die," he says, "and everything
goes wacky in the world, I'm o.k. because of what I know."
So loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength,
believing in God with all your heart, trusting God with all your heart, is a
question of knowing God in your heart. Then that has the effect of affecting your
feeling and your emotion. But that is the distinction that you want to make, and
we could say more about that, but that is the basic distinction: that the heart is the
center of thought, and attitude, and understanding, and knowledge. It's the mind
really.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

Can the people in Heaven see what we are doing? -- John MacArthur

Question
"Can the people in Heaven see what we are doing? Do they know what we
think?"
Answer
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that they know what we think. And there
is every reason to assume that they could care less. There is nothing in the Bible
to indicate that they could see what we were doing and there is every reason to
assume that they could care less about that.
Let me tell you something folks, when you go to Heaven, you are lost in wonder,
love, and praise. And you will gaze on the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. And
you will be taken into the rapture of having reached perfection. There will be no
desire on the part of anybody to look back here. And there is no indication that
they can see back here anyway. There is none.
And I know it is kind of a whimsical thing to think my saintly grandmother, who

is now in Heaven, is looking over the edge and watching me. Don't you believe
it. Your saintly grandmother isn't the least concerned with you and your daily
routine. Your saintly grandmother is totally captive to the majestic, unimaginable
glories of the eternal dwelling place of God.

Can the people in Heaven see what we are doing? -- John MacArthur
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Once our disembodied spirits go into heaven, would we be able to see events
taking place on the earth, such as the Great Tribulation and salvation of other
souls? Once up there, would our prayers have any more effect for the salvation of
souls, once we have been freed from sin?
Answer
Interesting questions. Relative to your first question, after our spirits leave to go
to be with the Lord, and of course that's what happens at death, Philippians 1:21,
Paul says, "Far better to depart and be with Christ" (there's no middle ground),
and 2 Corinthians 5, "Absent from the body--present with the Lord." And yet we
await the resurrection of the body which occurs at the rapture of Christ, when "the
dead in Christ rise first" (1 Thessalonians 4). So our spirits are in heaven, and the
question that you are asking is, "Will we be able to look down here and see?" I
don't know the answer to that question. I don't know whether we will be able to
or not, but I don't believe that even if we were able we would want to. I always
think about the fact that being in the presence of Jesus Christ will be such a
consuming reality and such an utter fulfillment, and our existence there will be so
glorious, that there would be absolutely no interest in what is going on down
here.
I think that we will have entered into a dimension of living in which we will exist
for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, not for the preoccupation of the difficulties
of earth. So I think to be with the Lord is a consuming thing, and once we enter
into that, the Bible says once we are with the Lord, we will ever be with the
Lord. I think that it is going to be in the communion with the risen glorified
Christ and all the other saints that are there. I would sure rather sit down, if I

Question
have such opportunity, and spend those seven years getting to know some of the
saints of old than looking back here being preoccupied with whatever is
happening. My sort of inner feeling is that what happens in this world would be
beyond our concern and probably be beyond our capability of seeing. I don't
know whether we need to divide those two?
Now the second question: There is nothing in the Scripture to indicate that there
is any prayer at all in heaven by anybody, but there will be a lot of praise.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Heaven
Question
I have a question for you regarding a book I just read by Earl Davies: Heaven is a Far Better Place.
The question is, is heaven an intermediate state or is heaven an eternal state?
Answer
No, there is no such thing as an intermediate state. There is no such thing as purgatory-that is a
fabrication of the Roman system…nonbiblical. Heaven is-really, heaven is the presence of God. In fact,
in the New Testament, you read about the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are the same
thing. Heaven is where God is.
There are distinguishing parts of heaven in the sense that there is a place in the Old Testament that is
called “Abraham’s bosom,” but it was a place of the righteous dead in the presence of God. And there is
in the book of Revelation a city called the New Jerusalem that is described as an 1400-mile-cube that
hangs in the middle of eternal space, and that is the capital city of Heaven-the throne of God is there-and
it gives a tremendous description of that in Revelation 21-22.
So, there are features of heaven that can be described, but what characterizes heaven above all things is
that heaven is where God is. When Jesus on the cross said to the thief, “Today you shall be with Me in
paradise,” you might say paradise is not the final new heaven and new earth, which hasn’t yet been
created, and it won’t be created until this one is destroyed. So, we are waiting for the new heaven and the
new earth, which is our eternal state. But, Jesus said, “Paradise is the place you’re going to be with Me.”
And so, whether it’s paradise or whether it’s Sheol or Hades (in the Old Testament, the place of the dead-
the righteous place of the dead) or whether it’s the present heaven, absent from the body for a believer, in
II Corinthians 5, is to be present with the Lord. In Philippians 1:21, Paul said, “Far better to depart and be
with Christ.” Throughout all of redemptive history, those righteous ones who leave this world enter into
God’s presence, whatever the unique characteristics of His presence at any given time might be, or any
given point, I guess you could say, in eternity.
We are still awaiting the new heaven and the new earth. That is not talking about the eternal abode of
God; that’s talking about that which will replace the present physical heaven and physical earth. That
will make up part of that eternal state. But, the best way to understand heaven is it is the immediate, full
presence of God and Christ and the Spirit and all of those that have died righteous…and their spirits are
now in the presence of God waiting for the resurrection when their bodies will be gathered to join them-
new bodies, glorified bodies. Okay? There are no intermediate states.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Do we go to heaven right after death?
Question
Paul says, “It’s better to depart and be with Christ,” and Jesus told the thief on the cross, “Today
you will be with me in Paradise.” When we a leave, when we depart from this earth, I know we are
not given a new body right away, but are we in heaven?
Answer
The question you asked, “When we depart, do we go immediately to heaven?” I think the answer
Scripture gives is “yes.” I think it’s clear from perhaps three passages. One of them would be Philippians,
chapter 1, where he says in verse 23, “I am hard pressed from both directions having the desire to depart
and be with Christ.” That statement, “to depart and be with Christ” leaves no room for anything in the
middle--“to depart and to be with Christ,” and we know where Christ is: He’s at the right hand of the
throne of God on High. Right? We see Him in the vision of Revelation 4, and Revelation 5, and where is
He? He is the Lamb in the midst of the throne, and John says that throne was in heaven because he was
caught up to heaven to see it. So, “to depart and be with Christ,” is clearly the promise that is given to the
believer who dies.
2 Corinthians, chapter 5, also says, and I think this is equally strong, verse 6, of chapter 5, 2 Corinthians,
“While we were at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord, for we walk by faith not by sight.”
Verse 8, “We are of good courage, and I say, prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home
with the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 5:8, “to be absent from the body; to be at home with the Lord.” To depart
is to be with Christ. And I think one other Scripture, perhaps that we could add to that would be the text
of Hebrews 12:23, where you have the general assembly and the church of the firstborn who are in
heaven. Hebrews 12:23.
Those that are in heaven, do they know what’s taking place here on earth? Now, if the answer is no,
in Revelation 6 it says, “when he broke the fifth seal I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who
had been slain because of the Word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.
And they cried with a loud voice, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will thou refrain from judging and
avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth.’”
Answer (continued)

“Do they know what’s going on, on earth?” And the answer to that question is they know what went on.
There’s no reason to assume that all of a sudden they have had a blanked out memory of the past. I think
it is a selective memory, because if they could remember evil-if they had the capacity to remember and
cogitate with evil, they could put themselves in a position where sin could influence them. So I think
what they can do at that point in time is to remember what occurred on earth, but they remember it with a
pure mind so it never degenerates into an evil thought. And what you have then in Revelation 6 are not
people in heaven who are watching what’s going on in the world; there’s no reason to assume that they
would do that. In fact, all that we know about heaven is that we will contemplate the Lord, and we will
contemplate His throne, and we will contemplate His glory, and we will be face to face, and we will
know as we are known, and the Lamb is all the glory of that place, and so forth and so on.
So, I don’t believe that there is anything going on, on earth, that can in any way distract them from the
preoccupation that they have with the living Christ. So that what you have in Revelation 6 are people
who are focused on Christ, who are enamored with the glory of Christ, who are so overwhelmed with
who He is, that they are pleading with Him to exercise the authority to bring the world into harmony with
His glory. So I think that the vision that elicits the prayer is not the vision of the problems in the world,
or even necessarily the memories, specifically of their suffering, as much as it is the preoccupation with
the right that Christ has, to be all and all, and to be fully exalted.
I think you understand what I’m saying; I don’t think people are in heaven looking down on earth. I don’t
think Hebrews 12 has any reference to that when it says, “We are encompassed about by so great a cloud
of witnesses.” You know that passage. You probably have heard sermons where you’ve got all the saints
in heaven, and they’re in a big arena, and you’re down there running, and they’re watching you. I don’t
think that’s what it means at all. I think what you have there is a great cloud of witnesses--witnesses to
what--not witnesses of you, but witnesses to the validity of a life of faith as described in chapter 11. They
are living in eternity as witnesses to the validity and benefit of a life of faith. It isn’t that they are sitting
in an arena watching us do what we do. The Glory of Christ would make us very disinteresting to them,
and I think the only reason that they even pray about what is going on, on earth, is that Jesus Christ might
have the fullness of glory and worship and majesty that He is due, and how long is He going to tolerate
anything less when He is as glorious as He is?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
Can Christians become too heavenly minded?
Answer
No! Christians are those who have been delivered from this present-evil age, this system of Satan, into
the eternal kingdom. Their affections are heavenly. Their desire is for that which is eternal and not for the
passing things of this world.
It may sound paradoxical to say this, but heaven should be at the center of the Christian worldview. A
proper Christian worldview is uniquely focused heavenward. Though some would deride this as
escapism, it is, after all, the very thing Scripture commands: "Set your mind on things above, not on
things on the earth" (Col. 3:2). The apostle Paul penned that command, and his approach to life was
anything but escapist.
In fact, Paul is a wonderful example of the proper biblical perspective between heaven and earth. He
faced overwhelming persecution on earth and never lost sight of heaven. In 2 Corinthians 4:8-10 he says,
"We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but
not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed-always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord
Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body." Then in verses 16-17 he adds, "We do
not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For
our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight
of glory." Elsewhere he told the church at Rome, "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18).
Paul was saying exactly what Peter told the scattered and persecuted believers he wrote to: we endure the
sufferings of this world for the sake of the glory of heaven (1 Pet. 1:3-7). Whatever we suffer in this life
cannot be compared with the glory of the life to come.
In other words, we don't seek to escape this life by dreaming of heaven. But we do find we can endure
this life because of the certainty of heaven. Heaven is eternal. Earth is temporal. Those who fix all their
affections on the fleeting things of this world are the real escapists, because they are vainly attempting to
avoid facing eternity-by hiding in the fleeting shadows of things that are transient.
Tony Capoccia
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-heavenmind.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:09:21 AM]

Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-heavenmind.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:09:21 AM]

Question
In one of your heaven sermons, you were talking about how we’re going to “serve” up in heaven.
You said something about, "If we’re faithful in what we do on earth, we’re going to have more of a
capacity to be faithful in heaven." Well, I was wondering; the story about the talents, where you
have these three guys and the master gives them talents and stuff…and one of them is the most
faithful or something, and he goes out and gets lots more talents and comes back and the master
loves him to death. So, I was wondering if it’s going to be that [way], when we have a greater
capacity to be faithful in heaven, it’s going to be the same way, like, with the talents?
Answer
Yes, it is. Remember the first guy? He was given five talents--made ten. The second guy was give two
talents--doubled it. And then the last guy did nothing with his opportunity. All God asks is that you use
the capacity He gives you to the fullest. There are some five-talent people, some ten-talent people, some
four, some three, some seven, some eight, some whatever. All God asks is that you give Him all you
have and in the life to come, He’ll maximize your capability there.
Now, do we all have different talents in the church? Sure we do. Do we hate each other for that? Do you
resent somebody who can teach God’s Word? Does somebody who teaches God’s Word resent someone
who is unusually gifted at, perhaps, sharing Christ with unsaved people? Does he resent somebody who
gives generously as the gift of giving? Does that person resent someone who has the gift of...No! We see
all the blending beautifully of God’s design. And we all know that whatever it is we do, we have that
ability because who gave it to us? God! So we don’t take any credit anyway.
The same thing will be true in eternity. We’ll all have different functions and different standards of
service, but nobody is going to be concerned about that. Everybody is going to understand that that was
all a gift from God, and since there won’t be sin in there anyway, there couldn’t be any jealously or envy.
So people say, “Well, boy, aren’t we all going to be exactly the same in heaven?” No, we’ll have all
kinds of different capacities, dependant on how God designed us and how well we fulfill our design here,
and that will determine how we will be useful to Him in the future.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
My question is from Luke 16 where you have Lazarus and the poor man and they’re shown in a
place together, one in Abraham’s bosom and one in torment. My question is, was Lazarus or Old
Testament believers in general in the fullest sense in heaven? Or did they have to wait until Christ
died to gather them up? I say this because I heard something in your tape that you don’t believe in
a sort of a holding tank, a “limbos."
Answer
Right, I don’t believe in a holding tank, limbos, purgatory, or anything like that. I believe that they were
in the presence of God, but they were not in the full, final new heavens and the new earth, which have yet
to be created, right? In the future. Jesus, when He came to the earth, said, “I go away and I go away to
prepare a place for you,” so the finally prepared place was not yet prepared, but I believe to be in
Abraham’s bosom was to be in a place of bliss, a place of blessing, a place of the presence of God.
I believe that torment was to be in a place of punishment, but not the final Hell because the final Hell,
according to the book of Revelation, awaits the final judgment. So, after the final judgment is the final
Hell and the final new heavens and new earth. Until that time, the unbelieving are in torment, the
believing are in a blessed place where God’s presence is. But, there will be a final form of that. And
that’s just splitting hairs in a sense, but that’s where I am. And sometimes I can’t be specific about that
because I can’t remember all the detail of a message. So, if you want to know what I really believe, you
can go back and find some of the tapes on that and I’ll give you a more detailed explanation. But I don’t
believe, for example, Ephesians 4, there was a holding tank, Jesus went in the holding tank where all
these people were in limbo and took them up to a good place. I believe they were in the presence of God
in a good place. Until the final new heaven and new earth, they are in an eternally blessed place that will
still yet have a final form.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/holiness.htm
Question
Are Christians really supposed to be holy?
Answer
I am deeply distressed by so many of the contemporary fads and flippancy that underscore the
shallowness of much of American Christianity. Nothing is more disturbing than our failure to recognize
the central truth about God--that He is holy, holy, holy (Isa. 6:3).
His holiness is His only attribute repeated three times like this.
The words of Exodus 15:11 echo in my heart: "Who is like unto Thee, O Lord...majestic in holiness,
awesome in praise, working wonders?"
Are you a holy minister? That is basic. One has to ask if we have any right at all to represent our holy
God if we are not totally committed to a holy life.
A "Los Angeles Times" headline reads, "New Creed of Business: Jesus Sells." Tragically, our Lord has
been reduced to a utilitarian genie, and hucksters and salesmen have become the chief spokesmen for our
faith.
This greatly alarms me. As those who are privileged to be called to teach and preach His Word, we must
be the prophetic voice of our God and affirm the holiness of His Name. We must demand that any effort
in the name of our Lord manifest the integrity of His nature.
He is holy, holy, holy and must be so represented. Anything less suggests our apparent loss of respect for
the majesty, awesomeness, and holiness of our Lord.
The hour's challenge for Christ's church is this, "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1).
And it all begins with us--the shepherds (Isa. 24:2; Hos. 4:9). We must be known like Aaron, the priest,
who was to be marked by the words, "Holy to the Lord!"
Let me make several suggestions that will provide a "second wind" when we are ready to drop out of the
race for holiness.
Cleanse your mind and soul with God's Word. Ponder long over great passages about God's holiness.
Some timeless chapters include Job 38-42, Psalm 99, Isaiah 40-46, and Revelation 4-5.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/holiness.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:09:26 AM]

Be like David. "Thy Word have I treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee" (Psa. 119:11).
Pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17). Dr. George Sweeting suggests that prayer is God's cure for caving
in. The greatest saints have been most aware of their sin and potential for collapse.
Nehemiah (1:6), Ezra (9:6), and Daniel (9:5) each confessed their sins in the fear of God who in turn
shored them up for the tasks ahead.
Immerse yourself in some excellent reading about God's holiness. I am concerned that the pastors I meet
don't read. When they do read, they don't read great literature. And when they do read great literature
they don't immerse themselves in it. The kind of depth and passion for holiness we find in the great
Puritan writers can't be absorbed through speed reading.
Turn off the television and spend some time with some of the great works that may be collecting dust on
your shelf. Stephen Charnock is superb in his classic, The Existence and Attributes of God. Tozer's The
Knowledge of the Holy and The Pursuit of God are priceless. The century-old Holiness by Bishop Ryle
and Jerry Bridges's recent The Pursuit of Holiness will be a blessing.
The men most used by God always have "Holy to the Lord" (cf. Ex. 39:30) deeply engraved in their
thinking. It isn't the cleverness of our methods, the techniques of our ministry, or the wit of our sermons
that puts power in our lives. It is the awe of God that produces holiness.
Robert Murray McCheyne was twenty-seven when he wrote these words of encouragement to a newly
ordained missionary friend of his:
"How diligently the cavalry officer keeps his sabre clean and sharp; every stain he rubs off with the
greatest care. Remember you are God's sword--His instrument; I trust a chosen vessel unto Him to bear
His name.
"In great measure, according to the purity and perfections of the instrument, will be the success. It is not
great talents God blesses so much as great likeness to Jesus. A holy ministry is an awful weapon in the
hand of God."
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Online since 1986

Question
Question
My question comes from Ezekiel Chapter 44. There is one verse here that
seems kind of contradictory to what God’s intending. God is speaking to
Ezekiel and I am curious as to why He would say this. In verse 44:19, it says,
“And when they go out into the outer court to the people, they shall put off
their garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy
chambers. Then they shall put on the other garments, that they may not
transmit holiness to the people with their garments.” Now it seems to me that
God would want the people to be holy, I mean, that’s part of His desire, and
yet here He says he doesn’t want holiness transmitted.
Answer
Let me just give you a general feeling for that section of Scripture. Ezekiel 40 to
48 is a description of the Millennial Temple. It’s a description of the temple that
is to come, that is to be built during the time of the Millennium and in that
Millennial Temple, there will be a re-institution of symbolic activity that was a
part of the old covenant. That shouldn’t surprise us, because as Christians, in the
New Covenant, we have a symbol, which we engage in all the time, being the
Lord’s Table. We actually go through symbolically the blood and the body of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and we know that that only happened once, and we don’t do
what the Catholics do, we don’t transform that into the real body and the real
blood of Christ. We understand it to be symbolic as a way of remembering the
great thing that God has done. In the Old Testament, what was the greatest act of
deliverance God did in the Old Testament? The deliverance out of Egypt, so the
remembrance of that was built around the Passover and the Passover was a
symbolic feast, which caused the people to remember the delivering power of
God. Communion is a similar thing.
Now, I believe that when we get to the Kingdom, when we enter into our
relationship with Jesus Christ in the fullness of our glorified form, there will be a
glorious temple created in that future time. And in that time, I believe two things
will occur. One, we will be having communion, because the Lord said, “Do this

Question
until I come and do it with you in my Kingdom”. So, there will be, I believe, in
the coming Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the activity of the communion as a
remembrance of the cross and I also believe that according to Ezekiel 40 to 48, in
that Millennial Temple there will also be a reenactment symbolically of the
significance of the worship of the old covenant.
So, what you have there, in a symbolic form, is the activity of the temple and
there will be, apparently, on the basis of that verse… the idea of holy here does
not mean that the people are unholy, they are all holy because they are, I believe
at this particular point, and it’s a little bit debatable as to where this Millennial
Temple is, but let’s assume it’s occupied by the holy redeemed of God… they’re
all holy people, but in a sense, apparently, there will be within that function of
that temple in the glorified state certain people, set apart for certain priestly
function, which is unique to them and the garments of which belong uniquely to
them and not to the other people. So, I don’t think that it’s talking about
transmitting holiness to those other people, in the sense of righteousness, but the
idea is that a priest who functions in the Millennial Temple, in the wonderful
symbolism that goes on there, will be uniquely a priest and the other people
cannot commingle with that priestly function. And so that’s why when he goes
out among the people he sets aside his priestly garb, because it is indigenous, if
you will, to that function alone. O.K? Good question.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question: What is Piety as seen in 1 Timothy 5:4? -- John MacArthur
Question
I Timothy 5:4. It’s talking here about widows who would be serving in the church: “If any widow
have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, to requite [repay] their
parents, for that’s good and acceptable before God.” What is piety? The question is, what does
piety mean in this verse?
Answer
The Greek word means “to act reverently.” The only thing it’s simply saying is this: that there should be
an acknowledged reverence for God, toward mother, father, duties, relationship etc. Fulfill the role.
That’s all it’s saying. I don’t know anything more specific in relation to the question than to say, if a
widow has children or nephews, let them learn first to have all reverent attitudes in all relationships in the
home and requite [repay] their parents for that is good and acceptable before God. It’s just talking about
the fact that children should be reverent. They should, as the Old Testament says, honor their mother and
father, honor even their grandmother and grandfather… Show concern and reverence to everybody
connected to them.
I don’t think that it’s talking so much about holiness as it’s talking about reverence toward the position of
authority and responsibility that adults have in a home, and that attitude should come from the heart of a
child.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a question about the "works of the Spirit," from Judges 14:6, "The Spirit of the Lord came
upon him mightily." My point is this, "the Holy Spirit coming upon Samson," the question is
[about] the Holy Spirit indwelling people before Acts, chapter two. Also, I have another question
referring to the same thing, in the gospel of John, chapter 20:22, "He breathed on them, and said,
'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' and, only eleven of them received Him.
Answer
I deal with that in my book on the Charismatics [Book: "The Charismatics"], by the way, in one of the
chapters. No, in the Old Testament you have many, many occasions where it says, "And the Spirit of
God came upon" so and so, "The Spirit of God departed," and "The Spirit of God came," and "The Spirit
of God departed."
Let me see if I can make it as simple as possible. No person at no time, now or then, could ever do
anything that would please God apart from God's power. I mean, if we are weak in the flesh, they were
weak in the flesh--understood? In the flesh you cannot do anything, "No flesh can be justified in and of
itself," in the flesh we cannot please God. That's why the Old Testament says, "Not by might, nor by
power, but . . ."--what? "'By My Spirit' says the Lord."
So, in the Old Testament, for anything that was done of a divine nature the Spirit of God had to come and
to do His work. Now, this is simply an indication of how the Spirit of God worked: the Spirit of God
came and went and moved in these ways. Now, when you come to the key verse, you come to the Gospel
of John, because in the transition the Lord gets together with His disciples and, it says in 14:16, "I will
pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever." Now,
that's the new part. He came and He went, and did His thing, and moved in a unique and marvelous and
miraculous way in spiritual intervention, but now He comes to "abide with you forever. Even the Spirit
of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him;
for He dwells with you, and shall be in you." So, I see that as the distinctive, now that is not to say that
they didn't have the Holy Spirit, it is to say that in the Church there is the "fullness" of the Spirit that was
not necessarily the same as it was in the old covenant--the fullness of the Spirit is released.
Remember Jesus said, "I cannot send the Holy Spirit unless I go to the Father," in the same passage,
"When I go to the Father, He shall send you the Comforter, the Holy Spirit who will come, and He will
teach you all things, and lead you into all things. Now, that's back to that ladies question about polygamy
and all that; that's why God was patient and overlooked some things in the Old Testament that He doesn't

Question
in the New Testament, because the ministry of the Holy Spirit is so unique; it is full and complete only
after Christ has done His full and complete work--that releases the Spirit to an indwelling kind of
ministry in us. That's why He says to us, "He shall be with you," or, "He shall abide with you forever."
Now, when He said to them, in John 20, "breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive ye the Holy
Spirit," I think at that point He was merely giving them a promise. He was giving them a symbolic
illustration; I don't think they received the Spirit there, I think they received the Spirit on the Day of
Pentecost. That was simply a promise of what was going to come, because He was still saying in Acts
1:8, "You shall receive the Holy Spirit," and "You shall have power after the Holy Spirit has come upon
you," and the Holy Spirit, if he said that, couldn't have come upon them already.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
What was the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and ministry?
Answer
The Holy Spirit, just very briefly, functioned in a number of ways in the ministry of Christ, and all that
we know is what is revealed in Scripture.
First of all, it was the Holy Spirit, you remember, who was the divine agency of the Trinity, that basically
planted the seed for the incarnate Son of God in Mary. So the Holy Spirit was the agent of the birth of
Jesus Christ. It is also clear that during the ministry of Jesus Christ, He attributed His deeds and His
works to the Holy Spirit, so that in some way, and again you are into the Trinity again, and the
inscrutibility of the Trinity, in some way Jesus, in His incarnation limited the independent exercise of His
attributes to the will of the Father and the power of the Spirit. That's why in Matthew, chapter 12, when
the Jews concluded that He was of Beelzebub the devil--you know, they had heard all of His teachings,
they had seen His miracles, and they had watched everything he had done, and their conclusion was,
"You are of the devil!" And He called that "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," and the reason it was
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was, because He had yeilded Himself to the Father's will and to the Spirit's
power.
You remember at His baptism, that the Spirit of God decended like a dove and came upon Him, and I
think therein was the emblem of the empowering of Jesus for His ministry, so that part of His self-
emptying, part of His incarnation, part of His voluntary self-imposed restriction was giving Himself over
to let the Spirit of God work through Him in a way that is beyond our ability to understand, so that when
one denied that the work of Christ was the work of God, one was blaspheming the Holy Spirit who was
doing that work through Him.
Additionally, when raised from the dead, the Apostle Paul said that He was raised by the Spirit. So the
Spirit was involved in the incarnation, involved in the life and ministry of Christ, and involved in His
resurrection.
Tony Capoccia
Question
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I have some questions with regard to some scriptural references to the presence of the Holy Spirit
in the eternal state. I just want to know some references that I could look up.
Answer
Isolating him out from the rest--I don’t know if I can think of that offhand. Isolating the Holy Spirit out
from the rest of the Trinity to note that He is eternal. I mean, obviously, He is as eternal as any other
member of the Trinity because He is God, the third person. So, His eternality is tied to His identity, His
person. Try Hebrews 9:14. That comes to mind and I think…yes, verse 13, “If the blood of goats and
bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the
flesh. How much more will the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit…” Now, there’s a
reference to the eternality of the Holy Spirit. And if you start there in Hebrews 9:13, you might want to
check some other resources. You might find some other references to the eternality of the Holy Spirit. I
don’t know-offhand, I can’t just grab any out of the air. But, anyway, you might be able to find some
other ones.
I think about I Corinthians 15:28 because it’s just such an important one. It says that, ultimately, when
everything is resolved, all things are subjected to God, “the Son Himself will be subjected to the One
who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.” “All in all.” And so there you have the
eternal God-everything ultimately resolved in His eternality in the end. And Hebrews 9:14 (I think) is the
only reference to the eternal Spirit.
And what is His function? What is His ministry, if you will?
Answer (continued)
Well, He will uphold everything, just like He does now. I mean, when we get to eternity, God’s not going
to stop doing what He does now! If it’s going to be righteousness in eternity, He’s going to have to
sustain the righteousness. The Holy Spirit will continue to do whatever the Holy Spirit has always done.
The only difference is going to be with reference to us. But, you know, we’re not all there is. There’s a
whole angelic creation; there’s an entire, endless universe; there’s a whole heaven of heavens; there’s a
new Jerusalem; there’s the abode of God, and all the enterprise that God is involved in, in sustaining all

that is…and whatever role Holy Spirit has always played in that, He will always continue to play in that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Holy Spirit
Question
How can a true work of the Holy Spirit be distinguished from that which is false?
Answer
From a careful study of 1 John 4, the great theologian and pastor Jonathan Edwards was able to identify
five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit's work. In short, a true work of the Holy Spirit: (1)
Exalts the true Christ, (2) Opposes Satan's interests, (3) Points people to the Scriptures, (4) Elevates truth,
and (5) Results in love for God and others.
(The following material is condensed, adapted and excerpted from Jonathan Edward's The Distinguishing
Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.)
It Exalts the True Christ.
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is
from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist,
of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (John 4:2-3) When a
ministry raises people's esteem of the one true Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin and was crucified-if
it confirms and establishes their minds in the truth that He is the Son of God and the Savior of men-then
it is a sure sign that it is from the Spirit of God. If the spirit at work among a people convinces them of
Christ and leads them to Him; if it confirms their minds in the belief of the history of Christ as He
appeared in the flesh; if it teaches them that He is the Son of god to save sinners; if it reveals that He is
the only Savior, and that they stand in great need of Him; and if it begets in them higher and more
honorable thoughts of Christ than they used to have; if it inclines their affections more to Him-that is a
sure sign that it is the true and right Spirit. This is true even though we are ultimately incapable of
determining whether anyone's conviction or affections reflect real saving faith.
The words of the apostle are remarkable. The person to whom the Spirit testifies must be that Jesus who
appeared in the flesh-not another christ in His stead. It cannot be some mystical, fantastical Christ, such
as the "inner light" extolled by the Quakers. This imaginary christ diminishes their esteem of and
dependence on Jesus as He came in the flesh. The true Spirit of God gives testimony for that Jesus alone.
The devil has a fierce hatred against Christ, especially in His office as the Savior of men. Satan mortally
hates the story and doctrine of redemption; he never would go about to stress these truths. The Spirit that
inclines men's hearts to the Seed of the woman is not the spirit of the serpent that has such an
irreconcilable enmity against Him.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-truespirit.htm (1 of 5) [5/21/2002 9:09:36 AM]

It Opposes Satan's Interests
"You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he
who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world
listens to them." (1 John 4:4-5)
When the spirit that is at work operates against the interests of Satan's kingdom, against sin, and against
worldly lusts-this is a sure sign that it is a true, and not a false spirit.
Here is a plain antithesis. The apostle is comparing those who are influenced by two opposite spirits, the
true and the false. The difference is plain: the one is of God, and overcomes the spirit of the world; the
other is of the world, and is obsessed with the things of the world. The devil is called "he who is in the
world."
What the apostle means by "the world," or "the things that are in the world," we learn by his own words:
"Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is
not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride
of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (2:15-16). So by "the world" the apostle evidently
means everything that pertains to the interest of sin. The term also comprehends all the corruptions and
lusts of men, as well as all those acts and objects by which they are gratified.
We may also safely determine from what the apostle says that whatever lessons people's esteem of the
pleasures, profits, and honors of the world; whatever turns their hearts from an eager pursuit after these
things; whatever engages them in a due concern about eternity and causes them earnestly to seek the
kingdom of God and His righteousness; whatever convinces them of the dreadfulness of sin, the guilt it
brings, and the misery to which it exposes-must be the Spirit of God.
It is not to be supposed that Satan would convince men of sin or awaken the conscience. It can no way
serve his end to make that candle of the Lord shine the brighter. It is for his interest, whatever he does, to
lull conscience asleep and keep it quite. To have that with its eyes and mouth open in the soul would tend
to clog and hinder all his designs of darkness. The awakened conscience would evermore disturb his
affairs, cross his interests, and disquiet him. Would the devil, when he is about to establish people in sin,
take such a course? Would he make them more careful, inquisitive, and watchful to discern what is
sinful, and to avoid future sins, and to be more wary of the devil's temptations?
The man who has an awakened conscience is the least likely to be deceived of any man in the world; it is
the drowsy, insensible, stupid conscience that is most easily blinded. The Spirit that operates thus cannot
be the spirit of the devil; Satan will not cast out Satan (Matt. 12:25-26). Therefore if we see persons
made sensible of the dreadful nature of sin and the displeasure of God against it, we may conclude that
whatever effects this concern is from the Spirit of God.
It Points People to the Scriptures

"We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this
we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6)
The spirit that causes people to have a greater regard for the Holy Scriptures and establishes them more
in the truth and divinity of God's Word is certainly the Spirit of God.
The devil never would attempt to beget in persons a regard to the divine Word. A spirit of delusion will
not incline persons to seek direction at the mouth of God. "to the law and to the testimony!" (Isa. 8:20) is
never the cry of evil spirits who have no light in them. On the contrary, it is God's own direction to
discover their delusions. Would the spirit of error, in order to deceive men, beget in them a high opinion
of the infallible Word? Would the prince of darkness, in order to promote his kingdom of darkness, lead
men to the sun? The devil has always shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book, the Bible.
He has done all in his power to extinguish that light, or else draw men off from it. He knows it to be that
light by which his kingdom of darkness is to be overthrown. He has long experienced its power to defeat
his purposes and baffle his designs. It is his constant plague. It is the sword of the Spirit that pierces him
and conquers him. It is that sharp sword that we read of in Revelation 19:15, which proceeds out of the
mouth of Him that sat on the horse, with which He smites His enemies. Every text is a dart to torment the
old serpent. He has felt the stinging smart thousands of times.
Therefore the devil is engaged against the Bible and hates every word in int. We may be sure that he
never will attempt to raise anyone's esteem of it.
It Elevates Truth
"We know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (v. 6).
Another rule by which to judge spirits is that whatever operates as a spirit of truth, leading people to
truth, convincing them of those things that are true-we may safely determine that it is a right and true
spirit.
For instance, if the spirit at work makes men more aware than they used to be of the central gospel truths:
that there is a God; that He is a great and sin-hating God; that life is short and very uncertain; that there is
another world; that they have immortal souls; that they must give account of themselves to God; that they
are exceeding sinful by nature and practice; that they are helpless in themselves-then that spirit operates
as a spirit of truth. He represents things as they truly are. He brings men to the light.
On the other hand, the spirit of darkness will not uncover and make manifest the truth. Christ tells us that
Satan is a liar, and the father of lies. His kingdom is a kingdom of darkness. It is upheld and promoted
only by darkness and error. Satan has all his power and dominion by darkness. Whatever spirit removes
our darkness and brings us to the light undeceives us. If I am brought to the truth and am made aware of
things as they really are, my duty is immediately to thank God for it without inquiring by what means I

have such a benefit.
It Results in Love for God and Others
"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (v. 8).
If the spirit that is at work among a people operates as a spirit of love to God and man, it is a sure sign
that it is the Spirit of God. This last mark which the apostle gives of the true Sprit he seems to speak of as
the most eminent. He devotes more space to it and so insists much more largely on it than all the rest.
When the spirit that is at work among the people brings many of them to high and exalting thoughts of
the Divine Being and His glorious perfections; when it works in them an admiring, delightful sense of the
excellency of Jesus Christ, representing Him as the chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely;
when it makes Him precious to the soul, winning and drawing the heart with those motives and
incitements to free love of God and the wonderful dying love of Christ-it must be the Spirit of God.
"We love, because He first loved us," verse 19 says. The spirit that makes the soul long after God and
Christ must be the Spirit of God. When we desire the presence and communion of the diving Savior,
acquaintance with Him, conformity to Him, a life that pleases and honors Him, we must be under the
influence of His Spirit.
Moreover, the spirit that quells contentions among men gives a spirit of peace and good-will, excites to
acts of outward kindness, earnestly desires the salvation of souls, and arouses love for all the children of
God and followers of Christ. I say that when a spirit operates after this manner, there is the highest kind
of evidence that this is the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, there is a counterfeit love that often appears among those who are led by a spirit of delusion.
There is commonly in the wildest enthusiasts a kind of union and affection arising from self-love. It is
occasioned by their agreeing on issues where they greatly differ from all others and for which they are
objects of ridicule from the rest of mankind. That naturally will cause them so much the more to prize
those peculiarities that make them the objects of others' contempt. (Thus the ancient Gnostics and the
wild fanatics that appeared at the beginning of the Reformation boasted of their great love to one another-
one sect of them in particular calling themselves "the family of love.") But this is quite another thing than
that Christian love I have just described.
There is enough said in this passage of the nature of a truly Christian love to distinguish it from all such
counterfeits. It is love that arises from apprehension of the wonderful riches of the free grace and
sovereignty of God's love to us in Jesus Christ. It is attended with a sense of our own utter unworthiness
(see vv. 9-11, 19). The surest character of true, divine, supernatural love-distinguishing it from
counterfeits that arise from a natural self-love-is that the Christian virtue of humility shines in it. It is a
love which above all others renounces, abases, and annihilates what we term self. Christ's love is a
humble love (1 Cor. 13:4-5).

When, therefore, we see a love attended with a sense of one's own littleness, vileness, weakness, and
utter insufficiency; when it is united with self-diffidence, self-emptiness, self-renunciation, and poverty
of spirit-those are the manifest tokens of the Spirit of God.
He that thus dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him.
Conclusion
These marks that the apostle has given us are sufficient to stand alone and support themselves. They
plainly show the finger of God and are sufficient to outweigh a thousand such little objections as many
make from oddities, irregularities, errors in conduct, and the delusions and scandals of some professors.
But here some may object. After all, the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:13-14, "Such men are false
apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light."
To which I answer that this can be no objection against the sufficiency of these marks to distinguish the
true from the false spirit in those false apostles and prophets-even when the devil is transformed into an
angel of light. After all, the very reason the apostle John gave these marks was so that we could test the
spirits. Therefore try the spirits by these rules and you will be able to distinguish the true spirit from the
false-even under such a crafty disguise.
(As appearing in John MacArthur, Reckless Faith [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994], appendix 2, pp. 225-31)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Holy Spirit (Salvation of OT Saints)
Question
It’s my understanding that those who live by the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God, but
those who’ve been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and marked by the Holy Spirit are God’s own.
But, before the day of Pentecost, God gave his spirit only to certain, select individuals. So, I was
wondering about the rest of the Old Testament saints, if they were regenerated or how, without the
Holy Spirit; and if they weren’t regenerated, were they living in the flesh; and if they were living in
the flesh, how were they saved?
Answer
That’s a very good question. There seems to be an awful lot of confusion about that issue because we
make too much of a point of the New Testament saint’s relationship to the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe
that it is possible for any person, any time, to experience a relationship with God apart from the Holy
Spirit-I don’t care what dispensation you’re talking about or what era. The Spirit of God is the agent by
which God moves into the heart of man.
So, I believe that Old Testament saints were given new life by the Spirit-that the Spirit of God did come
upon them. I believe also that the Spirit of God sustained that new life. When Jesus says, “He has been
with you, He shall be in you,” He is not saying that you, prior to this point, didn’t have the Holy Spirit;
you did. He was with you. That’s the only way anyone could have a relationship with God.
You remember back in Genesis 6, way back then, God sent the flood to destroy the world and He said
this: “My spirit will not always strive with man.” Even then, the Spirit of God was striving with the
unconverted and the unbelieving to bring them to the knowledge of the true God. And they were
rejecting the strivings of the Holy Spirit. You also will be reminded that John the Baptist, who really was
an Old Testament prophet, was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb.
So, it is evident that the Spirit of God led the believers-and you can show a number of places in the Old
Testament where that was true… There were also special anointings of the Spirit for prophetic work and
leadership, but I believe there was regeneration in the Old Testament. There was new life. I believe that
new life was dispensed and imparted by the Spirit and sustained by the Spirit.
What was the difference when the Spirit came at the day of Pentecost for us now?

John MacArthur - Holy Spirit (Salvation of OT Saints)
Answer (continued)
Well, again, now you’re back to what Jesus said in John’s Gospel when He said, “He has been with you,
He shall be in you.” One difference was the gifts of the Spirit, a very unique manifestation of ministry.
But, you don’t want to make too much out of that and say by it that, for example, the Spirit came and
before that He wasn’t here.
You have the same problem at the other end of the line. People say, “Well, after the rapture, the Holy
Spirit will be taken out of the world.” No. It never says that. All it says is “the One who restrains will no
longer restrain” which means that whatever restraining work the Spirit of God does on sin in society, He
will stop doing. Still, people will be converted, and the only way they can be converted is by the agency
of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit functions in bringing God into a relationship with man, through all of
human history! Now, what unique nuances occur within the church you can find out by starting in Acts,
chapter two, and just following the pattern.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but is it the most heinous sin, as you have said? How can a
physical sin be worse than the sin of Romans 1:21 of not honoring God? Isn't not honoring God a
worse sin than homosexuality?"
Answer
Well, let me just say this, not honoring God is the worse sin of all. Homosexuality is simply a result of
that. In other words, you can't line them up because they are not equivalent--they are sequential. Do you
understand what I am saying? First, you make the determination in your life that you are not going to
honor God, and then you move into sinful living and the epitome of the expression of a life that doesn't
honor God is homosexuality. I believe that is what Paul is saying here. He goes through all of these
things: the ultimate thing that a man can do is to totally invert the created intention of God. I mean to
totally invert it, as homosexuality does is the worst physical sin, and it is an expression of a life that does
not honor God because it doesn't just pervert--it inverts the created order. I think that's why Paul uses it
as the illustration of the utter sinfulness of man, when he says this is how far he has gone--he has gone to
homosexuality, that is the limit of Paul's conception of sinfulness.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Idols
the tape, GC 1358, titled "How to Pray." 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 2001 by
John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
I understand that idols don't have to be graven images, you know, that we're to bow down to, but can you
help us understand what some [idols] could be in our lives now?
Answer
Anything that substitutes for God in your life is an idol. Anything that takes precedence over God is an
idol. For some people, I suppose, it could be a girlfriend. I mean, I've seen some people totally abandon
all their Christian testimony for the sake of some girl that they fall in love with and visa versa. I've seen
girls, you know, going in the church and active and aggressive in the Word of God and they get attracted
to some guy and all of a sudden, "boing," you know, they're gone...long gone, just "shewwww." Set your
goals for God and anything that diverts you to another thing...there's nothing wrong with boyfriends and
girlfriends, that's all right, we're for that. But the perspective has to be proper.
It could be money. Some people bow down to the shrine of money and they worship money. The biggest
thing in their life is to make money...not so much for the money sake usually but for the sake of being
able to show the other people that they have the money. It's always a pride thing much more than it is a
materialistic thing, in most cases. It isn't that they really want a different car, house, clothes, it's they
want everybody else to know they have a different one that's better than the others. So it can be
materialism, it can be even humanism. You can worship the mind. Some people go to college and all
they want is degrees after degrees after degrees so that they can write them all down on a little piece of
paper and everybody will think they're bright. And you can worship education. It could be anything. It
could be sex. It could be booze. It could be anything. Anything that dominates and diverts you from the
total goal of submitting yourself in worship to God. It could be even a hobby. It could be a good thing.
Golf is a good thing. A lot of people like golf. You go out there and you bat around a little white ball.
And it's terrific. But for some people it becomes God. You know, it's as if they were worshiping the little
white ball. They can't do anything else, that's their whole life. It's like the guy who was playing golf, you
know, and a funeral went by and [he] took his hat off and he bowed his head as the funeral went by. And
this other guy said to him, "Oh, I didn't know funerals got to you like that." He said, "They don't
normally, but it's my wife." So you can get to the place with any good thing...you can get to the place
where even a good thing, a good thing can become a very evil thing.

John MacArthur - Idols
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
"The Bible is clear on the fact, that we should not use images of the Lord. Why
do we use pictures of Jesus to teach our children?"
Answer
Well, that is an interesting question. Are we disobeying the Word of God? No,
let me give to you what I think might be a helpful answer. By the way, I wouldn't
mind, if someone wanted to believe that you should never have a picture of Christ
at all. That's fine, I don't argue with that at all, in fact, personally, I don't like
pictures of Christ. I don't know why, I just don't care for them personally.
I don't think they are wrong, in this sense; it is one thing to have an image of
Christ, which is worshiped. It is another thing to have a representation on paper,
which is clearly not worshiped. And it is the heart attitude that is the issue.
When the Old Testament commandment said, "That we are not to make images of
God, and we are not to make idols, the point was for the purpose of worship.
And of course, remember now, that is the Old Testament, and God was a Spirit
and had no image. But even God made Christ into an image that could be seen,
right? He is the visible image of God, Hebrews 1. God actually appeared in a
visible form.
And so if, in children's books, there are pictures of Jesus, as long as we don't

worship the picture, as if it were Jesus or God. As long as we understand, that it

is simply a representation of a man that really did walk on the earth, and really
did live on the earth, I think we can make a distinction in the minds of children.
We are not worshiping the picture. We are not drawing an image of God. God
Himself came in the form of a man, and we are simply reproducing the form of a
man, in which God came. Not that the form is to be worshiped at all.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have read that Jesus has faith. Now if He is Omniscient why would He need Faith?
Answer
The way it is articulated in the New Testament is that Jesus trusted His Father. Now that's all bound up
in the Incarnation. Let me see if I can define that for you. When Jesus was Incarnate; when He took on
humanity, according to Philippians, chapter two, prior to that He was equal with God, but He thought
being equal with God was not something He had to grasp, Philippians 2 said. Not something He had to
hold on to, but He was willing to give up that complete equality with God. What did that mean? Did it
mean that He ceased to be God? No. What it means is: He ceased to freely and independently exercise
some of His attributes, and submitted Himself to the Father. In other words, you have a statement like
this, where Jesus says, "No man knows the day or the hour, no, not even the Son of Man." And Jesus
was talking about the time when He would come and establish His kingdom, and at that point, in His
incarnation, by the willing restriction of His own Omniscience, He didn't even know when the Second
Coming would occur.
Now, I think that would have been limited to His incarnation; I think once the incarnation ceased, and He
went back to the fullness, as John 17 says, back to being face-to-face with God, and returned to the Glory
that He had with God before He came into the world, He would again have full exercise of His attributes,
full Omniscience, and knows full well when the Second Coming will occur: when He will come and
establish His Kingdom. But in the time of His incarnation, and in the expression of that incarnation, He
turned Himself literally into being a servant, and restricted the independent exercise of His attributes, and
limited Himself only to that which the Father willed. Consequently, in those self-imposed limitations,
He had to entrust Himself to God, because He didn't at that time, by being willing, He didn't know
everything that could be known. Consequently, He had to operate in a mode of trust. Prior to
incarnation, and since His glorification, that's not necessary, because He is in full communion, with the
full Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Immutability of the Trinity.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Question on Integrity
Question
What is a Biblical definition of the word integrity?
Answer
Well, simply put, integrity is living what you believe and living what you preach--that is as simple as I
can put it. In other words it's conducting yourself in your behavior in accord in what you say you
believe. The lack of integrity comes when a person proclaims to believe something and does not live up
to that. I'll give you a good illustration, it's not a Biblical one, but we could talk about the Biblical
things. I think Paul hits it on the head when he talks about having a clear conscience. In other words,
what he is saying by that is, "My behavior and my belief are in accord so my conscience is not wounded,"
but let me give you an illustration that might help and I have used this some years ago.
Imagine that we are making bread, now you have to imagine that I am making bread--I never have made
bread in my life so I'm guessing at this. Let's assume that we had a big pan and we want to make bread.
We take flour--right? We put some flour in there and then water I think, and put some water in there, and
then maybe you want egg bread so you put an egg in there--just drop an egg in! See, I told you--OK,
French Bread--what do I know? Let's assume that you put a little salt or sugar--whatever, you just put in
flour, put in water, put in yeast, put in an egg, and take it and stick it in the oven. What are you going to
have? You are going to have a mess--a warm mess. You left out one thing, what was that? Mixing it all
together.
Your life has a lot of components. You have integrity when every component touches every other
component--that's integrity. When every ingredient touches every other ingredient you make bread, and
when every ingredient of your life: what you believe; what you say; and what you do all touch each other--
that's integrity. I believe that it is best affirmed in the sense that you have a clear conscience and you
know that what you have said is in fact the way you live.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Islam
Question
My husband and I are missionaries to Arabs and we’ve been approached by Christian Arabs in
this congregation with this question: "Allah is the name that thousands and millions of believers in
Jesus Christ use for God. As an Arabic speaker, I sing many praises to Allah in the name of Jesus.
I was a missionary to Muslims in the middle east for four years and I led Muslims to faith in Christ
by explaining to them the true character of God--Allah--as explained in the Bible. Will you clarify
why you say Allah is another name for Satan without any explanation or disclaimer that all
translations of the Arabic Bible use “Allah” as the name for God?
Answer
Yes, that’s a very good question. Allah is another name for Satan because "the Allah of Islam" is not the
true and living God. You have to be very careful when you go into a missionary effort with people by
taking their deity and somehow turning that deity in the true God…you create a confusion. The fact of
the matter is all false religions have a god or gods, and to call some entity of your own manufacturing or
some demon or Satan himself “god” doesn’t make it so. The Allah of Islam is not God…is not the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Now, if you speak in their language-“al-ilah,” “the God” and you take the uppercase letter down and you
say, “Let me introduce you to the real God who is not “the god” of Islam, now you’re getting on a right
footing. God the true and living God is not Allah! That has to be made clear. We are not talking about the
same god. They are monotheistic, they have one god, but their god is not a trinity--that is not the true
god. They do not believe in God as a trinity; therefore, that’s not the true god. They do not even believe
that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They believe He is the God of Abraham, whose true
and legitimate heir was Ishmael…so they rewrite the Scripture.
So, He is not the triune God who said, “Let us make man in our image.” He is not the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. He is not the God incarnate in Jesus Christ--they say that is blasphemous. They may
call him “al-ilah,” they may call him “the God,” but that is not God, and I think it’s much important to
identify the true and living God than to somehow tweak the false god and sort of transform him into the
true God.
You know what I’m saying? I think you have to make a clean break with that and I think that that is very
important. I mean, I wouldn’t go to somebody worshipping an idol and say, “Well, let me tell you who
this god really is.” What I would say is, “That is a demonic substitute for the true and living God. That is

not any representation of the true God.” Call Him what you will. Everybody calls him “God”… The
Hindus have millions of entities that they call “God”; none of them are God…none of them.
The apostle Paul, when He went to Mar’s Hill, could only identify one idol in that environment that he
could identify with the true God and that was the god that didn’t have any name or any identity! He
didn’t say, “Well, this god over here by the name of such-and-such is really the God the Bible, let me tell
you about him…” He said, “This god that you admit you don’t know, the unknown god, that’s the true
and living God, let me introduce him to you.” You cannot take a god, an idol, out of some religion and
sort of tweak him a little bit and shape him into the true and living God. I think you have to have a clean
and total breach.
I understand that it makes some sense to attempt to do that because of the monotheism and because they
believe that god--their god, Allah--is the creator god and that he is sovereign. They’re very strong on the
doctrine of sovereignty. In fact, they believe in a god that is so sovereign that nothing that man does can
in any way alter his will: everything is the will of Allah. It’s kind of a deterministic sovereignty. I
understand that there are some parallels, but you know, that’s the subtlety and that’s the seduction of it.
Even the clock that doesn’t run is right twice a day. That’s the deadliness of false religion. They come in
and find points of identification. You can’t accommodate yourself to those points of identification or you
give too much away! I think it’s critical to say the name Allah, the god of Islam, is in no way, shape, or
form connected to the true and living God. None whatsoever.
I agree with you 100% and the Arabic believers in this congregation stand with you 100% with
what you’ve said, but what do we do with a god whose name is “Allah” in the Arabic Bible?
Answer (continued)
Well, you can say, “There is the true and living God who is not the Allah of your Bible.”
But it’s OK that we’re using the word “Allah”… “Dear Allah, thank you for this day…”
Answer (continued)
Well if that is--in the Arabic language, “al-ilah” means “the God” and if you translated it, it means “the
God.” So what you have to say is, “The God of Islam that you know as Allah is not the true God.” You
just have to make that clear. I understand that. It’s the same problem you have in any religion that has a
god because their language has a “god.” If you were to go to a tribe in Africa as a missionary and find
that they are worshipping a god, their word would be for “god” and you would not say, “Well, let me tell
you who your god really is”--that’s not the right approach. “Let me tell you who the true God is and you

have to abandon the one that you’ve been worshipping.”
Do you believe that Arabic Christians should use another name for Allah, for God?
Answer (continued)
Well, yes, I think the safest place to go is to call him what the Bible calls him. The way He’s identified in
the Scriptures, the names of God are very clear. But I think one good way to do it in an Arabic
environment would be to identify him as the triune God. I know in Arabic, there’s a word for
trinity…He is the “elphalothe (sp?) al-ilah”; He is the triune God. That’s not the god of Islam. He is the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--that’s a clear distinction. He is the God of Israel--that in itself is a
clear distinction! He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those are biblical names for him.
You could use, He is El Elyon, El Shaddai, El Mekaddishkem, El Zidkenu--the God who is
righteousness…You can use any biblical terms you want, but it is his triunity; it is his covenant name as
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is his name, saving name, as the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which connects him with Christ--any biblical names, because just calling him God may not
convey to them that the God you’re talking about is distinct. So whatever it takes to modify the term to
explain that it’s not Allah, as you know him, is important.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I would like to know your personal viewpoint about the state of Israel, with regard to Benjamin
Netanyahu, and how he fits into God's Biblical Clock?
Answer (given in 1997)
My personal viewpoint on the state of Israel, of course from a theological standpoint, is that Israel is still
to receive the promises of God. Israel, according the Romans 11:25-27, will be saved in the end, and
they will receive the Kingdom promised to them. The fact that they are in the land and that they still exist
is within the purposes of God, as He has His people still in existence, still identified as a national entity
in their land, and that positions them, I think, for the coming salvation.
So far as whether Benjamin Netanyahu, or for that matter, any other leader in Israel, fits into the
prophetic scheme, I don't think there is any way that you can identify any current political leader in Israel
in terms of the actual fulfillment of any prophecy. The reason I say that is that the Scripture does not
identify any leader in Israel, by specific identification, in the end times, except for the fact that the
antichrist makes a pact with Israel. There is no identification of any leader in Israel.
Now as to what Netanyahu means politically or socially to the country of Israel; obviously he is a
conservative; obviously he takes a more hard line and a more traditional Jewish viewpoint as over against
conciliation with the Arabs. I don't know how that plays in terms of the future animosities and hostilities
between the Arabs and the Jews, but I do believe that Netanyahu, notwithstanding, he may come, he may
go, others may come and go before the Lord does His work with Israel, but in the end, Scripture is very
clear that the Lord will gather His people, not only to the Land, but He will gather them to Himself, He'll
purge out the two-thirds of the rebels (the prophet says), and then He'll save the remnant and then the
Kingdom will come in which they will participate in the fulfillment of messianic blessing.
Is there not some kind of movement from Netanyahu about nationalizing Israel?
Answer (continued)
As I said, Israel is already a nation so Netanyahu is not going to contribute to the nationalization of
Israel; he will contribute to the firmness and the rigidity, and the solidarity of Israel as a nation, as over

Question
against any kind of blending with the Arab world. It may be that he makes a contribution to the
sustaining of the purity of that nation, although that runs so deep, that even if Netanyahu was not there it
would be highly unlikely that they would ever decide to amalgamate or mingle with other Arabic
cultures.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Did Jesus, at age 12, disrespectfully disobey His parents, by not informing and not returning with
them when it was time to leave? Some Bible commentators have said that, "At this particular
time, that no longer was Jesus technically under parental authority."
Answer
In Luke 2:41-52, you will remember, that Jesus' family had gone down to Jerusalem for the feast, and
they obviously went with a whole entourage of people, probably friends and relatives, who had come
down from Nazareth. Jesus was 12 years of age, and they came down for the feast, and then they started
back home. When they started back home it became apparent to them, somewhere along the road, and it
must have been a large group or they would have known immediately that Jesus wasn't there, but as this
whole entourage moved back towards Nazareth it became apparent that Jesus was not there. So His
parents had to return back to Jerusalem and they found Him. And where was He? He was in the temple.
Now, it is traditional at age 12, that Jewish boys are "bar mitzvah," that means that they are made a "son
of the Law." What that means is that they become responsible, at that age, for their own obedience to the
Law of God. It doesn't mean they are kicked out of the house; it doesn't mean they are on their own, they
would, certainly in most cases, continue to live with their parents. But it does mean that they take on
personal responsibility for the Law. So we will not conclude that Jesus was exercising His right to live
on His own, or to be on His own, or to conduct His life apart from His parents, or to be non-submissive
to them in any way. Nor should we conclude that He had sinned in doing what He did, because He
couldn't sin--right?
Jesus answers the question. To say, that, "At this particular time that no longer was Jesus technically
under parental authority,"--I don't think that's true. I think that He was still under some parental
authority, and certainly would have exercised perfect parental respect. But the correct understanding of
that whole issue comes right from the mouth of Jesus. You remember when they found Him, He was in
the temple--right? And what was He doing? It's very important to note that He was asking questions--
He was not teaching, He was not ursurping a role of authority in the temple with the learned men. He
was simply asking questions. He had come under the Law. He was now responsible to keep the Law
Himself. He had reached, what we could call, that general time of accountability where He was
personally accountable to the Law of God, and He was simply in the temple doing everything He could
to comprehend what that responsibility really meant. In His humanness He was asking the questions that
pertained to the matters that were at hand in His own life, because that same text says that, "Jesus

Question
Himself grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." There was development in Jesus.
There was actual development: physical development, spiritual development--He didn't go from
imperfection to perfection, He didn't go from sin to righteousness--He just had an expanding spiritual
awareness, and this was part of it. At the age of 12, He was asking the questions that pertained to His
own living, righteous life.
When His parents said, "Why have you done this?" He gave the right answer, He didn't say, "You're not
important," but He said this, "I must be about my Father's business." They had to recognize that from
then on, the claim on His life had to do with that which was from God, and that their authority would not
be ignored by Him, but it would always be under the authority of His Father, and that's all He was
saying. I think in a general sense He was saying, "Look, I have been made a 'son of the Law' and I must
understand the fullness of what this means." There was no rebellion there, it was just a priority--the
ultimate priority.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - His Stances and Interpretations in his Preaching
Question
Which Jewish holidays, such a Purim, Passover, Hanukkah, would be appropriate for a Jewish
believer [in Christ] to still celebrate, and which if any, would no longer be appropriate?
Answer
Well, essentially from the vantage point of the New Testament, there are no Jewish holidays that are still
a part of the Christian faith. There are certain holidays that don't have anything to do with the Old
Testament: Hanukkah, the Jewish New Year has nothing to do with the Old Testament; I think Purim has
nothing to do with the Old Testament; the Feast of Lights is more of a traditional feast than an Old
Testament Biblical feast, or festival. But as far as the New Testament is concerned, all of the ceremonies
were set aside and we know that because Jesus indicated to us in His attitude with the Scribes and the
Pharisees a certain indifference to that, and most particularly, Jesus made the transition from the
Passover, which was the main celebration, to the Lord's Supper--it was at a Passover meal, the night of
His betrayal, that Jesus took the bread, which had once been in reference to the Passover in Egypt, which
was the great historic indication of the power of God to deliver His people and became the basis of the
Passover, it was to be a memorial and God instituted it there in Egypt. But Jesus took the elements: the
bread and the cup that were connected to the Passover, and said, "From now on, this bread doesn't
represent the unleavened bread of the Passover in Egypt--it represents My Body. And this wine, is no
longer representative of deliverance in Egypt, and the blood put on the door and the lintel, it is
representative of My Blood shed for you. So Jesus Himself transitioned out of the Passover, as such.
When you come into the Book of Acts, in the Jerusalem Council, in the 15th chapter of Acts, the
believers there were instructed, however, not to offend the Jewish people, with regard to some of those
remaining ceremonies. And in Romans 14 and 15, there is even some instructions about, if people have
certain, I suppose you could say scruples, if they have certain convictions, and they are not free to violate
those because they don't yet understand their freedom, even as Christians. If they are still holding to, let's
say, the Sabbath, or they are still holding to a certain dietary law, the Apostle Paul says, "Don't offend
them, don't force them into liberties which their conscience doesn't yet allow them to do--they need to be
instructed and they will come to a point where they will better understand the terms of the New
Covenant, and they will leave those things aside.
So the objective is, Jesus ends the Old Testament ceremonial law, as such, and with the ceremonial law,
go essentially, all the feast and festivals that were a part of it. Then in the Book of Acts there is a gradual
sort of disconnect with that, and we know that because as the church was being built under the leadership

of, particularly the Apostle Paul, those things were never instituted in the church--they were left to the
past. When you get into the Epistles, it becomes very specific and the texts that I would...well, one in the
Book of Acts, Acts 10 where there is a vision that Peter has and on this sheet that he sees, a sheet coming
down from heaven, there's all kinds of animals, clean and unclean, you know, kosher and non-kosher,
and Peter is told, "Rise Peter, kill and eat." And he says, "I can't do that. I can't eat the unclean
animals." And the Lord says to him, "Don't you call unclean what I have cleansed." So there is no more
distinction between clean and unclean, and that's just an illustration of the break with the past.
When you come into the Epistles, and I would draw your attention to one particular Epistle, and that's
Colossians, and the 2nd chapter of Colossians. The Apostle Paul is showing us how things have
dramatically changed; he says this in verse 16, Colossians 2:16, "So let no one judge you in food," that
is, in any dietary law, "Let no one judge you in drink; Let no one judge you regarding a festival or a new
moon or Sabbaths." Now, no dietary regulations; no religious observances, and the festivals were
essentially Pentecost, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles--all of those. "No new moon," and that was the
point at which the monthly sacrifice was made--on the first day of each month--the new moon. "No
Sabbaths," that's the weekly celebrations. So, annual celebrations, monthly celebrations, weekly
celebrations--he says, "Don't let anybody hold you to those things," verse 17, "which are a shadow of
things to come, but the substance is of Christ." They were shadows, and now the substance has arrived,
and the shadow has no more place.
And so, as far as we are concerned in the Church: Jewish Christian, Gentile Christian, there is no
necessity to observe any of those things from the standpoint of our Christian faith. However, within the
framework of tradition, within the family, there's nothing wrong with participating in those events--
nothing wrong with the traditional family celebration of Passover; nothing wrong with other traditional
Jewish celebrations: the Jewish New Year, Yom Kippur, whatever it is, and in fact, as a Christian you
can bring into that kind of celebration a much richer understanding of the reality of which those things
were but a shadow. That's one of the reasons why it is problematic to have what we call, "Messianic
Synagogues."
There has been a movement for a number of years and I have addressed it throughout the last, probably,
fifteen years, where Jewish people, who are believers, have established, rather than Churches, what they
call Messianic Synagogues, and they observe all of the Jewish customs, all of the Jewish traditions,
whether it is the annual feasts like Pentecost, Passover, and so forth, whether it is the New Year, the Day
of Atonement, the monthly New Moon Sabbath, they observe the weekly Sabbath, they observe it on
Saturday, they go through all of that ritual, and in a sense, they are like the Judaizers of the New
Testament, who are running around, trying to impose Jewish custom, Jewish ceremony, Old Testament
ritual on Christians. I think it is wrong to do that. I don't think that's what the New Testament intends. I
think the flow of the New Testament is that is what you are trying to do is to teach those people who
come out of that background that they no longer need to hold to those things, but that they can let them
go because of their freedom in Christ.
So I think that is the best passage to take people to who are asking that kind of question. We are not
under obligation to maintain any of those things, and the most notable of all of them is the Passover.

You celebrate the Passover because of God's redemption--the Redeemer comes and the Passover is over
and now you have you have the Lord's Supper. You celebrate Pentecost, which is "first fruits" and the
last Pentecost, legitimately celebrated, was the Pentecost at which time the Holy Spirit came--remember
it was the day of Pentecost the Spirit came--it was the great harvest feast and the Spirit came on that day,
and in a sense put an end to the shadow, because now the Holy Spirit had come and the great harvest, as
it were, of souls, began.
So I think that it is best to see no Biblical obligation at all for any of those things, but I think that it is
wise, if you are in a Jewish context to graciously participate in those kinds of traditions understanding
that they all point to the reality, who is Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

MacArthur: The Man and His Ministry

by
John MacArthur
All Rights Reserved
If you enjoy listening to Christian radio or cassette tape studies, you are probably acquainted with John
MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church of the Valley in Panorama City, California. In the
following interview John shares a little about himself, his background, his philosophy of ministry, and
how the tape and radio ministries began.
Question: What kind of educational background do you have?
John: I was raised in the southern California area, so I attended schools there. My first two years of
college were spent at Bob Jones University, and then I completed my college education at Los Angeles
Pacific College--now defunct. From there I proceeded to Talbot Theological Seminary to complete my
seminary training.
Question: Have you always wanted to be a preacher?
John: I am a fifth-generation preacher. Because my father and grandfather were preachers and pastors, I
grew up with a pastor's heart and a pastor's mentality. I saw how my father and grandfather functioned,
and I understood what it was to be a pastor. From the time I was very small--five or six years old--I
would stand on a soapbox in the backyard and preach to my sisters or anybody in the neighborhood who
would listen--and get angry when they didn't respond. I guess I just assumed that I'd be a pastor like my
father and grandfather.
But as I became involved in athletics during my college days and found fulfillment in that, I thought that
perhaps I'd be a professional athlete. I did have some opportunities to play professionally, both in
football and baseball, but by then I had affirmed in my own heart that God wanted me in the ministry. So
I chose seminary over an athletic career.
Question: Could you explain how you came to know Christ as your Saviour?
John: I really can't remember a time when I didn't believe, and I never had a time when I rebelled. There
was nothing in Christianity that I could see that was objectionable, and I accepted openly everything
about Christ.
But the incident I recall as having a pivotal effect on me occurred when I was traveling with my father to
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/macarthur.htm (1 of 7) [5/21/2002 9:12:54 AM]

a revival meeting in the Midwest. My father was staying in a home in the town and preaching every
night. And I got acquainted with a boy in the neighborhood--we were about seven at the time. He had
plans for us one afternoon, and we went down and vandalized the local school--overturned desks and the
sandbox, poured out inkwells and did some bad things. Later that evening a man came to our house to
ask if I had been involved; somebody had seen me in the area. And my father assured him that I would
never do a thing like that.
I remember being devastated at having betrayed my father's trust. That night at the meeting I went
forward. I felt like I had to tell my father--and the Lord--what I had done. That incident crystallized for
me a moment of commitment to Christ even when I was very young.
Question: After that incident did you ever come to a crisis point in your relationship with God?
John: Yes, when I went away to college, I was willing in my heart to do what God wanted me to do, but
there were some areas of my life that were not in submission to Christ. And the Lord knew that there
needed to be some further refining in my life. After my freshman year of college, I was driving across the
country with five other young people, and we were involved in a serious accident. I wound up in a
hospital and was in bed for three months. And during that time I made a total commitment of my life to
Christ. I was 18 years old at the time. I said, "Lord, I can see now that my life is really in Your hands,
and You have absolute control of not only my eternal destiny, but also my time here in this world."
Question: Did you know then that you were headed for the ministry?
John: After that I changed schools to pursue an athletic career, and during that time I reconsidered a
childhood dream of being a professional athlete. But it all came down to an incident during my last year
of college football. Someone asked me to go and share Christ with a girl who had been shot in the neck
by her boyfriend. She was lying in a hospital with a severed spinal cord. I went and introduced her to
Christ, and she was wonderfully saved. And I told myself then, "You know, this is what really matters."
So at that point my priority was clearly defined.
Question: Have you been able to realize some of those athletic dreams and desires even in the ministry?
John: I have Bible studies with several of the professional sports teams in Los Angeles, with the baseball
teams and with the Rams. So the Lord has seen fit to use all that background.
Question: Talk a little about the history of Grace Church and your association with it.
John: When I left seminary I worked in a church with my dad, and I taught at Los Angeles Baptist
College, which is now The Master's College. At the same time I traveled a lot and preached at youth
conferences and special meetings. I knew that I needed experience in preaching if I was going to be
effective in a church ministry. Then I joined the staff of Talbot Theological Seminary and spent two and
a half years preaching all over the country--an average of 35-40 times a month.

At the end of that time I was asking God to open a door for me. At that time the pastor of Grace
Community Church had just died of a heart attack. And the pastor before him had also died of a heart
attack. I think by then they might have been saying, "I don't care if he's good; just get him young!" So
after I had preached here one Sunday night, I was approached about candidating, and eventually I came
as pastor. The church had 450 to 500 people at the time. It was a strong church in terms of personal
relationships and love, and there was good leadership. There was also a wonderful youth program. It was
an exciting, energetic and wonderful church even then, although there were not nearly so many people.
Question: What were you committed to, and what did you end up doing in those days?
John: I had said that I wanted at least 30 hours a week to study. I believed that Ephesians 4 says the
pastor's job is to perfect the saints, and that comes about through the Word of God. I thought that
possibly the other 10 to 15 hours would be used in visitation and so on. But the men said, "We'll take
care of the visitation, because James says visitation is pure religion. Everybody does that." But, of
course, what you anticipate and what really happens are two different things. I found that my "other 10 or
15" hours turned out to be another 30 in addition to the 30 I already had for study--I never sacrificed that.
Question: What is your philosophy in building a church?
John: When a reporter asked me once if I had a great desire to build the church, I told him, "No. I have
absolutely no desire to build the church. That's not my job. Jesus said, 'I will build My church,' and I
would rather not compete with Him. I simply want to allow Him to do that through me in a small way in
one location."
As I see it, my calling is to know God. I do not study the Bible to get a sermon. Instead I approach the
Scriptures this way: I have an insatiable hunger to know what the Bible means so that I will know how I
can live to glorify God. My ministry is to spend my whole life finding out what the Bible says. And at
the end of the week, when I've discovered the truths that have been there, I get to share them with the rest
of the church. That is a ministry that overflows out of the relationship that I have with the Lord, which
comes from the study of His Word. That overflows from my life and touches the lives of those in the
congregation. And as we grow together, out of that comes the nurturing of leadership.
Question: So then the leadership comes from right within the church itself?
John: That's right. We now have more than 40 people on our pastoral staff, not counting supporting staff
and others. Most of them have come from our congregation. A good example would be Norman Sper,
who began our radio ministry. Norm comes out of a background of business and television. He said to
me one day, "I think your messages would do well on radio." And I responded, "Wonderful. You try it
and see what happens." So he began as a volunteer to develop the radio program, and it has grown into a
full-time ministry for him. And that has happened many times. What always interested me was that we
didn't have to start a ministry for these people. The ministry began first, and they simply stepped in to

help it function better. And as the ministry develops and grows, then we move in and say, "God has
blessed our ministry. We want you to give your full life to this, so we'll take over your support."
Question: Did you ever envision a church of more than 7000 in attendance on Sunday morning?
John: Well, of course not. And even today I don't comprehend that. I said to somebody the other day, "I
keep coming here on Sunday to preach, and all these people show up." And frankly I don't know why.
And it isn't something you can reproduce. Men come here from churches all over the world to study and
learn from us, and I really don't know what to tell them. We can tell them the basic biblical standards, but
we can't guarantee that anyone can produce this somewhere else.
Question: What kinds of things do you see for the future?
John: So many of my longtime goals are now being fulfilled, and it's wonderful to watch the Lord work. I
was recently called to be president of The Master's College, in Newhall, California. I'm thrilled with the
opportunity, because it will enable me to begin to fulfill a goal I've had all through my ministry: to train
young people for the Lord's service.
I'm excited about the future of our video ministry, which has really grown in the past year. Video is such
a flexible and effective means of communication, and it's becoming more and more available and easy to
use.
Question: In such a vast ministry as "Grace to You," it takes a lot of money to operate. What is your
philosophy of raising money?
John: I don't often concern myself with that. Since my Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills and
everything there is in the universe, if He's got a project in mind, He can finance it. I was raised in a
pastor's family, and my dad taught me the Word. I went away to seminary, and I learned the Word. I
don't know anything about running a business. I don't know anything about a financial organization. So I
leave that to other people.
But I do believe that there are some biblical standards that need to be applied. Our task is to know that
God is in something and then to let people know that He is in it so that they can be a part of it. We don't
believe in gimmicks to induce people to give for whatever reasons. But we do believe that we ought to
say, "People, do you know what God is doing, and would you like to have a part?"
Question: Could you tell us a little bit about the growth of the tape ministry?
John: The tape ministry has been a very exciting thing to me. When I first came, a dear man came to me
after my first Sunday and said, "John, we need to have your messages on tape, so the people who miss
can get them." And of course I said, "Well, that's wonderful. Why don't you do that?" So he brought a
little recorder and started making reel-to-reel tapes--big seven-inch reels.

Then one Sunday a doctor came to me and said, "We could do this on cassettes. Let me buy you a little
cassette machine." So he did, and one dear brother took the little cassette machine home and all the reel-
to-reel machines, and eventually he had his whole house wired with these little machines, copying from
one tape to the next. As time went on it became impossible for him to produce tapes one at a time
because the demand grew here in our church. We decided to upgrade our equipment, and the tape
ministry began to grow.
Then by word of mouth, people in other states and even other countries were hearing about the tape
ministry. It has always depended on the volunteer people who would give of their time to it. We have
never actively promoted it until the past few years. Someone said it's not right that we don't let people
know that it is at least available.
Question: How many tapes do you distribute?
John: Last year we produced the five-millionth tape. That doesn't include tapes copied and distributed by
other tape tape ministries around the world. I guess it shows how hungry people are to learn the Word of
God.
Question: What is the charge for the tapes?
John: We don't charge any more for the tapes than they actually cost us to produce. Individual tapes are
$3.00 apiece, and we sell albums for a little more than $2.00 a tape. That's less than a blank cassette of
equal quality costs.
That price has made this ministry accessible to anybody. And if someone wants the tapes and can't pay,
we have a tape library where a person can have a library card and just check out tapes and then send
them back.
Question: One of the outgrowths of this ministry has been the "Grace to You" radio program. Would you
give us a little idea of how "Grace to You" got started?
John: It's like so many other things. Norm Sper came to me one time and said, "We ought to be on the
radio." And I said, "Well, that's great. Why don't you do that? Why don't you pray about that and pursue
that ministry if God has brought you to that?" So we purchased some time on a local radio station. And
they just played a tape, that was all. Then a young man whom I had gone to college with got hold of a
tape series we had run and decided to play them every night on his radio station in Baltimore, Maryland,
as a featured preaching hour. The response was so positive that he told us, "You know, you really need to
be on the radio."
But I couldn't give time to make radio programs. I spend so long each week studying for the Sunday
messages, and I feel so burdened about that because that's the basis of everything we do. We finally

decided that maybe we would take the tapes and edit them for radio, since I had already preached about
700 messages. It would give us maybe 1400 radio programs. And we've slowly expanded from that
beginning.
Question: What is your philosophy of appealing for money on the radio?
John: We just rarely do that. I'm a little resistant to the idea of appealing for funds. I see so much of that
today that just doesn't honor the Lord. We feel we have a responsibility to let people know what God is
doing, and give them the opportunity to participate, but beyond that, I believe it's wrong to hound people
to give, or to make money a focus of the ministry. So I'd rather err on the side of saying too little.
Question: How has the Lord provided?
John: Well, we have never faced a crisis so severe that it threatened our ministry. But we don't have any
surplus, either. I'm constantly amazed at how the Lord provides through His people. It might be easier to
operate if we had greater resources, but then perhaps we wouldn't be as consciously aware of the need to
trust God to supply our needs.
Question: Can you recall some of the most interesting letters you have received from the listening
audience?
John: I have so many letters with so many wonderful things that it's hard to narrow it down. I've received
letters from people who listen in prison, and God has changed their lives. I've received letters from whole
families who have been saved through listening to the program. I once received a letter from a girl who
had put a gun to her head to kill herself. When she heard the radio program, she set the gun down and
received Jesus Christ as her Saviour.
Recently I heard from a woman who was listening to "Grace to You" when her husband came home
unexpectedly for lunch. He was an unbeliever, and very antagonistic to the gospel. Her initial reaction
was to turn the radio off so that he would not become angry, but something kept her from doing that. He
began to listen, and was captivated by the word of God. He started listening to "Grace to You" daily, and
within two weeks, he came home and told her that he had accepted the Lord as His Savior.
It's incidents like that that keep my enthusiasm for this ministry so high. When I think of all that God is
doing around the world, and realize what a significant role radio plays in the spreading of the Word, I
can't help but marvel. Truly, the opportunities we have today are greater than any era in the history of
Christianity.
Tony Capoccia


Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In our Bible study at work we were studying the Book of Jonah and one of the
fellows in the study mentioned that somewhere he heard that one of the Bible
teachers had said that he believes that Jonah actually died in the whale, and then
when he was spit out God made him alive again. There was a reference to where
the Lord says, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great
fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the earth." Can
you elaborate on this?
Answer
I don't believe that there is anything in the prophecy of Jonah to indicate that he
died. In fact, the time that he spent in the belly of the whale is even chronicled
for us in the book, and he spent the time in prayer--really basically crying out to
God, which would be more than difficult if you were dead. I think that the
indication there is that he was alive and that God preserved him through that
situation. I don't think there was anything there to indicate that he was dead.
Now to surmise that he was dead, based upon the New Testament text is to push
the point of an analogy.
Now an analogy is simply using something as a word picture; and I think the
Lord is not necessarily referring to Jonah, in the sense that Jonah is a prophecy of
the death and resurrection of Christ. I think our Lord simply borrows the
illustration of Jonah more in an analogous, or as an analogy or an illustration
sense, than in any directly prophetic sense. I think Jonah went into the belly of a
fish; he was there for three days, and the fish vomited him (and I am not surprised
because I can understand why the fish would want to vomit such a disobedient
prophet; he would make anybody sick--even a fish). So he vomited him out. I

Question
think all our Lord is saying is that in a sense that is analogous.
Now if you want to go a step further you might even want to say that, that is a
"type" of Christ which would be a nonverbal prediction--I wouldn't necessarily
argue with that. Maybe the story of Jonah is in a sense a "type" of Christ, but I
don't even think our Lord says that. He doesn't say it is the fulfillment of a
prophecy. He just says, "As Jonah. . . .so shall the Son of Man." So I think it is
an analogy. Now to take an analogy and then to try to push backwards into that
analogy--everything that is true about what you are using it to illustrate--there's
no basis for that, there's no reason to do that. He is simply saying, "As Jonah was
three days and three nights in the fish, I am going to be three days and three
nights in the earth." Well, there is obviously a difference. There is a difference
between a fish and the earth, so why can't there be a difference in the condition in
the fish and the condition in the earth? It's simply used, I think, as an analogy--a
time analogy, and what appeared on the surface to be obviously a resurrection.
Now, there is another element to it, too, and this you have to realize--if we want
to push the argument a little bit--the truth of the matter is that Jesus, even when
He was in the earth wasn't dead. If you want to argue about the fact that Jonah
had to be dead because Jesus was dead, you are talking about the body and not
the spirit. Right? Was Christ--did He go out of existence? Did He pass out of
existence in there in the grave? No, it is pretty clear He was made alive in the
spirit (Peter says), by which He went and preached to the spirits in prison. So I
think that it is just pushing the analogy. I think it's an analogy and no more.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

Question: Forgiveness of Sin -- John MacArthur

Question
"Although a Christian's sins have been forgiven," that's true, 1John 2, "My little
children, He has forgiven you all your trespasses." "Will Christians still have to
give an account for their bad deeds at Judgment?"
Answer
You know I remember when I was a little kid, hearing some guy say, "You know,
you may be a Christian, but someday all your sins will be flashed on a big
screen." Did you ever hear anybody say that? Boy, that scared the life out of
me. I thought to myself, "Well, what's the sense of forgiveness if all that stuff
going to happen then?" And I have heard people say that, but that is not what the
Bible teaches.
Your sins are forgiven and even God Himself says, "Your sins and iniquities I
will remember no more." They are removed as far as what? As far as the East is
from the West. How far is that? That's far! The East is from the West; they are
buried in the depths of the sea; they are forgotten by God, because of the Blood of
Jesus Christ.
You say, "Well, wait a minute, doesn't it say that we have to give an account?"
Yes, but listen to 2Corinthians, this is very important, Chapter 5, it says, verse 10,
"We must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ." Now the word here is
not "krino" verb or "krima" which means condemnation, or even "katakrima"

which is even a stronger word. It is not damnation, condemnation, judgment, or

punishment. But, the word is "bema." And it is the "bema" that was speaking of
a reward.
I was in Corinth, the ruins of Corinth, and they took me to the "Bema" that was
there. And whenever they had the Corinthian games, which was the major
athletic event, they would take the winners up on the "Bema." And what it was,
was a place of rewards, not a place of punishment, only the winners went there.
So he is saying here, "We will all appear before the "Bema" of Christ, so that
each one may be rewarded, for his deeds in the body. The only evaluation for us
future, will be the level of reward that we should receive.
And then he says this, "According to what he has done, whether it is good or
bad," and would you please note that word bad. That is the word in the Greek
"phaulos," it really means useless, worthless. It is not "kakia," evil, wicked. It’s
useless. And what is left then to evaluate there, our sins are forgiven, our sins are
covered? The only thing to evaluate is what, out of our life, was spiritually
valuable and thus worthy of reward, and what was just worthless, useless,
inconsequential, like mowing the lawn, or whatever. Not evil, you just don't
reward it spiritually.
So I believe that our reward in the future is going to be a reward related to what
we have done and that the dross will be burned away. The useless things burned
away, and what is left, will be the gold, silver, and precious stones. The other
things are not bad, remember 1Corinthians 3, "Wood, hay, and stubble?" Wood
isn't bad, you build things out of it. Hay isn't bad, horses eat it. Even stubble is
used to make bricks. But it just doesn't have any spiritual value, and when fire
gets to it, it burns it up.
So there will be a reward for us, but it will be the gold, silver, and precious stone,
that is left after the rest is set aside, by which we will be rewarded. And the
Apostle Paul looked forward to that, with all of his heart. He said, you remember
that as he looked to the future, "There would come a time when God would reveal

the hidden things of the heart," 1Corinthians 4:5. And then he said, "Then shall
every man have," what? "Praise from God!"
The only thing that will be at the coming "Bema" will be praise and reward, sin
will be already done away with. It is already been exposed, and it has already
been covered at the cross of Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"What is God's purpose for judgment and wrath?"
Answer
I think that I can just answer that just very simply.
1. It is to punish those who reject Him, and that is simply what the Bible says. God's wrath is set to
punish. Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness." God will punish them for that. There is a
price to pay for the rejection of the truth. So, the first purpose of God's judgment and wrath is
punishment.
2. I would add a second purpose. I really believe that secondly (and this is in a large theological
framework) I believe that God's purpose for punishment is the ultimate elimination of evil from His
kingdom, once and for all, and forever. In other words, I think God, throughout the history of man, in
allowing sin, allowed it in order that He might destroy it. Do you understand what I am saying?
If there is an up--there is a down, and if there is an in--there is an out, if there is a left--there is a right. In
other words, we live in a world of opposites. And if there is a good--there was always potentially an evil,
and eventually that evil was made manifest. It was as if God had allowed it to happen so that He could
once and for all destroy it. He allowed it to run its full course, with its full power, and its full impact, and
shows in the end that He can utterly destroy and eliminate it from His eternal kingdom. All of this is
happening in a brief span, in the mists of eternity. Once evil has finally run it course and God has finally
set it aside, it will never again exist throughout all of forever. And so I believe that there is a sense in
which there is an individual perspective that God is angry because He is punishing individuals for
rejection, and on a broader scale God is exhibiting His wrath for the purpose of ultimately destroying evil
and setting it in the place it belongs--outside His kingdom forever and ever.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"Who is judged at the Great White Throne?"
Answer
Turn in your Bible to the 20th chapter of Revelation, and I really haven't put these in any other order than
just to throw them in the Romans pile. I got a little pile here from Matthew, and some about prophecy (I
always get a few of those), and some over here on dating. All of those of you who would like a date, see
our college pastor, Allan Adidian (sp.), he may have another list of people who are waiting for someone
like you, and we can match you all up, or our singles group might too.
But this question comes out Revelation 20, and it has to do, of course, what we studied about Romans--
the judgment of the evil. In verse 11 of Revelation 20, "I saw a great white throne and Him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them." Of course, this
is God sitting on His throne in ultimate judgment. Christ is there as well because all judgment is
committed unto Him. He sits in the Father's throne and so forth, from earlier in Revelation, and we know
that as well from the Gospel of John.
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God." "Small and great" doesn't mean short and tall, it
means insignificant and significant.
"And the books were opened." And people often ask the question, "Well, doesn't God know who's save
and who's not saved? What does He have to have books for?"
Because, God is just, and God will not judge a person without manifesting the objective criteria for that
judgment. So there is no question in the mind of anyone. God has kept the records. He knows every
thought, and every word, and every deed ever done by every human being who ever lived, and it is all
down so that judgment is on the basis of their works. He'll have the record and He will also have the
Book of Life.
"And the dead were judged out of those things written in the books, according to their works." You see,
works are the objective criteria which God uses.
"And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; death and Hades delivered up the dead that were in them:
and they were judged every man according to their works." And there you are again, you shouldn't have a

Question
problem with that, judgment is on the basis of works--ultimately.
"And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not
found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Now, I believe that this is a judgment of
unbelievers. I do not believe that we see here believing people. People then say, "Then, why is the Book
of Life here?" Simply because that is another criteria by which God judges. One, He will open all the
books, which give all the records of all the deeds of all the ungodly. And then He will open up the Book
of Life, and not only will all their deeds manifest their ungodliness, but their absence in the Book of Life
will be the subjective criteria added to the objective of the list of the works of their life, that will
condemn them forever.
Now the reason that I don't see believers here is because believers have already been judged, by this time.
The judgment of works, that we know as the "Bema Judgment" (2 Corinthians 5, Romans 14:10-11).
That judgment has already occurred before the Millennial period began--1,000 years prior to this. But
this is the resurrection of the ungodly of all time. Now you say, "Does that mean that it is a literal
resurrection?" Yes, John 5, Jesus said that there will be a resurrection, not only for those who will be
raised to life, but those who will be raised to death as well. All people who have ever lived will be
resurrected. They will receive a new body. Ours will be fit for heaven and God's eternal kingdom; theirs
will be fit for hell.
People have said, "Is hell literal fire?" That's a very difficult question to answer. Jesus used that
expression many, many times. I don't know how literal the fire is. I tend to think there will be some kind
of very literal torment because there will be a real resurrection, and whatever kind of body they have it
will be a body that can exist forever, and it can exist in a tormented state forever and never perish. I
believe that this is the judgment of those unrighteous dead who will all be gathered at one moment in
time, in the Great White Throne, and the record will be laid out and they will not have the works to make
it, and they will not be in the Book of Life. If you are not in the Book of Life the only way you could get
in is to have a perfect works record. Right? And nobody can do that, "For by the deeds of the law shall
no flesh be justified."
So, I believe that this is the unrighteous dead, who are then cast into the Lake of Fire. Believers have
already had their judgment.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"I am a Japanese national and my country is atheistic and materialistic. Most of our population
has very little understanding of Jesus. After World War II Japan was in great need, there were
many children without parents. Fortunately some very caring people arose to start homes for these
children. One woman I knew of was very selfless, giving, and loving--she spent her whole life
caring for these children. Many people didn't respect her for doing this, but because of the love in
her heart she continued helping. I don't believe she was a Christian. Here's my question:"
"There are many Christians who don't ever spend their life as she did. If one looked at their deeds,
this woman would look like the Christian! They simply had the opportunity to hear the message of
Christ and she didn't. How will God judge her? And how will God judge these 'Christians'? This
deeply concerns me."
Answer
Well, I don't blame him, that concerns me--doesn't it you? It is true that some of the philanthropy and the
selflessness, and the generosity, and the sacrifice, of the unregenerate outstrips Christians. There is no
question about that. Some of the most caring people in the world aren't Christians. Some people who
have totally given themselves to assist the hurting and the needful people of this world are not Christians.
On the other hand, some Christians do not manifest that kind of care at all.
But listen, the basis of salvation is not how you treat children, it is whether you believe in Jesus Christ or
not, and that is the substance of the gospel. You will be saved not on the basis of your philanthropy or on
the basis of your good deeds, and you will not commend yourself to God with those either, because
whatsoever is not of faith towards God is sin no matter what it is. But the basis of salvation is faith in
Jesus Christ, that's why Acts 4:12 is the key verse, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The plan of salvation
says, "It is not your good deeds, it is not your good works that save you." Now, keep that in your mind,
because I think some of you misunderstood what I have been saying.
Your works do not save you and that is basic, "For by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified." "Not of works, lest any man should. . . ." what? "boast!" Then, if salvation is by works we
have reason to boast and God cannot get the glory, its us--we did it! But salvation is by faith in Jesus
Christ. That is why the most wretched individual, the most gross life can come to Jesus Christ, put his
faith in Jesus Christ, spend forever in eternity. Whereas, the most philanthropic, charitable person in the
world, who turned their back on Jesus Christ will spend forever in Hell.

Question
It is wrong to assume in the case of this woman, that she did not have the opportunity to hear the message
of Christ, because if there is anything that we have learned in Romans 1 and 2, it is that she did. Right?
She did! She held the truth in unrighteousness. It was there as evidenced by her conduct. Her very
conduct towards these little children spoke of a law within her, didn't it? It was there. She was doing by
nature the things that God would have wanted her to do. Her conscience, her thoughts, all reveal the
inward law of God written in her heart. She just did not accept that as from God and live up to the light
that she had.
Now let me take you a step further. There are Christians who do not manifest the same level of human
goodness, at least outwardly and visibly, that some of these philanthropic, caring people have manifest.
But listen carefully, while it is true that there are people in the world who do deeds of human goodness, it
is not true that you can be a Christian and never do those deeds! If you are a Christian there will be some
manifestation in your good deeds. Now listen to me, there will be some manifestation in your good
deeds. On the outside they may not look as magnanimous as the charities of an individual like this, but
they do truly manifest the work of God in your life. That has to be the case, for "faith without works is. . .
." what? "dead." Maybe, if God were to be the judge, even though the world might not think your works
were as significant, the most significant work of all is to glorify God and to praise Him, and that is
something that woman could not do at all. I hope you understand.
Yes, there are human beings who show good (relatively speaking human good) and that's commendable,
but it can't save them. Yes, there are Christians (all of us) who don't do everything that we ought to do,
but there is going to be something there to give evidence that we are truly regenerate--that is without
question the case.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"I know that the works or service of Christians will be tested, but will there be any judgment on
Christians for their sins?"
Answer
Now listen (here it comes) I will simplify this as much as I can. There are two elements of judgment in
the life of a believer--one is past and one is present and future. Your sin will be judged. "The wages of
sin is. . . ." What? "Death." That not only means the sins of the ungodly; it means yours too. Your sins
require death. Now, let me ask you a question, "Who then died for those sins?" Christ! So in your case,
the judgment on your sin has been paid. Right? "In full!"
People say, "Well, I thought that was only the sins that I committed up until I was saved. No, no, no, no!
You were future tense when He died. Everything was in the future, all of them were covered (Ephesians
1:7). Your sins were forgiven, so the judgment for your sins is covered. That's why Romans 8:1 says,
"There is therefore now no. . . ." what? "condemnation to them who are in Christ." Why? "Because the
wages of sin is death," and that's it. For example, if you committed a crime . . . let's say you committed a
heinous crime; you massacred a family or something; killed a bunch of children and their parents. And
they took you to court and they found you guilty, first degree murder on eight counts, or whatever. And
they took you to the executioner's chair, and they said, "We are going to electrocute you (capital
punishment). And then they hit the switch and you went [you died].
Then they came in the place and you just lifted your head up and stretched a little and said, "I'm back."
They would have to let you go, because the law only requires that you die once. If you are a Christian,
dear friend, you died, because the moment you put your faith in Jesus Christ Galatians 2:20 was fulfilled,
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless. . . ." what? "I live." Too bad. Too bad for sin, too bad for the
law, too bad for the enemy. You're alive and the Law has no hold on those who have, in Christ, paid the
penalty. So you have been judged (that's past tense), but there is a sense in which you will also be
continually being chastened, and that's not final judgment, that's corrective discipline. I mean it would be
one thing to kill your child, but it would be something else to spank them. The Lord disciplines us to
conform us to the image of Christ. And so those are the two elements.
When I was a little kid I heard a sermon on this that someday all my sins were going to be flashed on a
screen before all the world to see. Boy, that's scary. That is scary. It was 1 Corinthians 4 misinterpreted,
"God's going to rap my knuckles with His big ruler." That isn't in the Bible. My sins are already paid for
by Jesus Christ, and it is the Law's tough luck, it has no hold on me, that's Romans 6 and we will get into

Question
that in real detail in about two or three years! No, no, I am going to speed up. So that's been taken care
of. The Lord will shape us and chasten us and so forth.
So, now what happens when we go to the Bema Seat? Let's look at 2 Corinthians 5 for a moment. Now
here we are talking about believers, verse 10, well verse 9 is key, "We work or we labor, we serve the
Lord, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of Him." And by this we don't mean saved, we are
already saved. We already walk by faith, not by sight. We are already confident that we are going to be
present with the Lord. We already know that we are saved, that's the whole process before we even get to
verse 9. We know that we possess the Holy Spirit (verse 5), we know that we are talking about believers.
So we come down here, and here we are working so that even as Christians we may be accepted. In other
words, that which we produce in our Christian life may be something that gives Him pleasure. We want
to honor God. Right? "Well done good and faithful servant." Why? "For we must all appear before the
Bema." It was a platform for rewards. I have stood on the one that they say is the ancient Bema in the
city of Corinth. They have a little sign there. That's where they gave people reward. It was not a legal
place, it was not a trial place. It was a place of rewards. And there we will all appear, at the place of
reward. That is not the "Great White Throne." The "Great White Throne" is a long time after that, but I
believe that this occurs immediately following the Rapture; "Absent from the body, present with the
Lord" and appear before His judgment--His Bema. Not "krino" (Greek) judgment or "katakrino" (Greek)
which is the final or furious judgment, but here a platform of rewards.
"And we will receive for the things we have done." See what I mean. Here we are back to this concept of
works. We will be rewarded for what we have done as Christians. Now this isn't how we get saved, we
already saved or we wouldn't even be here. Right? We have already been raptured. We are in the Lord's
presence, and He will reward us (watch this) "according to what we have done, whether it be good or
bad." That's the "Authorized." That's a poor translation. It should be translated, "Whether it be valuable
or worthless."
We will not be judged (now listen carefully), we will not be judged for evil, that's been done. We will be
rewarded for that which was good, the evil is taken care of, only the good remains and the useless. You
know, like mowing the lawn and throwing a Frisbee and all that stuff--just the stuff. Watching a ball
game, whatever--stuff. It's not bad, but it certainly doesn't advance the Kingdom--it's just stuff. And we
will be rewarded for the good that's remaining after the stuff has been burned up, and the burning of the
stuff occurs in 1 Corinthians 3. Go back to 1 Corinthians 3.
Now we have laid the foundation of Christ in verse 11, we have committed our life to Christ. And in
verse 12, "If any man builds on the foundation," so this is talking about whom then? Christians. You
have to have the foundation of Christ. Right? So then as you begin to live your life, you are building on
that foundation, and some of us are building gold, and silver, and precious stones. Some of us are
building wood, and hay, and stubble. Note there is all degrees. Gold, I mean that's the best, and silver,
and precious stones. Then it starts to decrease: wood, wood is ok. I mean you could build a house with it
or keep warm. Hay is good if you are a horse. Stubble is worthless.
So God is going to evaluate what we have done. There is no evil here, it is just from stubble to gold.

Question
"Every man's work will be manifest: the day will declare it," then the fire will be lit, and the fire is going
to burn up (believe me) the stubble, the hay, and the wood, and leave the rest. "And then he shall (verse
14) receive a. . . ." what? "a reward." And if his stuff is burned up, he will suffer loss, but himself he will
be what? saved! See that is not even the issue here. This is simply for reward.
If you go over to chapter 4, it follows the same theme. He says, verse 5, 1 Corinthians 4, "Don't judge
anything before the time, when the Lord comes, He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness. He
will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." You know, when it comes to that judgment time, God's
going to get down inside and find out who really did it. But look at this next line, "and then shall every
man have. . . ?" what? "praise from God." There will be nothing at the Bema but praise, praise, praise. It
is just that some will have more than others, but none would be judged in a condemning way. Do you
understand that? Because the judgment was paid for by Christ already. The chastening that we go
through in this life is only for this life, Hebrews 12 makes that abundantly clear. Chastening is only for
this little while. We won't need chastening up there because "When we see Him we will be. . . ?" what?
"like Him!"
I believe that when a Christian is raptured he will go to the judgment seat, and at that point he will
receive rewards. The stuff in his life will be burned up. The evil won't even be there, it's been taken care
of. The neutral stuff will be burned up. The good works will remain after the fire is lit, and for those we
will receive a reward. Now people always say, "Well, what is the reward?" Well, the Bible talks about a
crown of life, a crown of righteousness, a martyr's crown, and so forth, all these crowns. Is that what it
is? I remember speaking on crowns in a college deal one time, and a guy came to me afterwards and said,
"I never heard such crassness in my life. What are you--the Imperial Margarine Man? You just want
another crown?" "Crowns, crowns, crowns," he said. "Well, I serve God out of love!" I said, "I serve God
out of love too; He just told me that He is going to give me a crown for it--that's His business."
You don't need to worry about that, if God wants to give us [a reward]. People say, "Well, why would
God give rewards--that's favoritism?" That's God's choice. You know, C. S. Lewis wrote a good little
thing called, "The Weight of Glory" which he talks about them. He says, "There are some things that
demand a reward. They just demand it by their very nature."
For example, lets say that you love a girl--which happens. And someday you go to this girl and you say,
"Girl, (whatever), I love you!" And you say, "I, I, I want to make you my own, I want to possess you, I
want to care for you, I want to marry you." You don't expect her to look at you and say, "Crass!
Possessive! Self-indulgent! It is not enough to love me--you have got to have me!" Now wait a minute, I
mean there is such a thing as a natural reward for love. Isn't it? And it's marriage.
Or, if a guy runs a great race in the Olympics, and he wins, the announcer doesn't go up to him a say,
"You again! You never let anyone else win. Why can't you be like this guy, he loses all the time. He's got
a heart for others." Now, wait a minute, if a guy throws a race he's a bum! I mean when a general comes
home from winning a great battle the president doesn't say to him, "You are just never content unless you
win, are you?"
So there is a sense in which there is a sequence. There are some things that by their nature demand a

Question
response, and God has said that serving Him is one of those things. So the day will come when we will
be rewarded. The only thing that you will ever see at the Bema Seat is a reward, "For every man will
have praise from God." Isn't that a great promise? The whole issue beloved of your sins is in the past--if
you know Christ. If you don't, the whole issue of your sins is still piling up (Romans 2) awaiting the day
of wrath, and you will be at the Great White Throne Judgment.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Bema Seat Judgment
Question
My question comes from I Corinthians 3, where Paul’s talking about the Bema Judgment of
Christ. And in v. 15, he tells about a Christian “whose work is burned up and he suffers loss, but
he is saved, yet so as through fire.” Will you tell me a little bit about this Christian and how he fits
into the lordship-salvation scheme?
Answer
We understand that when a person is saved, there is a total transformation. How do you know that?
Because salvation is described in these terms, Galatians 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ.” Right? When
we baptize these people, they go under the water, what does that symbolize? What? Death. When you’re
crucified, what do you do? That kills you; you die. So, whatever you were when you were saved, what?
Died. Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ.” “Nevertheless,” what happened? “I live.” What do we
call that? Resurrection. We were buried with Him in baptism, and we’re risen with Him to walk in
newness of life. So, salvation is death of the old, resurrection of the new. And as Arney said earlier, “If
any man is in Christ, he is a new creation.”
Now, what then characterizes that new creation? First of all, that new creation is characterized by a new
affection. You love God; you love Christ. If any man doesn’t love Christ, he’s anathema [condemned to
hell]. So, a characteristic of salvation is, you love Christ. You don’t love Him as much as you should, but
you love Him, right? Secondly, you hate sin. You don’t hate it as much as you ought to hate it, but you
hate it. Thirdly, you desire to obey. So, the characteristic of a new life, then, is a love of Christ and God,
a hatred of sin, and a desire to obey. Now, does that mean we always love like we should, we always hate
sin like we should, and we always do what we should? No.
The truth of the matter is that our lives are going to be filled with a lot of things which will bring us no
reward. Some things will bring us chastening. Some things are just neutral; they’re not moral--they’re
just stuff that gets burned up. It isn’t that we’re going to be judged or punished; it’s just that when it
comes to reward time, that’s sorted out. So, I believe that you’re a new creation: your faith will work,
your love will labor, your hope will endure, you will be different--you will have different desires,
different longings, different goals, different aspirations. But, you’ll still have in your life two things: sin
and waste--just useless things. And when you come to the judgment seat of Christ, does the sin have to
be dealt with there? Does it? No, why? Where was the sin dealt with? On the cross. So, we’re not talking
about sin; that’s already dealt with. No condemnation, no issue.

John MacArthur - Bema Seat Judgment
But, when you get there, you’ve got what’s left of your life; the sin--that’s dealt with. What is left then is
the righteous deeds--gold, silver, precious stones--and then the “stuff.” And when it comes time to
reward you, the Lord will just consume the stuff, and what remains is the gold, silver, precious stones.
That’s why, in a sense, it’s not only important that you avoid sin, it’s also important that you avoid waste
in your life.
Remember Hebrews 12? In Hebrews 12, the writer says, “Lay aside”--for “we are encompassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses”--you know that? “Therefore, run the race…lay aside the sin and the
weight which so easily besets us”--that’s in chapter 12.
He says, “Lay aside every encumbrance and the sin.” Well, encumbrance must be something other than
sin, and what he is saying is, don’t clutter your life with needless stuff. So, you know, there are people
who fill up--I call it people who fill up their life with trivia. It isn’t evil; it’s just insignificant. That’s the
encumbrance. It’s like the illustration I used when I taught Hebrews was: now, you can run the 100-yard-
dash with an overcoat if you want, but you’re not going to be very fast. And, when it comes to reward
time, you’re going to be at the rear end. Why not junk the overcoat and run?
So I think what he is saying there is that at the judgment seat of Christ, even though we are redeemed and
even though we are the children of God and even though our hearts have been changed and transformed
and our desires are really right and we long to honor Christ, because we are still incarcerated in the
unredeemed flesh, we can fill our lives with stuff that really has no eternal consequences. And that’s
going to be just literally burned away. The fire here--know this--is not a fire of judgment. It’s just
burning away the dross to purify the real stuff that is to be rewarded.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a husband who is very scared to get up here and talk to you. He's has a
question, and that is "How do you personally know Jesus Christ?" I mean it is
such a struggle, I find the same question in my heart. You know, I sit and I pray
and I have answered prayers, but yet do we really know Him? It's like, "I want to
know you so bad." You know? Do you understand me?
Answer
Yes, I understand you--yes. That's a wonderful question; it's a thrilling question,

and if it makes you feel comfortable listen to this: this is Paul the Apostle, have
you ever heard of him? Not a bad Christian. He's got to rank up there with the
best. This is his prayer; ok? His prayer is this, "That I may know Him." That I
may know Him? What in the world are you asking that for Paul? You have
known Him for years, you have given your life to His service.
I believe and I know that you know the gospel, and I know that you know what it
is that Jesus died and rose again, and I know you believe that, and I know you
have committed your life to Christ. All you are manifesting, I believe, is the
insatiable thirst of a true believer for the fullness of the knowledge of Christ.
That never goes away.
But that personal relationship--I don't know. It's like climbing a rope and slipping
down, and keep climbing because you want to get up there.
Answer (continued)

Question
Can any of you identify with that? I can identify with that. See, that's
wonderful. I have been a Christian a long time and I've learned some things in
the Bible, and I could give you little answers about, well, "try this verse," and "do
this and do that." But the truth of the matter is you will all your life long; and the
more you know about the Word of God and the more you walk with the Lord, the
more down deep in your heart you will hunger to know Him. That's a pursuit of
life, "That I may know Him," Paul says, and what about Him do you want to
know? "I want to know the power of His resurrection." Do you ever feel
impotent? Do you ever feel like there are so many things you wish you could do,
but you want to know the power to do them?
Then he says, "That I may know the communion of his sufferings" I mean, I
want to be so close to Him that I hurt when He hurts; that I bear His reproach;
that I feel His pain. It's that longing for intimacy. That's that "phelo" love--the
love of intimacy, that cries out and says I want to know more than that You're my
Savior. I want to walk with You, and I want to sense Your power, and I want to
see you moving in my life. And if I may suggest to you, the way you see that is
not by a feeling. There are times when you feel the presence of the Lord (I don't
doubt that), but I don't see the power of God and the fellowship with Christ, and
the knowledge of Christ so much in what I feel, as I see it in what God does
through me; what Christ does through me.
When someone like you comes and says, "We've learned from you the Word of
God," or as the other young man said a minute ago, "I have been coming and
learning the Word of God, and I am growing." See, then I say, there is the power
the Christ. I can see it when it comes through me and touches you--I can't see it
in me alone. Do you know what I am saying? So, as you grow as a Christian, I
have to tell you that appetite won't go away, hopefully, because that is the
appetite (I believe) of a spiritual person--not of a fleshy one, and certainly not of
an unregenerate one.
So I think it's going to always be there, but you will begin to see, as the Spirit of
God uses your spiritual gifts and uses your ministry, that the power is there and

Question
that God is using you, and that there are times when you do understand His
sufferings; there are times when you are unjustly persecuted, and you will
fellowship and commune with Him in his sufferings. There are times when you
will get literally angry because Jesus Christ is dishonored--like at Halloween and
Christmas and Easter Bunnies, and that gets you upset. Why? Because you are
protective of His holiness, and you are protective of the integrity of Scripture, and
that all is part of the fellowship of communing with Christ.
So, it is a life long pursuit. When I was young, I used to (as a high school kid)
read the mystics. I used to read "Imitation of Life" by Thomas A'Kempis, and E.
M. Bounds, "Power through Prayer." Now these were guys who were real
mystical. You know, crying out to know the Lord, and praying, and wearing
holes in the floor, with all these sort of deep, deep feelings towards knowing
Christ. And I did that because I thought something was missing in me because I
seemed so shallow, and my Christian life seemed so pragmatic and it lacked
mysticism (whatever that is), but I learned that I can best see His power and
experience His fellowship as I move in ministry and see it as it touches other
lives, and as it happens in that context.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
It seems that every time I enter a discussion about the qualifications of a pastor, the conversation
eventually ends up in: what are the biblical guidelines for a church? Should it be elder-run or
should it be pastor-run? And, I don’t know how to answer that question. Does the Bible offer any
guidelines as to who has the final say?
Answer
Well, the church is pastor-run or elder-run, yes, very clearly. But, pastors and elders are the same; they
are the godly men--the plurality of godly leaders--that feed and lead the flock. I mean, obviously, when
you say “run the church”--we have to make the decisions to lead the church. That’s pastors and elders
that make that decision. I know that plays out differently in different kinds of church organizations.
There are those organizations who have a board of people made up of elders, and those elders literally
tell the pastors what to do. And then there are churches that have pastors and those pastors run the rest of
the people in the church. It can be Presbyterian form, which tends to be a plurality of elders that lead the
church; it can be Baptist, which tends to be a group of pastors that lead the church; in some cases, the
pastors are under the deacons who lead the church.
The simple way to understand church government is this: pastors and elders are all the same, godly men
who preach and teach, feed and lead--they lead the church. It’s that clear. Whatever you want to call
them, whatever way you want to organize them. In many cases, for example, in a Baptist church, they
don’t have elders; what they have is a staff of pastors. And, maybe, in a large church, they might have 15
pastors; in a small church, they might have 3 or 4. And that is the eldership of that church. They have the
oversight. Now, they may defer to a group of deacons, as in Acts, chapter 6, to take care of the business
of the church, but theirs is the spiritual oversight.
It should never be that that’s overturned. And where I think that Baptist churches and those that have that
kind of deacon-pastor relationship get into trouble is where the pastors, who really are the elders, who
preach and teach the Word, become servants to the deacons, who really are a lower-qualified group and
shouldn’t be leading the pastors.
I guess that how the question comes up is when the issue turns to, say, a pastor who doesn’t meet
those qualifications and shouldn’t be, you know, the pastor/teacher of a congregation, but yet he’s

the one who has control and is the one who says, “Yes, I’m staying.”
Answer (continued)
Yes, but again, at that particular point, the consensus of the church should come into play. No church,
necessarily, is obligated to sit under and accept the leadership of one who is in violation of God’s
standards. The congregation needs to rise up in that situation, if not the other leadership--the other elders,
the other pastors. If it’s a single pastor, then I think the congregation needs to deal with that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question Realizing that every church has its problems and realizing the importance of unity in a church
GRACE.
Question
Realizing that every church has its problems and realizing the importance of unity in a church,
could you give some guidelines on when you should really work to preserve the unity in a church
as a member, and when the problems get too great you ought to leave it. Secondly, how you can
leave a church if it gets to that situation and it has got to be done?
Answer
So many people ask me that question and I really know what's on your heart, and that is a very difficult
question to answer because it really depends upon how the Spirit of God leads you. You can struggle for
the unity of the church for a long time, and sometimes you will see the fruit of that, and sometimes for
some people they never do. Some people seem to stay too long, some people might leave too soon, but
again that is so dependent on the Spirit of God's leading. I would say several things to keep in mind.
1. If the leadership of the church, the pastor, and the spiritual leaders of the church, are part of the
solution--stay. If they are part of the problem then you have to really prayerfully consider whether you
need to stay, because a people cannot rise higher than their leadership. And if the leadership is the
problem, it is very difficult to overcome that. That is why when people say to me, "I am unhappy in my
church," the first thing that I tell them to do is to go to the pastor and share your heart with them. Try to
get them to see the concerns you have, because if he doesn't understand the issues and seek to resolve
those issues, you are going to have an uphill battle all the way, because he is going to be totally
defensive and you are going to be fighting really a very, very difficult war. If the spiritual
leadership of the church, if the godly people, those in leadership are seeking to be part of the solution,
and you really feel that they are on target, then maybe you can stay and be a part of the solution. But if
they are not, if the fight is against them, then you have to evaluate whether or not maybe in time they
will leave and there will be new leadership and you want to stay and ride that out, or if you feel that
maybe that's not what's going to happen and the Spirit begins to move your heart--you need to move.
2. If the issues are doctrinal. If the issues are a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, or a

misrepresentation of the Word of God, then you have to be very serious about whether you stay, because
we as Christians are responsible to be under the sound teaching of the Word of God. And if you are in a
place where you are not getting the sound meat of the Word of God, and it is available to you
somewhere else, then you need to be where that available Word is being provided for you.
Are you speaking about a mistaking or an omission of certain teachings?

Question Realizing that every church has its problems and realizing the importance of unity in a church
Answer (continued)
Either. Either teaching error or omitting truth, because we are responsible for the truth, and our life is
lived in light of the truth. I function in response to what I know to be true. But again it is a matter of
your own prayer and your own discernment and allowing the Spirit of God to direct you in His own
time, and if your heart is opened He will really do that. He will give you a release, you will have a sense
of release and you can just walk out. I would say that many, many of the people sitting in this church
tonight have been through that very experience.
How many of you went through that experience and came to Grace Church? Put your hands up. Do you
feel like you are among friends? Thanks. God Bless
you.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Lordship Salvation
Question
I know that you take a Biblical view of salvation by faith alone.
John Macarthur: Yes, by grace through faith--not by faith alone. By grace through faith.
Ok, but I’m a little confused as far as the implications of that Lordship to the non-Christian at the
point of salvation. How much of it can they really comprehend in terms of the Lordship issue? And
then along with that, are you saying through your series on the Lordship that the call to salvation
is synonymous with the call to discipleship?
Answer
I am saying that explicitly, that a call to salvation is indeed a call to discipleship. I am saying that it is
obvious that a person coming to faith in Jesus Christ will not fully understand the implications of his
Lordship. They will not fully understand the reality of their sin, but there must be a call to that. In other
words, when you call a sinner to repentance and you call a sinner to submit to Christ, they don’t fully
understand the implications of that. But, they will understand as much as they can understand.
Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand. I do not believe that an
incomplete presentation of the gospel--in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for
your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name; if that’s all you
presented, and you didn’t talk about Lordship, and you didn’t talk about being a disciple, and you didn’t
talk about repentance, and you didn’t talk about turning from sin-even an incomplete presentation of the
gospel-now listen-could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that?
Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about
submission, they’d be coming to that submission.
What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting
saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction?
That’s the issue. And so what we have-just imagine this now!-what we have then are a lot of people who
think they’re Christians. And we have a lot of churches that are run by congregational rule, which means
that a lot of churches are being run by what? Non-Christians! That’s a frightening reality. I’m quite sure
there are Christian organizations being operated by non-Christians.

So, I don’t want to say that… You know, somebody said to me, “Well, I didn’t know all about Lordship
when I was saved. Am I not saved?” No. The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it
your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So,
that’s the point you have to understand.
Now, Jesus called men to follow Him in discipleship. He called them to obey Him. We’ve shown all of
that and we’ll even go into more detail when the book comes out.
I believe that when you present the gospel-now listen carefully to this-you can make it as difficult as
possible! That’s what Jesus did. He made it as difficult as possible. Why? Because salvation is a work of
God, not based on the cleverness of the one giving the gospel, but based on the power of God. So, if a
person is being saved by God, then you want them to fully understand their salvation. And if God isn’t
doing it, you want to make sure that they’re not coming in on some illusion.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Several of us are taking a campus class--it’s in the college department and it’s dealing with part of
your manuscript on Lordship Salvation. Part of it was talking about how, I guess, the non-
Lordship position was derived from Dispensationalism, and I was having a real tough time
following that. Could you explain the connection between those two?
Answer
Well, let me tell you: the non-Lordship position is, to some extent, defended on a dispensational basis.
For example, and I just read an article on this, by the way, today, there are those who say, “Yes, we agree
that Jesus called people to repent. We believe He called them to obedience. We believe He called them to
submission. We believe He called them to discipleship. But that was before the cross, so that was a
different dispensation, and what Jesus did in evangelism and what Paul did are two completely different
things.”
So sometimes the dispensational grid is used to argue against the Lordship view. They would say that
Paul always says, “Believe, believe, believe, believe. Grace, grace, grace, grace.” Jesus always says,
“Repent, submit, etc.” So you’ve got Jesus: Old Testament salvation thing, Jews, kingdom; you’ve got
Paul: grace, church, new covenant.
Ok, is that kind of where the idea comes from that up through, say, Acts, chapter 2, that the world
was under the law and that after that it was the grace period and then when the millennial
kingdom comes, it’ll be the law again? Is that sort of connected?
Answer (continued)
Yes, and Dispensationalism would even go further and say that there might be a return to that kind of
evangelism in the millennial kingdom. But, my feeling is you’ve got a major problem if you do that
because now what you have are two kinds of what? Salvation. You’ve got Jesus preaching salvation by
this means and you’ve got now Paul preaching salvation by this means and now you have really gotten
yourself into a problem.
So, in the opening part of the book, we deal with that rather extensively because that is, in fact, one of the

arguments that is used. That is not a popular argument used by most of the writers who are writing on
this issue today, but it is there and some do hold that view.
But the roots of this debate are really not found so much in Dispensationalism as they are in a very valid
and a very well-meaning intent to save grace from being intruded on by works. They’re saying, “Well, if
you call men to repent, that’s a work. If you call men to submit to Christ, that’s a work.” And my answer
to that is, well, if you call men to believe, that’s a work. I mean, if you’re going to call them to believe,
why not say that in their believing, they turn from sin to God? Why not say that in their believing, they
submit to Christ? Furthermore, why not even say this: that since salvation is all the work of God, that
when God saves somebody, He produces repentance and faith altogether…and submission? So, that’s all
we’re saying.
As I said recently, there’s one basic thing that I believe occurs when God saves someone, Ok? And that
is this: there’s a change in intent. Did you get that? There’s a dramatic transformation of intent,
attitude, desire, and will that results in a change in behavior. There is not necessarily an immediate,
momentary, total transformation of behavior. There is a change in intent, desire, will, and attitude.
That can be boiled down to one dominant thought: when a person is saved, they love God. They love
God; they love Christ. That’s the new attitude. The new desire: to express that love, to serve the one they
love. Once you affirm that salvation makes men love God--Romans 5, “The love of God is”--what?--
“shed abroad in our hearts”--once you affirm that salvation makes men love God, then all the rest falls
into place. If you love God, you hate what? Sin. If you love God, you submit to the one you love.
So, that solves the whole problem and that’s what we’re trying to say. It isn’t works. It’s that when God
saves someone, He gives them a new heart. He takes out the stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh
and that heart of flesh loves God. Jesus says that over and again in John’s Gospel where He talks about
the fact that “those who know Me, love Me, and love my Father, and We love them.” He tangles us all up
in a love bond with God so that when you’re saved, instead of loving self, instead of loving sin, instead
of loving the world, the flesh, the devil, you love God! You love Christ! And therefore, you love what is
right and you hate what is wrong. You love obedience to Him, you hate disobedience. That’s the intent,
desire, will, attitude that is transformed in a person. That’s the root that results in the fruit.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
Question
What the Christian attitude should be to the California State Lottery?
Answer
I told someone the other day, "Don't buy those lottery tickets, but if you win give
the money to Grace Church." Let me give you an answer to that. I am glad that
you asked that; I was going to bring that up tonight. Personally, I don't see
gambling as a legitimate expression of my stewardship of what God has given to
me. There is no verse in the Bible that says, "Do not gamble." Somebody always
says, "Well, I mean, even the disciples cast lots." Right. That was a means by
which they were able to determine the will of God because God spoke through
that method--that's a little different.
I do not believe that the Bible legitimizes gambling as a means of stewardship. I

also feel on the social end of it I think the lottery is a disaster and I will tell you
why. The people who buy the tickets are the people who can least afford to buy
the tickets. An already poor populace are literally consuming those things. It
plays into the hands of the people who need to learn how to work productively
and not hope against hope. It is another expression of "They that would be rich
fall into many snares and hurtful lusts."
I heard on the radio today something that is a bizarre illustration of this. I

couldn't believe what I heard. There was a guy, a Midwest (I don't know if you
heard about it) bank manager who embezzled 10 million dollars out of his bank,
went to the Ceaser's Casino in Atlantic City, deposited it on account, and gambled
away every cent--10 million dollars that he had embezzled. They are going to
punish the casino by making them stay closed for one day. That tells me several

Question
things:
1. That's a joke
2. It must be a significant punishment.
You can't even imagine the kind of money that they take in. When you create an
environment in which people can gamble away what they have--they will do it;
and if it is legalized, I mean it is a tragic thing to think about. These are the
people who can least afford it and they are the people who most need to learn
how to be productive by working.
You know, the Bible advocates gaining money by inheritance (that's fine, you
know the Bible talks about that), by hard work, by wise investment, but it never
advocates getting rich by gambling: fast money. So I am not going to tell you
that it is a crime to pay a dollar, I mean, you're curious. If you went through Las
Vegas you'd probably put a quarter in the machine once or twice just to see what
happens. I don't want to lay some legalistic trip on you, but I do not believe that
is a legitimate way, certainly not a legitimate way to fund education at the
expense of already poor people who are going to waste their substance on that. It
is the reverse of what a society ought to do. If it wants to educate its people, it
ought to take the money from the people like us who can assist in that properly,
rather than the poor people, but that's where the money is going to come from.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Regarding Romans 12:10, it says, "Be devoted to one another," and John 13:14 about washing our feet
and God washing our feet for "an example that you should do that." And John 13:34, "This command I
give you to love one another." First of all, what is God trying to tell us? And, are we doing that at the
current rate of one or two "meetings" a week?
Answer
Good question. He's asking, "What is the Lord trying to tell us about loving one another, washing one
another's feet?" Let me give you just a simple answer. I believe that if you look at John 13 (maybe we
ought to do that for just a brief moment), the whole illustration there has to do with love because in the
very first verse of John 13 he says, "Having loved His own that were in the world, He loved them to
perfection." This is an illustration of love, and Jesus is going to show the love of God through Him to
His own. You remember the story--the disciples had come to eat a meal.
In those days when you ate a meal you reclined in a sense. Your feet were either muddy or dusty
because it was either dry or wet and there were no roads and they wore sandals. So it was a common
custom when you came into a meal, because you tended to recline at supper, and you stayed a while and
so forth, that your feet should be cleaned and somebody at the door would do that. Now, that would be
the lowest level of slavery--to wash feet--whoever the "foot-washing" servant was, was the bottom one
on the rung. Apparently, in this particular situation, as the disciples came into this occasion, none of
them had had their feet washed, there was no slave there to do that and none of them would do it,
because if you compare other passages it seems as though they were having a debate about who of them
would be the greatest in the kingdom.
While they were arguing about who was to be the greatest--none of them was willing to stoop and wash
somebody's feet and sort of assign himself to the low place. So it was the typical situation of the
disciples sort of wrangling with each other about their own prominence and none of them had done this.
And then Jesus, wanting to demonstrate love, "Removed His outer garment, girded his loins with a towel,
went about and began to wash their feet." And of course, Peter didn't want Him to do it until He
explained to Peter its significance, and then Peter said, "Wash my head and my feet. . . ." Then Jesus
summed it up by saying, "You call me Master and Lord: and you say well; for so I am. If I then, your
Lord and Master have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you
an example, that you should do as I have done to you."
I don't think Jesus, here, is advocating "foot-washing" in itself, I think He is advocating loving service,
and Biblical love is self-sacrificing service, and this is a classic illustration of it. The supreme illustration
of it is indicated in the words of Jesus when He said, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man
would . . ." What? Lay down his life." It is one thing to wash feet, it is something else to die for
someone, but those are all expressions of love. Biblical love then is demonstrated in the self-sacrificing
of a person who stoops to serve another person. Let me take it a step further.

At the end of the chapter, in verse 34 and verse 35, He says, "You are to love one another as I have loved
you, that you also love one another." Now, how had He just loved them? He had just loved them by
washing their feet. Why did He do that? Because they needed that, in other words, loving service at the
point of need. OK? Now, let me take it a step further just to clarify.
I don't believe that Biblical love is an emotion--necessarily. I believe that Biblical love is self-sacrificing
service in behalf of one who is in need. When the Bible talks about loving one another it is not just
talking about feeling emotional about people in a kind of an earthly expression of affection, or even in a
godly expression of affection. It's talking more about self-sacrificing service, "God so loved the world
that He. . . ." What? "That He felt emotional?" No--"That He gave." I think that the Biblical definition
of love within the fellowship is that of meeting a person at the level of their need no matter how
humbling such a meeting might be. Now, having said that, I don't think that necessarily love occurs in
the corporate assembly of the church--it can and I hope that it does, but love doesn't wait for us all to get
together and sort of "feel" something--love can be exercised all through our week, through everyday, as
we reach out in the name of Jesus Christ to wash the feet of someone in need, and that's how we can
express that love. And we are to do good to all men, but especially to those of the household of faith,
showing them the love that we have for them.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

If God is such a loving God, why does He send people to hell? -- John MacArthur
Question
If God is such a loving God, why does He send people to hell?
Answer
Do you know that there’s no verse at all in the Bible that says God sends people to hell? There is a verse
that says He has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell. Once a soul is in hell, God has the
power of eternal destruction on that soul, but it nowhere says God sends people to hell. The Old
Testament says that God said, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”
II Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish but that all should come
to repentance.” In Romans, chapter 9, it says that there are people “fitted for destruction”--passive verb--
God isn’t even in on it!
Watch this--and here’s the complexity--God accepts all the responsibility of salvation and gives man all
the responsibility of damnation. Always in Scripture that’s a man’s responsibility. Jesus said, “You will
not come unto me that you might have life.” Jesus cried over the city of Jerusalem and said, “Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that stonest the prophets and killest them that are sent to thee, how oft I would have
gathered thee as a hen gathereth her brood, and you would not!” The Spirit and the bride say, “Come. Let
him that is athirst come and take of the water of life freely.” Isaiah said, “Ho, everyone that thirsteth!
Come without money...buy.” …Free gift.
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives to me shall come to me,” and then He said, “and no man that comes
to me will I ever turn away; him that cometh to me I will not cast out.” You see, He gives men the
opportunity. It isn’t God sending people to hell; it is God who has the power of destroying those who get
there. All you have to do is look at Jesus Christ dying on the cross and the agony of the sins of the world
and you know that God didn’t want men in hell. That was the wonder of the work of Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

If God is such a loving God, why does He send people to hell? -- John MacArthur
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I was brought up Lutheran and it appears that there are inconsistencies in Luther's Small
Catechism, in relation with the Bible, primarily Baptism and Communion. If Luther was truly a
man of God and the Lutheran Church is really following him, why is the Lutheran Church today
so liberal and caught up in man's tradition?
Answer
Martin Luther, if he was alive today wouldn't be a member of most Lutheran churches, so we don't want
to blame him for what they are today--they have come so far from Lutheran theology. Martin Luther was
obviously God's anointed man in many ways. No man is the reservoir of all truth. Martin Luther was the
product of years, and years, of years of Catholicism. It is a work of God that he could ever see through it
at all, because it was so absolutely oppressive and overpowering. But, he started to read the Bible and he
wrote a commentary on Romans, and when he got through Romans, he realized that the doctrine of
salvation was all fouled up in the Catholic Church. They were teaching "salvation by works" and he
hated it. They were buying their way into heaven through the indulgences and all that stuff.
So, Martin Luther was basically used by God to develop, what theologians call "soteriology" the doctrine
of salvation. He was a "soteriologist" and the truth of the matter is that the Reformation was a
soeteriological reformation, that never touched the field of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church).
That is why the hot bed of Lutheranism--Germany, went completely liberal and produced a guy like
Hitler. Though his [Luther] soteriology was right, he didn't live long enough or whatever--God could
only use that man to fight one battle. My grandfather use to say, "If you do one thing well in your life,
you would be ahead of most people." That is right, he did one great thing extremely well, in
understanding the doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith"--the "just shall live by faith." It never
really impacted all of ecclesiology; it never really impacted the church at its widest possible range and
definition. Consequently, there was the potential of its disintegration in the system.
You know, Martin Luther never even got out of the Catholic Church--he was a priest. So, we don't want
to fault Luther--Luther did what Luther did, and we can all be greatful for that, and those people who
understood Luther, understood that he was saying something about salvation that had never been said, at
least in their experience in the Catholic Church. Now, having said all of that, it is important to point out:
Luther's basic emphasis in soteriology never really touched very much else--it never really did.
So, the Lutheran Church that developed, had weaknesess built into it--two of those you pinpointed. It is
interesting, in your paper, that you came to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they never quite got

Question
over the "baby baptism" thing. They never got out of that, they never followed to a logical conclusion
what Luther was really teaching, and today, there are many Lutherans, in fact, most Lutherans, I would
think, believe that their place in the kingdom was initiated by their baptism as an infant, and then
confirmed at the age of twelve or whatever. And that is what we call "sacramental Christianity" as
opposed to "personal Christianity," it is that you are there because of the sacrament.
The second thing is, in communion, Luther made a quantam leap, because the Catholic Church taught
"transubstantiation" and "transubstantiation" says that in the mass the host and the whatever, the cup and
the bread, are, by the priest, literally transformed into the very body and very blood of Jesus Christ, so
that what is left has to be protected and cared for and put away and all of this, because it is the real body
and the real [blood]. Now, that made Luther angry and so he moved away from that to a view called
"consubstantiation," which you probably read about, and what Luther said was, "No, it has the spiritual
presence of Christ, and the spiritual body of Christ in the cup and the bread." Well, that is nothing, I don't
know what that is, but it was a big step away from where they were, but he wasn't all the way to where
we are today, where we say it is only a remembrance.
So, we don't want to fault Luther, he made some tremendous steps, and theology coming out of the "dark
ages" from 500 to 1500, when he pinned his thesis on the Wittenburg Church door, coming out of those
"dark ages" I mean, that was a massive step for him. He went as far as he could and it has been taken
beyond that, unfortunately, some of the Lutheran people are more concerned with holding on to their
roots, and holding onto to Martin Luther--they will quote him more than they will the Bible, and he was
limited in his understanding, because he was so much of a pioneer coming out of that kind of theology.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
My daughter asked me a question and it is out of Joshua 2:3-7, 18-21, and it's talking about Rahab.
Her main question is: that God forbids us to lie, and she said, "Mom, Rahab lied to the king and
she hid God's people, but God said that it is a sin to lie. How do you reconcile the fact that she lied
and God honored her lie?"
Answer
No, she sinned and God honored her faith. God did not honor her lie; she didn't have to do that, God
would have saved His people anyhow, but she had very little information. All she knew about God was
what she heard as they moved from Egypt into Canaan, and she heard the exploits of this great God, and
she believed in the true God. In fact, if you follow the story and you follow it all the way into the Book
of Matthew, where she's listed among the heroes of faith--Rahab believed God, Rahab believed God. She
didn't know all that there was to know about God, but she believed God. Maybe she didn't understand all
there was to the morality that God had identified as what is right, maybe in her culture lying was
acceptable, but what she did know she believed and adhered to. She knew this was the true God and she
wanted to stand with the true God against her entire society.
God honored her faith, God didn't honor her lie, and if she would have told the truth God would have
equally, in fact, more gloriously and wonderfully spared His spies. In fact, I have often thought to
myself, if she hadn't lied and David hadn't played the fool, and if other people in the Bible had just done
just what is upright and truthful, think of what things God would have that He was not able to do because
they lied and covered up something. So God didn't honor her lie.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
At what point does deception become sin? For example, Rahab was commended for her faith, but
apparently she lied when she was hiding spies. And, more specifically, what would you do if you
happened to be hiding Jews in your house, and officials asked you if you were hiding Jews, how
would you respond to that?
Answer
Well, in answer to that question, I would, if asked directly, tell the truth. Because I trust God. God does
not need my deception to accomplish His purpose. So, I know people are going to say, “Whoa, whoa,
whoa. What about the Second World War? What about Corrie ten Boom? What about all that?” I’m just
saying, God does not need my deception to achieve His sovereign purposes. If he’s going to save the
Jews, He has proven capable of doing it, without me saying, “I think I can work this deal out, by telling a
few lies here and there.” So, first of all, my belief in the sovereignty of God puts me in a position where I
would just tell the truth. Now, I wouldn’t necessarily feel compelled to go down the street yelling it. But,
if asked, I would feel I would have to entrust myself to God and speak the truth.
That sort of reminds me of the story of David, you remember, when he was in the Philistine capital and
he wanted to escape and so he pretended like he was crazy, and he drooled in his beard, and he acted like
he’d lost his mind--he scratched the walls and the gates. And the king said, “Look, we’ve got enough
crazy people around here. Get this guy out of here.” And they shipped him out and he went off into a
cave in the wilderness and asked God to forgive him for his lack of trust, that he had to act a fool to
orchestrate his own escape rather than waiting to see the hand of God.
Now, in the case of Rahab, what you have to understand is God commended her faith, not her lie.
There’s nothing in the scripture to indicate that He commended her lie, but He did commend her faith,
and that’s a good reminder that believers do lie. I mean, there are times when the noblest of Christians
may commit the sin of lying. And God will not damn us for the lie, but He will save us eternally for the
faith. So, what was distinctive about Rahab and her commendation was she was commended for faith,
and had she have told the truth, who knows what wonderful thing God might have done to deliver Israel.
Tony Capoccia
Question
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I saw Dan Coram (sp.) at the Master's College and it really opened up my eyes to a lot of things
Wednesday night. And I had a question going away from that, that I was going to write to you
about. I was wondering in the Bible, in the Old Testament, referring to the Baal worshipers
wanting to call down fire if they could, and Satan wanting to do that, but it didn't happen. And
then also, in Egypt, as Moses did the miracles the magicians counterfeited some of those. And my
question was, and especially a lot of areas in the Old Testament talking about witchcraft and all
that, and stoning those type of people, "How do you discern between that and just a regular
magician who does acts of delusion like Dan does as a Christian?" Most magicians, who aren't
Christians of course, will claim that it is powers from whatever. So I was just wondering how we as
Christians are supposed to discern that--whether it is all delusion, or whether there are some real
stuff, and how are we to discern that?
Answer
You are asking a very significant question and I am not sure that I can discern that, so I am not sure that I
can always give you the answer. What you are asking me is how do you tell the difference between a guy
who has a technique and a method, and a guy who has Satanic power? Right?
Question (Continued)
A Christian was asking me whether we should even have Christian Magicians?
Answer (Continued)
It depends on what you are doing. Magician is the wrong word in a sense, because that conjures up the
occult, and mysticism, and all of that. What we
know today as magicians are not functioning with supernatural power--they have technique. They have
just mastered a certain technique and they deceive you with that technique, as Danny Coram (sp.) can
illustrate to you. He can stand there and tell you your name and your grandmother's name. It is what is
called "Cold Reading," he actually gets you somehow to say that, and you don't even know you said it
and neither does the audience. It is the power of suggestion and so forth. That kind of "Cold Reading" is
a technique. When they do tricks with cards that is all technique. When they do a
disappearing trick that is all a technique--it's all that kind of stuff.
When you are talking about Satanic activity and how much power Satan has--that's a very difficult
question for me to answer. We know that during the time of the end, certainly 2 Thessalonians talks
about it, that there is going to come certain powers. Jesus in the Olivet Discourse talked about antichrists

who would deceive, and even deceive the whole world. You know in Revelation we find the Antichrist
with an amazing ability to deceive people. Just how extensive and how that functions and so forth from a
Satanic perspective I am not sure I really know. The Bible doesn't really give us, what you could call a
breakdown of how that works, but I really think, for the most part what we are dealing with, with
magicians is just really technique. It is just deception by trickery, there is a way that they do them. In
fact, Danny has told me in a number of private conversations that he knows how they do those things--it
is just a technique. But they want you to believe that it is supernatural.
Question
Do you think that the magicians in Egypt were doing it by technique or by Satanic power?
Answer
Well, the Scripture doesn't say, but I would tend to think that they would be able to do it by some
trickery, that they had learned how to deceive; that
they were bright, smart people, after all they were further back the genetic trail towards perfection than
we are, so they were more clever than we think
they were. And if we can come up with that kind of stuff, they probably could of also. Again, I don't
know to what extent Satan can counterfeit. There is no real indication, for example, in Scripture that
Satan can raise the dead, which is a divine act. I don't think that there is any indication that Satan can
raise the dead. I don't see any evidence in Scripture (I am trying to think this through) of Satan actually
performing great wonders, that were identified as such--I don't know that there is a catalog of that in
Scripture. In fact, I don't know that Satan ever healed anyone. So we don't have any indication of when
he does what he does.
So I would be hesitant to say that Satan is making an Ace of Spades appear in somebody's back pocket,
you know when some magician does a trick--I think that it is pretty much just entertainment. But it spills
over into the occult at the point at which they claim supernatural power. For example, these ridiculous
Filipino healers who reach into a body and start pulling out big pieces of bloody flesh, and Danny Coram
(sp.) has pretty well debunked that stuff. You know it is "slight of hand," they have got all kinds of
bloody animal parts, and they are doing all this "bloodless surgery" and throwing out a cow's liver and all
this stuff that they have got up their sleeve, or whatever--it's all just deception. The guy that he unmasked
on national television, who was suppose to be able to make objects move and wave, and bend nails, and
all of that--and [he] showed how all of that was just a deception.
Were those kind of people in the Old Testament to be stoned for being a false prophets or dealing
in that kind of stuff?
Answer (Continued)
Well they would if that was associated with a false prophecy or if it was a competing power to the power

of God--Yes. But I am sure that if a Hebrew

father figured a fun way to play a trick on his kids, God wouldn't stone him because he made three stones
look like two. So it would have to be some kind of spiritual deception sort of built into the thing. I am
sorry. . . .the Bible just doesn't say anything specific about how Satan does what he does--I
think he is much more limited than we think he is.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

What does Paul mean when he says, Those who have wives should be as though they had none? -- John MacArthur

Question
In 1Corinthians 7:29, someone asked, "What does Paul mean when he says,
"Those who have wives should be as though they had none."
Answer
Now, you can really preach on that passage and get into a lot of trouble. Those
who have wives are to be as though they had none. What he is talking about
there, is in context. He is talking about the significance of living a godly life in
an ungodly culture.
And as the apostle Paul is talking about marriage and singleness, he says
basically, verse 27, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are
you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. You're a Christian, you are living
in the end times, don't seek to get married. If you should marry, you haven't
sinned. And if a virgin marries, she hasn't sinned. Yet such will have trouble in
this life, and I am trying to spare you.
You know what he simply says, you get married, you complicate your marriage.
Is that true? Yes, Yes. Now wait a minute, wait a minute, hold your wife's hand
so she feels good. You do complicate your life, because now all of a sudden you
cannot do strictly what you would desire to do, you must be sensitive to the needs
of a life partner.

There is a complexity. You have introduced a very, very significant factor into
the quotient of living your life. So you are going to have some trouble. You are
going to have some distress. I'll tell you one way you have it. Before you were
married, you had the pain, for the most part, of your own troubles, and now when
you got married, you have the pain that you bear in your heart, because you bear
the pain of the one you love so much. Marry someone, and I'll make you a
promise, somebody is going to live with grief, because someone in that marriage
is going to die, and that's pain, deep pain.
Get married and I will tell you something else that's going to have very likely,
children. You say, "Children are a blessing." Yes, you have children and I'll
promise you something else, you'll have pain, you'll have trouble. You'll have
anxiety that you wouldn't have if you didn't have children. It's just built into it.
Multiply the people who are in my heart and in a troubled world you multiply the
trouble of my heart.
It doesn't mean that I don't love them, it's the fact that I desperately love them.
There's so much anxiety and such a burden to carry. He says then in verse 29, "I
say this brother, and the time has been shortened, so that from now on, those who
have wives should be as though who had none; and those who weep, as though
they didn't weep; and those who rejoice, as though they didn't rejoice; and those
who buy, as though they didn't possess; and those who use the world, as though
they didn't make full use of it, for the form of the world is passing away."
What he is saying is, "Look, if you're married, don't consume yourself in the
matters of that marriage." That's what he is saying. "Don't get all embroiled in
that." Why? Verse 32, "I want you to be free from concern. One who is
unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord." Verse 33, "One who is
married is concerned about the things of the world--how he may please his wife--
and his interests are divided."
So Paul is simply saying, "If you can stay single you have an undivided interest in
the Kingdom. As soon as you get married, you have a divided interest, the

Kingdom and your wife; the Kingdom and your kids. And so he is saying, "If
you can do it, and you're married, try not to lose yourself in all of the details of
your life. That's what he means by, "Be as though you had no wife." In other
words, "Don't lose yourself."
He is not saying, "Get rid of your wife; he is not saying be indifferent to your
wife, because that would contradict many other Scriptures. But what he is saying
is, "Live your life as if this world and this marriage isn't the end of everything;
isn't the purpose for everything.
And this is what I have been saying recently, "Consume yourself on the Kingdom
together." You know, this is such a basic point, and I shared this with you a few
weeks ago. You watch the day in which we live, and you watch how all this data
about marriage is telling two people how to adjust to each other, and you spend
all of your time doing that.
And when the real issue is, if I live for the Kingdom; and if I am consumed with
the Glory of Christ; and if my wife is consumed for the Glory of Christ; and the
will of God; and the purposes of Scripture; and we lose our lives in that, then
marriage is rich and wonderful because it is not focused on us, it is focused on
Christ. And Christ pours back into that marriage all of the Spiritual Blessings
that a marriage must have.
But today the trend is to focus on each other; and find out what your husband
ought to know about you; and what your wife ought to know about you; and how
you can adjust; and move; and shift; and get along, and you spend your time
being consumed with that. He's simply saying, "You're married, you're married
in a difficult time when the Kingdom must advance, and sin is rampant, try to
keep your focus on the Kingdom, don't be consumed with the things of this life.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
"In the case of a Christian friend who is about to marry a nonbeliever, would you
suggest attendance at the wedding ceremony as their friend?"
Answer
I wouldn't go--that's my own feeling. That brings up an interesting point if, I can
digress for a minute just to illustrate. When I first came to Grace Church there
was a very prominent person in the church who was a teacher, very involved in
the church--an elder. He had a daughter who was going to marry an unbeliever,
and the board said (this was the first two weeks that I was here and this was a key
guy, gave a lot of money to the church. You know a very important person),
Elders: "Well, will you do the wedding?"
John: "I can't marry a believer to an unbeliever."
Elders: "Well, maybe we will win him."
(You know they really weren't sure--some of them, because they hadn't really
gotten into that area, that's a long time ago.)
John: "Well, let's look at the Scripture."
(So we went through the Scripture one night)
Elders: "Well, there is no way we can marry them--no way. So what we should
do is to get someone else to marry them and to let them use the chapel so we
could sort of mediate the thing."

Question
John: "Well, let me ask you a question. Would this be a marriage that honors
Christ?"
Elders: "No."
John: "Is this facility for the honor of Christ?"
(I remember one of the elders said: "You can't have that wedding here--no way.")
Elders: "Can we go?"
John: "If this does not honor Christ to the point where we won't do it, and we
can't have it here--can we go?"
And my own feeling at that time was, "I can't." I can't lend my support to that,
but that is my own heart.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question What is your opinion on mixed marriages
Question
What is your opinion on mixed marriages, like different races getting

married, Biblically?
Answer
The Bible doesn’t prescribe any forbidding of that at all. I think two people ought
to get married who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I don’t think race is an issue at
all. I think there are some sociological implications and those can vary. I mean, in
some societies there can be a great amount of pressure applied to people. For
example, if you were living in Alabama and a black and a white person marry,
there may be some severe implications on their life and their family in that
environment. There may be no such implications, for example, if that happened in
the Caribbean. I mean it depends on perceptions. You have to take into
consideration what the ramifications of something like that would be, I suppose
sociologically, but Biblically there is no such prohibition at all. And you know,
where would you draw the line? Would you say that black people can’t marry
white people, but white people can marry brown people and brown people can
marry black people. What about Scottish people and German people? Where do
you go with all of that? So I think those kinds of barriers are artificial and I don’t
see anything in Scripture at all that forbids that. If two people are “in Christ”
that’s the issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
What is the ultimate purpose of the premarital counseling at Grace Community Church? Is the
class meant to be purely instructional or to be a test for the man's or the woman's godliness? Is it
Biblical for the man to use the class as a test to see if they should be engaged?
Answer
First of all, "What is the ultimate purpose of premarital counseling?" I would say it probably has two
purposes: One would be to determine the spiritual maturity, the spiritual life, the spiritual commitment,
the spiritual condition of the individuals involved. And I think it's very, very much on our minds that
people marry "In the Lord"--right? That they both be Christians; that they both be living godly lives,
because if you are not living a godly life, you can't know God's will. You don't determine God's will by
living in sin. That is why, from the time that I first began the premarital counseling, I said, "You have to
ask the question of any couple that comes in--Are they in sin?" "Are they behaving towards one another
immorally? Are they engaged in sexual sin of any kind, because if they are, they are not in any condition
to discern the will of God,"--right? So if they say "yes," then you have to ask them to live purely for a
period of time, so that in a condition of pure obedience to God, they can really discern what is right.
So, it is to determine the spiritual condition of those people involved, and to help them understand and
anticipate what marriage is all about, because I think it's so misunderstood in the time in which we live.
There is so much divorce, there is so much sexual sin. We have a whole generation of young people who
are coming up, who really don't understand what marriage is--they haven't really seen it. You know the
majority of children, now, in our nation, will come from divorced families--the majority of them, and
they are not going to have a model that is viable and that is godly. So we want to help them to
understand what marriage is really all about, and what God expects, and we want to teach them how to
make a marriage what the Lord would want it to be and what they would surely would want it to be.
And the question is at the end, "Is it Biblical for the man to use the class as a test to see if they should get
engaged? Sure. You may already be engaged, and you may decide after the class that, that is the right
thing to do. On the other hand, you may decide, "You know, maybe we need to wait, or maybe this isn't
really best." We just want to help people. We are not there to tell you, "yes," "no," it's not like we are
some spiritual authority on that. We want to bring you to the test of Scripture, to understand what the
Word of God says, and to take a look at your own life, a look at this relationship and see if it really does
fit what God would have. But it is definitely a period of time to ask those questions about your spiritual
life, your compatibility, and whether or not this is really the will of God for your life? That's why we do

Question
it.
It is not just, you know, "Here's how to run a budget,' and "Here's how to make sure your wife is happy,"
and "Here's how to make sure that she gets a few words in here and there, so you have a sort of copasetic
relationship." That's not what it's about--it's about real examination of spiritual condition, because that's
the stuff that makes lasting relationships.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - What does the Bible teach about interracial marriages?
Question
What does the Bible teach about interracial marriages?
Nothing in the New Testament prohibits interracial marriage. Christians are at liberty to marry whomever
they wish--as long as the other person is also a Christian (1 Corinthians 7:39).
The Old Testament contained some restrictions on whom the Israelites could marry. These were meant to
protect the people of God from pagan influences (Deut. 7:3-4) and to guard the purity of the Aaronic
priesthood (Lev. 21:13-14). There were even some strict regulations about inter-tribal marriage, designed
to keep the various tribes' inheritance from being lost by intermarriage (Num. 36:3-9). All such
restrictions are explicitly annulled by the New Testament (Gal. 3:27-29).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/mixmar.htm [5/21/2002 9:14:40 AM]

John MacArthur - What does it mean to dwell with your wife with understanding?
Question
What does it mean to dwell with your wife with understanding?
Answer
The apostle Peter wrote "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the
wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not
be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).
Living with your wife with understanding first of all involves mutual submission. Prior to commanding
wives to submit to their husbands the apostle Paul taught that we are to submit to one another in the fear
of the God (Ephesians 5:21). Submission is thus the responsibility of a Christian husbands as well as of
wives. Though not submitting to his wife as a leader, a believing husband must submit to the loving duty
of being sensitive to the needs, fears, and feelings of his wife. In other words, a Christian husband needs
to subordinate his needs to hers, whether she is a Christian or not.
In 1 Peter 3:7 Peter specifically notes consideration, chivalry, and companionship. Let's look at each of
these qualities in turn.
Be Considerate
"Understanding" speaks of being sensitive to your wife's deepest physical and emotional needs. In other
words, be thoughtful and respectful. Remember, you are to nourish and cherish her (Eph. 5:25-28). Many
women have said to me, "My husband doesn't understand me. We never talk. He doesn't know how I feel
or what I'm thinking about." Such insensitivity builds walls in marriages. "Live with your wives in an
understanding way" is another way of saying, "Be considerate." It isn't what you get out of marriage but
what you put into it that brings glory to God. Do you know your wife's needs? Have you discussed them
with her? Have you asked her what kind of husband she wants you to be?
Be Chivalrous
By God's design, a wife is to be the special object of her husband's love and care. As "a weaker vessel"
she is under his authority and protection. "Weaker" doesn't mean weaker spiritually or intellectually, but
physically and perhaps emotionally. Scripture indicates that in several places. For example, in Jeremiah
51:30 we read, "The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, they stay in the strongholds; their
strength is exhausted, they are becoming like women; their dwelling places are set on fire, the bars of her
gates are broken" (cf. Isa. 19:16; Jer. 50:37; Nahum 3:13). Babylon's army was compared to women
because it was afraid, without strength, and defenseless.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/livewife.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:14:42 AM]

John MacArthur - What does it mean to dwell with your wife with understanding?
It's not a negative thing for a woman to be a weaker vessel. In making the man stronger, God designed a
wonderful partnership. One way a husband can protect and provide for his wife is to practice chivalry.
Whatever happened to the custom of opening the car door for your wife? Some husbands are fifteen feet
down the driveway while the wife still has one foot out the door! Look for ways to be courteous that you
know she will appreciate.
Be a Companion
"Giving honor" is another way of saying, "Treat your wife with respect" while "grace of life" is a
reference to marriage. "Grace" simply means "a gift," and one of the best gifts life has to offer is
marriage. Thus when Peter says to give her respect as a "fellow heir of the grace of life," he is
commanding husbands to respect their wives as equal partners in the marriage. Another way to win her to
Christ is to cultivate companionship and friendship. That necessitates sharing your life with her and
developing mutual interests. Think about things you can do together. One of the secrets of a happy
relationship is finding commonality.
These aren't mere casual suggestions. According to Peter, your applying them has a direct bearing on
how your prayers are answered. Since those prayers would include petitions for her salvation, don't
neglect being considerate, chivalrous, and a companion to your unsaved wife.
Adapted from Different By Design by John F. MacArthur Jr.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/livewife.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:14:42 AM]

Question
Where did we get our marriage vows from? I mean you know this saying of the marriage vows
when people get married, where did this come from? What the ministers use. You know “for better
and for worse; in sickness and health.”
Answer
That’s sort of a traditional thing. I think you can trace most of that back to the English Church, for the
most part. When I started in ministry, the basic format that I used came out of the Scottish Presbyterian
Book of Marriage--just a very dignified expression.
But I think that the root of all of those vows, however you articulate them, whatever may be the
traditional or national source of those; the root of those marriage vows is tied to what Scripture affirms to
be necessary to make that relationship what God wants it to be. In other words, they all relate to the
leaving aspect of marriage, or the cleaving aspect of marriage, or they relate to the mutual respect of
marriage. They relate to the protectorship and savior role that the husband plays, as according to
Ephesians 5. They relate to the nourishing and cherishing. They relate to submission that the wife is to
bring. They relate to the permanence of marriage: the fact that God has designed one man one woman to
cleave together for life. So all of those components, no matter how they’re framed up or verbalized in a
given ceremony, I think are reflected of what the Bible has to say about what marriage is. Now, if you go
back into pagan history you’ll find all sorts of different things that don’t necessarily relate to Christianity,
but within any Christian service there would be some connection with a Biblical view of marriage.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


John MacArthur - Polygamy and Bigamy
Question
I was reading in Genesis and it’s kind of confusing to me that different people had more than one
wife. Is it because they were in the Old Testament and weren’t in the New Testament yet? Did God
allow it? Was it sin?
Answer
Yes, it’s always sin. You go back to Genesis, and God designed one man, one woman leaving, cleaving
for life. That’s always, that’s always God’s standard. In the Old Testament period people who violated
that, suffered. Read the rest of the story. I mean look at the life of David. Look at the life of Solomon.
Look at other people who had more than one wife. Bigamous or polygamous, and you will always see
trouble, distress, difficulty. But at the same time, there is a certain sense in which God was patient. To
put in maybe terms you can understand: the Scripture is very clear about marriage, but God was very
patient in the early years. You know the apostle Paul talks about it in the book of Acts. He said, “There
was a time that God overlooked, to some degree, these things.” The times that God winked at that, just
kind of looked away. There needed to be the progress of Revelation, the full bloom of spiritual truth, and
in the process of that unfolding, God was very patient, and God was very gracious. And I’ll tell you, just
in case you think that is odd for God, take a look at your own life. You’re not dead, and neither am I, and
maybe our thing isn’t polygamy, but there is a lot of other stuff for which we had every reason to be
killed by God. Right? If the wages of sin is death.
So the fact that in those early years when the world was filled with bigamy and polygamy...it starts right
off in the book of Genesis, you see it right after God lays down his law and then the fall and then the
mess, and what do you have? You have prostitution, incest, homosexuality, and polygamy, all right in
Genesis, and God is simply expressing what happens in the fall, he never advocated it. There were times
where he restrained his judgment. That’s all. In his mercy.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

John MacArthur - Polygamy and Bigamy
Online since 1986

Question on John MacArthur's Daughter's Marriage
Question
What were your thoughts and feelings when you were walking Marcy [John's Daughter] down the
aisle as she was getting married?
Answer
Well, my thoughts...of course I was standing in the back and I was thinking about an awful lot of things.
I was thinking about letting her go. We love Mark and he’s a wonderful Christian guy and he fits into our
family so well he’s just like one of our kids, so I wasn’t at all concerned about that. I knew that they were
going up to serve the Lord together, and they do. He is director of Island Lake Christian Camp on the
Puget Sound in Seattle and so they minister to people all week long in that camping setting. I wasn’t
concerned about that, but I was just thinking about giving my daughter away, losing my daughter, and
admittedly, I thought, you know, here you spend your entire life protecting the purity of your daughter
and then one day you say, “Here, take her.” You know, that’s a traumatic thing for a father!
But I had those thoughts and to say what I was thinking about coming down the aisle… They gave us a
cue, when we were supposed to start. Well, Marcy was standing back at the door and I was standing there
with her and all of a sudden, she realized that she didn’t have her bouquet, her bridal bouquet. And so she
just said, “Oh, I don’t have my flowers!” Well, as soon as she said that, the music started for us to go. So,
there was the wedding hostess, Debbie Woodward--took off like a rocket clear across the patio to get to
the bridal room to scoop the flowers up. Marcy was saying, “Hurry, hurry…” So we were in rather of a
confused state. They had told us how long it would take to walk and how fast to walk. So, by the time
Debbie came racing back to the door, panting, with these flowers and threw them into Marcy’s arms, she
took my arm and all of a sudden turned around and smiled like nothing had happened. I didn’t know
where I was in the music and that’s the truth. So I said to her, “I don’t know how long we have so let’s
hurry.” So, all I was thinking of was getting down there as fast as I could and I got down here too soon.
And so, everybody thought, what kind of an idiot is this guy? We went over again and again and again
and nobody knew what was going on in the back--why is he here now? I just grinned, you know. Marcy
and I knew. We were the only ones, along with Debbie.
But you know, I’ll tell you, it’s a great satisfaction when you know your daughter goes into a marriage
pure, when she marries a young man who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s sort of the culmination of
the parenting process in a way, isn’t it? In fact, I remember when Matt married Kelly. We had this sense
of rejoicing in how wonderful it was. Sort of a “Well, we got through with him and he married a
Christian girl and that’s that” and then all of a sudden you wake up a little while later and they start

Question on John MacArthur's Daughter's Marriage
having grandchildren and you realize “We’ve got to worry all over again. We’ve got a whole another
generation coming along, only these we don’t any control over.” So you just have to continue to pray for
the future.
But it was a very special, wonderful time for us, believe me, in every sense.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Marriage -- John MacArthur
Question
If someone marries secretly, what is God’s view of their sex relationship?
Answer
Let me answer that this way. In the first place, God doesn’t acknowledge, generally speaking, “secret
marriages.” Marriage was never intended to be something you hide; it was intended to be a commitment
and a vow to two people in front of the whole world, right? Public. The Old Testament weddings were
public. They had a feast. Everybody came. If somebody married secretly, number one, I’d say they
were probably out of will of God. Probably their families were against it or probably what happened was
somebody got pregnant and they ran off and got married in secret to try to cover it up and didn’t want to
announce the date because then they would be able to figure out by the calendar that they were pregnant
before they were married.
But, I don’t think God wants people married secretly! I think God wants people to make public vows so
that the world will hear their commitment! That’s why people don’t get married today anyway; they just
live together because they don’t have to make a commitment and you can turn your back and walk away
from it. That isn’t God’s intention. God’s standard for marriage is always the normal custom of the day
of the country you live in. Anything less than that does not constitute marriage. And God would see sex,
in that kind of a thing, I think, as—if there was no real marriage, if, by this question, the person means
some secret, mystical marriage performed in the woods by some hippie—that’s no marriage at all. If, on
the other hand, it’s a run to Las Vegas type thing and you have a legal document and it’s legal in the
country, yes, God would see it as a legal marriage. Yes, he would see the sex act as a legitimate thing in
that legal marriage.
If it’s legal and follows the normal custom of the day, I think God accepts that as marriage. But, if it
doesn’t—if it’s some specialized, clandestine arrangement, then I don’t think that’s the thing God sees as
a true marriage. The New Testament really hits on the sanctity of marriage: Jesus began his miracles at a
wedding! And I think by doing that, he approved of them and in essence was saying, “This is the normal
thing. I approve of this.”
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question on Marriage -- John MacArthur

Online since 1986

Question on Submission in Marriage -- John MacArthur
Question
What does a Christian wife do if her husband fails to be the authority for her
to submit to?
Answer
This is a common situation. Gals will say, “You know, I’m submitting, but he
doesn’t tell me to do anything! I’m so willing…I just want some orders. What
do I do? I want to be submissive, but he won’t do anything!” That’s a good,
good, practical question. And we could talk a lot about some practical
instruction. Let me give you a couple of thoughts.
Ephesians 5:22 helps you here. It says, “Wives, submit yourselves to your
husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ
is the head of the church and the Savior of the body. Even so, as the church is
subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands, in”—what?
“Everything.”
First thing you do is don’t quit being submissive.
Got a letter this week from a wife. She said, “John, I made a terrible mistake. I
tried to be submissive; my husband wouldn’t take the leadership…little by little, I
took the leadership and now I’m dominating and he will never take the
leadership. I made a terrible mistake. How do I get out of this mess I got myself
into?” I would say this to you: keep being submissive. Force the issue. Continue
to submit. If he doesn’t give you anything to submit to, submit to the things you
think he might like you to do. Anticipate so that you don’t alter that pattern. And
if you can’t submit consciously to him, then submit to him as unto whom? The
Lord. So, have a consciousness of submitting to Christ and make your whole life

Question on Submission in Marriage -- John MacArthur
a willing submission to Christ.
Like it says in I Peter, chapter 3, that “In the same manner, wives, be in
subjection to your own husbands”—that’s just to make sure that a lot of other
people don’t go telling you what to do…just your own. “That if any obey not the
Word, they may without the Word, be won by the behavior of the wives, while
they behold your chaste conduct, coupled with fear.” And he goes on to talk
about how you adorn yourself and all of that in modesty and so forth.
Now, if a wife will just take the proper role and keep the proper role even though
it’s difficult, rather than taking over, it may be a lot better off in the long run.
Forcing the issue by gentle persuasion, submission, and love, quietly doing what
you must do even if he doesn’t, even premeditating and anticipating the things
that need to be done and submitting to them, and from time to time giving him
wise counsel…you might get at the solution, but don’t change your role.
That’s a tough question. There’s a lot more involved, but that’s at least a start.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Communes -- John MacArthur
Question
Can Christians live together in one house in a communal situation?
Answer
Well, let me answer that this way. Genesis 2 says this: “A man and a woman are
to leave their father and mother and they become”—what? “One flesh.” I really
believe that God expects us to establish a unique union. Now, at the same time,
they lived in family proximity in Judaism so that the families were all in the same
area. And that’s great. It says in Acts 2 that “they held all things in common”;
that does not mean they lived in communes. There was hospitality when a
stranger was in town or a pilgrim was in town: they were kept in the home. But,
we don’t know of any specific occasion anywhere in the New Testament where
communal living existed; that is, where several families shared all of the same
facility.
I think there’s a genius in that beautiful independence that God has designed for
marriage and to construct that union. At the same time, we should live with open
homes, open hospitality, and open proximity. There is no biblical precedent for a
permanent communal living situation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question: Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? -- John MacArthur
Question
Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament?
Answer
Now, first of all, I want you to know that what God allows and what God wills are
two different things—you understand that? You think God wills that any should
perish? No… Does He allow some to go to Hell? Yes. Do you think God wills
that you sin? No… Does He give you the freedom to do that? Yes.
God does not will polygamy! That’s multiple marriage: bigamy on to polygamy.
Bigamy would be two married to one; polygamy would be ad infinitum?.
God’s standard is clear—Genesis 2—from the very, very beginning. When God
made the first family, people, how many were in it? Two! That’s a rather
significant statement, don’t you think? And in verse 23 of Genesis 2, Adam said,
“This is now bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘women’.”
That’s a dignified name, beautiful name! The Greek word is ‘gune’… I don’t
understand that, but anyway!
“She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Now watch,
here’s God’s standard for marriage, verse 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, cleave unto his wife, and they shall be”—what? “One
flesh.” Nothing added. Nothing subtracted. Two people, one flesh. From the
very beginning, folks, that was God’s plan.
You say, “Well, how did polygamy get started?” It got started in the reprobate
line of Cain the murderer! Look at Genesis 4, if you’re there, and verse 23: “One
of the sons of Cain,” in the Cainite family, “dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of
Eden.” Cain produced some family and one of them was Lamech. Lamech was

unbelievable. He was the first artist. Verse 23: “Lamech said unto his wives,
Adah and Zillah”—that’s from A to Z. That’s his two wives, Adah and Zillah.
“He said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah” and so forth. This is the first occasion
of polygamy in the Bible and notice that it is in the line of Cain, the sinful line.
Monogamous marriage was always God’s will. But listen: in the Old Testament
because of cultures, God allowed a certain developing process. Missionaries
today face the same thing. There are many occasions when a missionary has gone
to a certain tribal people and found that they engaged in polygamy. Well, you
don’t just go in there and…here is a situation where a man and he’s got three
wives and they have children and in their culture it’s established as a family unit.
The women are dependent on him; they can’t be thrown out. What are you going
to say? “Now that I’m here, everybody pick one; the rest, out!” Boy, that’s tough.
So, even in modern missions, there has had to be a certain period of time in
toleration until the culture can work out of its system those kinds of things. And
the way to approach it is to begin with the new and the young and give them
direction and let the old phase itself out. In a similar way, once this thing got
started in the cultures of the Old Testament period, God had to allow for it to work
out as the message of God’s truth got into the hearts of those people. And God
was patient in that area.
That doesn’t mean that’s God’s will. I’ll tell you something else: in the early days
of the Bible, remember, the families were huge and they had their roots back.
There were such great, big families—inclusive, consanguinal families (that word
means “related by blood”). Families were so big that people were also marrying
relatives. But they had to at the start. Did you know that Jacob married Leah and
Rachel and they were his first cousins? Do you know that? That’s right! First
cousins. You say, “That’s not right!” Later on in the mosaic economy, it wasn’t
right. But it had to work its way out because during the patriarchal periods, there
were huge groups of families living together! And that had to come in time. So,
God patiently allowed for it to work out. But, I believe all polygamy and bigamy
was sin. But, God allowed “a certain time of ignorance,” as the book of Acts says,
for the working out of some of those cultural things.

Now, let me give you an illustration. Deuteronomy 21:15: “If a man have two
wives, one beloved and another hated,”—and this is a verse people pick. “If a
man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him
children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son be hers that was
hated, then it shall be when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he
may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which
is indeed the firstborn.” Now that that’s clear, we’ll go on to verse 17.
“But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn by giving him a
double portion of all that he has for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of
the firstborn is his.” The point is this: you have two wives. Wife #1, you don’t
like. Wife #2, you like. Both have sons; you’re prone to give the inheritance to
the second wife, to her son, even though he is not the firstborn because you like
that second wife better.
People say, “Well, here is God allowing bigamy.” No, not at all. The point here
is simply this: here is a man who has two wives in his lifetime. The assumption is
one has died, one is alive. He may not give the inheritance to the second though
she is his beloved and maybe he’s long forgotten the first, but his inheritance must
go to the first. It’s a situation here and if you study carefully through the text and
through the verb forms that are used here, you will see that that is supported by the
text. The word “had” is there. The word “was hated,” past tense, relative to that
wife who has died.
And I’ll tell you, those who engaged in it suffered. Look at Solomon. He had so
many wives and so many concubines and all of his political marriages, trying
to—you know, the way to solve a problem with a neighboring country was take
the daughter of whoever ran it or the neighboring tribe and marry her, make her a
part of the deal. His life was a disaster and the kingdom of Israel was torn and
split.
Believe me, God wanted monogamy. Look at his illustration in Hosea: he’s a
faithful husband; Israel’s an unfaithful wife. That’s been God’s pattern all the
way. One husband, one wife. No polygamy was ever good.

Let me give you what I think to be the most confusing relationship about this in
the Old Testament. Genesis 29. Do you remember Jacob? Poor Jacob really got
conned. He was looking for a wife—he probably was in too much a hurry to start
with. Kind of got slowed down though. But, he was looking for a wife and in
Genesis 29, “Jacob went on his journey and came to the land of the people of the
East. He looked and beheld a well in the field and there were three flocks of sheep
by it, for out of that well they watered the flocks”—Jacob’s well. “A great stone
was on the well’s mouth, there where all flocks gathered. They rolled the stone
from the well’s mouth, watered the sheep, put the stone again.”… “Jacob said
unto them, ‘ My brethren, where are you from?’ And they said, ‘Of Heron are
we,’ and he said unto them, ‘Hey, do you know Laban the son of Nahor?’ And
they said, ‘We know him,’ and he said, ‘Well, is he all right?’ And they said, ‘He
is well, and behold, Rachel his daughter cometh with the sheep!’
“He said, ‘Lo, it is yet high day. Neither is it time that the cattle should be
gathered together. Water ye the sheep and go and feed them.’ And they said, ‘We
cannot until all the flocks be gathered together, until they roll the stone from the
well’s mouth; then, we water the sheep.’” Now, it seems to me that he was trying
to get rid of everybody. “And while he yet spoke with them, Rachel came from
her father’s sheep” for she kept them. “It came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel,
the daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother”—see, first cousins—“and the sheep
of Laban, his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, rolled the stone from the
well’s mouth, watered the flock of Laban, his mother’s brother. And Jacob kissed
Rachel.”
You say, “He should not have done that. Why that’s—you don’t start like that!
That comes later! …Wow, Jacob, are you ever forward. What kind of an act is
that?” To add to that, he lifted up his voice and wept. I mean, he really gave a
song and dance.
Well, what it was, was he was greeting his long-lost cousin! See? Right! Oh,
that’s interesting… Verse 13: “It came to pass that when Laban heard the tidings
of Jacob, his sister’s son, they embraced and kissed and he brought him to the

house” and so forth and so forth. “And Laban said to him, “Surely you’re a bone
of mine and flesh’” and so forth “and he bode the space of a month.” Right.
Verse 15: “And Laban said unto Jacob, ‘Because you are my brother, shouldest
thou therefore serve me for nothing?’”: I mean, I can’t have you around for a
month working for nothing; what would you like? “Laban had two daughters; the
name of the elder was Leah and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah was
weak-eyed.” Now, we don’t know just exactly what that means, but in those
days—we have some ideas—women were covered except for the face. And weak-
eyed would mean basically homely. Could be cross-eyed… Which may be the
best translation: Leah was cross-eyed. It’s a little tough to think about, but
that’s… I mean, if all you’ve got going is—everything is covered but your…
And they’re crossed. That’s, you know. Anyway.
So, Leah, Leah had a basic problem. And Rachel was beautiful and “well
favored.” Rachel was just really beautiful. And Jacob loved Rachel and said, “I’ll
serve you seven years for Rachel.” Laban said, “It’s better that I give her to thee
than that I give her to another man”: you’re better than anyone I’ve met so far…
Stick around.
Now, you know he loved her if he was going to work seven years… For Rachel.
And I’m sure they enjoyed each other’s company for that period of time in a filial
relationship. “And they seemed unto him but a few days for the love he had for
her.” The seven years went by, he loved her so much—you know, we make a
beautiful story of this! And it really is, you know; it’s a great, emotional love
story.
“And Jacob said to Laban, ‘Give me my wife for my days are fulfilled that I may
go in unto her!’”: it’s time for our marriage! “And Laban gathered together all the
men of the place and they had a big feast. It came to pass in the evening, he took
Leah his daughter and brought her to him and he went in unto her.”
He snuck Leah in there! And in verse 25: “It came to pass in the morning”—oh
ho! Now, I don’t know what kind of a marriage ceremony they had in those days,

but apparently the conjugal act itself constituted the ceremony and it was night!
What a shock.
“In the morning, behold it was Leah.” I like that line! “Behold it was Leah. And
he said to Laban, ‘What is this you’ve done to me? I served you for Rachel; you
beguiled me!’ And Laban said, ‘It must not be so done in our country to give the
younger before the firstborn’”: it’s a custom. It’s a rule we have here… Sorry.
Now he says in verse 27: “Work another seven years and I’ll give you Rachel.”
Yeah, a little discouraging, right? “So Jacob did, fulfilled the week; gave him
Rachel, his daughter, as his wife.” Now, I’m going to say something that you may
not have heard before: I believe—stay with us—I believe that Jacob sinned. In
my own heart, I believe he sinned in marrying Rachel. I believe God allows one
wife. And even though Jacob received Leah, it was more important to be obedient
to God’s pattern than to be emotionally satisfied.
Now, think about that. When somebody comes to me and says, “I’m leaving my
wife because I don’t like her” that means nothing to me. There’s a right and a
wrong and it’s right to stay married to the one you’re married to, not because you
found somebody else more attractive. “He loved Rachel more than Leah and
when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb and made Rachel’s
barren.” God said, “I’ll bless you, Leah, and I’ll compensate for the love you’re
not getting like you should get from Jacob” and she’s the one that produced the
first four boys, the fourth of which was Judah—through Judah came whom? Jesus
Christ, the Messiah.
God said, “I’ll bless you, Leah, in spite of him.” And I think that the anxieties and
the anguish that were created in Jacob’s life as a result of this were because he was
disobedient and willful and sinful in pursuing a marriage that God had tried to
show him He didn’t want him to have, in spite of what he felt emotionally. It isn’t
always necessary to be emotionally involved with the one you’re married to. You
know, only in our culture do we function like that—in Western culture.
So, Jacob resented Leah… Made her feel unloved, but boy, she had the children!

She had the children. The Lord gave her four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and
Judah. She was never loved and she knew it. Verse 14, “Reuben went the days of
wheat harvest”—Reuben, he loved his mother, Leah. He wanted his father to love
his mother. So he got some mandrakes—you know, what does it say in the New
American, “love apples”? Does it say that? That’s what they are. They believed
it was some kind of a love potion, see. And so old Reuben was going to help his
mother try to, you know, get her a place in his father’s love and so he got some
love apples and brought them to his mother.
Rachel said to Leah, “Give me of thy son’s love apples,” supposedly a sexual
stimulation. She said, “Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband?” Do
you see there? In her mind, Leah says, “You took my husband.” You see? I
think that’s how God looked at it. I think Leah walked with God. “And would
you also take away my love apples”: wouldn’t you even let me go in unto him?
Wouldn’t you even let me sleep with him? It’s not enough you’ve taken my
love? Would you not allow me to be attractive? And Rachel said, “All right…
He’ll lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes”: because of all the trouble he
went to, it’s ok tonight.
You see, she wanted this so badly! And she was unfulfilled all her life. And then
she bore Jacob the fifth son. In verse 19 “she conceived again” and the sixth son
and God blessed her and verse 21 “she had a daughter named Dinah.” And then,
finally, God remembered even Rachel. And she conceived and bore a son and
called his name, what? Joseph. God is gracious, isn’t He? It wasn’t really
Rachel’s problem; it was Jacob’s problem.
And all of that just to say this: do I believe God allows polygamy? Yes, I believe
He allows it. Do I believe God wants it? No. In Old Testament times, he only
allowed it. Today, there’s no reason for it. Our culture doesn’t acknowledge it. It
is against the law—it is a crime—and I think that’s based upon an ethic that’s
found in the Bible.
Tony Capoccia


Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
A lot of Jewish apologists object to the fact that Isaiah 53:9 says that "The suffering servant has done no
violence," and Siegel (sp.) in his book brings this out, he says, "How can Jesus Christ be the Messiah
because verse 9, specifically says He has done 'no violence' yet he went into the Temple and scourged the
money changers or drove them out?" Obviously, there was violence. How do we answer that?
Answer
He did "no violence" in the sense that He committed no crime worthy of death. The only thing that He
did in the Temple was what should have been done--that's not violence. God does "no violence" either.
"Violence" indicates an unjust havoc, an unrighteous act of aggression or evil. What was done by the
Lord in the temple is what should have been done. That was not violence--what was going on in there
was violence. He put the violence out and brought it back to a place of prayer--it was "unviolence."
So, I think that it is an easy thing to point out. I think what the prophet is saying is that there was nothing
that He had done that would make Him in any sense worthy of any execution. I don't know if you have
been with us on Sunday morning, but we are going through the trial of Christ--there is absolutely nothing--
they can't come up with anything. They didn't even—and I didn't point this out Sunday, but I should have-
-they didn't even bring up that argument, so Seigel (sp.) is one up one the Pharisees, they didn't even
bring that up. They didn't even make a case out of the fact that He did that in the Temple--as an act of
violence, because they knew that if they started talking about that, then they were going to get it, because
every one knew that it was just flat robbery--that the violence was their violence and Jesus brought it
back to where it ought to be. So they didn't even bring that up, which they would have done if they
thought there was a case there.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have two questions, both related. During the time of the crucifixion the Jews were looking for
some kind of a "knight on a charging horse," who would come in and throw the Romans out and
kill the Gentiles. But the priesthood, the Jewish priesthood, as opposed to the Jewish people were
teaching the Jewish people this kind of thing, in other words, they weren't looking for a God! So
my question to you is, "Were the Jews guilty of killing a God or killing a man?
Answer
Well, from their viewpoint they would have been guilty of killing a man, I mean from their perspective.
So then the Jewish mob, that is, the mob that we see here; they wouldn't be guilty of killing a God--
they would only be guilty of killing a man?
Answer (continued)
When you see in the Gospel of John, "and the Jews cried this," and the "Jews said" this, and the "Jews
said, `we will not have this man to reign over us,'" and "the Jews said, crucify Him," an so forth--John
uses "the Jews" primarily as an epithet in reference to the religious leaders, it is not dominantly used of
the people. In fact, most of the people hailed Him as the Messiah when He rode into the city, it says,
"The Jews stirred up the people," the religious leaders stirred up the people and there was sort of a mob
thing. But it was not primarily by the large consensus of the population of Israel, but rather by the Jews
themselves, who in John's terms refer to the leaders.
My second question is related and it is short. What are the Jews looking for today. What are they
looking for in terms of the Messiah?
Answer (continued)
Most Jewish people today, well there are four different groups of Jews: you have what are known as
Hasidic Jews. Hasidic Jews are very, very orthodox--they are Pharisees, they are the modern Pharisees
and they are as Pharisaical as the Pharisees were. I mean they have all the same kind of approach as the

Question
Pharisees. Then there would be the Orthodox, and by the way there are all different sort of branches of
this and sects. Then you have the Orthodox who go strictly by the Old Testament law and the traditions.
They aren't quite legalistic as the Hasidics. Then you have the Conservatives who would accept the Old
Testament as the Word of God. Then you have the Reformed, who don't even believe the Old Testament
is the Word of God. All they have is the tradition. Now all of them are looking for something different.
The Hasidic Jews and the Orthodox are actually looking for a Messiah, but they are in the minority.
[Looking for] God or a "man" from God? They are not looking for a God even now?
Answer (continued)
Probably a man from God. You say, "a God," they only believe in one God. The fact that we claim Christ
to be God, to some of them a blasphemous statement because now we have two Gods. So they would be
looking for a "man" who was a deliverer. They are looking for a David, they are looking for a Moses.
The Conservatives, some of them are looking for (I suppose some could be looking for a real Messiah),
but most of the Conservative Jews today are looking for a Messianic Age; they are looking for a Utopia;
they are looking for a world where their nation is the Messiah. You see, the way they read Isaiah 53 is
that it refers to the nation and not to a person. So they are looking for the Messianic fulfillment, the
Messianic Kingdom--not necessarily for the Messiah--the Conservatives are. The Reformed are not
looking for anything--they don't even believe it. So it depends on what group that you are talking about.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
This is in Zechariah; I want to know if this pertains to the millennial kingdom, and if it does, I have
a question. Starting in chapter 14, verse 16, “Then the survivors from all the nations that have
attacked Jerusalem will go up, year after year, to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to
celebrate the feast of tabernacles…” There are other verses here, but I’ll just skip over, because it
has to do with feast of tabernacles. In verse 19, “This will be the punishment of Egypt and the
punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the feast of tabernacles.” If this is the
millennial kingdom, why would they be celebrating this feast? “What time is this?” is what I’m
basically asking.
Answer
In answer to your question, I believe it is the millennial kingdom. It clearly is the millennial kingdom:
“holy to the Lord” is inscribed on the bells of the horses and the cooking pots; “every cooking pot in
Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord of Hosts” and all of that. And why would they be
celebrating this? Just commemorative. Just looks back at redemptive history. The same reason that when
the Lord said, “When I come back, you’ll do this communion with Me in My kingdom.” It’s
commemorative. I believe there’s even a temple--the millennial temple described in Ezekiel 40-48--and
there’s going to be worship going on during that, and we’ll all look back at God’s redemptive history,
something we probably will commemorate in some way all throughout eternity.
So, it still has the function of a commemoration, of a celebration of all that God has done. And you
know, if you read the Old Testament, that God loves to have His people recite the history and the
chronicle of all His mighty deeds. And, that’s part of what praise is. And throughout all of the millennial
kingdom, and throughout all of eternity, we will be praising God. And how do you do that? There’s only
three ways to do that. One is to praise Him for who He is: attributes. Two, to praise Him for what He has
done. Three, to thank Him for both. That is the essence of praise, and if that’s what we’re going to do
forever, then it is fitting that whatever commemorative means we have to do that--be held.
In fact, I would dare say that all throughout eternity--and I’m going out on a limb here--but I would dare
say that throughout all of eternity, we’ll invent all kinds of commemorative events to look back and
remember what God has done. We’ll never forget our own salvation. We’ll never forget the redemption
of those we love. We’ll never forget how He built His church and how He conquered Satan. And I think
there will be all kinds of commemorations and special events throughout eternity as we celebrate the
marvelous things that God has done.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Millennial Kingdom
Question
In light of Hebrews 9, what is the purpose of the sacrificial system in Ezekiel?
Answer
You mean the millennial sacrificial system? In the time of the millennium, you have a picture of the
millennial kingdom of Christ in Ezekiel 40-48, that when we get into the millennial kingdom, after the
Lord comes and establishes his kingdom, there’s going to be a sacrificial system of some kind going on
in that millennial kingdom. In the light of Hebrews 9, what he means by that is since Christ is the “one
offering,” who satisfied all requirements and the sacrificial system has ended, why does God bring back
the sacrificial system in the millennial kingdom?
The answer to the question is simply this: the same reason we have the Lord’s Table today. We have the
Lord’s Table in which we take the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and we go back to that, in
the picture, in the drama that’s played out in the Lord’s Table as a memorial and a testimony to that.
I believe that the sacrificial system, as designed by God and revealed through Ezekiel, will be in the
millennial kingdom, for the Jews, a memorial feast with the same kind of idea as the communion is for
us. They will then, every time they offer those sacrifices, be seeing the One whom God sent to be the
final sacrifice. So, since their connection is to the Old Testament, God will reinstitute those as a drama,
as a memorial drama, to demonstrate and dramatize that Christ is the true Lamb pictured in all those
sacrifices…just like every time we have communion, some people say, “Don’t you just repeat the dying
of Jesus?” Well, not really. We just continually memorialize and remember the one sacrifice. We, in the
communion service, look back at it; they, at that time, will carry on the sacrifices that in the Old
Testament look forward to it.
Will Gentiles take place in the ceremonies as well?
Answer (continued)
Well, I think so because I think you have the word of the prophets that the Jews are going to be bringing
the Gentiles to Jerusalem, you know, ten Gentiles hanging on the robe of every Jew. They’ll be taking us
to that place and I think there will be participation in those things.

John MacArthur - Millennial Kingdom
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Ministry after moral indescretion -- John MacArthur
Question
"If a man is chosen, by God, for the Ministry, and later, has to step down because
of some sort of moral indiscretion, will God ever restore this person to the
Ministry?"
Answer
Well, let me have you look at 1Corinthians 9:27, and just briefly give you a
comment. The answer, I believe, depends on what the ministry is. I believe that
a person could fall into moral sin, and be restored to some kind of ministry. But I
believe that there is some ministry, in which a man cannot engage himself, and
that would be the ministry of "preaching and teaching the Word of God," as a
pastor or elder.
I want you to look at 9:27 of 1Corinthians, Paul gives us a very important

statement here, please notice verse 27, "I buffet my body," that's buffet not buffet
[buf-fey], same spelling, different meaning. "I buffet my body, and make it my
slave." Literally, the word buffet means, "to give a black eye," it means to punch.
"I subject my body, make it my slave." Why? "Because, I have this fear, that
after I have preached to others, that I myself should be "adokimos," in the Greek,
disqualified. And the word literally means, to have been tested and tried and
found inadequate. Paul says, "My great fear is after I have preached to others,
that I myself should be disqualified."
I believe that it is possible, after having preached, to be disqualified. You say,

"What disqualifies you?" It is very clear from the verse, "I beat my body into
submission," because it is my body that will disqualify me. Misuse of the body is
a disqualifier from ministry. I have never heard anyone who talks about
restoration deal with that verse.
Paul says, "I have to beat my body into submission, because it is those sins of the

body." You say, "Well, what are the sins of the body?" Well, he has already
talked about them in this very same Epistle. Verse 18, of chapter 6, "Flee
immorality, every other sin that a man commits is outside of the body, but the
immoral man sins against his own body."
And so Paul says that, "It is immorality that is the unique sin of the body." So it
is, that I must control that immorality, so that my body doesn't fall into
immorality, and in so doing render me disqualified. From what? From
preaching. From the role of leadership. Now maybe a person could come back in
some ministry, in some other way, sure. Restoration to the Church, yes.
Restoration to usefulness to God, yes. But restoration to a pulpit, restoration to
an elder, how can it be?
A man is to be blameless and above reproach. A man is to be a "one woman

man." It says it as clearly as that in 1Timothy and Titus. That man is not
blameless who commits adultery, that man is not above reproach, that man is not
a "one woman man." And the model has been shattered. You see, Spiritual
leadership is not just a question of what you say, it is a question of what you are.
It is the integrity of life.
If you think Spiritual leadership is just preaching a good sermon, raising the
budget, moving the Church, keeping things going, then you can get anybody in
the pulpit. But if standing in the pulpit and Spiritual leadership is all about the
life you live, then the integrity of the man is crucial.
So yes, persons who fall into sin can be restored to the Church, and to fellowship.
They can be restored to some level of usefulness and serve the Lord. But I
believe once they have shattered the model, they cannot step back as an elder, as
a pastor, because they are no longer blameless, they are no longer above reproach,
they have shown themselves not to be a "one woman man."
And that puts a heavy burden on the ministry. It really does. But it is one which
the Spirit of God gives us the power to bear.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
This is the second time that I have been to church in two years. I was a part of a
very large and very active church in Dallas, Texas. My family was very involved
with the church. My father taught evangelism for six years. One morning our
minister came up before us, after he had been preaching on marital enrichment for
more than two months, and told us that he had been having an affair with one of
the church women; one of the women that worked in the office at the church.
The church completely split and divided. The Bishops sent him out of the church.
My question is, "Where can I find forgiveness for this?" It's been very difficult
for me to listen to someone time and time again. The man became such an
incredible person in the church; he was almost looked upon as being God. I find
it very difficult to be comfortable in organized religion, because I am worried that
that kind of thing goes on and it is not found [out]. And it was a wonderful,
wonderful, very fast growing church with so many wonderful programs.
Answer
I am glad that you asked that question, that's a heartbreaker, because you see
that's such a powerful, powerful deterrent, as illustrated by your own life, to
people to keep them out of the church. Because when somebody at that level falls
it's a total disaster; people are crushed all over the place, because if there is any
one person in the world that you put your trust in it is the man of God. When the
man of God turns out not to be the man of God you have been totally deceived.
I don't think that the devil, Satan, sin, the flesh, whatever, can do anything in the
church that is as devastating as that. Nothing in the church is as devastating as
the moral fall of a leader that people have put their trust in, because it literally

Question
devastates not only their trust of that man, but their trust of that position, and I
understand exactly what you're saying.
The only thing that I can say on the other side is that there have been men of God
who have been proven through many, many years, to be faithful. For every
unfaithful man God has His faithful man. You have to, first of all, find it your
heart to forgive, I think for the simple reason that Christ has forgiven you and
forgiven me. In other words, who am I not to forgive someone else, who myself,
though not committing perhaps the same sin, am so in need of forgiveness.
Let me give you an illustration, Matthew 18, there was a king and this king had a
large territory, and he had apparently some providences and some provincial
governors. It was time for him to collect from them the money they had collected
in their own providences for taxes. So all these governors came in and it was a
time for them to account for what they had done with their responsibility. One of
those men came before the king and it says that he owed the king an unpayable
debt. He owed him. . . .it uses "murion" which is the highest Greek term for a
number, so it is an unnumbered amount, and unpayable amount. Even if it
translates 10,000 talents, it's astronomical, because the whole national debt of
Galilee for one year was 600 talents. So he owed 10,000 talents or he owed an
unpayable sum.
So he falls on his knees before the king, and he says, "Have patience with me and
I will pay everything back," and he means well. The king looks at him and says,
"I forgive you." Now that king is God, and that man is any sinner, and any one of
us who come to the Lord and fall on our knees before Him and recognize that we
have defrauded God, and we have sinned against Him, and we can never pay for
our own sin, and God then forgives us--we are in the same situation.
Then that man who had been forgiven an unpayable debt who deserved hell, in
fact, the king said, "I am going to sell him and his whole family and get all I can
get out of them," which is what hell is: not getting what God deserves, but getting
all He can get. The guy who was forgiven then went out, found a guy who owed
him 300 denari (a few hundred dollars), grabbed him by the neck, strangled him,

Question
and the guy said, "Be patient and I will pay, I will pay!" Instead of forgiving him,
he threw him in prison.
So here's a guy who has been forgiven an unpayable debt by God; he goes out
and he won't forgive some guy that owes him a few bucks, and he throws him in
jail, and then the parable says, "That some others who knew about it (other
servants) went and told the king what he did, and he went back and punished that
guy," and the whole point of the parable is this (and that's just it in a nutshell), the
whole point of the parable is this: who do you think you are not to forgive
someone who has offended you, when you have so offended a Holy God, as to be
in debt to Him to a level that you could never ever pay?
So on the basis of God's free and comprehensive forgiveness of you, you ought to
be able to forgive another brother who is a sinner like you. So you need to
understand both of those points: one you have to find it in your heart to forgive
because God has forgiven you. Secondly, I agree that, that kind of sin is a
devastation that leaves scars, and may I add particularly on young people who are
very, very vulnerable. And I also want to add that there are men of God, there are
faithful men of God that you can trust, and you can believe in, and you need to
put yourself in the care of those men. I think that God can restore the confidence
that you lost.
Do you think he should have been allowed to go on in the ministry?
Answer (continued)
No. Not at all.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
This is going to be a hypothetical question. Let’s say you had church A, church B, and church C.
And let’s say you’re church C. And, let’s say that the pastor of church A falls, because he no longer
fits the elder qualifications-let’s say it’s immorality. And, let’s say that pastor goes over to church
B and they take him in and put him in a position of leadership, a shepherd. And, let’s say that
you’ve previously had a working relationship with church B. That is to say, you’ve engaged in
mutual ministry. Could you, church C, still maintain the same level of a working relationship with
church B?
Answer
No. No. If I follow you, what you’re saying is church B has a man who committed immorality in church
A. Could we maintain the same relationship? No. Because it would be our conviction that he shouldn’t
be in the ministry. And, while we might love the people and want to be a help and encouragement on a
personal level, to be identified in any supportive role with that ministry would be contrary to what we
believe and what we believe the Word of God teaches.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Ministry
Question
In Romans 12:7 it says, “Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on
teaching.” My question would just be, what type of serving or to what capacity of serving should
someone do if they have the gift of ministry? What is the gift of ministry?
Answer
Serving is just a very, very generic term. Gifts of serving (gifts of ministry) perhaps can be as broad as
the categories of I Peter, where, basically, spiritual gifts are divided into two categories: I Peter 4:11,
“Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterance of God. Whoever serves, let him do so as by
the strength which God supplies.” You have two kinds of gifts: speaking gifts--those are obvious:
preaching, teaching, all of that. Perhaps we would include in New Testament time, the unique gift of
prophecy that belonged to the New Testament prophets and apostles--the “words of wisdom, word of
knowledge” kind of thing. Speaking gifts. Then you have serving gifts, which would be anything that’s a
non-speaking gift, non-public proclamation gift. It might be ministering to people in their illness; it might
be discipling a person one-on-one. The broader category might encompass a ministry of prayer; it might
encompass a leadership responsibility, an administrative responsibility; it might encompass taking food
to the poor; it could encompass a myriad of kinds of things. "Ministry" is a broad term.
Now, when you come to Romans, chapter 12, it may be narrowing down a little bit, but if you’ll notice,
you’ll see these very broad categories. We have differing gifts…first, in verse 6, he mentions prophecy,
which is a speaking gift--uniquely. Then he mentions service--very broad. Then he mentions teaching,
which is a speaking gift. Then he mentions exhortation, which is a speaking gift. Then he mentions
giving, which is a unique serving gift. Then leading, which is a serving gift, which a speaker might also
do, showing mercy and so forth.
So, these are sweeping things: just very broad, generic categories, and ministry can be many, many
things. It might be going to the jails to minister to people that are there. It might be leading a prayer
meeting. It might be calling on someone who’s ill…as I said, feeding people without food, giving money
to those who have need and assisting them in their situation. It might be administrating a program or a
ministry. It might be supporting missionaries in some way, whether by giving or by being on the field in
a support service kind of thing. It can be very broad, but we would also even say, in the broadest sense,
that even a preacher and a teacher serve the Lord in some way.
But, I think it is contrasted to the speaking gifts in I Peter 4…so any kind of ministry in any shape or

form that is other than a speaking ministry.
So, could it also mean a pastor?
Answer (continued)
Well, a pastor does some serving, yes, sure. In fact, I would assume that anyone who is called to pastor
must be able to do two things, right? He must have a speaking gift and he must have a serving gift. Why?
Because he has to feed and lead, right? Feed and lead the flock; I Peter 5 “feed the flock of God, taking
the oversight.” So, yes, if you asked me, “What is the gift of a pastor/teacher?” The
pastoring/shepherding part is part of serving the people, leading the people--that’s a ministry function,
whereas the teaching part is obviously the proclamation and the speaking part.
But when you study the spiritual gifts, don’t narrow them down too much. They’re very broad. That’s
why Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 list gifts that are apparently different, because they’re very
sweeping, broad categories.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
You said in the past that you don’t really concern yourself with the breadth of how God blesses the
ministry through you and through this church, but your concern is in the depth of your ministry
and your personal growth with God. I understand that and I just kind of wanted you to kind of
expound a little bit more. What do you do to focus on the depth of your ministry and how do you
balance this with the other many responsibilities that you have, including your relationship with
your wife and family?
Answer
Well, I think by God’s design, the deeper my commitment to Christ, the better my family likes me. I
mean, I’m a better husband, and a better father, and a better grandfather, and a better counselor, and a
better spiritual guide and guardian, and a better servant, the more devoted I am to the Lord. So, I can’t
compartmentalize my life. I can’t say, “I have to study and I have to preach” and I do that and then I go
over here and try to act like a husband and go buy four books on how a husband should act. My role as a
husband, my life as a husband, a father, or whatever it is…a friend…is nothing more than the spillover of
my life before the Lord.
And so when it comes to ministry, it is much the same. When I say I don’t concern myself with the
breadth, that means that I don’t spend my time and energies trying to extend the ministry, trying to get a
bigger church. I’m not spending my time trying to figure out ways to advertise Grace Church or ways to
build up Grace Church in the public image or ways to creatively draw crowds or get money or somehow
reach more people. I never have worked hard to expand our radio into more stations and more stations
and more. In fact, I haven’t given in my entire life an hour to that, collectively! My concern is always to
do what I need to do to rightly handle, proclaim the Word of God, live out the Word of God, and make
sure that the Word of God is rightly represented in the people that are around me.
It’s an old story and I talk to young people about this: if you occupy yourself with success, you will
ultimately fail. If your goal is to succeed, you will fail. If your goal is to be excellent, you will ultimately
succeed. I don’t care what you’re doing. If you’re working with wood, if all you want to do is succeed,
you’ll ultimately fail. If what you want to do is produce something excellent, you will ultimately
succeed. And that’s true spiritually.
My life is spent--all my energies for the most part are driven toward truth: understanding the truth,
dealing with the truth, implementing the truth; evaluating people--to pull around me--people who have

tremendous responsibility around me, and making sure they have the same level of commitment to the
truth; making sure they stay sharp on the truth; making sure that I serve them, nurture them, help them,
strengthen them, confront them if need be, though that’s a rare occasion (the same they do to me)--that’s
what I mean by spiritual excellence. All my focus goes toward the Lord and toward the truth and being
the man I need to be, the preacher I need to be, the friend I need to be, the husband I need to be, and what
God does with that is really up to him.
But I have long ago learned that spiritual excellence is the goal, not success. I think I first started learning
that when I was a football player. When I was a football player in my university days…football can be a
very frustrating sport because you have to depend on other guys. It’s much easier to do something that
you don’t have to depend on anybody else; you sort of rise and fall on your own merit, you know, like
golf or something like that. There’s nobody but you. But in football, you’ve got these people and they
can be very disappointing and it can be a very difficult situation.
I learned several things, however, playing football: I could never determine the outcome of a game. I
could only determine my own effort. I could never tell you how the game would end. I could only control
my own effort. And if I gave the maximum effort that I had within me, not only would I do everything I
could do to win, but I would set a tone for everybody around me and hopefully pull them up. So even in
those days when I was the captain (because God was already working in me leadership responsibility), I
would try to do everything I could for the sake of doing all that I could alone, but also for the sake of
saying, “Guys, this is how you play the game” and try to pull everybody to that level.
All we could do is make the maximum effort. We could never determine the outcome. And that was
really good to learn that.
So my responsibility became to give the maximum effort myself so that that becomes the standard for
everybody around me to follow, and if I ever diminished my effort, then they would find a reason to
diminish theirs. And so, the consummate effort then becomes the standard that others around you see.
When everybody gives that kind of effort, then you have to leave the ultimate success to God who
determines outcomes--I don’t determine outcomes. I can only determine effort.
So does that kind of personally explain it? So for me it’s to be the best--to preach the best I can, to handle
the Scripture the best I can, to provide for the people the best ministry I can, to provide around me the
best leadership I can, and then let God take it where He wants to take it.
You know, the wonderful that you can bank on in this is that the Lord’s Word never returns void, but it
always accomplishes what He intends it to accomplish and I am convinced that He honors his Word. I
am convinced that if you’re faithful to the proclamation of his Word, He’ll take it places where you never
expected it to go and, I mean, I am just boggled by what happens every single day. I got a letter I think
three days ago from a guy in England who is a pedophile, the grossest of all humans in some ways, who
wrote me to tell me he was converted and delivered from this through listening to me preach on the radio.
I’ll never meet this guy this side of heaven. All his friends are in prison--they were all arrested--and he

somehow missed being arrested. He couldn’t give up his pornography on his own. He had so much
pornography--he had more pornography in his home, he said, than I think anybody in history, in England,
contributing to this stuff. He never could stay off of it until somehow he was smitten with a disease
related to his sexual deviancy that made him blind. Then he wrote to tell me how the Lord had saved him
and he wanted to thank me for the radio ministry that goes out of London.
Well, I can’t control that! I mean, I have absolutely no control over that. But what I can control is what I
preach. He responded to my sermon on Psalm 107, in which I told the story of a guy in our own
congregation, Robert Lagerstrom, who was one of the leaders in the Gay Pride community in L.A. who
was converted here on a Sunday when I read Psalm 107 and baptized right here. I told the story on that
tape and I explained the Psalm in relation to how God could deliver people from these horrible things.
I mean, that’s just an illustration. That’s like the last couple of days, but that comes regularly. Again, I
see time after time, day after day, the work of the Word and so I know that where I want to spend my life
is in the Word. That’s why it’s so ridiculous for anybody in the ministry to do anything else. All these
pastors that work real hard to be big and successful miss the point; in the end, they fail--in the end, on the
spiritual level, they fail. It’s the depth that God wants and He’ll take care of the breadth.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/commonsense.htm
Question
Has common-sense morality died?
Answer
I wonder how many people were struck, as I was, by the irony of two news stories that made national
headlines on the same day last fall.
In one case, an eight-member jury in Cincinnati ruled that some graphic photographs of deviant sexual
activity were not obscene. The seven photographs, taken by the late homosexual photographer Robert
Mapplethorpe, were on display at Cincinnati's Contemporary Art Center.
In the other case, the Cincinnati Bengals' head football coach, Sam Wyche, was fined more than $23,000
for refusing to allow a female reporter access to the team locker room while players were getting dressed.
Those two stories speak volumes about the disintegration of our society's sense of morality.
I'm familiar with feminists' arguments about the rights of female reporters to do their jobs. And I have
heard all the rhetoric about artistic freedom and the evils of censorship. But the fact remains that not long
ago, our society subscribed to a common sense of morality that was diametrically opposed to the
decisions rendered in both those cases.
Other issues aside, the two stories reflect a dramatic shift in the moral code that guides our society. It is a
tragic and dangerous new direction.
The Mapplethorpe photos depicted sadomasochistic homosexual activities and nude children in explicit
poses. The full truth is so hideously immoral that even to suggest what the photos portray would be
offensive and inappropriate for a magazine like Masterpiece. In fact, the pictures were so horribly
debauched that the major network newscasts could not describe them even with euphemism and vague
terms. I read brief descriptions in the newspaper. It is hard to believe that human beings would engage in
such unimaginable acts, much less that anyone would take photographs of them and deem it art. Yet,
according to an article in Newsweek, "an array of art experts testified that, content aside, the photos were
the work of a serious, even brilliant artist." The jurors took only two hours to render their verdict.
That same day the football commissioner fined Wyche for his defiance of league policy, which has
allowed women in locker rooms for the past few years.
Charles Krauthammer expressed this opinion on the Los Angeles Times opinion page: "It is common
sense and ordinary practice that in public places naked men and women are segregated. Barring women
from the locker room of male athletes is thus entirely consistent with American norms of privacy."
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/commonsense.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:15:07 AM]

But evidently obscenity and decency can no longer be judged by common sense. What's next? Will
"snuff films"—the kind of pornography that actually shows people being killed—also gain status as art?
Romans 1 contains a description of mankind's moral decline. It perfectly describes the course our culture
has taken in this generation.
The apostle Paul writes of those who, "professing to be wise ... became fools" (v. 22)—like many today
who presume that careful lighting and composition turn pornography into art, or those who believe
sexual equality is a higher moral principle than common decency. Unregenerate man lives under the
illusion that all wisdom and knowledge reside within him. But he is self-deceived. When man refuses to
accept truth, he destroys his power to discriminate in even the most obvious moral questions.
Once man rejects God, believes he is wise, and in his perverted "wisdom" creates his own objects of
worship (Rom. 1:21-23), God gives him up to his own wickedness. Three times (vv. 24, 26, 28) Paul says
that God turns such men and women over to the consequences of their sinfulness.
The Essence of Sin. Romans 1:24 says, "God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that
their bodies might be dishonored among them." Here Paul refers primarily to sexual perversion.
Certainly that is prevalent today in contemporary music, books, movies, and art.
Jeremiah 17:9 reveals the source of this impurity: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is
desperately sick; who can understand it?" Man on his own does what his heart tells him to do. He has no
norms, standards, or principles other than his own desires, which come out of a corrupt heart.
The Expression of Sin. Romans 1:26-27 says, "God gave them over to degrading passions; for their
women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men
abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with
men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." That
describes homosexuality. The final phrase of that verse seems especially pertinent as the spread of AIDS
accelerates.
Meanwhile, homosexuality is gaining acceptance as an alternative lifestyle by many church

denominations. Some have even ordained practicing homosexuals to the ministry.
The Extent of Sin. Romans 1:28 says, "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things
which are not proper." Common-sense morality is gone; God Himself gives them over to the very things
they love, although their corrupt desires are the opposite of what God intends for them.
Paul concludes, "Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are
worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (v.
32). Our society now gives hearty approval to depravity. Our culture has bottomed out, reaching the low
point in the apostle Paul's chronicle of moral decline.

After writing about the deeds of darkness, Paul says, "It is disgraceful even to speak of the things which
are done by them in secret" (Eph. 5:12, emphasis added). That's common sense. This is hardly a complex
moral issue. But our society has become so permissive and decadent that now an art gallery can display
the sickest imaginable photographs and be protected by the courts!
Another recent obscenity case in Florida examined the lyrics of songs sung during a live performance by
the rap group 2 Live Crew. A federal judge had ruled the group's songs obscene, because of their graphic
and violent lyrics describing and extolling rape and brutality against women.
But a six-person jury contradicted the judge's ruling, saying the lyrics they heard were not really obscene.
"I took the whole thing as comedy," one juror said.
Arguing the other side, Florida assistant state attorney Pedro Dijols said to the jurors, "It's common
sense, ladies and gentlemen. it's openly offensive."
Unfortunately, however, it doesn't seem to be common sense anymore.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question At work
Question
At work, I work with a lot of people who aren’t Christians, but get very
upset about the actions of some Christian leaders, and I know that the issue
is really whether they know the Lord and anybody can keep them from
knowing the Lord, but can you make some comment about Jerry Falwell and
the “Moral Majority”?
Answer
All I can say is that when you are a well known evangelical Christian, and you
get yourself mixed up with a high profile involvement in politics, you run a high
risk of alienating people from your message. There is no question about that. I
was asked yesterday, by a marvelous young pastor, who is the only black man
ever to graduate from Dallas Seminary with a THD. He is a brilliant young man,
great pastor, but as a black pastor who has got an exploding church in Dallas,
Texas, he’s under tremendous pressure to get involved on behalf of black people
in political issues, but he knows the price is so high that once he identifies
himself, he’s going to alienate people because there are so many factions in
political view points.
The reason I don’t belong to the Moral Majority is because I’m not willing to
alienate all of the democrats.
What do I gain by that? Because politics isn’t the issue. And what happens, to be
really frank with you, what happens when Jerry Falwell goes to South Africa, no
matter what he intended to do, and no matter whether we agree with his
viewpoint is; the press takes that and he comes out as anti-black. And so he has
just alienated all those people and all those people who agree with the black
struggle in South Africa. And the price is so high for that high profile political
involvement, that the Christian message is lost to some people. Now, the pattern
that I want to follow, is the pattern of Christ who NEVER got involved in a
political issue! Never! Because the price was too high. Because if you take sides
with that stuff, which is very volatile, and within which there are many opinions,

Question At work
you will run the risk of making people think that Christianity is a certain political
viewpoint or lobby position and that’s the reason I don’t belong to the Moral
Majority. I can’t answer for Jerry. I know he loves the Lord and he’s got a lot of
marvelous things that he’s doing, but for me, once you mix the thing with
politics, you really do, you’ve got the whole thing in one bag and people see
evangelical, fundamental Christianity as a right wing, anti-black viewpoint. Some
people see that and I think that price is too high to pay.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Since God does not contradict Himself and God does not lie, God cannot lie. God says, “Thou shalt
not lie.” How do you answer someone that says to you, God also says, “Thou shalt not kill.” And
yet, God sometimes kills.
Answer
Now the word in the Hebrew, in Exodus 20, which is used for “Thou shalt not kill,.” is “Thou shalt not
murder,” and the assumption in the term is that it is an illicit murder; that it is an unjust killing. Okay?
The question is a difficult question if you push it to its limit, because the truth of the matter is everybody
who lives, lives because God gave them life and everybody who dies, dies because God is in control of
who lives and who dies and when they die. So ultimately everybody who dies, dies because God has
allowed a death principle, but the point of Exodus 20 is murder as a crime. God never kills in an
iniquitous way. God never kills as a crime. The only time God takes a life would be as a righteous act.
Always as a righteous act. A righteous act for His own glory one way or another. It could be that that
righteous act was a righteous act on behalf of one of His redeemed saints, that He wanted to bring into
His own presence. It could be that that righteous act was an act of judgment upon evil, but always when
God takes a life it is a righteous act, and so we start with the character of God. Basically the Old
Testament in total is designed to communicate to us the character of God: God is Holy, Holy, Holy.
Therefore, if God takes a life, it is a Holy act. God does not murder. God does not indiscriminately and
unjustly and iniquitously take life. The truth of the matter is, looking at it this way, if God killed
instantaneously every person on the earth it would be an act of righteousness. Because every person on
the earth is a sinner and the wages of sin is what? Death. So it is mercy that any of us are spared--and
grace.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In Romans 14:14, it says that nothing is unclean, and last Sunday you gave a lot
of examples about cigarettes and all kinds of things. I somewhat understand your
perspective on rock music and different styles of rock music. I don't know if I
understand it totally, but as far as I understand that verse saying is when "nothing
is unclean," that would consist in music too. A certain beat, whether it would be
a "rock" type beat or whatever, that in itself couldn't be wrong. Am I correct?
Answer
Not necessarily; it depends on what its purpose is and what it is used to

communicate. I tried to say, "Whatever is lawful is lawful." Whatever in and of
itself is not a moral thing, or has no obvious moral overtones. He's basically
talking about things that don't have any inherent moral property to them. Now a
note of music does not have any inherent moral property. Hitting a drum,
blowing a horn, plucking a string has no inherent moral property, but it is obvious
that music is a unique thing which can create all kinds of moral or immoral
emotional or whatever responses. So it is an oversimplification to say that music
in general is non-moral in a sense. You can create a music that by virtue of
cultural identification. . . .for example: there was a song out some years ago
called "The Stripper."
I remembered hearing that song a lot on the radio, and they would always say it
was "The Stripper," so whenever I heard that music--I thought that's "The
Stripper;" so there was so much of a style of music identified with stripping (I
guess) that could literally label a certain song as "The Stripper" that didn't even
have any words, but it communicated so strongly that particular message because
of our cultural comprehension of that genre of music and those sequence of notes

Question
and the way the beat was put together and so forth, and so forth, and so on. I
mean we hear John Philip Susa and nobody thinks of a stripper, because the genre
of music in our culture, and I admit that it is cultural. That in and of itself it may
not have communicated that except that for some reason it has become identified
with that.
There are all kinds of tests that have been done on the various kinds of beat--what
they call the "anapestic beat" where you have two longs and a short and all that.
You have read about the things that kills the flowers; you know, you put flowers
by a radio and play that stuff and they die and so forth. But I would say that there
may be some inherent truth in that, but still it wouldn't be moral: killing the
flowers isn't necessarily a moral issue. But I think cultures give to music their
moral identification--I think they do that. I could hear a song on the radio and
you can tell me that in and of itself that song is not a moral issue; those notes
aren't moral, but that music makes me think of something sinful because that is
the way the culture has portrayed that sinful act through that style of music.
It is like listening to a song that is on strings and violins and thinking of a blue
sky and wind blowing through a meadow. Music can do that because of our
cultural orientation.
So I think that it is an over simplification to just say that rock music is so non-
moral that any kind of rock music, if you stuck the right words in it, would honor
the Lord. I don't believe that. I think there is a genre of music that has given
such a cultural identification that it is impossible to cross the line of putting that
into a Christian vernacular without bringing total confusion to what you are trying
to communicate.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

the tape, GC 70--13, 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--
Question
I have a question about the Christian rock movement. Is Christian rock music non--biblical, and if
so, is there any biblical proof?
Answer
Let me say it this way: is Christian rock music unbiblical? Well, a lot of music is unbiblical. A lot of
church music is unbiblical. There are some hymns that are unbiblical! There are some gospel songs that
are terrible, because they don’t say the right thing. And, when you say Christian rock, I mean, that’s a big
thing. That goes all the way from what some people would think is Christian rock, that’s nothing more
than a ballad--but, you know, if you’re over 70, that’s “rock.” You know? And to a teenager, that’s, you
know, old-people’s music…all the way to the heavy metal slam-bang kind of trash music that--well, I
mean, you know what I mean…to what now is Christian rap, Christian rap. So, it’s a big field.
What I would say is, here’s some general criteria, okay?…To use with any music:
1. Are the words distinctively biblical? Are they distinctively biblical? Don’t tell me you sang “You
Light Up My Life, Baby” and you were talking about Jesus. That’s not distinctly biblical. You could be
talking about your sweetheart, your girlfriend, your mother, your daughter, Buddha, or anybody else. So,
that’s not distinctively biblical language. We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about are the words
distinctively Christian? Theologically accurate, biblical.
2. Does the means, the vehicle, which transports those words--which would be tune, arrangement, style--
fit those words? In other words, if I’m going to sing a song called “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God
Almighty,” I had better be restricted to a certain genre of music or I will trivialize the profound.
Understood? I can’t sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” to the tune of “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” You know what I
mean? Or to some hip, snap-your-finger, rock beat. Because that trivializes the profound! So, I want to
find a vehicle, musically, that’ll move those lyrics on a level that they’re worthy of. Now, if I want to
sing “I’m so happy in Jesus and I’m really enjoying my Christian experience,” I can turn the tempo up. If
I want to sing about the fact that life is bitter and life is painful, I might choose some kind of a blues
mood to do that. But, there has to be some sense about that. And one of the things that I just can’t
comprehend in rock music is to take profundity and trivialize it with a kind of music that is trivial. Or,
worse (I guess), to take profound lyrics and profound theology and to put them to cheap musical style,
that is not lofty in terms of its musicianship, it’s not lofty in its ability to comprehend music as such.

3. And thirdly, I don’t ever want to use a style that will drag down the content. It’s highly unlikely that I
can put the gospel, for example, in a very contemporary musical genre, and elevate the genre, you
understand? The tendency is going to be to pull the gospel down to that level. This isn’t new. There was
a song--and I’ve used this illustration before, I’ll use it again--there was a song that came out in the
schmaltzy 40s, when everything was sleazy barroom kind of crooning. The pop music, the big time
music was all the crooners. And, songs were written for the church like that. And one of them that was
very popular, and I remember it even a kid: “I’m in love, deeply in love with the lover of my soul”--
yuck!! That is terrible! Because now what you’ve got is you’ve reduced loving God to such schmaltzy
sort of sexy relationship that you put in a song sung in a barroom!
So, the church isn’t new at doing that. So, what I’m saying is you have to be very careful because
musical style can communicate so much culture that all it does is take profound gospel truth and pull it
down, rather than the truth elevating the music--it usually works the other way.
4. And a fourth principle, and this is a simple one. Amos 5 says, “Stop your songs; your hearts aren’t
right.” And I would simply say this, all I would ask of a musician is, whatever musical style he chooses
to use, I want to know that he’s filled with the Spirit. Because if the Spirit of God is using him, his
sensitivity to the Holy Spirit will come through in any musical style. He’ll modify it enough so that it
doesn’t cheapen the profound. If his heart isn’t right, God doesn’t want to hear his songs. That’s Amos,
chapter 5, “Stop your songs; your hearts aren’t right.” Go back, get your heart right, then come sing your
song to me.
And I really believe you leave it at that point: if the heart of the musician is right, it’s amazing how many
different kinds of forms and styles he can communicate the truth in. But, those are the tests that I would
use in that issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Obedience -- John MacArthur
Question
In Psalm 119, it says, "Your testimonies are full of wonder: therefore my soul observes them." And
in 2 Peter it says, "If moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly
kindness; and love are increasing, you will not be unfruitful." So, the question is, "Is the increasing
spiritual awareness and meditation of the treasures of God's Word the requirement for a truly
obedient walk?"
Answer
I think it is. I think that obedience is a direct product of meditation on the Word of God. I do not think
that you can behave in a certain way independent of how you think. I do think you will behave in accord
with how you think, and you think on the Word of God and you behave in response to that. No question
about that, a continual growing, meditating on the Word of God is going to alter your behavior. "As a
man thinks in his heart, so is he."
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question: What is your obligation to your parents if they’re not Christians? -- John MacArthur
Question
What is your obligation to your parents if they’re not Christians, they’re in

their 80s and they drink alcohol and expect you to serve it in the home and
have no respect for your Christian faith?
Answer
Now, that’s a very important question. You know, the Bible says that you are to
obey your parents. The Bible says you’re to honor your father and mother—and
the Old Testament people were promised long life for doing that. Jesus comes
along in the New Testament and says you have to be willing to leave your father
and mother, even to hate them. What’s the difference? Simply this: when your
father and mother invite you to do those things that they have the right to ask of
you, obey them. Even though they’re things that you would not prefer to do and
even though they may restrict the things that you think you should do, obey
them. This is God’s plan.
When they invite you to do those things which are contrary to the direct
command of the Word of God, at that point you have to say what Peter and John
said: “You judge whether we ought to obey God or man.” So, your obedience is
continually to those people, you continue to honor them, until it comes to the
place where they would have you violate the principles you know to be revealed
in the Word of God. At that point, you follow the injunction of our Lord and you
have to be willing to say goodbye to mother and father and to step out and live for
Him.
That’s as simply as I can state it from a biblical viewpoint, without getting into
detail.

Question: What is your obligation to your parents if they’re not Christians? -- John MacArthur
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I am a Hebrew Christian, and my dad doesn’t want me to come to church or

anything, and I promised him that I wouldn’t go while I’m living at our
house. The problem is that I think that I have broken a promise, right? And
isn’t that something wrong? I mean when I go home tonight he’s going to ask
me, “Did you attend the services?”
Answer
Let me give you a perspective on that, I think sometimes we make foolish

promises. I think sometimes we make promises to men that we shouldn’t make
because we have a higher vow to God, and I would just remind you of Matthew
chapter 10:35, where it says, “ I am come to set a man at variance against his
father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law, and a man’s foe shall be they of his own household. He that loves
father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me and He that loves son or
daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me and he that taketh not His
cross"…that means a willingness to die…."and follow after Me is not worthy of
Me, but He that finds his life shall lose it and He that loses his life for my sake
shall find it."
I think if I were in your situation, what you need to do is go to your father, tell
him that you want to be a son of honesty and integrity, you want to keep your
word, but you have a higher calling from God, you must be faithful to what Christ
has done in your life, you don’t want to be unfaithful to your word but you feel
that God has laid it on your heart that you must be faithful and obedient to Him.
Share with him, even if you want, that Scripture, but I think you must obey the
Lord but you must be gracious, loving, and anxious to show your father that you
want to maintain your integrity and that the promise you made, you didn’t
understand at the time, was a violation of the things you believe and you’ve got to
stand for what you believe.
I think you’re compelled by something inside of you and that’s the working of the

Question
Spirit of God to be with the people of God and the Word of God. I think it’s a
very normal thing for you to want to be here. I wouldn’t worry about it. I’d just
say, “Hey, forgive me for that, but I have a compelling that the Lord has put in
my heart.” Try to maintain the relationship as good as you can and if you need to
move out, move out.
Yeah, but what should I do when I go home tonight, because I don’t know
what he’ll do? Well he’s probably going to kick me out of the house or
something like that. I don’t know what he’d do.
Answer (continued)
Well, we’ll get you a place to stay. (An audience member offers, “He can stay at
my place”.) Can you help him out if he needs a place to stay? All right. Meet
those folks out there…get their name and phone number and if something
happens…there you go.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I know that a man is supposed to have only one wife, [then] what is the reasoning by Solomon
having 600--but God still blessed the men that had more than one wife--like Abraham.
Answer
Just plain stupid! Just plain disobedient! What you have to understand is that God never blessed anybody
for having more than one wife--all it did was to bring cursing. There was other reasons why God blessed
them--that wasn't one of them. When you study the Old Testament you find that out. You go all the way
back to the beginning in Genesis, and it says "one man, one woman for life," and that's the way God
always wanted it.
Now, I don't want to be personal, but have you sinned? [reply: "yes"] Yes, me too. Are you alive? Yes,
me too. Are you blessed? Yes, me too. Get the picture? But we didn't get blessed for that--did we? Not
for our sin--we got blessed in spite of it, because God is a loving, gracious God. So, we don't want to
conclude that because David committed adultery with a whole bunch of women, that adulterers get
blessed. We want to conclude that in spite of that, God was gracious to him, and there were periods in his
life, and times in his life when he was obedient to God, and God blessed him for those times, and God
was patient in the other times.
So, God's standard never, ever, changed. And if you really want to find out, you just find all the
polygamists in the Old Testament and watch the pain they went through. Everybody thinks that Abraham
had it good, no he didn't--he had a very painful life. He had a disastrous life. The very fact that he went in
there a had a child by Hagar and produced Ishmael--the Jewish race, ever since Abraham, has been upset
that he did that, because that produced the Arabs. It's true, the Jews they don't like that he did that, and
the Arabs, the children of Ishmael, have always claimed the right to the land as the sons of Abraham--
that's what the conflict is all about.
So, God blessed Abraham, but He didn't bless him for that. God blessed David, but He didn't bless Him
for his many wives. God blessed Solomon in parts, but when you read the Book of Ecclesiastes you get a
feeling that Solomon went through some times in his life when he was anything but blessed, and that was
written by a man in deep pain.
Tony Capoccia

Question

Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Pope
Question
Yesterday, they were reporting about the Pope being in Mexico, not for religious purposes, but for
political. Where does he tie in with Revelation 17? There’s the beast, there’s the antichrist, and the
false prophet; would he tie in with one of those?
Answer
Well, the answer to your question is yes. He will tie in with one of those. The next question is, “Which
one and how?” and I’m not sure that we can be dogmatic about that. I believe that the Roman system
definitely appears in Revelation 17. I mean, you can literally see the Catholic Church in Revelation 17.
But, by the way, you can also see the liberal Protestant Church "sucked up"--so Protestants aren’t exempt
from that. But, it tells you that it’s going to be headed up--mystery Babylon--is going to be headed up in
a city with seven hills--it says that! And it even talks about some other details that would lead us to point
in that direction. The antichrist rising out of Europe, out of the confederacy of Europe, and certainly
Rome would be a part of that--that’s the very heart of the old Roman Empire.
So I would think that in the final world church of Revelation 17, it is wrapped around a Romish core.
Now, as to the Pope, some would say he might be the false prophet, some would say he might be the
antichrist… I know Dick and I have talked about this. Dick Mayhue, a few months ago, said in one of his
messages--I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Dick, wherever you are--but you said that it’s
probably a good educated guess to see the possibility of a Pope, some Pope, fitting the role of antichrist.
That’s what you said. And I think that is accurate. We don’t know and we will not be dogmatic about
that, but there is reason to believe in the text that that would make sense because, you’re asking a
question based upon the fact that the Pope is operating in a non-religious political way, and that fits that
scenario.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Pope

Question: How can a Christian be popular with the world? -- John MacArthur
Question
How can a Christian be popular with the world?
Answer
The answer is, by being a lousy Christian. There is no way that when you define your Christianity you
can ever really in the truest sense be popular with the world.
I think that Christians who have a warm and loving spirit, who do good unto all man as the Bible says,
not just to the household of faith; Christians whose lives are exemplary; Christians who meet the needs
of those who are in need (like the good Samaritan); Christians who supply for those who have lack;
Christians who are loving and kind and gentle will have a certain amount of popularity, they’ll have a
certain amount of acceptance with the world. Those who are diligent, those who are faithful, those whose
morals and ethics are above reproach will be respected by the world, but in terms of actually being
accepted in the system, being a Christian eliminates that possibility.
“What fellowship hath light with darkness,” right? Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the sixth chapter in II
Corinthians; he said there is no fellowship at that point. The more defined your Christian faith becomes,
the less able you are to accommodate the world. And if you’re really bold and honest as a Christian,
you’re going to find yourself having to confront the world with honest answers, with honest comments
about the true problems in the world, and you’ll be very unpopular.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Can only the 'Saved' people communicate with God? -- John MacArthur

Question
"Isn't it true that only the 'Regenerated,' that is, only the 'Born Again,' the 'Saved'
people can communicate with God, for the purpose of solving their problems?"
Answer
The answer is yes. The only ones that have access to God are those that are His
own. Because the only access to God is through whom? Christ. It [Bible] says,
"No man comes to the Father, except by me." You can't go to God on any terms,
for any reason, unless you come through Christ. The way has been opened for
us. And that's what the writer of Hebrews means when he says, "Let us come
boldly unto the Throne of Grace, to find help in time of need."
No, there is no promise in the Bible that God will answer the prayer of an
unsaved person, no promise at all. God is not obligated. God is not bound. God
has made no such promise, because there is no access to God. Access only comes
through Christ.
You say, "Does that mean that God never does for a person what they ask done?"
That's a very difficult question, and it's been asked a number of times. I would
venture to say, that an unbelieving, unsaved person might pray a prayer to God,
"Well, God, I wish I had a wife." And three months later find a girl and marry
her. Or he might pray, "You know, I wish my mother would get well," and
maybe his mother get well.

Can only the 'Saved' people communicate with God? -- John MacArthur
So it is possible that circumstances could appear to look like God answered a

prayer, when in fact, it was just the working out the providential plan of God
anyway, and the prayer was irrelevant to what God was going to do. I mean, if
you pray, "Lord heal my mother," only one of two things can happen. Either she
does or doesn't get healed, and if she does, it does not mean that God answered
your prayer. It just means she got better.
But, it also true, and I want to say this, that God may for His own purposes, hear
the cry of an unregenerate person. The point is this, He is not obligated to do
that. There is no claim on that. Because, you see in John it says, "if you ask
anything," Jesus said, "in my NAME." If you come in Christ's name, if you come
in Christ, then the Father will do it. He has no obligation to answer the prayer of
an unregenerate person, though sometimes He may in His sovereign choice. And
sometimes, it may appear as if a prayer has been answered, simply by the way
things turned out.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
My question, I probably even know the answer, it’s just been something I
have been experiencing, which is, I’ve been in a lot of prayer lately about
certain things and when you go through the Scripture and you read things,
for example like John 14:13, “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that
will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son,” and John 15:7, “If ye
abide in Me and my Words abide in you, you shall ask what you will and it
shall be done unto you.” I know God is not a cosmic genie, He is not there to
grant our every wish, which would be kind of absurd, but sometimes I have a
hard time, because when you really want something, you pray for it. I know
you have to pray in His will, as the Lord did, “Not my will, but Your will be
done,” but how do you blend that sometimes when maybe you think it’s a
burden He’s putting on you to pray and yet you don’t see it come and you
are still asking in His will, but then you look at some of the other verses and
it says, Matthew 21:22, “And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer
believing, ye shall receive.” And you know I guess it just gets kind of tenuous
sometimes, because you are waiting for an answer, even if its “no,” but you
still have the burden on your heart to pray and you’re praying in His will
and you want it and “tah-dah”...
Answer
How many of you have experienced that dilemma? (audience laughs and raises
hands) Does that help you? (speaking to the questioner)
How many of you know the answer? How many of you know why that happens?
To teach us to trust the Lord. That’s fair enough. Yeah. To teach us to trust the
Lord. How many of you asked your parents for something and didn’t get it? I
mean some time in your life. How many of you got a lecture about the fact that it
wouldn’t be good for you to get that? How many of you know your parents were
right? Thank you, both of you (audience laughter). Sure, I don’t know the answer
to that, because I don’t know the mind of God and sometimes I get very frustrated
because I know what the Kingdom needs, see….I mean, I know! You’ve got to

Question
do this Lord, this is what you have to do!
We have to have this! And then we can get on with the work and it’s not
happening and so you say, well why is God putting this heavy burden on my
heart? Why does he give me such a confidence that this is really His will and then
it doesn’t happen. Well, what you have to realize is, is that we can’t trust our
feelings because sometimes we think something is of the Lord, when the truth of
the matter is it’s really just a strong desire that we have. The ultimate answer to
your question is that we really don’t know how it is that God can burden us with
things that are deeply felt burdens and yet seemingly not fulfill those things.
There is really no answer to that other than the sovereignty of God and we have to
trust that what happens is His perfect will. And then, also, and this is the thing I
always wind up doing in my own life, is a little spiritual inventory to make sure
that I am not in a position to not have my prayer answered because there is
something in my own life that isn’t as it ought to be. In other words, James says,
“You ask and you receive not because you ask amiss that you may consume it on
your own lusts”. In other words, you can be disqualified in your prayer because of
the fact that you have a selfish motive. Also, you remember what Peter writes. In
1 Peter 3 he says, you know that husband and wife had better get along well, “that
your prayers be not hindered.” It’s possible that if things aren’t as they ought to
be between you and your wife that you have put a block in God’s flow of
blessing. Sin, of any kind, gets in the way, so whenever I pour out my heart to the
Lord about something that seems to be heavily laid on my heart, my first
response, if it doesn’t come to pass is a little spiritual inventory and I ask God if
there is anything in my life that prevented Him from doing all that He would have
done. Secondly, if I pass the test of spiritual inventory or get my life right with
Him, then I just have to say, “Lord, I trust you completely in this and thank you
for the answer you gave and I accept that as your answer.” And sometimes the
burden is still there and I just keep praying and asking God to do it, you know,
even though it appears it won’t happen, until the Lord gives me sense of release
from that.

Question
I just remember one time, you were talking about the parable, I can’t
remember exactly where it is, it’s about the person that comes to the house
and knocks….
Answer (continued)
Yeah, it’s in Luke, and that’s how I feel sometimes. Because of your continual
knocking you will get an answer…yeah…the idea of that parable is, you know
the guy is in the middle of the night bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang on the
door and the guy finally lets him in and gives him bread just to get rid of him, and
what our Lord is saying is, if a guy is angry and gives bread to somebody who
beats on his door or somebody he is mad at, what do you think a loving God who
loves you is going to do when you have a need. Bread is a need and I don’t
believe that you will ever come before the Lord in behalf of a need that He will
not meet, but it’s some of those discretionary things that He has a right to say no
to.
That’s true and I guess sometimes it’s just realizing when he says, “no”.
Answer (continued)
And you know, it’s fair enough, you know I remember, oh I suppose it’s been a
few years ago now, somebody said to me one time, “Do you ever ask the Lord for
something that is so specific that He can say no and you’ll know He said no?”
Because most of the time we say, “Well, Lord, this is what we’d like, but….do
your will” and you know we go through that whole deal, so whatever He does is
so non-descript we don’t know whether he said, “no,” “yes,” or what. So I think
it’s healthy for you to go in there and with importunity and persistence plead for
God to do something and if He says “no," you know He said “NO”.
So, you can really be specific, like, I want THIS laid out to me?
Question
Answer (continued)
Yes, but you know, you say if this is Your will Lord, but I want to be specific and
if you say “no,” then I know you had something better than that.
I know you can’t put God in a box or put Him in time frames, but when you
have a burden on your heart, can you say specific things like give me some
sort of a yes or no within….you know, you can say it with a little flexibility?
Answer (continued)
You can say anything you want, but He may say no to that too. He may say no,
I’m not giving you what you want, and I’m not giving it to you in that time frame
either. That isn’t going to help. I mean the guy that says, “Show me by Tuesday,
let something fall through my roof or let me…”
“Yeah, I was trying to give Him a lot of leeway, but…it’s just hard to be
specific because He might say no to that, too.” You know for two months I’ve
been praying……
Answer (continued)
Do you know what the Lord wants to hear from you? I believe that He doesn’t
want to hear some kind of theology. I think what the Lord wants to hear is the real
deep cry of your heart. He knows what it is you really want to say, so you might
as well say it. I mean if you really want it badly and you say, “Lord, I just want
your will….”, He knows what you want.

Question
Oh I said it badly enough, I walked on top of a mountain for four hours just
to make sure He heard me.
Answer (continued)
All right, He knows what you want, now you’ve gotta…..(laughing) you wanted
to get as close as possible right? It’s not up there, it’s in here, right…where the
Lord abides.
I unloaded on Him too, I told Him exactly what…..
Answer (continued)
Well, you just keep asking Him and then you learn to trust His answer. I mean,
we all do that, we all do that, I mean that’s routine. The wonderful thing about it
is that we know that He is on our side and we are on His side, and we are all in
this together in the Kingdom, and so it’s going to come out the way He wants it to
come out. It’s exciting.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Prayer of Jabez
Question
What is your opinion of the new best-selling book The Prayer of Jabez? Should Christians be learning
how to pray Jabez's prayer?
Answer
The Prayer of Jabez by Dr. Bruce Wilkinson has gained enormous popularity in the Christian
community. Within the last year it has sold more than 4 million copies-3.5 million in the last four months
alone-and has maintained a first-place ranking on many national best-seller lists. The author is a
distinguished Bible teacher and founder of Walk thru the Bible Ministries. His organization, which hosts
more than 2,500 Bible conferences annually, is designed to train Christians in a fundamental
understanding of both the Old and New Testaments.
Wilkinson's book is a study on Jabez's prayer recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. Dr. Wilkinson's purpose is
to encourage believers to continually look to Jabez's prayer as a model to follow if they expect to receive
great blessing from and accomplish great things for God. Dr. Wilkinson writes, "This petition has
radically changed what I expect from God and what I experience every day by his power" (p. 7). In fact,
he continues to express throughout the book the need for Christians to pray this prayer, so they too can
experience a radical change in their life.
We commend much within The Prayer of Jabez.
For example, Dr. Wilkinson rightly emphasizes the importance of prayer in the Christian life. All
Christians should commune with the Lord in prayer. Jesus, for example, gave his disciples an outline to
follow in prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and fashioned a parable to encourage persistence in prayer (Luke 18:1-
7). Following the Lord's lead, The Prayer of Jabez does an excellent job of emphasizing the need for
cultivating a rich prayer life.
Another helpful focus of the book is its exhortation for Christians to focus their prayers on ministry and
not on personal desires. That is noteworthy as many of today's popular books encourage prayer merely
for individual gain. They assert that God owes blessings to them, and they should ask Him for anything
they desire. Dr. Wilkinson never encourages that attitude. Though he states God will bless the believer,
the blessing will come in the form of more and more opportunities to minister to others in need.
Answered prayer, Dr. Wilkinson reminds us, is born out of proper motives (James 4:3).
With those commendations in mind, however, there are some areas of concern in The Prayer of Jabez.
First of all, the book leaves the door open for Christians to presume upon God. Wilkinson writes, "I want
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-jabez.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:16:10 AM]

to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers." (p. 7, emphasis added). Though it is
true that God hears the prayers of His saints, there is no guarantee that He will always answer them in the
expected manner. To suggest to the reader that God will always answer those who pray Jabez's prayer
greatly overstates reality.
Furthermore, that expectation could lead believers to experience disappointment with God. Someone
might feel justified complaining that he prayed the "model prayer of Jabez" but God never answered. The
truth is, there could be other reasons for God's silence, such as our own unconfessed sin or impure
motives. Or perhaps God's plan for that person is far different from what they asked for in prayer. Dr.
Wilkinson does not clarify his statement, but repeatedly claims throughout the book that God will most
assuredly answer the "Jabez" prayer, a claim that oversimplifies all God's Word says about prayer.
The book also tends to trivialize the discipline of prayer by making the words of Jabez's prayer the
formula to follow. Wilkinson encourages Christians to repeat the words of Jabez's prayer regularly. But
Jesus spoke against that kind of rote prayer style in Matthew 6:7, where He warned His disciples not to
use vain, repetitious prayers. Rather, Christians should pray to God with heartfelt sincerity. Simply
repeating the prayer of Jabez daily runs the risk of reducing a believer's prayer life to vain repetition.
Moreover, The Prayer of Jabez can also create confusion about the importance of the many other prayers
throughout the Bible. Does Jabez's prayer somehow take precedence over Jesus' model of prayer in
Matthew 6:9-13? Are Paul's prayers worth imitating? Do the prayers of other Old Testament saints help
us better understand prayer any more or any less than Jabez's? Focusing solely on Jabez's brief prayer
implicitly ascribes to it some kind of magical character it does not possess. Certainly, Jabez's prayer is a
very good model, but it does not have any inherent ability to unlock God's power in the Christian life.
Unfortunately, Dr. Wilkinson's book does little to dissuade such conclusions about the prayer.
Finally, The Prayer of Jabez paints an inconsistent picture of the Christian life. Wilkinson asserts that
praying Jabez's prayer leads to a life of incredible blessing and ever-increasing ministry opportunities-a
life that sounds almost like a fairy-tale. However, little reference is ever made to the reality of genuine
difficulties in life, and the necessity of sincere prayer to face those difficulties in a God-honoring way.
Furthermore, Dr. Wilkinson fails to encourage the importance of faithfulness in the mundane
circumstances of daily living. He seems to indicate that real Christian living is only happening when
Christians encounter regular miracles and astounding ministry opportunities in life. Scripture, however,
points to the importance of learning to live a life fixed on pleasing God in all the little details in life-
attitudes, thoughts, words, and behavior. The Prayer of Jabez fails to exhibit biblical balance in that
regard.
In conclusion, The Prayer of Jabez can be a helpful tool because it encourages Christians to look to
Jabez's prayer as one of many biblical models of prayer worthy of emulation. You can look to Jabez's
prayer along with the prayers of other Bible characters in an effort to better inform your own prayer life.
But remember, true prayer does not consist of a set of mantras or incantations employed to elicit a
particular response from God. God is not a genie in a bottle, waiting to be coaxed out so He can grant
wishes. Rather, prayer is about aligning your mind and heart with God's sovereign purposes.

Prayer is a rich privilege God graciously grants to His children, enabling us to express our submission to
His will for our lives. To that end, may we all learn to pray with the humility, dependence, and
expectation of blessing Jabez exhibited.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Prayers of Unbelievers
Question
Does God answer the prayers of unbelievers?
Answer
God is sovereign and can choose to answer any prayer He sees fit. But Scripture clearly indicates that
God does not listen to or answer every prayer. In fact, Scripture gives at least fifteen reasons for
unanswered prayer. God does not answer the prayer of those:
#1. Who have personal and selfish motives.
You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures (James 4:3).
#2. Who regard iniquity in their hearts.
If I regard iniquity in my heart, The Lord will not hear (Psalm 66:18).
#3. Who remain in sin.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So
that He will not hear (Isaiah 59:2).
Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He
hears him (John 9:31).
#4. Who offer unworthy service to God.
"You offer defiled food on My altar. But say, 'In what way have we defiled You?' By saying, 'The table
of the Lord is contemptible.' And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, Is it not evil? And when you
offer the lame and sick, Is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you?
Would he accept you favorably?" Says the Lord of hosts. "But now entreat God's favor, That He may be
gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, Will He accept you favorably?" Says the Lord of
hosts (Malachi 1:7-9).
#5. Who forsake God.
Thus says the Lord to this people: "Thus they have loved to wander; They have not restrained their feet.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-unprayers.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 9:16:11 AM]

Therefore the Lord does not accept them; He will remember their iniquity now, And punish their sins."
Then the Lord said to me, "Do not pray for this people, for their good. When they fast, I will not hear
their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will
consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence (Jeremiah 14:10-12). #6. Who reject
God's call.
Because I [Wisdom] have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke.... Then they will call on me,
but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me (Proverbs 1:24-25, 28).
#7. Who will not heed God's law.
One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination (Proverbs 28:9).
"But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.
Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had
sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. Therefore
it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not
listen," says the Lord of hosts" (Zechariah 7:11-13).
#8. Who turn a deaf ear to the cry of the poor.
Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, Will also cry himself and not be heard. (Proverbs 21:13).
#9. Who are violent.
When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I
will not hear. Your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:15; see also 59:2-3).
#10. Who worship idols.
Therefore thus says the Lord: "Behold, I will surely bring calamity on them which they will not be able
to escape; and though they cry out to Me, I will not listen to them. Then the cities of Judah and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods to whom they offer incense, but they will not
save them at all in the time of their trouble. For according to the number of your cities were your gods, O
Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem you have set up altars to that shameful
thing, altars to burn incense to Baal. So do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them; for
I will not hear them in the time that they cry out to Me because of their trouble." (Jeremiah 11:11-14; see
also Ezekiel 8:15-18).
#11. Who have no faith.

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed
by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-7).
#12. Who are living in hypocrisy.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1).
#13. Who are proud of heart.
God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5).
#14. Who are self-righteous.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, "God, I thank You that I am not like other men-
extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I
possess." And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat
his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" I tell you, this man went down to his house justified
rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will
be exalted (Luke 18:11-14).
#15. Who mistreat God's people.
You have also given me the necks of my enemies, So that I destroyed those who hated me. They cried
out, but there was none to save; Even to the Lord, but He did not answer them (Psalm 18:40-41).
You who hate good and love evil; Who strip the skin from My people, And the flesh from their bones;
Who also eat the flesh of My people, Flay their skin from them, Break their bones, And chop them in
pieces, Like meat for the pot, Like flesh in the caldron. Then they will cry to the Lord, But He will not
hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds
(Micah 3:2-4).
So, does God answer the prayers of unbelievers? A strict yes or no answer is difficult without qualifying
the answer in various ways. However, it is noteworthy that the above mentioned principles represent
some of the key characteristics of an unbeliever. Thus we can safely say that, in general, God does not
answer the prayers of an unbeliever.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119


Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Posture of Prayer
Question
Is there a correct posture for prayer?
Answer
There are many correct postures for prayer and no one posture is right or wrong. The Bible exhorts
Christians to pray without ceasing and that necessitates various positions for prayer-no one can remain in
the same position all day. In the Bible, people prayed standing (Genesis 24:12-14), lifting up their hands
(1 Timothy 2:8), sitting (Judges 20:26), kneeling (Mark 1:40), looking upward (John 17:1), bowing down
(Exodus 34:8), placing their heads between their knees (1 Kings 18:42), pounding on their breasts (Luke
18:13), and facing the temple (Daniel 6:10).
Rather than external positioning, the Bible emphasizes the posture of the heart. Whether you are
standing, sitting, or lying down, the important thing is that your heart is bowed in submission to the
lordship of Christ. False religion places a premium on external behavior, while true Christianity is
concerned with the heart. And true prayer is characterized by an attitude of humility before God-not the
physical posture of the person praying.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-prayerposture.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:12 AM]

John MacArthur - Pray without Ceasing
Question
What does it mean to pray without ceasing?
Answer
Unceasing, incessant prayer is essential to the vitality of your relationship to the Lord and your ability to
function in the world. But exactly what does it mean to pray without ceasing? The first time someone
hears about the concept of praying without ceasing it may conjure up the image of Christians walking
around with their hands folded, heads bowed, and eyes closed, bumping into things. While certain
postures and specific times set aside for prayer have an important bearing on our communication with
God, to "pray at all times" obviously does not mean we are to pray in formal or noticeable ways every
waking moment. And it does not mean you're supposed to devote yourself to reciting ritualistic patterns
and forms of prayer.
To "pray without ceasing" refers recurring prayer, not nonstop talking. Prayer is to be a way of life-
you're to be continually in an attitude of prayer. It is living in continual God-consciousness, where
everything you see and experience becomes a kind of prayer, lived in deep awareness of and surrender to
Him. It should be instant and intimate communication-not unlike that which we enjoy with our best
friend.
To "pray without ceasing" means when you are tempted, you hold the temptation before God and ask for
His help. When you experience something good and beautiful, you immediately thank the Lord for it.
When you see evil around you, you ask God to make it right and to use you toward that end, if that is His
will. When you meet someone who does not know Christ, you pray for God to draw that person to
Himself and to use you to be a faithful witness. When you encounter trouble, you turn to God as your
Deliverer.
Thus life becomes a continually ascending prayer: all life's thoughts, deeds, and circumstances become
an opportunity to commune with your Heavenly Father. In that way you constantly set your mind "on the
things above, not on the things that are on earth" (Colossians 3:2).
Adapted from John MacArthur's Alone With God (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1995), pp. 15-17.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-praywoceasing.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:14 AM]

John MacArthur - Pray without Ceasing

Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-praywoceasing.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:14 AM]

John MacArthur - Praying in God's Will
Question
On asking "in the will of God," do you kind of tack that one on like, "in Jesus' name?" Or, you know, like
some people, every time they pray, they go, "Lord, if it's Your will," and kind of got the idea that they
really don't think it is, but they're going to pray it anyways. Would you explain what you mean by
"asking in the will of God?"
Answer
By asking in the will of God I think you are acknowledging that whatever God would want to do would
be best. Now in a very practical sense there may be sometimes when God gives you what you ask, even
though it isn't the best. Illustration number one would be Saul. The people kept begging God over and
over and over and over for a king and they got one and he was a "bummer." And it was God's way of
saying, "you're better off to do it My way to start with." So it may be that one way God could teach us a
lesson would be to give us what we want. But we really don't want that. In your prayer, honestly and
objectively, you really do want God's will, because God's will is the best thing, so I think that's the idea
of it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Prayer
Question
You [have] said that prayer moves God to act. Would you explain how I can move God to act?
Answer
Well, I'm only responding to Scripture. Just exactly how that works, in other words, how my prayers
effect the sovereign God is a mystery. But I do know that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much. I do know, for example, in the Old Testament, that God says, "I am going to wipe out
Israel." And then what happened? Moses starts praying, "No, no, God, don't do that, don't do that." And
what did God do? God spared them.
In other words, somehow, in some way, the sovereignty of God and the will of man in prayer connect.
That's a mystery and I don't know how they do it. I just accept the fact the Scripture says they do.
Incidentally, the mysteries are important because they let God be God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Two things that I would like you to explain, that I hear people use in prayer very often: "Pleading the
Blood of Christ" and "Praying to bind Satan"--they're common practices. Would you comment?
Answer
Well, both of those of are ridiculous. In pleading the blood of Christ, I don't even understand what that
means. Some people will say to me, "Well, boy, we were afraid of demons so we went in this room and
pled the blood of Christ in the bedroom, and then we pled the blood of Christ in the dining room--that's
ridiculous. You've reduced yourself to magical formulas. You're acting like a witch or a warlock. You're
reducing things to a formula. You don't need to beg the blood of Christ into your house. If you're a
Christian, [then] the blood of Christ has covered your sin in your life. You know, going around and
saying, "I plead the blood of Christ," you know, that little verbosity, those words coming out of your
mouth have zero effect on Satan. They don't have any effect on him. What has an effect on what he does
is your own holiness--right? Or the practical righteousness of your life, your salvation. Saying that
doesn't mean anything.
So the idea of running around and pleading the blood here, there, and everywhere is ridiculous. People
get into conflict with demons and they think they've got it all figured out and they forget that demons are
so much more intelligent than they are; that they're dealing with demons who are infinitely wiser than
they are, and who are liars, you know. So you can't believe anything they say. There are even demons
that claim to have the name Jesus. So the idea that you can go around and say little formulas and clean
Satan out of your house or demons is ridiculous. The way to eliminate them is simply by having a pure
life and confessing sin before God and that takes care of it. So the idea of pleading the blood is not even
a biblical concept. The blood of Christ has already been pled in your behalf and it's washed away your
sins and made you a child of God and you're cleansed forever. There's nothing left to plead.
In addition to that, the idea of praying to bind Satan is again ridiculous. What does that mean? Does that
mean that if you say a little formula it's going to happen? Listen, if you live a holy life Satan is already
bound because, "Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world." And the Bible simply says,
"Resist the devil and..." he'll do what? He'll "...flee from you." He can't handle you. And incidentally, the
binding and loosing of Matthew 18 has nothing to do with the devil, it has to do with discipline in the
church and God's agreement with what's being done in the church. So don't reduce your prayer to
formulas. That's not the issue.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
When you pray, how do you know...like you're praying earnestly for something over and over and over
again...how do you know you're not going to get something like a Saul in your life?
Answer
That's a good question and a fair question. You probably would have to really search your motives. And I
think that would be the key. I think in the case of Israel it was clearly a pride motive. They were seeking
a king and this is what they said, "Everybody else has a king, we should have a king." You know, that's
like praying for a Cadillac because everybody on your block has one. There's a selfish motive there. But I
would say that if you have examined your motives and your motives are pure, that you have nothing to
fear.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
When we pray does Satan hear our prayers? Or can he listen to us?
Answer
Yes, if we pray audibly I think he can. But I don't think it matters a whole life. I think he can hear what
you say out loud, but I'm not convinced he can hear the prayers of your heart before God. I don't think
he's omniscient as we've covered in our series on that. I don't think Satan knows the secret prayer of your
heart but I think he hears what you say. But frankly, the best time to hear you would be when you're
praying because you're really in the right context there. So I don't think it makes any difference that he
hears, I hope he hears a lot of things I say.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Would you comment on fleeces?
Answer
Is that a herd of fleas? Oh, I see, fleeces, okay. I got you, you mean putting out a fleece? Yeah, well that's
a good question. People say, "Well, I told the Lord that if it rained on Tuesday, then I would take that as
a sign from Him." Bad news, don't do that to God. You know, don't put God in a situation where you
force the issue. That's just exactly what Jesus was tempted to do by Satan. Satan says, "Now, You dive
off the temple and if He catches You we'll all know You're the Messiah." See, you're forcing God into a
corner. And so what did Jesus say, "Thou shalt not...what?...tempt the Lord thy God." Don't put God in
that kind of a deal.
And, you know, people will say that all the time. "Well, I put out a fleece and I said, All right, God, if a
phone call comes in between two and four in the afternoon I'll know that that's Your will." Now that's
ridiculous. Because you're forcing God into a corner. And that might not be His timing. Don't ever do
that. And don't make a judgment on the basis of some whimsical desire to have something happen in a
certain way.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I understand why God might not answer a prayer for a [new sports car]. But I don't understand if a family
is praying for a safe trip and on their way back half are killed and it's stated, "it's God's will." I don't
understand what the point of prayer would have been or even constant prayer because it was going to be
God's will for the family to split in the first place.
Answer
Well the point was that we have to learn to let God say no. That's all. And true faith in God will let Him
say no. You know, we pray for the safety of our children, but some of our children die. That doesn't
cause us to lose faith in God, that just causes us to say God is sovereign and He makes the choices. So
prayer is still useful because prayer is communing with Him. And prayer then must be offered in His
will. We pray, "Father, give us a safe trip in Your will." Jesus prayed, "Father, save Me from this hour."
And yet He said, "Nevertheless, not My will but Thine be done." Would you say His prayer did no good?
No. Because His prayer was if I don't have to go through this, that's what I would prefer, but if You want
Me to, I will. And I think that's the kind of prayer which says, "God, all we can pray as human beings is
that You would keep us safe, but if You choose to take us home, then You're God and that's Your plan."
So all you do is make a petition and He makes the decision?
Answer (continued)
That's it. That's it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question
When you were talking about prayer, you made the comment that it was wrong for us to ask for more
love or more peace because we already have this. And I assume that you were referring to us positionally--
we have it all. But then there's the other side and don't you think that often when people pray for more
love or more peace or any of these things that are ours positionally, that they're actually asking that it
would be more of a part of their experience without denying the fact that it is their position? And in that it
wouldn't be irrelevant to pray that way.
Answer
Yes, the only thing that I'm saying is that kind of prayer often assumes that you need something that you
don't have. When all you're really talking about is appropriation, that the prayer should be framed, "Lord,
help me to exercise that which You have given me." You know, I just react negatively to the idea that a
Christian is incapable of anything and that he has to say, "God, I can't do this until You do this for me."
He's done it all for you. It's a question of your willingness to appropriate what is yours.
The average Christian thinks that there are things that he still needs. But there aren't really. They're all
ours if we will only be obedient to appropriate them. You know, it's just like going to your closet and
have an unending supply of everything you need. There's no sense in sitting in the living room praying
about it, you might as well go to the closet and use it. It's that kind of idea. "Lord, help me to appropriate
what You've given me." Just the recognition that you have everything.
But it's not wrong to ask Him for the strength to do that?
Answer (continued)
To use it. Right.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119


Online since 1986

Question
I have a question concerning the gospel where it's talking about hypocrisy of praying aloud versus
praying in the closet and praying the Lord's prayer.
Answer
Well, you see, when Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and to the Jewish leaders, they wanted to pray in
public because that's how they displayed their spirituality. When they came to pray they would always
put on real "cruddy" clothes and put ashes all over their head and they would come down very spiritual
with the ashes over their head and this was their format. And Jesus was saying, "You know, that's
despicable because that's pride. If there was anything legitimate to this you would go in your closet and
pray between you and God." He wasn't saying that always when you pray go in your closet. In some
places they don't even have closets, you know, so that isn't the point. And sometimes there isn't one
around. The point is He's simply saying, as opposed to that public display of pride there ought to be the
private reality of real conversing with God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Does God answer unsaved people's prayers?
Answer
God is not obligated to answer the prayers of unsaved people. He may choose on some occasion to do
that, but normally He would be doing what He would be doing anyway and they would maybe "hit it on
the head" once in a while. But if He's driving them, if He's driving them to Himself, He may bring those
sequence of events. God is not obligated to answer the prayers of unbelievers simply because He says, "If
I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord won't hear me."
My [unsaved] mother-in-law always says that she prayed for her kids and everything seemed to turn out
okay, which, you know, my husband said that undoubtedly her prayers were answered in many ways.
Answer (continued)
But, you see, there's just as many people who prayed and their kids didn't turn out all right. So, you see,
it's just a matter of, you know, they're either going to turn out good or bad and so you've got a fifty-fifty
shot even if God isn't listening.
Then it's the Lord's will then.
Answer (continued)
It's just this; it's just that an unbeliever has no claim on God, none at all. As I said, some things may
happen that appear to be what they prayed for, but you can't say that that's because God is working in
their behalf. It's a good question and it's an important question because people often ask that. Now I
believe one prayer that's always answered in the heart of an unbeliever is the prayer of salvation, the
prayer of faith that seeks to know God and know Christ.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
On the same line as fleeces, if you're not praying in God's will, can Satan answer your prayer? I mean,
like if you're outside of His will. Could he make something happen that where you'd think you were
being answered?
Answer
Oh, I suppose he could.
What I'm referring to is like petitions to the Blessed Mother and these type of things where actual
miracles was supposed to happen.
Answer (continued)
Yes, that's why I say it possibly could. Because in the case of an unbeliever, you know, they could be
saying, "God, do this, God, do this," and Satan will come in and do it and he'll do it through a non-
Christian medium which will cause that person to attach to that. For example, a pagan man prays to the
moon for a certain thing to happen. Satan makes it happen and that holds the man to worshiping the
moon and Satan's got a convert. And that's one of the things that we say about unbelievers: God has no
obligation to answer their prayer but very often Satan will just to convince them that everything is all
right. In the case of this maybe a non-Christian mother prays for her kids so Satan makes sure her kids
don't get too wiped out, too far into the situation, the Satanic system, and that convinces the mother that
she's already connected to God so she never seeks any further and so she never comes to Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question
I never knew that Satan would be able to hear your prayers if you said them audibly. I was under the
impression that he can only be in one place at a certain time.
Answer
That's true.
So if he was listening to you he wouldn't be anywhere else?
Answer (continued)
Well, I'm just saying he could if he happened to be hanging around you. He could hear. And there's
plenty of other demons who can hear.
I don't like the idea of thinking that he was around.
Answer (continued)
Well just look at it this way. There's an awful lot of people in the world that he's busy with and I don't
know what his schedule is but he probably only gets around to you once in 3.8 billion units of time,
whatever it is. But it doesn't really matter, so don't worry about it because Satan can't touch you. You
belong to Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119


Online since 1986

Question
I just wanted to ask what suggestions you would have for teaching children to pray?
Answer
I think a really great thing to use to teach a child to pray would be just the Lord's prayer, which really
should have been called the Disciples' prayer. Not that that's the normal prayer for the Christian, it's a
Jewish prayer, really asking for the Kingdom to come. But it's a beautiful thing to talk about the things to
pray about. "Our Father," God is our Father. "Who art in heaven," that's where He is. "Give us this day
our daily bread," we pray to God for the food that we eat, the things that we need every day. And then
there's forgiveness in it. And then the Kingdom of God to come. I think to use the Lord's prayer is kind of
a beautiful way to start to teach a child just what are the basic ingredients in prayer.
Well I'll tell you how I work with my children and that is that...and their ages are 2 and she's out, she's
running around the room at the time...how old are my kids? Seven, nine and eleven. And we pray every
night and we share requests. We pray specifically. In other words, my daughter used to always pray,
"God bless the whole wide world." You know, and I used to tell her you can't pray that because God can't
answer that. What's He going to do, you know, zap the whole wide world? And you'd never even know
it. So you have to pray specifically. So we say, "What do we want to pray about tonight?" "Well, a little
girl in my class, you know, broke her leg, or we want to pray for the missionaries, or let's pray for Dad
because he has to speak or he has to study," or whatever. We share little requests and we just pray about
those things.
I think you start where they are and you let them pray about the things in their world, in their life, as well
as teaching them what prayer is. Which I think the Lord's prayer can do.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question
I was raised up a Catholic and my husband...like when we say prayers before meals, he still says the
Catholic prayer. And it's like...they're just words to the children and doesn't really mean a thing, but then
he's the one that leads the prayers so should I just...?
Answer
Well what does it say? What is it? How does it go?
"Bless this food, O Lord, which we are about to receive from these Thy bounties through Christ our
Lord."
Answer (continued)
Oh, that's a good prayer...but it's just repetitious, is what you're saying.
Right, I mean, they just say it and, and I know it doesn't mean anything, I want prayer to mean something
to them.
Answer (continued)
You might just, you know, in one of those nice moments when he's got his arm around you, just say,
"Hey, you know, I was thinking about our prayers, I wonder if the kids really learn what prayer is when
they have the same thing, why don't you just, you know, put on the end of it, Lord, thank You for helping
us through the day," or just a little, make a suggestion that maybe you could add a little thing on the end
or make the suggestion that maybe it would be nice if we could take turns in praying and they could pray
maybe some of the things that's on their mind to pray. I don't know how you can suggest those things but
I think without telling him this is how to do it you can make those suggestions at the right time and
maybe he'll respond to that.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
In praying for a brother that is in some sin and this brother continues to be in sin, should it come to a
point where we should discontinue our prayers or what should be, I don't know, along that line?
Answer
I wouldn't say so. I would say we would continue to pray for him until such a time as 1 John 5, you
know, where he's taken away. But even in that case I don't think 1 John 5 is saying stop praying for him,
it's just saying it won't do any good if you do. But you don't know that, that's for God to decide. So I
think that definitely you should continue to pray for him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
My question, if I may read two verses, has to do with repetitive prayer for salvation for loved ones.
It’s in I John, chapter five, verses 14 and 15: “And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that
if we ask anything according to his will, He heareth us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever
we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him.”
On prayer lists that we all have, that we pray for, people, loved ones, friends--do we just have to
pray once? Or do we have to pray over and over again? Like the example of the young man who
said he had a sister who prayed for him for five years. I believe in repetitive praying, but that’s
because it’s the way I’ve been brought up through the church.
Answer
I think that is the proper way to pray. I think there’s one sense in which you can’t stop praying that way,
right? You can’t restrain that because if you care deeply, you pray passionately. If you were to say,
“Well, look, Aunt Alice, I prayed once; don’t push me.” You know, I mean there’s no way, because you
care deeply, you pray repetitively.
I also believe that the principle of impassioned prayer is laid out throughout the scripture. Even in the
Old Testament, there are passionate prayers by spiritual leaders for the people Israel. In the New
Testament, you have Jesus saying that because of someone’s “much praying,” God responds. That’s
called importunity, prayers of importunity: with much praying. You have even Jesus himself agonizing in
prayer before the Father in the garden. And not only in the garden on the night of his capture, but
apparently, night after night after night after night, praying. He says to Peter, “I have prayed for you.” I
don’t think that means that He prayed one time for Peter. I think John 17, again, expresses the prolonged
heart of Christ for his own and those that would come after them, which He poured out to the Father
again and again and again. I think James 5 talks about that general principle: “the effectual fervent prayer
of a righteous man availeth much.”
What the Bible forbids is vain repetition, empty repetition of formulas rather than the pleadings of the
impassioned heart. I think we are to pray continually. I was thinking of I Timothy, a good place to look
and kind of get a passage. I covered this in a message I gave on this text called “Evangelistic Praying.”
"First of all, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions, thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men."
What for? Well, certainly in part for their salvation, "...for kings and all who are in authority, and in order
that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the

sight of God, our Savior, who desires all men to be saved!" So what are we praying? He says in verse 1,
“Pray for all men.” He says why, in verse 4, because “God desires all men to be saved.” "Prayers,
entreaties, petitions"--I mean, that’s just a part of our life. So I think it’s right; I think we are to pray
continually.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
How should we theologically classify passages like Psalm 139:19-22 in light of the New Testament
teaching to love our enemies and those who persecute us, since many times God’s enemies are in
fact or become our enemies? How do we answer someone who quotes passages such as these and
claims that the Bible is guilty of the same hatefulness that is found in the Koran?
Answer
This is coming up all the time now; people are picking up on the imprecatory Psalms where the psalmist
is praying for God to destroy his enemies. The difference is a very clear difference: in the Koran, it’s
people being called to kill for God; in the Bible, it’s people asking God to destroy those that are
destroying his people. One puts the power--the jihad--in the hands of the people; the other puts the
vengeance where it belongs with God.
But, it is true that there are imprecatory Psalms, which call down damnation on the enemies of God. That
is an appropriate kind of praying. It doesn’t allow us to take vengeance into our hands. But, it’s the same
thing in Habakkuk: “How long, O Lord, how long?” It’s the same thing in Revelation, the martyrs under
the alter: “How long, O Lord, how long are you going to let this on? Your people are being massacred all
over the world; how long before you’re going to step in and stop the bloodshed and honor your name and
vindicate yourself?”
So, I think it’s a righteous prayer. It’s not that we as martyrs hate those who kill us. It’s not that we hate
our persecutors. Quite the contrary: we love them. It is that we want our God to be vindicated…we want
our God to be honored. It is like the Psalm (I think it’s Psalm 69) where it says--David said that “the
reproaches that fall on you are fallen on me. Zeal for your house has eaten me up” and then Jesus quotes
that! Jesus is the one who said “love your enemies,” but Jesus is the one who made a whip--right?--and
quoted that Psalm, “Zeal for your house has eaten me up; the reproaches that fall on you are fallen on
me,” went in there, turned over the tables, and started slashing people with a whip. It had nothing to do
with personal self-defense. It had nothing to do with whether He loved his enemies or not. It had to do
with the vindication of the glory and honor of God.
But only Jesus did that. He didn’t authorize the disciples, He didn’t send them out and say, “Now go
preach the gospel and throw over people in the temple and,” you know, “pick fights and be tools of
vengeance.” That was unique to the nation Israel. Those are the only holy wars--legitimate ones--in all of
history. So, I think it’s a matter simply of recognizing that we have every right to pray that the glory and

honor of God be vindicated and that sinful men be thwarted and that righteousness prevail in the world.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

This question was asked to John MacArthur, during a question-and-answer session in a recent chapel
service at The Master's Seminary
Question
Answer
To be a legitimate expositor, you have to explain the text, and that rarely occurs in preaching. That does
not mean taking a text of Scripture, finding an outline, and bouncing your way through a homiletical
format. Explaining the text means giving to the people precisely the message that God intended when He
revealed that Scripture. That's going to take you beyond superficiality, because frankly there isn't
anything superficial about the mind of God. And there isn't anything cute or clever about the mind of
God. Everything about the mind of God is profound. Everything about the mind of God is systematic.
Everything about the mind of God is clear. Everything about the mind of God is cohesive. Everything
about the mind of God is orderly. And that is how the text should be explained.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/expositor.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:34 AM]

Question
First of all, I have to preface this by saying you have always very, very bold in the way you preach
and I have appreciated that. I only hope you can appreciate the boldness with which I ask this
question. John, my question is, thirty years ago you started teaching [here]. I’m just curious, have
you changed in any of your stances or interpretations--anything biblical, or maybe the way you
might have said something? Let’s face it, you probably have offended some people, and you know,
maybe a better word is “convicted” some people. But, I’m just curious, are there any changes in
your stances or interpretations?
Answer
That’s a very good question, and I’m glad you asked it. Let me answer it this way: I have not changed my
theology because I had the benefit of great training under my father who had a sound and right approach
to scripture. I had great training in my seminary experience. I sat under men who had the right
understanding of scripture. Some of the men that taught me in seminary are now teaching in the Master’s
Seminary, and have from the beginning-Dr. Rosscup, Dr. Thomas. So, I was benefited by not having to
sort out and figure out everything on my own once I got into the ministry, which would have probably
produced many more changes.
There have been very few times when I actually have changed something. I remember one Sunday night
I preached on why the antichrist will be a Jew. And somebody came to me after the sermon and said,
“You’re wrong.” (This was very early in my ministry here.) He sent me back to the scripture and so the
next Sunday night I preached on why the antichrist will be a Gentile. I still couldn’t make up my mind,
so we left both tapes in there for a while-you could have your pick. But, I’ve come to believe that the
antichrist will be a Gentile.
There have been just a couple of occasions like that. But I would say what might appear to people to be
changes really is a refinement. I would say I’ve always believed what I believe, but as you grow older
and as you deal more with scripture, it becomes more refined. So, I might go back and I wouldn’t say it
that way anymore; I would be more clear. There would be a few things that I would change. There have
been a few interpretations of a passage that, through the years, we’ve gone back and changed the tape or
eliminated something, but nothing of major proportions.
Occasionally on a Sunday, I’ll say something in a sermon and ask them to pull it out because I didn’t say
it clearly or I misspoke; I said something that was the opposite of what I meant by throwing in a “not” or

something like that. But, for the most part, the theology that I was raised on and trained on and taught has
stood the test of all the years of exegesis. It is true that it has been greatly refined, and I am now much
better able to articulate it.
I think where that may show up most dramatically is in the fact that I’ve never had to pull any of my
books back and take material out of them. And as you heard this morning, I think I’ve written around 80
books, and if you add study guides and things….a lot more than that. But I’ve never had to go back and
throw anything away. There have been a few interpretations-maybe of matters in Revelation or prophetic
matters-that I might see a little differently now than I did years ago, when maybe I was a little more
prone to let the headlines mess with my exegesis than I am now. For the most part, the theology has
stood the test of time.
With regard to the matter of offending people, that’s only a problem to me if I am the offense. It’s not a
problem to me if the Word is an offense, because it is; that is the way it is. If people are offended by the
truth, then I have fulfilled my responsibility. If they’re offended by me, then I need to repent. I want to
speak the truth in love; I don’t want to be the offense. But, I understand that people who believe error,
people who believe the lie, people who don’t understand the truth or aren’t committed to it, are offended
by it-I mean, certainly in the culture in which we live today. The basic idea is that you have to tolerate
anything and everything that anybody and everybody believes.
People ask me all the time, “Is it hard to be so bold? Is it hard to be dogmatic?” And the answer is no, it’s
relatively easy because I don’t speak my own words. If I come and teach the Word of God, then I have to
let the Word of God say what it says. So, I don’t wrestle with “How is that going to affect me? Are
people going to like me? Am I going to be popular? Am I going to make enemies?” That never comes
into my mind-literally, it never comes into my mind! I never think like that. All I think about is what is
the truth here, and I don’t think “well, this is truth, so let me crank up ten decibels and really get this
across.” I don’t think about technique. I don’t think about the style of my preaching or whether I yell or
don’t yell or whether I try some kind of theatrical enhancement to make a point. I just love the truth-I get
passionate about the truth-it’s the truth that compels me, and if the truth is an offense, then it needs to be
an offense, you know what I’m saying?
It’s like a doctor… If you go to the doctor and he tells you you’ve got cancer-you don’t like it-that’s an
offensive statement-but if it happens to be an accurate diagnosis, it’s really the important thing for you to
hear and then you have to deal with it. You know, I don’t like to have enemies; I don’t choose to do
that… But those people who don’t want to hear the truth have a problem not with me, but with the source
of the truth. I hope that answers the question-very good question…..thank you.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119


Online since 1986

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-notes.htm
Question
To what extent do you use notes? Do you write a manuscript?
Answer
During my study I write out the flow of my sermon. Then, from that rough draft, I write out notes to take
into the pulpit. I usually have about ten half-sheets of notes for each message. I have everything written
out that I want to cover. I have some statements written exactly the way I want to phrase them. Certain
truths need to be stated accurately or in fresh terms, so that I am not misunderstood or repetitious.
Since I preach in the same church week after week, I do not want to phrase the same truths in exactly the
same way time after time. To keep my messages new, I need to guard against falling back into habitual
ways of saying things. Extensive notes help me avoid that. They also assure that I do not forget
something important I wanted to say. Since I use many cross-references, I need to write down their
chapter and verse as well.
My notes are the record of my study of a passage, so I try to make them thorough. If they are too cryptic,
I will not remember my flow of thought later when I review them. For example, if my notes say, "Tell
story of boy and dog," six months later I may not remember what boy and what dog. Even referring to an
Old Testament story requires some notes, so I can recall later what nuance of that story was relevant. I
am also writing a commentary series on the entire New Testament. Sometimes the commentary on a
book is written several years after I have preached through the book. My notes need to have enough of
my exegesis to reflect how I interpreted a passage for the sake of this later use.
I am not really bound to my notes when I preach. I do not read a manuscript. On Saturday evening (or
Sunday afternoon for the Sunday-evening message) I read through my notes and highlight key points
with a red pen. These red notations are a visual crutch if I need them. I have learned through experience
how to look at my notes while I am preaching without it being obvious to the congregation. I could
preach my sermons without my notes. I might forget a few things, or not say something exactly the way I
wanted to, but the main thrust of my message would be there.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-notes.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:37 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-notes.htm
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-notes.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:37 AM]

John MacArthur - Preaching
Question
What use do you make of quotes and illustrations?
Answer
I never quote someone just because he is an authority. The Scripture is authoritative and does not need
outside support. The only time I quote an authority is on a matter about which Scripture is silent. Usually
when I quote a commentator or theologian, it is because he has stated the truth in a clear, definitive,
prosaic, or graphic manner. I only quote someone who has said something in a unique way worthy of
quoting. I would not quote him just because what he said was true, since I could do this in my own
words.
Of course, when I quote someone, I am careful to credit him. To quote someone else as though it were
your own words is wrong. Yet I read so many different discussions and pour so many things through my
mind as I prepare my sermons that it is next to impossible to document the source of each thought. As
long as I phrase the thoughts in my own words and combine them with other thoughts, it is not necessary
to footnote them. Extensive footnoting is proper in a book. I am careful in my books to document my
sources, but too many references to sources would be distracting in a sermon.
A balance is the ideal. We cannot document every thought in our sermons. On the other hand, we should
give credit where due. Pastors sometimes ask me if they can use my material. I have given blanket
permission for anyone to use my sermons and preach them in whole or in part if they wish, and I do not
want any credit as the source. If what I say has value to someone, I am honored for him to use it for
God's glory. The truth is all His.
Yet if someone re-preaches one of my sermons without enriching it by going through the discovery
process, that sermon will inevitably be flat and lifeless. The great Scottish preacher Alexander Maclaren
once went to hear another man preach, a young man with a reputation for being a gifted preacher. Much
to Maclaren's surprise, the young man said at the outset of his message, "I've had such a busy week that I
had no time to prepare a sermon of my own, so I'm going to preach one of Maclaren's." He did not know
Maclaren was in the audience until Maclaren greeted him afterward. He was very embarrassed and
became even more so when Maclaren looked him in the eye and said, "Young man, I don't mind if you
are going to preach my sermons, but if you are going to preach them like that, please don't say they are
mine."
To rely too heavily on the sermons of others robs one of the joy of discovering biblical truth for himself.
Such sermons will lack conviction and enthusiasm. Sermons by other preachers should be another study
tool, like commentaries or illustration books.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-quotes.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:38 AM]

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-quotes.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:38 AM]

Question
How long does it take you to prepare a sermon?
Answer
I spend less time now than I did earlier in my ministry. I used to spend about fifteen hours on a sermon,
but now it is about eight or ten hours. Over the years of my ministry, I have accumulated more
information, more knowledge of the Scriptures, and more Bible-study skills. These allow me to dig
deeper into a text in ten hours than I could in fifteen hours earlier in my ministry.
The big challenge facing me now is not just in the area of interpretation, but in communication. I have
been at the same church for more than thirty years, so I have to fight to keep from falling into a pattern of
similarity. It is a challenge for me to be fresh, and not just say the same things over and over in the same
way.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-preptime.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:39 AM]

Question
How do you guard your preparation time?
Answer
I use a system I call "planned neglect": I plan to neglect everything else until my studying is done. I set
aside Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday to prepare for my Sunday messages. Not until I have
accomplished what I need to on those days do I then stop and care for other matters. I have an assistant
and two secretaries who help shield me from the affairs of a large ministry that would deluge me and rob
me of my study time. Of course, I am available when I need to be.
I realize all pastors do not have a personal assistant or a large staff to share the responsibilities of their
ministry. Neither did I in the early years of my ministry. But my commitment to studying the Word has
never changed. If other details take my time, I simply put in longer hours that week. Our goal as pastors
is not to do all the work of the ministry ourselves, but to equip our people for ministry (cf. Eph. 4:11-16).
We can only accomplish this effectively through preaching based on thorough study. So I know that time
spent in preparation will result in more sharing of my load by a maturing church.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-time.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:40 AM]

Question
How long should a sermon be?
Answer
As long as it takes to cover the passage adequately! I do not think the length of the sermon is as
important as its content. At times I have preached fifty minutes and it has been ten minutes too long.
Other times, I have preached an hour and twenty-five minutes and it has been just right. The important
thing is to cover the main point so that people are convinced of its truth and comprehend its
requirements. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, even twenty minutes will seem like an eternity to
your people. If you are interesting, they will stay with you. Do not mistake persuasion for long-
windedness, however. If you preach longer than you should, you will sacrifice persuasiveness.
I am convinced that biblical exposition requires at least forty minutes. Less than this just is not sufficient
to probe the text deeply. If it takes fifteen to twenty minutes to give the setting, ten to fifteen minutes to
draw out the principles, five to ten minutes to cross-reference them, and five to ten minutes for a
conclusion, you already have about fifty minutes. Rarely does a man preaching twenty-five to thirty
minutes do doctrinal exposition.
That is why developing the logical flow of a sermon is crucial. If your message is clearly outlined and
you lead your people through the process of discovery, you will hold their attention. Your sermon must
be going somewhere. You cannot merely give a number of assorted truths unrelated to each other. If your
sermon lacks interest because it is disjointed, your people will lose interest.
If you are going to be a Bible expositor, forget the twenty- and thirty-minute sermons. You are looking at
forty or fifty minutes. In any less than that, you can't exposit the Scripture. The purpose of a sermon is
not to get it over, but rather to explain the Word of God. My goal is not accomplished because I am brief.
My goal is accomplished when I am clear and I have exposited the Word of God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sermontime.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:41 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sermontime.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:41 AM]

Question
I've heard it said that 50 percent of a sermon should be application. Could you comment?
Answer
I think that is arbitrary. I prefer to say that all of a sermon should be applicable. If I preach the Word of
God powerfully and accurately, everything I say should apply. Obviously, not all will apply to everyone
in the same way, but it is my intent to speak what is life-changing for all.
I believe the goal of preaching is to compel people to make a decision. I want people who listen to me to
understand exactly what God's Word demands of them when I am through. Then they must say either,
"Yes, I will do what God says," or "No, I won't do what God says."
While I believe in the importance of illustrations, I do not believe that 50 percent of a sermon must be
applications. If I preach that we should love our neighbors, I need not devote half of my sermon to telling
my people in exhaustive detail how to love this way. It is the Spirit who applies the truths of Scripture to
each person. But if we fail to give our hearers some clear principles they can apply, we have failed to
present God's Word properly. Remember, people live out their theology or beliefs, but they forget your
exhortations. They will apply what they genuinely believe to be true.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sermonapp.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:42 AM]

Question
Do you find it easier now to develop a sermon from a passage?
Answer
I never study to make a sermon. I study to understand the text. As I have grown in the Lord and in the
knowledge of the Word, I have been able to dig deeper into the passages I study. I just keep studying
until I have discovered all the rich truths I can from a text. I only preach part of what I find in my study
process. Even doing this, however, I often wind up with a three- or four-week series from what began as
a single message.
Preaching is a science, an art, and an adventure. It is a science in that it is based on the well-defined and
absolute rules of hermeneutics and skills of exegesis. Interpretation is not whimsical, but implements
literal, historical, grammatical, and contextual principles.
But preaching is also an art. Preaching a passage is similar to painting a picture. No two artists, though
they use the same tools and techniques, will paint exactly the same picture. In the same way, no two
preachers, even using the same principles of interpretation, will develop the same sermon. Applying the
principles of sermon preparation and delivery is an art, the manner of application depending on the skill,
experience, and perspective of the preacher.
Preaching is also an adventure. A spiritual dynamic is at work when I step into the pulpit. I find myself
saying things I had not planned to say as the data from my study come together in a way I had not seen
before. When this happens, I may depart from my notes and amplify the new thought. That is why it
sometimes takes me several weeks to preach through notes originally designed as one sermon.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sermondev.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:44 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sermondev.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:44 AM]

Question
How do you differentiate between persuasion and manipulation?
Answer
The difference lies in the means we use to persuade. The Word of God is the only legitimate means of
persuasion. Legitimate persuasion is cognitive-stirring the mind with reasonable truth. Convincing with
tear-jerking stories, histrionics, and emotional outbursts takes an unfair advantage of people and wrongly
muddles their thinking. That does not mean we cannot use all the communication skills available to us,
but we should avoid playing on people's emotions, even by repeated singing or playing of hymns. These
are artificial and should be avoided because they bypass the reason.
Our goal in preaching is to constrain people to choose change because it is reasonable and right before
God, not because they have been manipulated into some momentary feeling or action. We persuade them
from the Scriptures to choose the right course of action. We do not pile on emotional pressure until they
break. We want them to know clearly what the alternatives are and that they must choose. If after hearing
our sermon someone does not know what he is supposed to do about it, we did not reach that person. I
believe the legitimate point of persuasion ends with the clear presentation of the truth and must not move
beyond that to artificial emotional stimuli for eliciting a response. This latter kind of appeal has produced
false Christians and weak believers bouncing from one emotional high to another without a theology to
live by.
In 1 Tim. 4:13, Paul writes to Timothy, "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to
exhortation and teaching." What he tells Timothy is to read the text, explain the text, and apply the text.
That verse is a call to persuasive, expository preaching. Paul himself was a very persuasive preacher, but
he never tried to manipulate emotions to move people artificially. At the end of one of his messages,
King Agrippa exclaimed, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian" (Acts 26:28).
Agrippa clearly understood the message. Unfortunately, he made a wrong decision in spite of his
understanding.
Ultimately, however, our sermons will only be as persuasive as our lives. A traveling speaker who does
not remain in one place long enough for people to get to know him may be able to "fake" it without a
consistent life to back up his message, (though this is regrettable). Those of us who preach to the same
people week after week, however, cannot do that. Our people know us, and our persuasiveness depends
on the quality of our lives. Paul's preaching was persuasive; but it was his life that won the hearts of
people. The Ephesian elders cried when Paul left them, but not because they would not hear him preach
anymore. They were "grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his
face no more" (Acts 20:38). The integrity of the preacher's life is a key element in persuasiveness.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-perman.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:45 AM]

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-perman.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:45 AM]

Question
What abiding lessons would you teach men who are committed to expository preaching that will sustain
them for a lifetime of ministry?
Answer
First of all, make sure that every expository message has a single theme that is crystal clear so that your
people know exactly what you are saying, how you have supported it, and how it is to be applied to their
lives. The thing that kills people in what is sometimes called expository preaching is randomly
meandering through a passage.
Second, when you go into a church that is not accustomed to exposition, realize that a period of training
the listeners is needed. You must move your flock from whatever they have been hearing into thinking
logically, rationally, and even deeply about the Word of God. This is the process of weaning them from
whatever they have been on and whetting their appetites for the meat of God's Word.
Next, you need to go in with a long-term perspective. My dad said to me years ago, "I want you to
remember a couple of things before you go into the ministry. One, the great preachers, the lasting
preachers who left their mark on history, taught their people the Word of God. Two, they stayed in one
place for a long time." These were two good pieces of advice. Everybody used to say, when I first came
to Grace Community Church, that I would only last about a year or two, because they saw me as a
communicator. But in my heart, I knew I wanted to do two things: one was to teach the Word of God
systematically and the other was to do it in the same place over the long haul. I knew that was the only
way I could nourish people who would be really doctrinally solid.
Fourth, realize that as you begin to unfold the Scripture, your ministry is going to change. You cannot
know everything that the Bible is going to say unless you have dug deeply into it. You may think you
have everything wired, but four or five years into your ministry, you will come to a passage that will
change the way you think about a certain issue and the way your church does things. You and your
people must allow the Word to shape your church.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-exposit.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:46 AM]

Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-exposit.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:46 AM]

Question
Since notable expositors are avid readers, what are your reading preferences?
Answer
The irony of it is that when I was in college, I didn't want to read. I was a typical athletic guy who was
usually outdoors, and I preferred not to be indoors reading. I arrived at seminary and had no choice. So I
just began to read and, of course, it was all about what I wanted to know. I really fell in love with reading
theology. So now I read theology-books on doctrine-and commentaries. Every week of my life, I read all
of the commentaries on any passage I am preaching, and then I just read theology. This comes in many
volumes that deal with divine issues or divine themes, not just in theology textbooks, but also in books
that deal with particular doctrines and doctrinal issues like the Holy Spirit, Christ, sin, or salvation. For
variation, I then sprinkle in biographies of spiritual men and occasionally a really "hot" book on
important contemporary issues.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-reading.htm [5/21/2002 9:16:47 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-effectivepreaching.htm
Question
What is the ultimate key to effective preaching?
Answer
Very simply, stay in your study until you know that the Lord will gladly accept what you have prepared
to preach because it rightly represents His Word. Let me close with an unforgettable plan suggested by
an unknown parishioner as to how to accomplish this. Fling him into his office. Tear the "Office" sign
from the door and nail on the sign, "Study." Take him off the mailing list. Lock him up with his books
and his typewriter and his Bible. Slam him down on his knees before texts and broken hearts and the
flock of lives of a superficial flock and a holy God.
Force him to be the one man in our surfeited communities who knows about God. Throw him into the
ring to box with God until he learns how short his arms are. Engage him to wrestle with God all the night
through. And let him come out only when he's bruised and beaten into being a blessing.
Shut his mouth forever spouting remarks, and stop his tongue forever tripping lightly over every
nonessential. Require him to have something to say before he dares break the silence. Bend his knees in
the lonesome valley. Burn his eyes with weary study. Wreck his emotional poise with worry for God.
And make him exchange his pious stance for a humble walk with God and man. Make him spend and be
spent for the glory of God. Rip out his telephone. Burn up his ecclesiastical success sheets.
Put water in his gas tank. Give him a Bible and tie him to the pulpit. And make him preach the Word of
the living God! Test him. Quiz him. Examine him. Humiliate him for his ignorance of things divine.
Shame him for his good comprehension of finances, batting averages, and political in-fighting. Laugh at
his frustrated effort to play psychiatrist. Form a choir and raise a chant and haunt him with it night and
day-"Sir, we would see Jesus."
When at long last he dares assay the pulpit, ask him if he has a word from God. If he does not, then
dismiss him. Tell him you can read the morning paper and digest the television commentaries, and think
through the day's superficial problems, and manage the community's weary drives, and bless the sordid
baked potatoes and green beans, ad infinitum, better than he can. Command him not to come back until
he's read and reread, written and rewritten, until he can stand up, worn and forlorn, and say, "Thus saith
the Lord."
Break him across the board of his ill-gotten popularity. Smack him hard with his own prestige. Corner
him with questions about God. Cover him with demands for celestial wisdom. And give him no escape
until he's back against the wall of the Word. And sit down before him and listen to the only word he has
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-effectivepreaching.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:48 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-effectivepreaching.htm
left-God's Word. Let him be totally ignorant of the down-street gossip, but give him a chapter and order
him to walk around it, camp on it, sup with it, and come at last to speak it backward and forward, until all
he says about it rings with the truth of eternity.
And when he's burned out by the flaming Word, when he's consumed at last by the fiery grace blazing
through him, and when he's privileged to translate the truth of God to man, finally transferred from earth
to heaven, then bear him away gently and blow a muted trumpet and lay him down softly. Place a two-
edged sword in his coffin, and raise the tomb triumphant. For he was a brave soldier of the Word. And
ere he died, he had become a man of God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-effectivepreaching.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:48 AM]

Question
If we are to proclaim the "whole counsel of God," why do you preach predominately from the New
Testament?
Answer
Paul said that he was a minister of the new covenant. Since he was responsible to preach the new
covenant, I think it is compelling for us to herald the new covenant, too. What we find then is that we
must primarily preach Christ and herald the new covenant, which is New Testament literature, the
mystery now unfolded that was hidden in the past.
At the same time, we draw on the illustrative material in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament
material can be summed up like this: First, it describes God. Then, it gives His law for life, His rules for
righteous behavior. Third, it shows how God blesses those who obey, and fourth, how God punishes
those who don't. The Old Testament also becomes the great source of illustrative material as we reach
back to get some of the magnificence and fullness of God before the cross.
Another personal component for me is that when I was in seminary I realized that I could not be expert in
Greek and Hebrew at the same time. Having had twenty-four units of Greek in college, I decided to
follow that up and pursue New Testament studies as a primary objective for my own life and ministry.
The third little piece for me is that I have a personal goal in my life to preach through the whole New
Testament. I desire to herald faithfully all the counsel of God and the revealed mystery of the new
covenant. Occasionally, for variety I will sprinkle in an Old Testament series such as a study of Genesis
or Daniel, or a character study.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-ntpreach.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:50 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-ntpreach.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:50 AM]

Question
Why are you compelled to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible, unlike other notable
preachers such as C. H. Spurgeon?
Answer
Spurgeon was not a pure expositor. He frequently preached topically. He was a great writer of sermons
and was masterful in his prose and his insights, plus he possessed tremendous creativity. His mind had
tremendous imaginational capacities. He could also hold an audience.
One of the reasons I preach verse by verse is because I could never produce such inspiring, clever,
creative, topical sermons week in and week out as he did. He had an immensely creative imagination. I
just don't have that, nor do many other preachers that I know. Where creativity is strong, so is the danger
that it can turn a preacher away from the exposition of Scripture. We need to guard against this without
suppressing legitimate creativity.
I could wish that Spurgeon had preached the book of Romans verse by verse. If he had done with
Romans or Hebrews what he did with the book of Psalms, which resulted in The Treasury of David, his
expositional legacy would be unsurpassed.
Most of all, however, preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible is the most reasonable way to
teach the whole counsel of God. If I am obligated to teach the whole new covenant message and all of
the mystery unfolded, the only systematic way that I know to teach it all is to take it the way it comes,
one book at a time from beginning to end. If I were to approach the goal of teaching the whole New
Testament in random fashion, it would be a hopeless maze to lead people through. On the other hand, if I
am committed to teaching the Word of God systematically so that all of the revelation of God is brought
before His people, the only reasonable way of doing that is to go through it one book at a time.
Also, the only effective way of seeing the significance of a passage is in its context. Going through an
entire book sets the passage in its context on its widest, deepest, and richest level. One other thought:
neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament was written as a collection of verses to be thrown into
the air and allowed to fall back wherever they might. Rather, each book has a reasonable, logical,
inspired flow of thought going from point A to point Z, with all stops in between. Each was designed by
the Holy Spirit so that you have the Holy Spirit communicating something powerfully and clearly in the
whole letter: you dare not miss a single part!
If I received five letters in the mail one day, it would make no sense to read a sentence or two out of one,
skip two, read a few sentences out of another, and go to the next one and read a few out of that, and on
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-versebyverse.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:51 AM]

and on. If I really want to comprehend the letter-what is going on, the tone, the spirit, the attitude, and the
purpose-I must start from the beginning and go to the end of each one. If that is true of personal
correspondence, then how much more is it so of divine revelation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-versebyverse.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:16:51 AM]

Question
Question
I have been studying John, chapter 17, and one thing that came out was that our names are already
written in the "Book of Life." My question is, "Is that like Predestination?"
Answer
That is exactly like Predestination. Everybody who believes the Bible believes in Predestination, if you
don't then you will have to tear out some verses. "We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the
world"--that's as clear as it can be. Our names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the
foundation of the world--it says that a couple of times in the Book of Revelation. "Predestinated,"
"Chosen," "Preordained," all of that is there. In other words, every person who ever comes to Christ in
the history of the world, comes to Christ because, before the world began God chose them for
redemption--that's clear in Scripture. So, we believe that.
The problem doesn't come in believing that, the problem comes in harmonizing that with the "call" to
respond to Christ and human responsibility. In other words, if we say, "Ah, well, since God does it all, I
am not going to worry about it--if He wants to save me let Him save me. I certainly not going to get
uptight. We don't need to preach the gospel; we don't need to tell anything anybody--it's all done. If
your name is there--you're in. If it's not--so what? What's the point? Why should I evangelize? The
peoples who names are there are going to come; the people who aren't--aren't, so I am not going to worry
about it."
The problem with that is, the Bible also teaches that whoever comes to Christ--He will receive. And
Jesus said, "You will not come to Me that you might have life, but if you come to Me I will give you
life." And when they didn't come, He said it was their fault. So the problem is, I believe the Bible
teaches Predestination--everybody who is saved is because they were written down before the world
began. I also believe that it teaches that you have to come to Christ, and if you don't--it's your fault,
you're responsible and you will go to Hell because you have chosen against Christ. Now, how do you
harmonize that? That's impossible--that's the problem. So you don't--you just believe both of them.
You say, "But how can you believe two things that are mutually contradictory?" Easy.
There are lots of things in the Bible that are mutually contradictory, or that are absolutely paradoxical--
on our level. To illustrate it very simply: who wrote Matthew? That's not a hard question is it?
Matthew? All by himself [he] sat down and wrote Matthew? And the Holy Spirit? They alternated
verses--you write one, I'll write one, you write one? Is every word in Matthew out of the mind of the
Spirit of God? In every word in Matthew also out of the heart of Matthew? How can it be all Matthew
and all the Holy Spirit? That's 200%--that's impossible, but that is exactly what it is.
Ask yourself this question, "Was Jesus God or man?" The answer is "Yes." 100% God and 100% man,
or half God and half man? Half a man is nobody and half-God is nobody. He was all God and all man,
and that's impossible too--that's an irresolvable apparent paradox. Ask [yourself] this question, "Who

Question
lives your Christian life?" You say, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
lives in me." Same thing--see? Anytime that you bring the supernatural level down to this you are going
to get a little bit of paradox left, and the wonderful thing about it is--it's one of the greatest proofs that
this [Bible] is written by God, because if it was written by men they would have resolved those
paradoxes, because men don't like them. So, the fact that you have those kinds of things tell us that
God's mind is greater than ours, and that's the kind of God that I want. I don't want a God that thinks like
I do, or we are in trouble.
When it comes to Predestination and man's volition; when it comes to God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility--we say that the Bible teaches both of them--God is the only one who can understand how
they come together, that is His problem, not ours. All I know is that I am saved and I give Him the
praise, but when people aren't saved I lay the responsibility at their feet to come to Christ. I cannot say,
"Well, I don't need to do anything," because the Bible commands me to go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I wasn't raised this way and I was just kind of curious about Predestination. I have heard back and
forth that God had a plan. I was just curious about my family members that aren't saved, I
thought, "Does God not choose them?"
Answer
I don't have time to go into the whole thing, just let me tell you this, are you a Christian? [Reply] "Yes."
You're predestined. The point is this, when you saved you confirm the fact that you are chosen in Him
before the foundation of the world, until then you don't know. So, you call them to Christ. The Bible
teaches both things: Predestination and Human Choice. "You will not come to Me that you might have
life," Jesus said. "How often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her brood, but you would not, O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem." So, then you have "chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world."
So, you have both doctrines; they coexist together--you leave them there. You try to harmonize them you
will get into a lot of trouble. If you try to rationalize them you will find yourself under the bed saying the
Greek alphabet. You can't harmonize them, you just have to teach both of them. See, it is like two
opposite truths that have to coexist. It is the same thing that you have with Christ: Christ is God and man.
What is He, half-God and half-man? No, He is all-God and all-man, you can't be that, but we believe He
is. If somebody asks you, "Who wrote the Book of Romans?" and you say "Paul," and I say, "The Holy
Spirit,"--we are both right. If somebody says, "Who lives your Christian life?" you say, "I do, I grit my
teeth and beat my body into subjection and live it," somebody else says, "Not I, but Christ lives in me,"--
both.
See, you have the same kind of divine tension in all doctrine, because when you reduce God to man
something is left out and we can't fill in the gap, so all we know is that if we are saved it is because God
has chosen us, predestinated us before the foundation of the world, and if we are not saved it is because
we refuse Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Double Predestination
Question
I just wanted to ask what your view was on "Double Predestination" and why?
Answer
Double Predestination is the view point that God in eternity past, just basically, laid out, for all intents
and purposes, all of humanity that would ever be born and just said, "Okay you go to hell, you go to hell,
you go to heaven, you go to hell, you go to heaven, you go to hell," and just went down the line. That’s
what is called "Double Predestination." He predetermined some to salvation, and he predetermined and
selected some to damnation. That is not taught in the Bible. And that’s why I don’t believe it.
What is taught in the Bible, is that we are chosen for salvation. Nowhere in the Scripture does it say that
God chooses people to be damned--no place--it does not say that. In fact, the Old Testament says that,
"God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked"--none. Jesus said, "You will not come to me that you
might have life." Jesus sat and wept over the city of Jerusalem and said, “How often would I have
gathered you, as a hen gathereth her brude [chicks], but you would not come.” And he wept. Isaiah said,
“Ho! Everyone that thirsts, come!” (Isaiah 55). Jesus said in John 6, “Him that comes unto me I will in
no wise cast out or turn away.” The end of the Book of Revelation says, “Whosoever will, let him come.”
Jesus said to the Jews, “If you will not believe on me, where I go you can never come.” But, he always
ties damnation to unbelief, never to predestination, never to predestination, always to unbelief.
A good illustration of that is a little bit technical, but I think you’ll understand it; it’s in Romans 9, and
Romans 9 is a very important passage, because here the Lord is talking about this very issue. Verse 23
talks about vessels of mercy, I won’t go into the whole text, but it talks about vessels of mercy, "Which
'he' prepared beforehand to glory." Now "vessels of mercy" would be Christians, believers. God prepared
them before time for glory; he chose them for glory. Go back to verse 22. God is active then in the
preparation of those for Glory. Back to verse 22. "What if God, although willing to demonstrate his
wrath, and make his power known, 'endured,'" not "prepared," but, "endured with much patience vessels
of wrath prepared for destruction."
Now the difference is this, this is where it gets a little technical; the verb in verse 23 is active. An active
verb, if you remember your English class, is when the speaker does the action. The subject does the
action. A passive verb is when the action is done to the subject, right? I hit the ball, is very different than,
I was hit by the ball. In an active verb, the subject does the action, and in a passive verb the subject
receives the action.

Here you have an active verb in verse 23, God actively preparing the vessels of mercy for glory. You
have a passive verb in verse 22, you have certain vessels of wrath that were prepared for destruction, God
is not the actor he receives the action. So God never takes the responsibility for damnation. Except for
the fact that he will be the judge and the executer, but he is not responsible for the unbelief. So you don’t
have double predestination.
People go to heaven because they believe, and were chosen before the foundation of the world. People go
to hell because they do not believe, and that’s as far as the Scripture goes, and I know that’s hard to
understand--very hard, and there’s really no way around it.
People say, “Well, I feel a lot more comfortable if God doesn’t choose anybody and everybody does
what they want.” If everybody did what they want nobody would be saved. But, even if everybody did
what they want, and some people chose not to be saved you would have to ask the question, “If God
knows everything and if he knew that when he created them, they wouldn’t choose him, why did he go
ahead and create them?” You’ve got the same problem. If you’re trying to get God off the hook, you do
have a problem. You can’t get him off the hook, and it’s just an impossible thing to harmonize in your
mind, it’s impossible to harmonize in my mind.
I can’t understand how people go to hell and they are fully responsible for rejecting Christ and they’ll go
to hell because they fail to believe, and on the other hand they go to heaven because they believe,
because they were chosen and God is all responsible for that. How does that harmonize, I don’t know?
But it isn’t important that it harmonize in my mind. If I fully understood that I’d have the mind of God.
That's by the way, is one of the great proofs that the Bible was written by God, because it doesn’t resolve
those apparent paradoxes. You know all you have to do is just think for a minute, if this Bible was edited
by any committee they would have taken all that out. I work with editors all the time; they take
everything out that doesn’t square. I would just like to point out the fact, that if you have trouble that,
you also have to realize you have trouble with a lot of things.
I can just illustrate this by just asking you a few simple questions. Who wrote Romans? Paul. How many
of you think Paul wrote Romans? Any other answers? Holy Spirit. How many of you think the Holy
Sprit wrote it? This is a basic question folks; we’ve been here a long time. Who wrote Romans? You say
well Paul wrote a verse, the Holy Spirit wrote a verse, Paul wrote a verse, the Holy Spirit wrote a verse--
alternating. You say, every word was out of the mind of Paul, every word was out of the vocabulary of
Paul, every word was out of the experience of Paul, the heart of Paul--that’s right. And every single
solitary word came from the mind of the Holy Spirit, right? How can that be? I don’t know. I don’t
know.
What about the doctrine of security? You say we’re secure, we’re kept, we’re kept by his power forever.
Once we’re saved, we’re kept forever. But the Bible also warns us, don’t fall into unbelief, because you
must persevere. There’s a persevering side that’s our part, there’s a keeping side that’s his part. If he’s
keeping us why do we have to worry about persevering? But, that’s the way the Scripture outlines it.

I’ll ask you another question, since you’re doing so well on these, Is Jesus Christ God or man? Yes,
good. That’s very good. Yes, how can he be fully God and fully man? It’s incomprehensible. Let me ask
you another question, who lives your Christian life? Who lives it? You ought to know this because this is
you folks. Who lives your Christian life? If it’s both of you the Lord is doing a much better job for his
part, right? In fact anything good that happens in my life he did it, anything bad, I did it. It’s impossible.
You say, it’s me, it is me I beat my body to bring it into subjection! It’s me! Then you have some people
come along and say, "Let go, and let God." So, you have these, and there is a kernel of truth in that, Paul
had it, Paul had it. You know how he said it? He understood it fully, this is what he said, Galatians 2:20,
“I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet, not I.” See he didn’t know either. It’s the same kind
of tension. John Murray the great theologian says, “In every major doctrine in Scripture you have
apparent paradoxes.” You want to talk about the Trinity there is another one. It’s a long answer, but it’s
an important category of questions.
Don’t get caught up in trying to harmonize everything in the mind of God. You can’t you have to take it
by faith; leave those doctrines where they are. Leave them at the poles they’re at, if you harmonize them
in the middle you destroy both of them. And God will resolve it, sometime in the future when we know
as we are known.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
“How far are we supposed to go, as Christians, to protect ourselves, and our
family, and our homes from intruders and such?”
Answer
How far are we to go, as Christians, in protecting our family? Well, personally I
believe that we are given the responsibility to protect our families. If you just
look at Ephesians it is an obvious thing that one of the things that the Lord has
given in terms of instruction to a husband--in Ephesians 5, it says, "Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it."
The parallel here is between Christ's actual self-giving and the husband's actual
self-giving for the sake of the wife. Christ gave His life for us; the parallel says
that if need be we would actually give our lives in the behalf of our family.
Now having said that, let me add that I don't think it is necessary initially to, first
of all, give our lives--to say, "Well, here I am. Shoot me and take all the
money." I think that there is an obvious factor of self-defense. I think that God
has built into us self-defense mechanisms; I mean, our eyes blink when
something comes at us; I mean, it's just part of the human mechanism. I don't see
any limitation on the matter of self-defense at all. I think that we are given the
responsibility to love and protect, and it goes on in that passage to talk about
being the savior, the husband being the savior of the wife; to nourish and cherish.
Not only to feed, but to insulate with warmth and protection (that word "cherish"
means), and I am sure that we would include in that the encompassing of the
children as well.
So I feel that you have every right to protect, in a defensive mode, your children,

Question
just as I think that you have the right to defend yourself against any evil
aggressor. It is the same question that you would have to ask on a wider level
politically, "Should a Christian go to war?" Well, the answer is, to defend those
who are under attack from an evil aggressor--yes; to be part of the army of the
evil aggressor--no. In Romans 13, which would probably be a related passage,
Paul mentions that the police or soldiers "do not bear the sword in vain," and it
says there, "they are ministers of God to be for good. . . .they are avengers to
execute wrath on those that do evil."
Now, you don't bear a sword to slap people in the knuckles, you bear a sword to
chop their heads off; so the text there indicates to me that there are times, in the
protection of the good against the evil aggressor, that the sword is in the hand
given by God.
I believe that in the sense of protecting my own home, if it came to someone

taking the life of the people in my house, I think that I have an obligation to
protect them on the behalf of good and what is righteous and just against that evil
aggressor. Now how you practically implement that. . . . I think that I told the
story about the guy who came with a butcher knife to our house and wanted to
take Melinda. And the only thing I could find was a 34" baseball bat, and I
simply said to him through the door, "If you come in the door you will find your
head in Encino." I think that was a sort of a spiritual statement at that particular
juncture, because there was no way he was going to come in with a butcher knife
against my daughter. I feel that I have a God-given obligation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
How do you feel about a march? Christians are marching. I saw Frank Schaeffer (sp.) leading, I believe,
an Anti-Abortion march, and let's just say that it was done legally; people conducted themselves the way
they should, and it was not done under the auspices of a local church name--it was concerned citizens. I
would like your thoughts on that.
Answer
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that--if it is done right and it is done in a proper way, and it is not a
rabble. You know, people do it for one reason--they do it to get on television--that's basically it. Or to
get the people on Capitol Hill to see them doing it, so that they know there is a large constituency there.
I think that if it done properly, and it is done respectfully, and shows due respect to the people involved--
I don't have a problem with that. But when the crowd is stirred up to think evil against the Legislators, or
when it becomes a rebellious thing and it is fomenting, and they are saying ugly things about our nation
or about people in positions of leadership, then I have a problem with that. But, I think that if it is done
right, as a citizen if you want to express yourself that way--that's great.
The thing that concerns me is when I see men of God, who have been called to the teaching of the Word,
and the preaching of the Word, abandoning themselves to all these kinds of things. I will be very candid
with you--I really feel (this is a personal feeling) in the last few years of Francis Schaeffer's life the
tremendous capability that he had demonstrated to help the Church get on track apologetically--got
totally lost, and he was so busy marching here, and marching there, all over the place, that those last
years before he went to heaven, were not as productive in my mind, in terms of theology and apologetics,
as the prior years had been. And that is only a value judgment on my part--I am not certainly second-
guessing what he did in his life, but as I look at his life and realize that it seemed in those last years that
he was so concerned about marching and protesting, and doing this and doing that, that it diverted those
energies away from the Word, and away from that great contribution that at least, I felt, he had made in
the earlier years.
It is question of priority. I think that it is fine to have a part in that, certainly if there was an anti-abortion
protest in the state and everybody wrote letters and so forth and so on--I would want to be a part of that.
I wouldn't even resist marching and showing where I stood on that--if it was done right, but I would not
divert the energies and the time, and the calling of God in my life to do that, because I feel the strength is
in carrying out the ministry of the Word.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Question

Online since 1986

Question
Why was nothing ever said or done to Aaron for making the golden calf in Exodus 32? There was
never any mention that he protested against it; why was he not punished?
Answer
If you remember, in Exodus chapter 32, God was dishonored when He was worshipped, as if He could be
reduced to a golden calf. They were attempting to worship the true God in a false way. God, of course,
came in and there was a serious judgment. Some people died, as you know. The question is, since Aaron,
the brother of Moses, led in this operation, why was he not killed or severely punished?
You will remember that he belonged to the tribe of Levi, according to Leviticus, chapter 6. He was in the
Levitical line of the priests. He also was of the family, in the tribe of Levi, of Kohath. The Kohathites
were given a very special and unique task of carrying the ark of the covenant. So, he came in a very
privileged line. But, that was not the reason that God spared his life. It’s very simple why God spared his
life. If you read Deuteronomy, chapter 9, verse 20, it says, “God spared his life because Moses prayed for
him.” And on that occasion, Moses interceded for him. And it was the intercession of Moses, and the
grace of God in response to that intercession that spared the life of Aaron.
And it does cause me to mention the point that, although God may always have the right to take the life
of a sinner, He may, in His grace, choose not to exercise that right, true? Are we not all living proof that
God does not always exercise His right to kill the sinner. So, in the case of Aaron, He chose not to for
His own holy purposes.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question
Question
All of us started with Adam and we are all descendants of Adam, and yet there are many different races
around the world. My question has to do with the origin of different races and also language. I think
language was at the Tower of Babel, that God dispersed into different languages. Did everybody speak
the same language up to that time? And is that true with races also?
Answer
The whole earth was one language; it says that in Genesis 11. I think, basically once they were scattered
all over the earth then, of course, various ethnic groups began to develop. But you have to go even back
before that, in Genesis, chapter 9, where the Lord took the three Sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth, and I
can just quickly refresh your thinking on that, I think.
Genesis (just a brief answer) 9:25, "He said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall
enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem." He took the three sons, Canaan will be a
servile people, Shem would be the blessed people--the Semitic people out of which comes the Arabs and
the Jews and so forth. And Japheth would be the colonizing people who would enlarge, mostly going
into Europe. So here even from the sons of Noah--God begins to separate out the races.
Now, as to how it is that they took on physically distinct characteristics that is because that's the way the
Lord began to create them. The Tower of Babel only contributed to that, as they were scattered to
different places there is a certain amount of adaptability. Black people are black because they came from
a place where they needed that, as opposed to Scandinavian people, very white--you know, and so forth.
So the Lord in the process of development of the races, allowed them to adjust and adapt to that
particular thing. Frankly, some of it there are no answers to it except that God in his sovereignty
designed it that way. But you go back to Genesis 9, with God sorting out the three sons and separating
them apart and then Genesis 11, where He scatters them all over the world and they begin to identify
themselves as unique ethnic groups with their own language, and develop their own characteristics.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question

Question
Question
If Adam and Eve were the first two people, how did we get so many races?
Answer
This is a very complex question, but let’s go at it another way. The races that we experience today didn’t
really come from Adam and Eve. You know why? Because everybody on the face of the earth got
drowned, except for Noah and his three sons, and their wives. So, all the races came from Noah and Mrs.
Noah, and the three little junior Noahs: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And they were all, you remember,
rescued in the flood, and they came back and began to populate the earth.
The best we can tell, Shem located with his people in the Middle East, and are the Semites: Jews and
Arabic people. It’s a huge part of the world--huge population. Ham, in most studies (and I’m reflecting
back a few years in reading things like Oliver Buswell III, and others who dealt with these issues, and
some other books on the tables of nations), it seems that Ham became a more servile people and may
have moved south and wound up in Africa. The descendants of Ham and Japheth seem to have colonized
Europe. It’s very difficult to know all of that specifically, but they obviously, through the years, adapted
themselves to their areas. They of course began to develop and all the races eventually came.
But, apart from what might be the scientific and historical explanation, is the statement of Acts 17, where
it says, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not
dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He have need of
anything; He made, from one, every nation.” So, that’s the best answer. Acts 17, verse 26, God, from
Noah and Mrs. Noah and Shem, Ham, and Japheth, created the nations.
Now, one major component in that happened at the Tower of Babel of course, where God scattered all
the nations all over the face of the earth and changed their languages. So, the best answer is right there in
Acts 17--God did it. And God sort of tweaked their ears and tweaked their eyes, and their nose, and the
color of the skin, and all those genetic unique things, in His creative power, through the process of
providential genetics, to create all the different races.
Tony Capoccia
Question
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Knowing that all children belong to God--during the Rapture, what's going to happen to all the
children?
Answer
What happens to children in the Rapture? The Bible doesn't say anything, but whatever happens to them,
God will be absolutely loving, and absolutely fair, and absolutely just, and right, and gracious, and
merciful, and all that. I personally believe that every person has the opportunity to come to know Christ.
I believe God gives each person that privilege, and God does not condemn people to Hell for an
ignorance. He didn't create people to populate Hell. People go there, to "a place prepared for the devil
and his angels,' not even prepared for people, but for the devil and his angels, because they choose not to
believe at one point or another. So, even if it is at an early point, they are not led to the fullness of the
truth.
But in the case of children, the Lord may take the children of believers, [or] the Lord may leave them and
allow them to come to the age when they can make the right commitment. And if you worry about that,
remember that the greatest period of evangelization that the world has ever seen, will be in the time right
after the Rapture. Even though it will be the hardest time, the lines will be drawn so clearly that there will
be so many people saved, it says in Revelation seven, they won't even be able to be numbered--and if
heaven loses count--that is a lot of folks. So, we only have to trust that to the Lord.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I’ve always found the teaching of Harold Camping to be confusing. And, I was wondering, where
does he go wrong, and especially with the rapture?
Answer
Yes, his teaching is confusing. I’ve never been asked about him before. That’s interesting, because we
don’t have family radio in this area, but wherever you have family radio, he owns a network of family
radio stations, which are good, and he gets on and it is very confusing. But, he tends to be a five-point
Calvinist, very strong in Reformed area, but with some rather personalized interpretations of things.
And when he gets into eschatology--which is not uncommon, to be honest with you, with Reformed
people, they are just completely lost. And when he gets into the book of Revelation, like so many other
people of the Reformed tradition, they bought a Reformed theology that was codified and packaged prior
to the historical development of eschatological theology and the flow of doctrine. So, they just don’t
want to talk about it. And when he gets into Revelation, it gets very confusing. And when you add to
that, the fact that he is now convinced that the rapture will occur in 1994 [note: question asked prior to
Sep 28, 94], I think it’s September 28th …that, that is the day of the rapture, and that it’s all proven in a
great, huge, thick book…well, we’re going to find out how trustworthy he is. And probably before
September 28th, by watching what he does in the months prior. But, yes, you’re right, his teaching is
confusing.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

John MacArthur - Feast of Trumpets and the Rapture
Question
I understand all of the Old Testament feasts have had a New Testament fulfillment, except for the
Feast of Trumpets. Aside from the caution against date setting, could that be the Rapture?
Answer
You know, I’m not really very good on all of that approach. Could the Feast of Trumpets be a parallel to
the Rapture? Possibly, I don’t want to be dogmatic about that. Could it be a parallel to the return of
Christ to set up his kingdom? That could be part of the image in that. Certainly the intention of those
feasts is to look back. But, we can also assume there could be a forward look as well. Some people would
say, obviously the Great Feast of Pentecost, which is the gathering in, and there you have the church
being gathered in, and the harvest and all of that, and then the Feasts of Trumpets being the culmination,
and the celebration of glory. I can see that.
There are some Bible teachers that I’ve read in years past who equated that with the Rapture and others
who equated it with the Second Coming of Christ, as certainly the ultimate fulfillment of the trumpets,
and the glory of Christ and all of that. But, I’m not much of a symbolic guy. So I haven’t spent a lot of
time on that. But whether or not that is the intention of God with the imagery of the Feast of Trumpets,
it’s going to happen. Whatever you call it. And of course I think in the Old Testament there is no
separating the Rapture from the return. So I hesitate to think that the Feast of Trumpets would be
associated only with the Rapture, rather with the whole, perhaps, coming of Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Feast of Trumpets and the Rapture

Question
Is there any difference between the Reformers and the Puritans views on Regeneration?
Answer
The Reformers, as we know, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and others, basically articulated and
crystallized the view of Regeneration that became the Puritan view. The Puritans come at a later time--
100 years later and more. So the Puritans locked on to the reformed doctrine of salvation that came out
of the Reformation, so there really wouldn't be a great distinction. The Puritans took that basic view and
elucidated it, and extrapolated on it, and developed it, and enriched it by their voluminous writings--I
mean they were unbelievable--talk about verbose, they had no terminal facilities, they didn't know how
to stop--they just kept going deeper, and wider, and richer, and of course we are all immensely indebted
to that because we live in a world of short answers and quick everythings. That's why I think there is
such an appeal to the Puritan literature to people today, because to go back and plunge that deep is so
refreshing in the superficiality of our current time.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Is Christianity a Religion?
Question
We hear in our church, and I hear it from you, where we tie Christianity as a religion. And as far
as I am concerned Christianity was created by Christ, where religion is created by Satan. And I
hear ministers tie them both together and we get the idea that Christianity is a religion, where
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” And I look at Christianity as a way of life--Not a
religion.
Answer
Some people have said, “Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship.” But in a technical sense, just a
dictionary sense, Christianity can be classified as a religion, that is to say, it is a system of beliefs in the
supernatural. Obviously, we think it is the only right one, and that sets it apart. But it isn’t necessarily
wrong to call Christianity a religion if you look at a dictionary and you see that a religion defines some
concept of God and a system of beliefs that goes along with that concept. But, I understand what you’re
saying, if you just throw Christianity in the big pile of religion some people might see that it’s basically
just one of many options.
The best way to comprehend that distinction would be this; there are only two religions in this world, just
two. There aren’t five. There aren’t fifty. There aren’t five hundred. There aren’t five thousand, even
though there are 330 million gods in the Hindu system. There are only two religions. There is on one
hand, the religion of human achievement. And on the other hand, the religion of divine accomplishment.
The religion of human achievement says that man somehow earns favor with God, whatever god he
believes in, or whatever gods he believes in. Christianity says man cannot win any favor with God. The
only way he can come into the knowledge of God is through what God has done. The religion of human
achievement says that your relationship to God depends, to one degree or another, on what you do. The
religion of divine accomplishment says that your relationship to God depends solely and only on what He
has done for you.
So what you have then is Christianity as divine accomplishment, and every other religious system in the
world fits into that other category: the religions of human achievement. It is important that we make a
distinction between Christianity and the rest of world religions. But I don’t think that simply saying
Christianity is not a religion makes that distinction very clear. From a dictionary standpoint we would be
a religion. But from the standpoint of all other religions, by which people judge and ascertain religions,
we wouldn’t be, we would be a relationship with the living God through Jesus Christ.

John MacArthur - Is Christianity a Religion?
So, if you’re going to make a distinction, make a distinction in the fact that all religious system in the
world have people achieving salvation by something they do or contribute, except Christianity, which
says can contribute nothing; you are hopelessly sinful; you cannot save yourself; you must throw
yourself on the mercy of God and receive the gift that God provided for you in Jesus Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Divorce and Remarriage
Question
I have a question on divorce. I know there’s a lot of different opinions and teachings on it, and
you’ve canvassed this pretty well on your tapes, and I’ve always been pretty much convinced of the
position that is taught here [Grace Community Church], particularly after I read Jay Adams’
book. But, recently, I was browsing in the bookstore and found a book called Jesus and Divorce by
Gordon Wenham and William Heth. It’s very new and they make what appears to me to be--I
can’t say I really like this--but it seems that they’re really canvassed all the material on the
previous books that have been written and have done some hard exegetical work, and their
conclusion is that remarriage is just plain not permitted in any case. And, I’m wondering if
anybody here is sort of looking over that material, and if any conclusions are being drawn?
Answer
Thanks for asking, Tom. Bill Heth generated that material in his dissertation at Dallas Seminary
originally, and I read the original dissertation and I considered that viewpoint rather extensively. The
viewpoint is that there are no grounds for any divorce…I think, apart from incest. I think what he talks
about is the implication of the Herodian family and incest and that Jesus is directing-if I remember right,
that’s part of it.
I haven’t finished it myself, okay? The impression I’m getting is that he’s saying that in the case of
adultery, the divorce--putting away--is permitted, but that remarriage is not.
Answer (continued)
Right, but I think there is that incest factor as the only legitimate grounds for divorce, if I remember
right. I read it in its original form; then, I’ve gotten two or three copies in the mail and responded to it in
mail; and then, I have read the book as well. I would have to say at this point and time, the book has been
out probably three or four years now, but the material has been floating around for about twice that long,
and it has been answered on a number of different occasions by a number of different people. While they
throw a lot of exegetical things around, I think the bottom line is that there’s a little bit of creative
exegesis in the sense that they’re pulling out some suppositions on which they build, and if you get
back to the suppositions and you attack those, I think the system crumbles.

John MacArthur - Divorce and Remarriage
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

The following message was delivered at Grace Community Church in Panorama City
GRACE.
Question
"What happens to a person when he or she believes on Jesus but doesn't repent and doesn't ever
turn from sin?"
Answer
Do you know what happens? Nothing happens--nothing, "the devils. . . ." what? "believe and tremble."
We have to believe and then repent: turning from sin towards God, confessing the Lordship of Christ,
being obedient to Him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Repentance
Question
What is repentance and how does it relate to salvation?
Answer
The meaning of the word repentance has been twisted in recent years to the point that its biblical
meaning is now obscured in the minds of many. The idea that genuine repentance could result in
anything but a change of life is completely foreign to Scripture.
What does the Bible teach about the relationship between salvation and repentance? First, it teaches that
repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly
repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not
synonymous terms). Acts 11:18 and 2 Peter 3:9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is
necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2 Timothy 2:25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and
saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20:21).
Second, the Greek word for repentance, "metanoia," while it means "to have another mind," cannot
properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of
repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents
does not continue willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed
behavior (Luke 3:8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of
scriptural repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).
Finally, despite what is being widely taught today, affirming that repentance and acknowledgement of
Jesus' lordship are necessary to salvation does not "add" anything to the requirement of faith for
salvation. It is not "faith plus repentance" that saves, but rather a repentant faith. The notion that
salvation is possible apart from a genuine, heartfelt repentance, which includes a deep hatred of sin, is a
relatively new one, neither believed nor taught by the people of God until the twentieth century.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-repent.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:18:24 AM]

John MacArthur - Repentance
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-repent.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:18:24 AM]

Question
Question
I have a question concerning the first and the second resurrection. In Daniel 12:2 and in Revelation 20:4-
5 we have descriptions of how many who are asleep will hear the voice of our Lord and be raised from
the grave to an immortal body. How do these statements harmonize with the statement of our Lord on
the cross in Luke 23:43 when He says, "Truly, I will say to you, 'Today you shall be with Me in
paradise.'" And also, with the parable in Luke 16, where the rich man and the poor man both died and
one found himself in the bosom of Abraham, and the other one was buried and found himself in Hades in
torment. Through the latter two statements one would be led to believe that you are risen immediately,
whereas, in Daniel 12:2 and Revelation 20 we see "asleep" and then being risen for the first resurrection
when our Lord calls?
Answer
Good question. I think the question that you are asking is "What is the idea of this 'sleeping?'" The best
way to answer that is--I will add a couple other Scriptures, OK? In Philippians, chapter one, Paul says,
"Far better to depart, and to be with Christ." That's instantaneous--"Depart, and to be with Christ." In 2
Corinthians, isn't it in chapter 5, where he is discussing the anticipated hope, and he says, "Absent from
the body, present with the Lord." OK, so I am adding those to affirm the fact that when a believer dies or
when an unbeliever dies they do not go into unconsciousness--they go immediately into the presence of
the Lord, or immediately into the torment. The distinction comes in the bodily aspect, in other words, the
Old Testament Saints spirits, I believe, the spirits of the Saints went into the place of blessedness; the
spirits of those who were not related to God, who had never put their trust in God went out of His
presence into a place of punishment. OK? But the body remains in the grave until the final resurrection,
so that the eternal state, the final state of the righteous and the wicked will be their spirits joined to a
resurrected body yet to be resurrected. OK?
Question ( continued)
OK, how do the second resurrection of the dead for the second death and the immediate judgment of an
unbeliever when he dies fit together in harmony?
Answer ( continued)
Well the point is, when an unbeliever dies, I believe he goes out of the blessed presence of God. He goes
into a place of torment as happened to the rich man in the parable in Luke 16. He says, "Dip your finger
in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." So I believe that when an unbeliever
dies he goes immediately into torment, but that torment is a spiritual one. It is a dimension of torment
that is not the same as the final dimension of torment when he has a resurrected body. Revelation tells us
that the bodies will rise, in fact, John 5, Jesus says, there is a resurrection to life and a resurrection to
damnation. So what you want separate is this--there is no resurrection of the spirit, because the spirit
never goes out of existence. When an unbeliever dies his spirit goes out of the presence of God into

Question
punishment. When a believer dies his spirit goes into the presence of God, there is no resurrection of the
spirit. The resurrection is of the body to join that spirit for the final hell and the final heaven.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
What about all the revivals that we are reading about in the newspapers?
Answer
Someone handed me an article in the newspaper; there has been a couple of articles; I think there was
one in the L A Times this morning about a supposed revival, "God is Up to Something" was the headline,
written by Larry Stammer (sp.) the Times religion reporter, and it went on to talk about all these people
who were saying that "There is this great revival, this movement of God that's coming through the
Vineyard and the "Toronto Blessing" and all of that. And that, "Millions," one comment was "Tens of
millions of people are being saved," and it goes on and on with all of these really wild claims. You need
to read those things with a great amount of discernment, because as we were saying this morning, it
doesn't seem to be anything more than something that is on the surface. But you need to be careful as
you read those things not to get drawn in.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
The Bible teaches that as a Christian, when we die we receive different degrees of rewards in
heaven. And, I’d like to know if you could expound on those different degrees, but also, if there are
different degrees of suffering in Hell?
Answer
I think "yes" to both of those questions. There will be varying degrees of reward in heaven. That
shouldn’t surprise us: there are varying degrees of giftedness even here on earth. To get a good glimpse
of what heaven might be like, look at the church. From the moment of your redemption, the Lord put His
Holy Spirit within you, and according to I Corinthians 12, He gave you certain spiritual gifts, right? He
gave gifts to all of His church. They differ. What are gifts? They are varying capacities for ministry,
varying capacities for service to God in His church. And I think the same thing will be true eternally; I
think in eternity, we will all be given according to our abilities and according to our faithfulness--varying
capacities for glorifying, serving, and worshipping God.
So, I think that it’s going to be based upon two things. One would be the sovereignty of God, who will
choose to give as He wills, as in I Corinthians 12, as He gives spiritual gifts in this life to the church, in
whatever way He chooses to do that--that’s a sovereign thing. And secondly, I think there is another
component, and that has to do with faithfulness here. I believe our eternal reward will be in some way
determined by the level of faithfulness we have had here.
Now, there are a number of reasons why we assume this. One of them was this conversation that Jesus
had with the mother of James and John, who said, “My boys want to sit on your right and left hand when
you come into the kingdom,” and He said, “It’s not for Me to give that; it’s for my Father to give that.”
And there He said, there are going to be some people elevated. Somebody’s going to be on my right,
somebody’s going to be on my left, and some others are going to be down the line here--It’s not for Me
to decide that; It’s the Father. But, then He went on to say the criteria by which that is going to be
decided is faithfulness unto death. So, I think the greatest reward in the future is awarded for the most
faithful people, and that probably plays itself out in those who were faithful unto death: the martyrs,
those who gave their life. You could give your life in living, as well as give your life in dying, couldn’t
you? And you know what I mean by that. You could make the self-sacrifice to the maximum extent even
while you’re alive, where you sacrifice everything else and be what Paul called a “living sacrifice.”
So, I think there is definitely going to be, in heaven, varying levels of service, just as there are with the

angels: there are archangels, and there are cherubim and seraphim, and principalities and powers and
rulers, and all of those varying levels of angelic hierarchy. I think in eternity, we are all going to be
sorted out within that eternal worshipping community and given varying capacities and varying
responsibilities, which are determined by the sovereignty of God and our faithfulness here. That’s why
John says, “Look to yourselves that you lose not the things you have wrought, but that you receive a full
reward.” It is possible that you could be faithful, and the Lord be ready and prepared to give you a full
reward, but by some sin in your life towards the end of your life, you could begin to forfeit and those
things would be taken back off the list, added to the "wood, hay, and stubble" kind of thing, and your
reward would be less.
What is it? Is it going to be some people with bigger crowns? No. We’re not going to be going around
saying, “Hah! I got a big one; you got a little one!” It’s not going to be that. Whatever we get, I believe in
the picture of the 24 elders, we take our crowns and cast them at the feet of the Lord. But, I don’t believe
they’re going to be anything that’s visible. I think it’s going to be a capacity for serving God fully and
completely. I don’t think you’ll have any sense of loss or any sense of missing anything, because each
individual’s capacity will be reached to its maximum. But, I think what we want to do is have the
greatest capacity for worshipping God, as His sovereignty would give us and as our faithfulness would
warrant.
Now, in terms of the other, there will be degrees of suffering. Hebrews 10 says, “How much greater
suffering will come to the one, who has trodden underfoot, the blood of the covenant, and counted it an
unholy thing, done despite to the Spirit of grace.” To put it simply, it means this: the more people know
about the gospel and reject, the greater degree of suffering they will experience--when they trample
underfoot the blood of the covenant. That is to say, the pagan who never heard anything about the gospel
of Jesus Christ will not suffer the degree that the apostate would, who heard it all, understood it all, and
blatantly rejected it all.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Christian Righteousness
Question
Between Ephesians 2:8-9, and between those verses and verse10, something happens after
salvation, and it’s denoted by the word “created.” “God creates us unto good works.” And in
Ephesians 4:24 we are told to “put on the new man created in holiness and righteousness.” So, God
creates righteousness in man, so couldn’t we say, that at times, when we’re walking in the Spirit,
and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh, the Christian becomes innately righteous, not just inputted
righteousness?
Answer
Yes. Yes, that’s a very important question. What he is asking is, at the time of conversion is there only a
forensic righteousness, or an inputted righteousness, or a declared righteousness, which by the way what
justified means? To be justified means to be declared righteous. That is to say God looks at me and says,
“Well the fact, the reality is, you’re not righteous. But, I impute to you the righteousness of Christ. And
therefore clothing you, as Isaiah puts it, in the robe of righteousness, I now see you as righteous, because
your unrighteousness is covered by Christ.” That’s a declaration, that’s what justification means.
But justification cannot be separated from sanctification. You are declared righteous in justification, and
then the process of making you righteous begins to function. You have put on Christ and, and yet you
must put on Christ. We used to say, “Its becoming what you are.” You are righteous in Christ, now act
like it.
I think that is what sanctification is. I think that, that process begins at salvation. You are created unto
good works. There is a life principle in you that produces those good works. And you have the ability in
your fallen nature to resist that effort on God’s part. And that’s why there are commands in the New
Testament for you to line up with the power of the spirit and let him work that through you.
But I am convinced clearly in Scripture that there is not just a declared righteousness, not just a forensic
righteousness, but a real righteousness that is wrought in the heart of a believer. There are a number of
reasons for that; textually you can see frequently that salvation is even referred by the word sanctified,
that means is to be set apart from sin. You are not only declared righteous, you are set apart from sin, so
both those realities go together. I just finished writing a new book called, Faith Works, and it is the
sequel to the Gospel according to Jesus called, “Faith Works.” “Faith” a noun, “Works” a verb. “Faith” is
a working faith, that’s Ephesians 2:8, 9 and 10. It will be out in the middle of February, and it takes this
whole issue of justification and sanctification and deals with it through all of the epistles in the New

John MacArthur - Christian Righteousness
Testament.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Roman Catholicism
Question
I’d like to know how to respond to a Catholic who, when asked why they’re going to heaven,
whether it’s their relationship or because of religion or good works, they say because of their
relationship with Jesus Christ, yet they choose to participate in the sacraments. I’d like to know
how to respond to that--if they’re in sin and what should I say?
Answer
Well, I think the thing you want to do, is just to say to them, “Define for me”--you know, just keep
probing. “Define for me--what do mean by ‘your relationship with Jesus Christ’? What do you mean by
that? Explain what you mean. Is there anything that you are doing that contributes to that salvation?” I
think you just have to poke and probe that. Don’t let them get away with saying, “Well, it’s because of
my relationship to Christ.” OK, define that. Don’t put words in their mouth; let them define that.
“What is your relationship with Christ? What do you mean by that?” and explain--what I like to do with
people like that is say “Explain to me the gospel. Explain to me your relationship with Christ and how
you got that relationship. How did you get that relationship?” I mean, just keep probing until you get to
the core reality of whether or not they are truly believing that they are saved by grace and faith alone or
whether there’s any contributing work that they have done. I think the only way to get there is don’t let
them get away with a superficial answer.
And do you think that they’re in sin if they do participate in the sacraments?
Answer (continued)
I think people could be truly saved in a Catholic environment and still participate in the sacraments
occasionally. I think it’s possible to be a Christian and do that. I think it’s ignorant to do that if you really
understood Catholic theology. But you know, one of the unstated tenets of Catholicism is make sure the
people don’t understand anything. You know, you keep them “in the mystery” all the time; only the elite
at the top understand the stuff.
It’s possible that people could be well-intentioned in doing what they’re doing. You know, it all depends
on what they see in it. It’s wrong to see in that the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. As to whether or

John MacArthur - Roman Catholicism
not it’s an overt sin against God, if someone is ignorant about what’s going on, I wouldn’t want to press
that issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Will people who accept Christ but remain Catholic be saved?
Answer
Well, I’ll answer it this way: it does not say in the Bible that if a man is not a Catholic, he shall be saved.
You could be an anything, religiously, and be saved!
And I would take opportunity just to make a statement in this area. Frequently, as I teach I’ll mention,
like I mentioned somebody tonight or I’ll mention the group of people like the Mormons or 7th Day
Adventists or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Roman Catholics and so forth, and when I do that, I am not
intending to slight the individual people. I am not trying to be unkind and unloving and indifferent and
rude and crude and judgmental on the individual people; I merely take the opportunity to illustrate to you
points of truth and error because I feel that’s my responsibility as a teacher of the Scripture, before the
Lord.
From time to time, it is necessary in our instruction to bring out certain areas of error in Roman Catholic
theology. We have said in the past from time to time that a person could not really be a true, historic
Catholic (in the full sense of the word) and also be a Christian because truly being a Roman Catholic,
their whole area of theology is not compatible with salvation by pure and simple act of grace on the part
of God. But, you could be a Christian and a poor Catholic, frankly. And there are some wonderful
Christian people who remain in a Catholic framework. That is not an issue of salvation. I think,
eventually, that can become a problem if you don’t get the feeding of the Word of God; it can retard your
growth.
But, yes. The question is answered simply, yes, a person could remain a Catholic and still be saved. You
could remain in anything, but the chances are if you really get plugged into what Christ is doing and you
really see the Word of God as it ought to be, you’re going to gravitate to somewhere where you’re going
to hear what you ought to hear.
I’m thankful to God for what’s going on, in some sense, in Catholic circles where the new liberty that the
Catholics are enjoying, as things have been breaking down since Pope John kind of eased up everything,
is creating more of a personal interest on the part of priests and nuns as well as people, to search the
scriptures and see the truth. I’m thankful to God for that.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Sabbath
Question
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?
Answer
We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral,
aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial
system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. Here are the
reasons we hold this view.
1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no
longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the
weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the
annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2
Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial
dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already
mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12;
Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer
required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on
the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or
condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be
an eternal moral principle.
6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are
there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping
on the Gentile believers.
8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-sabbath.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:20:13 AM]

Sabbath was never one of them.
9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe
special days (including the Sabbath).
10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish
believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
11. The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had
been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should
meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday
worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
12. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers
gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day
to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting
in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to
gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote,
There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh
day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest,
whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them.
Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in
order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted
to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a
relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal
reason.
As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by
the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are
abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) affirms that the sabbath has been a shadow of a
reality yet to be. And he declares else-where its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch.
6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to
the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our
life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence,
superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians.
The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather,

they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens
among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break
the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that
some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human
weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews
has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has
been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace
in the Church.
As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is
shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual
sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order
that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for
admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not
oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith,
Calvin's own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, "The Law of the Lord"].
For further study:

D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question In the Bible
GRACE.
Question
In the Bible, John 3:3-5, it says here, "You must be born again to see the kingdom of God." Then
in verse 5, after Nicodemus questioned some, it says "Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." I
always understood that to mean that "except in water," being accepting the Word of Jesus, and
"of the Spirit, being born of the Spirit," being baptized by the Holy Spirit. I am just curious, like
the church teaches ceremonial sacraments, the seven sacraments, plus the Catholic Church, I
think, does nine. How do you relate that to the Holy Sacraments?
Answer
Let's look at that chapter again, OK? Just look there. Jesus is approached at night by a man named
Nicodemus. If you will notice, verse one, it says he was a ruler of the Jews, and he was a Pharisee. He
was therefore an expert in the Old Testament. He was not only an expert as a Pharisee, but he was so
expert that they had made him a ruler--probably meant he was part of the Sanhedrin, which was the
seventy most knowledgeable men in Israel, so he knew the law; he knew the Old Testament.
He came to Jesus at night probably because he couldn't get near Him during the daytime, because of the
crowd, and because he wasn't too sure he wanted to be exposed himself to the other Pharisees, so he
came at night. He says, "Look, we know that You come from God as a teacher; nobody can do the signs
You do unless God is with them, and I've got to ask you a question." Well, before the guy could even
ask the question, Jesus answered it--because Jesus could read the question before he spoke it, because he
could read his mind. His question was, "How do you get in the kingdom?"
So Jesus said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God." Now, what must have been the question in his mind is something like this: "Now, I have kept the
Law, I am a Pharisee, which means I am devoted to legalism, Law-keeping, obedience. I am a ruler of
the Jews, which means I live by the highest standard." And his question might have been, "What more
do I need to do to get in the kingdom?" He obviously had a vacuum in his heart. He didn't feel like he
had arrived at the kingdom; he didn't have the peace of God in his heart. He didn't have that confidence
that he was really a child of God, that he had been redeemed, that his eternity was secure.
So his question was probably like, "Now, what more do I need to do? What one more step? I have done
all these good works, and kept all these laws, now
what else do I need to do?" Now, Jesus reads his mind and says, "I'll tell you what you need to do--you
need to junk it all and go all the way back, and start all over again and be born again! All that you have
done up to now doesn't count! Go be born again!" Start all over, which was a real jolt. What he was

saying was, "Your accumulation of good works means absolutely nothing." You know Jesus didn't come
to add one little touch to your good life. He says, "You have got to go back and start all over again--from
the very beginning!"
Nicodemus says, "Wait a minute (verse four), how can a man be born again when he is old?" He
understands the analogy, he is not talking about physical
birth--he says how am I going to do that? How in the world can I go and start all over again? How am I
going to go way back and begin again? Jesus answers (and here is verse five--I want you to look at it),
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God."
It is not what you do. It is not your good works--you must be born of the water and the spirit. The
immediate question is, "What is He talking about?" Is He talking about Baptism? What is He talking
about? Well, let us find the context.
Nicodemus was a Jew. He was a ruler of the Jews. He knew the Old Testament, so Jesus was talking to
him on Old Testament terms. What Jesus has in mind
in verse five, takes Nicodemus back into the Old Testament. Where it takes him. . . .lets go together,
take your Bible and turn because this is a great, great, and important matter. Back to the prophet Ezekiel,
and it was in the prophet Ezekiel that God originally laid down the conditions of the New Covenant--
Ezekiel. Listen carefully, in Ezekiel's prophecy, verse 25 of chapter 36, "Then I will sprinkle clean water
on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of
stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to
walk in My statutes. . . ." Now, stop right there.
Now, what God said through Ezekiel is this, "In the future there will be a New Covenant. It will be a
covenant of water--I will sprinkle clean water upon you." What water? The water of cleansing. And
what is the agency of cleansing? "We have been washed by the water of the Word." So the water there
is the washing of the Word that washes the heart, and the spirit is the Holy Spirit that He plants within.
So what He was saying to Nicodemus was, "Look, Nicodemus, you don't need to just add a few things to
your life. You need your whole life washed and you need the Spirit of God in you." That's what He is
saying. It has nothing to do with water baptism or with any other of the ordinances or the sacraments.
If you have accepted this (3 and 5), is it necessary to go through the holy sacraments (which I have
done)?
Answer (continued)
Let me tell you something--there are only two ordinances that the New Testament gives: one, Baptism,
Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized," very clear.

Is it not being born of the water? I always understood it as being baptized by water, by accepting
the Word of Jesus?
Answer (continued)
No, it means to actually, publicly step into the water to make your faith known, because on the Day of
Pentecost 3,000 people were baptized in water, so that was exactly what they were doing. Jesus Himself
went to John the Baptist and let him baptize Him in the Jordan river. Remember the eunuch who met
Philip? After he came to Christ he said, "What prevents me from being baptized?" Philip took him down
into the water and baptized him. It is an outward symbol of an inward response. It is the way you
publicly confess Christ. There is nothing in that water that's going to save you. There is nothing in that
water that is going to wash your sin away, but it does give you the public opportunity to declare your
obedience.
The second ordinance that the Lord gave us was Communion--the Lord's Table. Jesus said, "Do this
until I come." And the early church did it every day, and every Lord's Day. It is the cup and the bread by
which we remember the death of Christ.
So the only two ordinances the New Testament gives to us, one, when you come to Christ, be baptized
in water to declare your faith publicly. Number two,
take the Lord's Table. Those two symbols are the symbols that the Lord has left us, apart from that the
rest aren't necessary. They are fabrications of the church.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I am very concerned because as Christians we are supposed to have a smile on

our face; we are supposed to be happy and we are also supposed to show the
world how beautiful it is to be accepted by the Lord, our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, in a way that we should be happy. Yet, I've always been, recently
especially, I am walking around like I am sad and I am always thinking about
what I can do to possibly help these people.
Answer
Well, I really identify with that. To be real honest with you, when you become a
Christian there is a tremendous sense of personal joy, but you do take on an
instant sadness. You really do; for the first time you understand. I mean, before
you went on in the drunken bliss of the typical person in the world who didn't
know what was going on anyway. And it was just party-time basically; you lived
for the next fun thing and try to milk every moment you can for everything that's
in it. All of a sudden when you come to the Lord Jesus Christ and your life is
transformed, and your eyes are opened, as you so well put it, now you begin to
see the reality of people and their eternal destiny, and their lostness, and their
sinfulness, and the mess that the world is in.
I confess to you that it is the legacy of a Christian to have a sense of

overwhelming sadness, that's part of it. Paul confessed to having continual
sorrow and tears, didn't he? And to being constantly burdened and constantly
distressed, but he also said, "Rejoice always, and again I say rejoice!"
So we live in that very strange tension of having a consuming joy. . . .I think the
best illustration of that, that I can think of, just coming to mind standing here, is

Question
found in the 10th chapter of Revelation, where in verse 8, John hears the voice,
and the voice from heaven says, "go and take the scroll," and the little scroll is
presentative of the title deed of the earth, which Christ is going to come and take
the title deed and conquer the earth. And that means that He is going to reward
the righteous and punish the wicked, you know, in the Second Coming when He
sets up His kingdom.
So he says, "take the little scroll open in the hand of the angel, standing on the sea
and the earth. So I went to the angel and said to him, 'Give me the little scroll.'
And he said, 'Take and eat it.'" This is a symbolic picture and so he eats it. "And
it will make thy belly bitter, but shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took
the little scroll out of the angel's hand, and ate it up, and it was in my mouth
sweet as honey, and as soon as I had eaten it my belly was bitter."
Now, what is he saying here? What he is saying here is, thinking about Christ
coming to conquer the world is both, what? Sweet and bitter, isn't it? It's sweet
because we say, "You deserve the glory, You deserve the honor, You deserve the
praise, You deserve the rejoicing, You shouldn't continue to be dishonored the
way you are dishonored," like Henry Martine (sp.) who rushed out of the pagan
temple in India, when he went there, and said, "I cannot endure existence if Jesus
is to be so dishonored."
You cry out that Christ should be exalted, and that is a sweet thing the day that
Jesus comes, and we sang about it tonight, didn't we? We sing songs of the
Second Coming, and songs of being with Christ, but at the same time we know
our own joy; we know the terrifying bitterness of the unredeemed in the
judgment.
So all I can say to you is, that is a tension that you will always have as a
Christian, and I believe that it is the unique work of the Spirit of God to bring
balance to that. You will find in your Christian life things that will sadden you
more profoundly than anything that you ever experienced before. You will also
find things that will bring you greater joy than any joy that you have known
before, because they are ultimate things, and ultimate things have the potentiality

Question
to bring ultimate sadness and ultimate joy.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"What did Paul mean in Romans 1:7, concerning 'To all that be in Rome . . . called saints?'"
Answer
I think probably, the confusion comes that so many people are raised in a Roman Catholic background
where they are used to hearing the term "saint" in reference to some very unique individual who has been
"canonized" by the Catholic church. You think of Saint So-and-So or Saint So-and-So and that's your
identification. If you go into a Catholic Church and you go down what is known as the "Apes (sp.) of the
Church" as opposed to the "Nave," all the way down the "Apes" of a large Catholic church, you will see
along the sides "stations" occupied by certain saints.
I'll never forget the story of Dr. Kiper (sp.) who expressed that he took his friend into the great cathedral
in New York (Saint Paul's Cathedral) and his friend wanted to visit that, he was a Roman Catholic
visiting in the city while Dr. Kiper was attending Columbia University, and he had particular interest in
Saint Joseph who was his own private saint (if you can have one) and he wanted to go and worship at the
shrine of Saint Joseph, and they both went there together, only to find a sign hanging around the neck of
Saint Joseph which said, "Do not worship here, this Saint is out of order." Apparently, there was
something wrong with the mechanics of the lighting and other things that went on there. Dr. Kiper said
that was the greatest opening to witness about who really is always "in order" that he ever had in his life.
So I don't think we want to be confused about who is a saint. The simple answer will come to you if you
simply open your Bible to 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, and look at verse 2, and then you will know for all
time what a saint or who a saint really is.
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul identifies himself as the author, and he identifies the recipients as "The church of
God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus (or set apart), called saints, with all
that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Now, there you have a definition of a
saint: one who is sanctified in Christ Jesus and who calls upon the name of Jesus Christ. In any place, in
any city, anyone who has been sanctified in Christ Jesus, through salvation, who calls upon His name as
Lord--is a saint! The word means "set apart," or "holy" (hagios is the Greek word). Anyone who is a
Christian is a saint--anyone! You find that, that term is used in many, many places to address Christians.
In 2 Corinthians 1:1, there is a greeting with "all the saints who are in Achaia" and this is a typical
Pauline expression, as it was throughout the life of the early church. Ephesians chapter 1, "to the saints
who are at Ephesus." It is simply a term used to describe any Christian. So I hope that helps.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"I want to ask why lots of people accept the Lord only when something drastic happens in their
lives?"
Answer
You know that is a good time to accept the Lord, isn't it? Do you know why people do that? Because
they have run out of resources. I guess apart from little children, who come to Christ in simple beautiful
faith. . . . You know somebody asked the question, "If you have to have a broken spirit and a contrite
heart to be saved then how about little kids?" I guess that maybe in a sense we don't understand that they
probably do have a broken and a contrite heart. I hate to use my own kids as illustrations but they have
been living in my house for so many years that I know them better than anybody else's kids.
One of ours, when he was little. . . . I was walking down the hall, He used to like to go to sleep in our
bed, they have all done that--I have been hauling kids out of that room for years. So I went by the door
and I heard this little conversation going on and I knew that he was supposed to be asleep, so I just kind
of wondered what was going on. I stuck my ear in the door (he didn't see me) and he was praying, he was
about 4 or 5, and I heard this, "Dear Jesus, I am sorry, please come into my heart." And he said it over a
couple of times. Well, I got tears in my eyes.
I look back on that and that was a great step towards God that had to be confirmed. Right? As he grew
older to show that it really was genuine, because the works have to follow. But the thing that I thought
about so often as I looked back at that was that. . . . And later I asked him about that and he had been a
naughty boy and there was a sense of sinfulness and wanting to get that right with the Lord, even in that
little heart. I think that we may not see great weeping and tears and contrition that we sometimes see (and
not always, even with adults, but sometimes). But I think that there will always be a sense of sinfulness,
even in the heart of a child if they truly understand the gospel, don't you think? Because they have to
understand they need to be saved.
It is easy to point out to a child that they are sinful. They don't argue that. Did you ever notice that? They
don't argue. They admit it. You just ask them, "Are you always good?" "No" "Are you sometimes bad?"
"Yep." They will just tell you that and that is kind of fertile soil. But, I think that there has to be a
recognition of sinfulness, there has to be a contrition in the heart, there has to be an affirmation of the
Lordship of Christ where you are willing to take His yoke and learn. And I think sometimes that does not
happen until someone is desperate and that is why that question is easy to answer, "Why do people come
only in desperate situations?" Because sometimes it takes that. I have even prayed that for people, "God,

Question
make them desperate." I have even told people that, "You're not a Christian because you don't have
enough desperation yet. I am going to ask God to bring you more desperation so that you'll want to come
to Jesus Christ." But don't underestimate the contrition in a little heart.
I'll never forget that over in the Family Center, in the prayer room one night, this little kid came in (just a
little guy), and he wanted to become a Christian. I was in there and he started out his prayer, he must
have been six, "Dear Jesus, I know that I am a rotten sinner (that's what he said) and I want You to come
into my heart and make me clean." I think that is where an adult has to get too, "Unless you become as a
little child," admitting you are wrong, knowing that you have no resources and are totally dependent on
God, you're not going to come to Him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In Acts 16:31--I have many friends of mine; I come from a Pentecostal background, and they use this
Scripture to claim their family's salvation. I have read the Scripture myself and I don't believe it--I
believe that a man has to give an account to God for his own salvation. It says here, "Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" and I think people should deal with this with
other Christians and let them know that is not so.
Answer
The verse itself, of course it is the Apostle Paul and he was in jail, and the earthquake came and the jail
doors were thrown open, and all the stocks and chains were broken, and everybody started to leave, and
the jailer knew that he would lose his life and all of this. He was going to kill himself and Paul stops him
and says, "don't harm yourself," and the guy must have known that Paul was an evangelist. He must
have known the message that he preached because he comes in and says, "Sir, what must I do to be
saved?" And what is his answer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house." What these people [Pentecostal friends] are saying is that if you believe--that means salvation
for your whole house.
There are several problems with that: the man says "what must I do to be saved?" and he said, "Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," and then he says, "and thy house the same." In other
words, what does everybody in his house have to do? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The
construction forbids that it mean anything else. He doesn't say, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou and thy house shall be saved." "Thou shalt be saved," and the offer is extended to thy house. By
the way, that thing doesn't hold water anyway, because the term here for house involved everything that
was in his house: family members, servants, and everything. The people who advocate "family
salvation" out of that verse don't necessarily want to extend it to the mailman, the gardener, or anybody
else who works for him.
Obviously, even back in the Old Testament, very clearly God identifies individual salvation, and the
same thing is all the way through the New Testament. And when people will take one little verse like
this and build a doctrine of "family salvation" on it; it is completely imposed on the text, rather than in
the text. I am glad that you pointed that out, because a lot of people are claiming that, and you can't
claim that. Your house can be saved the same way you can. What he is saying to the jailer is, "I'm
telling you--you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved, and it's the same for anybody
else." In other words, this isn't something special just for you--this is available for anybody in your
house.
It says, "they spoke the word of the Lord," and here is the key, verse 32, "And they spoke unto him the
word of the Lord," and they just didn't just speak to him, but it says, "And they spoke to him the word of
the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Why? Because, everybody else, if they were going to be
saved, had to hear the same message and believe the same message, otherwise, they could have just

Question
spoken it to him and just let it go--if everybody was saved on his salvation. "And he took them the same
hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his. And when he had brought
them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Did you
get that? What does that mean? That everybody in the house--what? Believed! It is very clear.
I tell you, it just boils my blood when people take verses out of the middle of nowhere and build theology
around them, when all you have to do is to keep reading. I don't know what it is in the human mind that
makes people want to come up with their own little doctrines. I can't imagine anything worse than
misinterpreting the Scripture. Inside of myself, I would rather die than do that--I just wouldn't want to do
that. Truth is the most sacred thing that we possess--isn't it? That is why I am a believer in good
training, so you can handle the Scriptures accurately. I mean, this isn't somebody's ideas that you are
throwing around--this is the Word of the Living God! I mean, you had better get it right.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In Jeremiah, Chapter 30, verse 21, "'Their leader shall be one of them; their ruler shall come forth
from their midst. I will bring him near and he shall approach me, for who would dare to risk his
life to approach Me?' declares the LORD." What does that mean? Why would God say, "'who
would dare to risk his life to approach Me?' declares the LORD."
Answer
Well, in the context here, this is a wonderful, wonderful statement. If you go back to verse 18, or even
back further into chapter 30, the Lord talks about the future salvation, for example look at verse 10 . . .
well, go back to verse eight . . . well, go back to verse seven. Verse seven he is talking about the "time of
Jacob's Trouble"--what's that? That's the time of the Tribulation in the future, and he says, "'But he will
be saved from it. And it will come about that on that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'That I will break
his yoke from off their neck, and tear off their bonds; strangers shall no longer make them their slaves.'"
In other words, Israel is going to be liberated from the terrible oppression of the Tribulation, "and they
will serve the LORD their God, and David their king (that is, the Messiah), whom I will raise up for
them." In the middle of verse 10, "I will save you from afar, and your offspring from the land of
captivity."
First of all, this is the promise of the deliverance from the Babylonian captivity. Then beyond that, it is
the promise of the deliverance from the great time of persecution to come on Israel in the period of the
Tribulation. So God promises salvation, and that's sort of the context of this.
Go down then to verse 18 and you can pick it up there, "I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob
and have compassion on his dwelling places; the city shall be rebuilt on its ruins." That happened in the
return from exile, you remember, the city was rebuilt; the wall was rebuilt under Nehemiah and the
temple was rebuilt. "The palace shall stand in its rightful place. From them shall precede thanksgiving
and the voice of those who make merry." So, Jeremiah said, after captivity there is going to be a return,
"I will multiply them, and they shall not be diminished; I will honor them, and they shall not be
insignificant. Their children shall be as formally, and their congregation established before me, and I will
punish all their oppressors. And their leaders shall be one of them." In other words, instead of being led
by a Babylonian, you will be led by a Jew, one of your own people and I will raise your leader right up
from your midst; and bring him near and he will approach me, for who would dare to risk his life to
approach me?"
Why does he say that? Because you would never approach God on your own, unless you were brought

Question
or invited, "And you shall be my people, and I will be your God." In other words, God is saying, "I will
do the unthinkable. I will draw you to me, and who would ever think to do that, without a proper
invitation? I will do the unthinkable!"
The Jewish people, by the time they had experienced all the preaching of Jeremiah would have, if they
had any response to it, positively at all, would have concluded that they should fear God, because God
was going to come in fiery judgment. And after 70 years in captivity, and even more than that for some,
would have seen God as a very stern God of judgment and would have been reluctant to draw near to
him, and yet he says here what would be something you would be reluctant to do normally, you will do,
because I will bring you near. "I will bring him near, and he shall approach me who otherwise wouldn't
even dare to do that." That's mercy, that's grace, that's forgiveness, and that could be said of us as well.
We wouldn't dare to draw near to God on our own if we really understood who he was, but we draw near
to him because he draws near to us, and brings us to himself.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
Recently a friend and I had some discussions concerning the amount of information that is needed
for salvation. My friend is a Charismatic and has that background. And we were discussing the
“Heathen in Africa” question. His point was that a person could actually be saved without actually
having the name of “Jesus Christ” mentioned or having the gospel, like the Word of God, read to
him or preached to him, because God could actually speak to that person and they would be saved
much the same way as Abraham was saved in Romans, chapter 4, where Abraham believed God
and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. And I disagreed with him, and I said, “No, because
God has given the Word that is what needs to be brought to them.” And I brought to him Romans
10, that a preacher needs to come…so we come to you at this point
Answer
I think you’re exactly right. In the first place, Abraham was deemed to be saved because he believed the
revealed Word of God, not because of some private conversation. Any Old Testament saint could be said
to be “saved” or “in faith”-believing God-when he believed all that God had revealed at that point. And it
wasn’t just all that God had revealed to him, but all that God had disclosed about Himself. And there
obviously is a saving amount of truth. Abraham could not have been saved simply if he had known God
was a Creator. He had to know God was a Savior. He had to understand his sin… And it was abundantly
clear, even in the early chapters of Genesis, wasn’t it, that God had a standard of righteousness and that
God would judge one who violated that standard. We see that with Adam and Eve, that God instituted
symbols of the sacrifice of His Son early on in the proper offering that Abel brought. So, all of that-and
you can go back into the Old Testament and you can see many, many indications that there was a full
knowledge that God was a God of righteousness and wrath, and that men were sinners, and that God had
provided an atonement, and that there was to be a provision for sin, and if men would believe all that
God had revealed about that up to a given time, that God would account that as faith and grant them
salvation.
When you come to the New Testament, it is unequivocal. In the New Testament, once the New
Testament has been revealed, that the gospel must be understood and believed. Nothing short of that…
Verse 30 of Acts 17, “Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men
that all everywhere should repent because He’s fixed a day in which He will judge the world in
righteousness, through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him
from the dead.” In other words, there was a time when God was patient and tolerant, but now He’s
commanding all men to repent and the whole heart and soul of that repentance message is the

Question
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith comes by hearing a speech about Christ.
This is not true-it is not possible to become a believer apart from understanding the gospel. Now,
whether you know the name “Jesus” or the name “Christ” or the name “Lord Jesus Christ” or part of that
or none of that, you certainly would have to understand that He was God in human flesh and was the
perfect substitute for sin, who paid the penalty for your sin, and believe in His death and resurrection.
And that basically has to be communicated from, say, a missionary or another person?
Answer (continued)
It is conceivable, it is conceivable that God could put that in the heart of an individual. It is possible that
God could do that. I don’t want to say that God could not do that. It is conceivable that He has chosen
people somewhere that He’ll have to reach like that. But, it is more reasonable to assume that He knows
where His elect are and He will take to them someone to preach the truth. I mean, we don’t want to say
that God is capable of electing and redeeming, He just can’t figure out how to get the Word to them. So,
you know what I’m saying. But, I don’t want to say that there couldn’t be a situation where God could
not reveal Himself in the heart, because it is conceivable that He could do that. It wouldn’t be, certainly,
for me to say that God could never do that. He could disclose the gospel supernaturally to someone if He
chose to do that. That may be the case. I don’t know.
But, to say that that’s a norm-no. And to say that they don’t have to hear the gospel-is wrong. Okay?
There’s more that could be said about that, but maybe that’ll kind of get you going on the right path. You
see, that leans in a very disastrous direction, because now you’re going to dispossess people of their
responsibility to go, and now you’re going to want to let anybody who believes basically anything in.
And look, the gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-don’t even get close to that. They are way in the
other direction, saying that there are a lot of people who know all the right stuff and aren’t even saved.
To say nothing of people who would be saved and don’t know anything. I mean, that’s so far away that
the warnings of scripture are directed at people who know, but whose faith is not saving faith. You
understand what I’m saying there? It’s not the other way. He doesn’t say, “Well, you know, if anybody’s
got some kind of a general idea about what’s going on, they’re in.” Not hardly. “Many will say unto me,
Lord, Lord, and not enter in.” What about the people who don’t even know what to say? What chance
have they? Okay?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Question
Question
Since Christ purchased our liberty consisting of our freedom from the guilt of sin, the
condemnation of God, the curse of the law, and everything else that came with the saving
work…and since God alone is Lord of the conscience, do we, in our trying to keep our conscience
pure in the sight of God, find ourselves working out our salvation by works, and not by faith?
Answer
Philippians two is the text that comes to mind, in verses 12 and 13. Philippians 2:12, “Work out your
salvation with fear and trembling,” and then verse 13, “for it is God who is at work in you.” And all I can
say is, it’s God working in us, and it’s us working it out. The person who’s a legalist will say, “I achieved
it, and God was happy with what I achieved.” But, the right attitude is, “God did it in me, and I’m
grateful that He overruled my fallenness to do it. That’s the difference. The difference is attitudinal. I
know in my own life, I have to mortify sin. I have to work out my salvation; work what’s on the inside
on the outside in my conduct. And, yet, when it’s all done, He gets all the glory. The legalist takes the
glory and offers it to God and expects God to be happy with his achievements. Okay, so it’s an attitude.
You mentioned in your preaching--I think it was three weeks ago when you started about the
conscience--that once we feel this guilt, we ourselves deal with it and confess it…And that’s how I
understood it. And then just, you know, forget it. I was talking to a friend of mine and we got into
“Well isn’t then that like-‘Okay, if I did something wrong, I’m just going to make sure I kind of
put it away’” and we dealt about this working out our own salvation…
Answer (continued)
No, I think you need to put it away. I think, you know, if you’ve confessed it and repented of it, the Lord
has forgotten it, what good is there in your remembering it? In fact, the longer you remember your old
sins, the more likely they are to become new temptations.
Tony Capoccia
Question
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
First, I’d just like to ask a couple of quick "yes-or-no" questions before I get to my main question,
if that’s alright. First of all, there’s nothing in us that would obligate God to save us, is there?
Answer
“No.”
We’re all sinners saved by grace?
Answer (continued)
“That is correct.”
And then, once saved, there’s nothing we can do to lose our salvation?
Answer (continued)
“That is correct, but let me say it another way. There is neither anything you could do to lose it, nor
anything you would do to lose it.”
I need to ask you a question about a quote you made a couple of months ago, in the second part of
the Biblical View on Abortion. I’d just like to read what you said that night, and then ask you to
reconcile it with your answers to the first two questions. You said, “It is my conviction that God
redeems murdered infants, that His grace reaches out and takes those little ones to be with
Himself. The Bible is very clear that people perish in Hell because they refuse to believe, that Hell
is for those who rejected God and who rejected Christ, something an unborn infant could never do.
And so God, not having a just basis, either internally or externally, by virtue of the attitude or the
action of an unborn child, would have no basis on which to sentence them to Hell, except for the

depravity they inherited in Adam, which is never a cause for damnation, apart from its evidence in
behavior or attitude. God must then embrace them into His own kingdom.” I had a problem with
this, a couple of problems with it…
Answer (continued)
“Boy, I thought that was a great statement; did I say that? Go ahead, what’s the problem?”
Well, the problem I had with it was that, if an unborn child is saved until he becomes unsaved by a
sinful attitude or action, then what does that do to the doctrine of eternal security? And also, the
other problem I had is that...
Answer (continued)
Let’s take the first problem. The unborn child is not saved. He’s not saved until he...what was that you
said? If he’s not saved until...?
"In your quote, you said that “God, not having any just basis, either internally or externally, by
virtue of the attitude or the action of an unborn child, would have no basis on which to sentence
them to Hell, except for the depravity they inherited in Adam.”
Answer (continued)
Right, but that doesn’t mean they’re saved. An unborn infant--a child, a baby--before the age of
accountability is not saved. Otherwise, they would lose their salvation when they reached the age of
accountability. That’s your question, right? Then you don’t have eternal security, because if all infants
and all babies are saved before the age of accountability, when they get to the age of accountability, they
lose their salvation and they have to get saved over again.
No, they’re not saved. God redeems them when they die. There’s a difference. They’re not saved.
They’re in a situation where they are sort of in the middle ground: they’re not saved, or in the technical
sense, they’re lost, of course, but not in the sense of having rejected God in unbelief or unbelief of Christ--
they are not saved, which can only occur through faith in Christ. So, there they are: they’re not saved and
they’re not--how can I say it? I don’t want to say they’re not unsaved…but they’re not confirmed in
unbelief. They’re neither. If they live, they maintain the same situation of being unsaved. If they die, I
believe God saves them.

So, the salvation doesn’t come into play unless they die and at that point.
Well, doesn’t it say in Psalm 51, verse 5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin, my
mother conceived me”?
Answer (continued)
Yes, there’s no question about the fallenness of man, but Jesus said people are damned because they
believe not on me. Unbelief is always the damning action. In other words, no one is damned, singularly
and only because of their fallenness. They are damned because they chose to reject God. Read Romans 1,
“That which may be known of God is in them. But, instead of accepting what was known of God and
believing it, they turned away from that, they created gods of their own, they followed their own flesh…”
You know what Romans 1 says, “And therefore the wrath of God was revealed from heaven against
them, against all unrighteousness and ungodliness.”
And these are very difficult questions. You know, you’re dealing with a very difficult issue. All I can say
is this: no one is ever saved unless they believe in Jesus Christ, personally. Whatever may be said about
election and sovereignty and predestination and choice by God, no one is ever saved unless they believe.
Conversely, no one is ever damned except through the rejection of the truth of God, which is in them and
around them and made manifest to them. So that a child can neither be saved, because the child or the
infant, born or unborn, cannot comprehend the saving truth, nor can that child be, in the confirmed sense,
doomed to judgment, because the child cannot willfully reject God either. So, in that state, God has to
exercise His own wisdom and mercy, and I believe, in mercy, He would redeem that one, because there is
no basis in terms of unbelief and rejection by which to condemn them. That’s what I was trying to say in
that statement.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Salvation
Question
A couple of weeks ago at our Bible study, the discussion got onto the doctrine of election. And,
inevitably, it got over to the point of: what about the heathen who have never heard the gospel?
One group's feeling, since the Bible teaches faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word, that
you have to hear the gospel and you have to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation through
faith. And the other side, taking Romans 1, verses 16 through 19 (roughly), as meaning that anyone
who believed in a god, or who saw God in the universe, could be somehow saved. Would you
address that?
Answer
Yes, group two is wrong. And, let me tell you why. “Neither is there salvation in any other,” Acts 4, “for
there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Salvation comes
by hearing a speech a Christ, Romans tells us very explicitly--chapter 10, “If thou shalt confess with thy
mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.” I Corinthians 16:22, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed [anathema].”
There is no salvation in any other than Jesus Christ. For by grace are you saved through faith. That faith
must be directed towards Jesus Christ. What Romans 1 is saying is not that people who believe in God
can thereby be saved, but that people have enough knowledge about God to know about Him, and
knowing about Him doesn’t save them--it potentially damns them. That’s the difference. Romans 1 says
that God has revealed Himself to such a degree that everyone is responsible for the revelation. And that’s
why the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness, because when they knew
God, they glorified Him not as God.
So, knowing God isn’t sufficient to save you, but it is sufficient to damn you. You say, “Well, what about
the heathen who know God and thus are sufficiently knowledgeable to be damned?” Well, the answer is,
that if according to John 1, if they recognize God, then I believe God will accept that acknowledgement
and take them to the next level. Because John 1:9 says, “Christ is the light that lights every man that
comes into the world.” I believe that when you live up to the light you have, God gives you more light.
To give you an illustration of this, there was a book published many years ago called Angel in Ebony. It
was a story of an African by the name of Sammy Morris--that was his American name. And when he was
in Africa, he had no exposure to any Christian message whatsoever. He came to America by being a
stowaway on a freighter; he was a very poor tribal African. He came to America and landed in New York

City and, over a period of time, found his way into some group of Christians…and, having acquired
some knowledge of the language, heard them talking about God and about Christ. And after having heard
that, he ran to the leaders of that group and, I forget all the details, but the book said, “You worship the
same God with the same Son that I worship!” The story goes on to say that when they began to give to
him the gospel, he understood everything about the gospel except the name of Jesus Christ.
Now, that may be a very rare occasion or maybe not so rare, but I believe there’s another side to this and
that is that people are damned to hell because of unbelief--unbelief in God, and unbelief or rejection of
Jesus Christ. If you reject Christ, you’re damned. If you reject Christ, God turns His back on you. So, I
believe if a person lives up to the light of the knowledge of God, God gives them more light; when that
more light comes, as they follow that more light, it leads to Christ; if they respond to Christ, they’re
saved; if they don’t they’re damned. But, I do not believe that just knowing about the true God, at that
point, saves a man; it only makes a man potentially damned.
If the heathen could be saved without the gospel, then better not to confuse the issue, so let’s call all the
missionaries home and not waste our time. Because if they’re saved because they don’t know, then let’s
not tell them, right? So, that flies in the face of the great commission; “go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature” assumes that every creature needs to hear the gospel. And, if somebody
could be saved without hearing the gospel, then for mercy’s sake, don’t tell it to them. Leave them in the
innocence of their ignorance. Why potentiate their damnation? So, that would make nonsense out of the
mandate of the great commission.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Finding a Church for an Unbeliever?
Question
I have someone who’s close to me who lives out-of-state and he’s a professing believer, but I fear
his faith is a dead faith given the lack of fruits in his life. He does not currently attend church,
although I’ve encouraged him to go. The last thing I want to do is point him to a church that might
lead him to conclude, falsely, that he’s delivered if he’s really not. I was wondering if you could
share some of your wisdom on this.
Answer
Yes, I think its very good, and this is a very pertinent question. He’s saying, “I have a friend who thinks
he’s a Christian but I don’t think he is. I want to send him to a church, but I don’t want to send him to a
church that’ll reinforce him as a Christian when he isn’t. That’s not helpful. You cannot make him a
victim of any church, so what you have to do is you have to get him to understand the criteria. You can’t
make him depend on the church. And that’s one of the reasons why when we preach series, like the series
on deliverance, we put it on tape. You could say to the guy, “Boy, you know, I don’t want to send you to
the wrong place, so let me run around and try to find the right place.” That’s really not helping him.
What you have to do is teach him the right criteria so he can make that judgment. So, your responsibility
is to find whatever material is necessary to bring him to a proper understanding of his condition, and of
the truth about salvation so that he is going to be able to make that judgment. It’s like your children. You
know, if all you ever do with your children is tell them what to avoid, you haven’t prepared them for
anything. Because when you’re not there, they’re not going to have the criteria to be able to make a
choice that’s right. So, instead of telling your friend what to avoid or instead of protecting your friend
from error, your friend needs to be taught the truth so that he then becomes the source of his own
protection. So, take that series on deliverance and send it to him, and make him take notes and write the
notes down and send them back to you so you know he gets it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

John MacArthur - Finding a Church for an Unbeliever?
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Born of Water and the Spirit
Question
My question comes from John 3, and particularly verse five were Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And my
question is, what did he refer to when he said, "one has to be born of the water," because I know it
doesn't mean that we have to be baptized to be saved?
Answer
Through the years there have been a number of different suggestions. In America, just before a woman
has a baby, there is an expression that we use, we say, “A woman’s water breaks.” And I, when I was
very young, used to hear people preach and say that "what it means is you have to be born twice." You
have to be born of water. That is, you’re in that sac of fluid in your mother's womb, and that water
breaks, which means you have to be physically born. So that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus, you have to
be physically born first, and then spiritually born. The problem with that interpretation is twofold: one,
why would he tell a grown man he needed to be physically born. It was obvious he already past that test.
Secondly, the Jews didn’t call that "water." They didn’t have that colloquial expression for that fluid
[that] we have, calling it "water." So you can’t read some kind of "Americanism" back into that. Others
have said, it does refer to being baptized, but you have to remember that Christian baptism isn’t even
instituted until Acts, chapter 2.
What does it mean? Very simply, it is a reference to the prophet Ezekiel. And if you remember, Jesus is
talking to Nicodemus. Nicodemus is a teacher. He is a teacher of the Jews. In fact, in verse 1, it says, he's
a ruler of the Jews. That would put him in a very preeminent place. In fact, I believe the definite article is
there, "the" ruler of the Jews. And those who ruled over the Jews were in religious authority, not political
or military authority. And so, how would Nicodemus have understood it? Would he have understood it as
Christian baptism? No. Would he have understood it as the physical birth and the water breaking? No.
How would he have understood it? Well, the answer goes back to Ezekiel.
There was a very famous passage in Ezekiel that every teacher in Israel knew, because it was the promise
of the new covenant. In Ezekiel 36:25, God made this promise to Israel about a new covenant. He said,
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your
filthiness and from all you idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I
will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within
you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances or my
commandments.”

John MacArthur - Born of Water and the Spirit
Now what Ezekiel is writing there is, that the day is going to come when the Lord will wash your heart,
he’ll wash your life; he’ll wash your inner man. He’ll put a new heart in you and he’ll put his Spirit in
you.
So when Jesus talks to Nicodemus and says, "you must be born of the water and the Spirit," Nicodemus
knows immediately that he is saying, "I am come to bring the fulfillment of the promised new covenant,
promised to and through Ezekiel." Okay? See his is a Jewish Old Testament context, and so it would be
actually what the apostle Paul calls, “The washing of regeneration.” The washing, the internal washing of
regeneration, and the renewing that comes by the Holy Spirit, that’s Titus 3:5 where you have both the
water and the Spirit.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
How can I be sure of my salvation?
Answer
There are two important tests in Scripture for a person to determine whether or not he or she is a true
believer.
There is first of all an objective test, which asks, "Do I believe?" Ask yourself if you affirm the
Scripture's record of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that He is God manifest in the
flesh? Do you believe that God saves sinners solely through the merits of Jesus Christ's obedient life and
substitutionary death on the cross?
Second is the subjective or experiential test of assurance in which you ask yourself, "Is my faith real?"
The apostle John's purpose in writing the epistle of 1 John was to give true believers assurance of their
salvation (1 John 5:13). In that small epistle John gives several marks to distinguish a true believer.
These are:
● True believers walk in the light (1 John 1:6-7). The light here means both intellectual and moral
truth. Ask, "Do I affirm the truths of Scripture, and desire to obey them?"
● True believers confess their sin (1:8-2:1) Confess here doesn't mean to recite every wrong that we
have ever done. Rather, it means to agree with God about our sin. That means that true believers
hate their sin; they don't love it. They acknowledge they are sinful, and yet they know they are
forgiven.
● True believers keep His commandments (2:3-4; 5:2-3). The term here refers to a watchful,
observant obedience. Here the believer desires to obey truths he deems precious. It involves a
proactive approach to obedience-the Christian studies Scripture in order to understand and obey it.
● True believers love the brethren (2:9-11; 3:10, 14-15; 5:2). Ask yourself the question, "Do I love
God's people and desire to be around them?"
● True believers affirm sound doctrine (2:20-23; 4:2,6). John here teaches that no true believer will
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-suresave.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:20:31 AM]

fall into any serious, Christ-denying error or heresy.
● True believers follow after holiness (2:29; 3:3-4, 6-9). These verses certainly aren't talking about
sinless perfection, or even the frequency or duration of sin. The term sin in these verses describes
one who lives an immoral, ungodly, unrighteous life as a matter of continual practice, and carries
the attitude of hardened hate for God's righteousness.
● True believers have the Holy Spirit (4:13; 5:10-11). This is an over-arching test summing up all
the others. Is there evidence that the fruit of the Spirit is present in your life (Galatians 5:22-23)?
In summary, one's assurance of salvation does not need to be based on a past decision or an experience. It
should rest first of all on one's faith in the objective truth of God's Word, Jesus Christ, and the gospel.
Secondly, it should rest on the reality of a changed life marked by obedience, a love for Christ and His
righteousness, and a hatred for sin. Take heart if these things are true in your life, and trust God to
continue to work out His salvation in your life.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-suresave.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:20:31 AM]

Question
My question has to do with the Word of God. In Hebrews 4:12, we’re told that the Word of God is
powerful, active, and living. My question to you is this: Does the Word that saves and sanctifies a
believer’s life rest in the Word itself or is the Word of God the instrument by which the Holy Spirit
regenerates and sanctifies an individual?
Answer
Yes, that’s a correct way to understand it. It is the truth not on the page, but effectively operative in the
life by the Spirit. So it is the Word and the Spirit. The Word sitting on the page doesn’t display the power
and that’s proven by the fact that you can go to a liberal seminary where people aren’t Christians but
they’re Bible scholars and it has virtually no impact on their life. You can take a person who’s a brand--
new, baby Christian and they read a verse of Scripture and it has a profound effect upon their life because
of their conversion and salvation and the Spirit of God being resident in their life. So that is the correct
way to understand it: it is the Word empowered and energized by the divine Spirit.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Is salvation based on accepting Christ as Savior and Lord or does He become Lord later? -- John MacArthur
Question
Is salvation based on accepting Christ as Savior and Lord or does He become Lord later?
Answer
Very often you hear testimonies and somebody will say, “Well, a long time ago I accepted Christ as
Savior, but only recently have I made him Lord of my life.” Have you ever heard that? That’s very
common. Or, “I received Christ, I believed in him, but He never was Lord until just recently.”
Well, let me show you what the Scripture says about that. Turn in your Bible, first of all, to Romans
10:9. It says this (and you know the scripture, but I want to point something out): “That if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth, ‘Jesus as’”-what? “‘Lord,’ and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised
him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Isn’t that interesting? “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth,
‘Jesus as’”-what? “‘Lord.’”
Listen, friends. You don’t make Jesus Lord; He is Lord! That’s who He is! If you receive Jesus at all,
you receive him for who He is.
Let me show you another scripture--Philippians 2:9. This is really a simple question… It’s easy to
answer. “Wherefore God has highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow--things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth”--now,
watch--“and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is,” what? "Lord!" That’s who He is!
For somebody to say, “I received him as Savior, but just recently I made him Lord,” you didn’t make him
Lord at all! He already is Lord! So when you receive him, you receive him as Lord. Salvation is
confessing Jesus as Lord of my life!
You say, “But there was a difference in my life. I mean, there was difference between when I received
him and just recently.” You know what the difference was? You finally woke up that you ought to obey
him. It isn’t a question of who’s Lord; it’s a question of obedience. Right?
He is Lord… He is Lord. There’s no question about that. So, don’t say that “I made him Lord of my
life.” You’re not in the coronation business! God has anointed him, right? King and Messiah and Lord!
You can’t do that. You can’t say, “I just made God Lord.” He is Lord and you just finally woke up to
being obedient.

Is salvation based on accepting Christ as Savior and Lord or does He become Lord later? -- John MacArthur
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

How do you know when you’re saved? -- John MacArthur
Question
How do you know when you’re saved?
Answer
Well, I think there’s really three ways to know you’re saved, maybe. Number one is to believe the Word
of God. The Bible says this: that if “thou shalt believe in thy heart and confess with thy mouth, ‘Jesus is
Lord,’ thou shalt,” what? “Be saved.” If you believe in him and you’ve confessed it to him, you’re saved.
The first way you believe it is because the Bible says so.
The second thing is because the Spirit testifies to that. In Romans 8, it says in verse 14 that the Lord
sends his Spirit in us, reminding us that we are the sons of God and crying out in us, “Abba, Father!” The
testimony of the Spirit.
The third test to know you’re saved is the testimony of other people who look at your life. The Bible
says, “By their fruits,” what? “You shall know them.”
There’s three ways to know you’re saved… Because you believe the Word of God; because the Holy
Spirit testifies in your heart that you are redeemed and because your heart longs to know God and to
express to God and to talk to God and to sense God, to love God; and thirdly, because those around you
see the evidence of it in your life.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Does God answer every salvation prayer? Is there ever anybody who prays to be saved and gets refused? -- John MacArthur
Question
Does God answer every salvation prayer? Is there ever anybody who prays to be saved and gets
refused?
Answer
Well, there’s a clear answer to that, I think. The clear answer to that is in John 6:37. “All that the Father
gives shall come to me”--that’s the sovereign side of it. That’s God in action… John 6:37. That’s God in
action, “All that the Father gives me shall come to me,” but watch? “And him that comes to me, I will in
no wise,” what? “Cast out.”
Yes, God answers every salvation prayer. “Him that comes to me, I will no wise cast out.” Jesus said in
Matthew 11:28, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will”--what? “Give you rest.”
What is the condition for rest? What do you have to do to get rest? Be elected? What? Come. Come.
Come.
Yes, every salvation prayer is answered. The thief on the cross: “Lord, remember me when you come
into your kingdom” and what did He say? “Today shall you be with me in paradise.” You find me one
time, any place, any time in the Bible where such a prayer was not answered with an immediate yes! One
man even came and said, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” and the Lord took him.
You say, “Yeah, but even the prayers of really bad people… like me?” Listen: In Romans 5:20,
“Moreover, the law entered that the offense might abound”--I love this--“but where sin abounded”--
what? “Grace super-abounded!” Some of you are thrilled about that. All of you should be.
How do you get life everlasting? I Timothy 1:16: “Nevertheless,” Paul says, “for this cause I obtain
mercy that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering.” Paul says, “You know why I
think one reason why he saved me? Just to show everybody how patient He is, that He would save
somebody going around killing Christians.” That ought to give you an idea of whom He’ll save, right?
“That He might show in me first, Jesus Christ as longsuffering, for a pattern to them who should
hereafter believe on him to,” what? “Life everlasting.”
How do you get life everlasting? By what? Believing on him. And be reminded that if the apostle Paul
who spent his career hating Jesus Christ and killing Christians was saved, let that be a good example as
to who God will save. Nobody but nobody under any circumstance gets turned down if they come.

Does God answer every salvation prayer? Is there ever anybody who prays to be saved and gets refused? -- John MacArthur
Hebrews 7:25: “Wherefore, He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him!”
He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him. You say, “Oh yeah, MacArthur,
He’s able all right, but the question is, is He willing?” Oh, I’ll tell you… Peter, chapter 3, says, “God is
not willing that,” what? “Any should perish.”
Sincerity is necessary. You study in Matthew 13 the different soils and some people aren’t sincere! But
the sincere prayer of the sincere heart will always be answered. “And the Spirit and the Bride say,
‘Come!’”--Revelation 22:7 records--“and let him that hears say, ‘Come!” and let him that is athirst come;
and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Yes, God answers every salvation prayer.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

I’ve heard many times this statement: “When the last soul is saved, the Lord will return.” What is the scriptural base for this? -- John MacArthur
Question
I’ve heard many times this statement: “When the last soul is saved, the Lord will return.” What is
the scriptural base for this?
Answer
Have you ever heard that? I think we’ve all heard that, “When the last soul is saved, the Lord will
return.” There is no verse that says that, but it is certainly inferred and it is inferred by this--and I don’t
know that I’ve ever said that, but I really don’t have an argument with it. I guess I think that sometimes,
that somewhere in the world the last person’s going to be saved and away we go. That’s kind of exciting
to think about. But, there is no verse. But it is true that God acts in the fullness of things, doesn’t He? For
example, you have Galatians 4:4, “In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,
made under the law.”
God acts in the fullness of time. And there you take that same concept to Romans 11:25. There you have
a very interesting statement, in Romans 11:25, that has to do with the church. Listen to what it says; “For
I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of the mystery lest you be wise in your conceits: that
blindness in part has happened to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.”
Now most would agree, I think, with very few exceptions that the fullness of the Gentiles is the church.
The times of the Gentiles is a period of Gentile domination of Israel began in 586 BC and goes on until
the Lord comes and establishes the kingdom again. But the fullness of the Gentiles is the fulfilling of the
Gentile group of believers the Lord calls out to himself.
So, “blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles”; once the fullness of the
Gentiles is completed, then the blindness of Israel is taken away… Do you see? Well, the taking away of
the blindness of Israel occurs in what period of time? The tribulation. So, the tribulation then will occur
immediately after the fullness of the Gentiles. What is the key event that starts the tribulation? The
rapture! So it is truly inferred that when the last soul is saved and the fullness of the Gentiles is reached,
we’re taken out and God begins to redeem Israel.
So, from that standpoint, I think the inference is correct, though, as I said, there is no very specific or
direct statement that says that very thing. I’m thinking too of Acts 15:14: Simeon declared that God first
did visit the nations to take out a people for his name. If God was going to take a people, a designated
people...remember also in Acts that the Bible says God had many people in that city. And once God’s
“people” are brought together and the fullness is complete, then God’s going to deal with Israel and the

I’ve heard many times this statement: “When the last soul is saved, the Lord will return.” What is the scriptural base for this? -- John MacArthur
rapture must intervene. So it is true: when the last soul is saved (or soon thereafter), we leave.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
This question is about Genesis 3:1, and 3:14, In what form was Satan when he tempted Eve? It says
something in here about "cattle" and he was put on his "belly" to go in to dust.
Answer
The form that he was in was a snake. It says, "the LORD God said to the serpent." Somehow Satan
manifested himself through that serpent. Now that is getting into something we really don't know all the
details about, but back in verse one of chapter three, it says "Now the serpent was more subtle than any
beast of the field." Now to be honest with you, we don't know what form the serpent had in the garden--
we just don't know. There are some who believe that at that point in time the snake might have been up
in the trees or whatever, because when he was cursed, he was cursed to crawl on his belly in the dust, you
know "all his days" and so forth. Probably, there was some distinction between the first serpent and what
he was after he tempted man. But that distinction could not be explained by the "Fall" because Satan was
equally evil before he tempted Eve and Adam, as he was afterwards. So we don't know what the change
was, but any way it says "because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every
beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of thy life." At least
the cattle and the other beasts have their belly up off of the ground--propped up by their legs.
He wasn't cattle?
Answer (continued)
Oh, no, no, he was a snake. He was cursed worse than them because he would craw in the dirt all of his
life. In other words, the curse impacted all animals, but his curse was more severe than the cattle's curse;
more severe than the beast's because he was left to crawl in the dirt. Some people think that maybe before
that he had legs. I really don't know, but maybe there was some way that he was erect, or some way in
which he traversed the trees or whatever--I don't know. But his curse was more severe just by virtue of
the fact that he would crawl in the dirt--a more humiliating stance. Frankly, if you would take a vote on
the most unpopular animal in the world, it is quite confident that the snake would win. True? I mean,
how many of you are really into snakes? Not very many, it is a despicable kind of creature that slithers
around and (I don't want to talk about this too much or we will lose some ladies here in the second row).

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I was reading your book, Our Sufficiency in Christ, and I have just a couple paragraphs to read. It talks
about the spiritual warfare--who’s after whom, God’s sovereign purpose, why things happen. And it says
here, “Why would God allow the devil, an already defeated enemy, to continue to trouble believers?
Scripture does not attempt to answer that question; it only assures us that God’s purposes are always
righteous, holy, good, and ultimately for our benefit.” And it says here, “Paul wrote of the divine purpose
in the messenger of Satan that troubled him with the thorn ‘to keep me from exalting myself’”--that’s in
II Corinthians 12:7. "And here in Job, perhaps the earliest of all the books in the Bible, is a classic Old
Testament study in how God uses Satan’s diabolical efforts to accomplish his own divine purposes.
There was no one else like Job on earth; God himself testified to that. He was a blameless and upright
man, fearing God and turning away from evil. And here Job lost everything: his children were all killed,
he suffered painful and humiliating diseases. He struggled with doubts, depression, discouragement. And
here Peter, in the New Testament, was also personally attacked by Satan with God’s permission." My
[question] is, as Christians today, does God allow these things to happen in our lives to strengthen
our faith? Because Peter went through circumstances like that, and God told him that you’re going
to go through it because you’re going to strengthen the church. Does this still happen today? Does
God allow Satan to buffet us for us to be stronger in the faith?
Answer
I think He does. I don’t see any reason to assume any difference. You can go all the way back to
probably the oldest book in the Bible, Job, which we could discuss about its authorship--it may have
even been written before the Pentateuch. You can go all the way to the time of the tribulation in the book
of Revelation, and Satan is going to be heaping everything on believers then, right? You can see it in the
life of Paul, you can see it in the life of Peter. I don’t see any reason, since it's there at the very beginning
and it's there at the very end, in the redemptive plan of history, why it shouldn’t be running through the
whole middle. So, I would assume that the answer is yes, that the Lord does turn Satan loose on us at His
own purpose and discretion, or turn demons loose on us for perfecting purposes, to accomplish His own
ends in our lives. There’s nothing in the Bible to convince us other than that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Blackballing Scripture: Scholarship Takes a Beading
Question
Did Jesus really say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but
through Me" (John 14:6).
Answer
Now a group of "experts" claims Jesus didn't really say that—one of the disciples or somebody else
actually added it to the gospel record.
Two hundred self-proclaimed authorities on the Bible just concluded six years of meetings
called—ironically—the Jesus Seminar. Their goal was to identify the things in the gospels that Jesus
really said. They made their decisions by majority vote.
The scholars used a curious polling procedure. Each participant dropped a red bead into a ballot box for
sayings he or she figured were probably authentic. Pink beads meant possibly authentic. Gray beads were
used for sayings thought to have been altered by the disciples or early Christians. Black beads were the
strongest "no" vote—used for passages deemed entirely fabricated or spoken by someone other than
Jesus.
The results are astonishing: the group decreed that only 31 of the of the more than 700 sayings attributed
to Jesus in the gospels are unquestionably authentic (and 16 of those are duplicates from parallel
passages!). More than half the sayings considered received the black bead.
All totalled, the panel utterly rejected 80 percent of the words Scripture attributes to Jesus. Among the
ousted passages are Matthew 5:11 ("Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you,
and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me"), Mark 10:32-34 (in which Jesus foretold
His crucifixion), all the apocalyptic sections, and everything in John—except 4:44 (which got a pink).
Ironically, it says, "a prophet has no honor in his own country."
Seminar founder Robert Funk reckons most mainline scholars will agree with their dumping of John's
gospel, because "Jesus speaks regularly in adages or aphorisms, or in parables, or in witticisms created as
a rebuff or retort in the context of dialogue or debate. It is clear he did not speak in long monologues of
the type found in the Gospel of John."
Thus decaying flotsam from the shipwreck of liberal theology continues to wash ashore.
In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times (April 13, 1991), Dr. Robert Thomas, professor of New
Testament at The Master's Seminary, pointed out the fallacy of these self-styled scholars who discount
the obvious historical value of the gospels.
"Whose perception of Jesus depicts the real Jesus, the perception of the earliest Christians or that of
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/blackballing.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:20:42 AM]

specialists working nearly 20 centuries later?" Dr. Thomas asked. "The verdict must favor the historical
accuracy of the earliest perceptions found in the four Gospels."
What tools did the Jesus Seminar scholars employ? Ultimately only one—the test of "political
correctness." Taking a cue from secular academia, the fellows of the Jesus seminar simply dismissed
every statement containing a hint of some truth or point of view that is rejected by the political liberals in
our culture.
Who determines what is politically correct? The same people who were radical protestors on university
campuses in the 60s are now middle managers in the university system. Their ideological creed has
become the test of orthodoxy in most academic circles. "Scholars" are expected to march lock-step
behind them. Those who deviate from the party line forfeit their reputation in the academic community.
Sacred dogma for the politically correct includes: equality for women, homosexuality as an "alternative
lifestyle," environmental activism, animal rights, racial quotas, hard-line anti-war doctrine, and so on.
While prating about "academic freedom," these people will try to censor anyone who dares challenge
their world-view—even Jesus.
And so the Jesus Seminar panel members, who hail mostly from secular academic settings, are only
attempting to make Jesus politically correct.
One merely needs to look at the panel's decisions to understand what their real agenda was. The parables
of the Good Samaritan, the Unjust Steward, and the Mustard Seed; passages that are critical of the rich;
commands to love one's enemies; and verses that entreat disciples to love one another—those all got red
beads.
Passages that call for repentance, affirm Jesus' deity, make difficult demands of disciples, or speak of the
need for redemption and the new birth—those sections were literally blackballed.
The Jesus Seminar is not finished yet. The panel is going to reconvene soon to evaluate the works of
Jesus. Funk says he is "reasonably sure the seminar fellows are going to say that the Resurrection
happened as a vision to followers such as Peter, James, and Paul." No doubt he's right. The scholars have
already announced their conclusion that the disciples' accounts of an empty tomb are merely
embellishments of Paul's report that the risen Christ had appeared to him.
Will these politically correct skeptics continue bowdlerizing the bible? You can count on it.
Please don't get the idea that I think the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar should be discarded lightly. On
the contrary, I think they should be thrown away with as much force as possible.

Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question: Second Coming -- John MacArthur

Question
"This week in the newspaper, it was reported that some experts," in fact they
called them Biblical Scholars, I read the article," met to discuss the Scriptures,
regarding the Second Coming of Christ. And they voted. And twenty-seven out
of thirty, of the scholars, voted that Christ did not promise to return a second
time. So the article in the Daily News, I think it was, said that, 'Bible Scholars
now agree, that Christ will not return a second time, and its foolish for us to start
a cult of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, because Biblical Scholars now
know, He never said that He would come again.'"
Answer
That's difficult to understand in the light of the fact of several things, but one
Scripture that comes to mind, that seems to me to be rather significant, Jesus said
this, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, my words will not pass away, but of that
day and hour knows no one, not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father alone, for the coming of the Son of Man, will be just like the days of
Noah," then he goes on to describe the coming of the Son of Man, and then that's
Matthew 24, in Matthew 25, we find again that He's going to come, and when He
comes, He is going to bring about judgment on the earth.
Verse 31, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him
. . ." Now how can twenty-seven Bible Scholars vote that, that's not in the Bible?
You say, "How can they do that?" Well, they just eliminate that verse. They just

Question: Second Coming -- John MacArthur
say, "Well, that doesn't mean what it says, and Jesus didn't really say that,
somebody fabricated that, someone said He said that, and so forth and so on.
You know, one of the distinguishing marks of the Christian Church, from the
very outset, has been a hope in the Coming of Christ. In 1Thessalonians Chapter
1, it says, "For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had
with you. How you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and
to wait for His Son from heaven." That's basic to the life of the Church. Peter
calls it, "A living hope." We have a living hope in Christ's return, in spite of what
these men say. We have to come up with a new definition of scholars, I think.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Second Coming
Question
I was trying to look it up earlier out of Isaiah 35, but was wondering that when the second coming
of Christ comes about--the desert--is it supposed to bloom and blossom with flowers and
vegetation?
Answer
Right. This is true. What’s going to happen if you read--we won’t go into the specifics--but if you read
the prophets, they say that there’s going to be a valley created called the Valley of Jehoshaphat in
Jerusalem. It’s going to be an east-west valley, the Mount of Olives is going to be split and there’s a
valley created and a river is going to run through that valley, down the hill--back of Jerusalem, goes way
down, you know Jerusalem is almost a mile high. The Dead Sea is what? 1500 feet plus, below sea level?
It’s just a severe drop and the water is going to run out into there and flourish and cause the desert to
blossom like a rose.
Deserts are part of the curse. Deserts are part of the fall. Eden was a place of beautiful vegetation; the
desert came about because of the fall. When paradise is restored in the millennial kingdom of Christ, I
think deserts disappear. Certainly in the land of Israel for certain they do and God turns it into a garden
again.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Second Coming

Question
Question
What does it mean when in the Book of Jonah it says, "My spirit went into
Sheol?"
Answer
The Old Testament uses that word in a very general sense for the grave, for the
darkness of death, and I don't think it can be used literally to refer to the grave. It
can be used literally to refer to death or it can be used metaphorically or
symbolically of deep despair. It could also be used to speak of (and we could
probably dig up some illustrations of each of these) being very near to death--
"My soul went into Sheol," in the sense of right at the edge of the grave. I don't
think you can push the point there that he was dead. I really do believe and
maybe the best argument of all would be, that if, indeed, that was a resurrection,
the Holy Spirit is not in the business of minimizing resurrections, so if Jonah had
literally died and been raised from the dead, it would seem to me that that would
have been significant enough for the text to have made that clear, since the Lord
does not minimize resurrections.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In James 5:13-18, where it told about anointing with oil, my question is kind of a four-part
question:
1. Is this for the church today?
2. If so, when is it appropriate for someone to call the elders of the church?
3. What kind of sickness is this for--is it only for sin sickness?
4. How does someone at Grace Community Church call the elders of the church if a serious
circumstance should come up?
Answer
I think that it is for us. I don't want to get into some kind of dispensational thing and throw out the Book
of James. It says, "Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any
sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with
oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;
and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Now, that last statement is the "hook" that
this whole thing hangs on.
I believe this has a reference to those sicknesses which are directly related to unforgiven sin. Not
unforgiven in the sense of ultimate forgiveness at the cross, but unforgiven in the sense of our immediate
relationship with the Lord. In other words, all your sins are covered in Christ, and this is back to what
you were saying. That's why there is no ultimate punishment. But there sins in our lives, right now that
are not dealt with, and we will be chastened for those, they need to be treated too.
So, where you have a believer who has sin in his life there is the potential of sickness, and if you don't
think so then you haven't read 1 Corinthians 11, because if you're sick "because of your defiling of the
Lord's Table many of you are weak and sick, and some of you are dead," he says (the ones who were
dead obviously weren't able to hear what he was saying, but the others did).
So yes, First John even talks about a believer who goes beyond the point of being recalled back from
sickness because of his sinfulness. Yes, I really believe that the fact that this is tied into to the "sins," and

Question
it says in 5:16, "Confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed."
And, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." And then, "Elijah was a man
subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the
earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the
earth brought forth her fruit."
So, he's simply saying that pray on the behalf of one, prayer before God on behalf of one who is sick due
to sin--God hears. When the prayer is offered and the confession is offered. So I believe that those are the
circumstances. The fact that it says that the "prayer of faith shall save the sick," is such a gilt-edged
promise, with no conditions, that it would have to be referring to a sickness related--to something that
could be dealt with, and soon as it was dealt with the sickness would be removed.
Now, the question about, "Do we do that at Grace Church?" Yes, we do, and we have for all the years
that I have ever been here. Every Sunday morning we meet over here in the Prayer Room at eight o'clock
for a half an hour of prayer, and very frequently we have folks come in who want to be prayed for.
Now the one element that is kind of introduced here into the text, it's a little difficult for us to understand,
is the anointing of oil. There are two possible explanations for the anointing of oil.
Explanation #1 - Is that the oil was the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and that is true in the Old
Testament.
On many occasions kings were anointed with oil, priests were anointed with oil, as a symbol of the Holy
Spirit, just a way to identify it as if the Holy Spirit was touching that life--special anointing. In fact,
"anointed" is a beautiful word in the Old Testament, isn't it? The priest was anointed, the king was
anointed, as if God was putting a "touch" on him.
So, it is very possible that, that is a symbol of identifying the fact that we desire the Spirit of God to do a
work in the heart, a work in the soul, a work in the body--of healing.
Explanation #2 - The other possibility is that it has reference to medicine.
"Oil" is a very general term and could have been used regarding medicine. So, it may be what James has
in mind is--"Pray for the person and tell him to take his medicine."
Either way, I am not sure, but since we can't resolve that, we customarily, through the years, here, on
Sunday mornings have anointed people with oil when they requested it, and just done as the Scripture
says. Not only that, but very frequently, groups of elders go to the hospital and do this very thing--
whenever someone calls us and says, "Would you come and do that?" We do that. All you have to do is
call the church office, ask for any pastor and they will set it up and do it. I mean, if we can't figure out
what the oil meant--we can still be obedient to it.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
In James 5:14, it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer offered in faith
will restore the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they
will be forgiven him.” Now, if that’s a promise to the church, then should we not be doing that? Or,
I guess my question is: is it a promise? Can we claim that as a church?
Answer
I don’t know why not. It’s right here in the New Testament. Let me just tell you there are two prevailing
views of this, on our church staff. Right, Dick? So, I’ll give you both views. There is the first view,
which is very viable, that this type of sickness being addressed here is associated with sin, so that it is a
sickness that is chastening. Not all sickness is chastening, right? Remember the man born blind? Who
sinned-this man or his parents? And the answer was, none of them. This is not anything to do with sin.
Not all sickness is punishment for sin, but some is. And the context here, calling for the elders of the
church and letting them “pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer
offered in faith will restore the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed
sins, they will be forgiven.” In other words, there would be the viewpoint that this is all tied in with
confession of sins. If the Lord has put His hand on you in sickness, as a chastening for sin, and you
confess and repent and turn from the sin, then the reason for the chastening has ended, right? So that God
can remove His hand.
So, confess your sin, verse 16. If you’ll deal with the sin in your life, the sickness that comes as a result
of the sin will be dealt with. Oil-some people associate with symbolism of the Holy Spirit; some people
associate with some medicinal… I’m not sure; what, normally, does that view hold to-the medicinal
aspect-Dick?
(Dick Mayhue: “That view could hold three different views, believe it or not. One would be the
medicinal view, directly, or the medicinal view by application, that it’s medicine in pharmaceutics today.
Some would talk about the rejuvenating work of the Holy Spirit. And a third view, and maybe the more
general view, would be that it’s the oil of well-being. It symbolizes what it is that God promised would
deliver-the kind of anointing that we talk about in Psalm 23.”)
So, that view would be that it is associated with sin.

Question
Now, I have chosen to approach it differently. And, if you want a more detailed view, you can get the
tape on that-tell them [Grace Book Shack] to give it to you and put it on my account, so you don’t have
to pay for it…Or, Lance’s account-even better.
Now, let’s approach it another way. I don’t want to get into too much detail, but it also can be interpreted
there that the word “sick” there doesn’t mean illness or disease in a classic definition, but
“weakness”…the term is often translated “weak.” And this would be a weakness that has come about as a
result of serious persecution. What you have here, in the context, is persecution. Go back to verse 6. He
is indicting the rich, who have been attacking believers, condemning them and putting them to death-so
these are Christians in a martyr situation. Some of them are being abused and beaten, and it even talks
about how they’ve been defrauded of their proper wages and all of that. And then, in verse 7, he says,
“So, be patient, like a farmer-you be patient.” Verse 8, “Strengthen your hearts…the coming of the Lord
is at hand…Don’t complain.” And then verse 10, “As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience,
take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord, and remember the endurance of Job…and
remember the Lord is full of compassion, is merciful…” That whole context is about suffering and being
patient and enduring, like Job and like the prophets.
And I think it’s in that same flow that he comes down into verse 13, and says, “Is anyone suffering, pray.
If you’re not suffering, sing praises. And if the suffering has made you weak”-and he’s talking here about
a spiritual weakness-you’ve just become weak under the onslaught of persecution and suffering. Go to
the elders; why would a weak person go to the elders? Because they’re what? Strong. “Let them pray
over him.” Literally, rubbing him with oil. What that means is encouraging-giving him a sort of spiritual
massage in the name of the Lord…and their prayers of faith offered in strength will infuse strength into
the one who is weak. And the Lord will lift him up and if he’s committed sins in his weakness, the Lord
will forgive him.
I like to see it that way. I wouldn’t want to get into a debate with the other view; I think it’s viable. But, I,
for my own sake, feel comfortable with this perspective, and that what he’s dealing with here is those
spiritual times of dryness and weakness.
Now, I’ll give you an illustration. A student came to me at the Master’s College one day-and I’ve often
said if my door is open and I’m there, you come in and if you want to pray or talk about the Lord or the
Word or whatever’s on your heart, you come in. I’m always available if the door’s open, and it’s usually
open because I don’t study there. And one day a man came in, and he said, “I need to share some things
in my heart with you.” I said, “Go right ahead.” He said, “You know, I’m studying for the ministry, I
love the school, and God’s at work in my life, but I have some things that are going on in my life that are
just crushing me. I feel spiritually weak and I keep falling to the same temptations, and I can’t seem to
get victory over this. I’m in despair and I’ve lost my appetite for the Word and my prayers are just kind
of empty…and I just feel at a point of total weakness, spiritually. And I want you to pray for me.” I really
saw that as a spiritually weak person under whatever onslaught he was under, coming to someone that he
saw as spiritually strong and asking for me to hold him up.

Question
And, I’ll never forget it: I knelt down in my chair, and as I knelt down in the chair, I said, “Kneel beside
me.” And he pushed the chairs together. And, as I knelt down in the chair, he knelt down and put his
arms and his head on my back. It was such a graphic indication of what was in his heart. He was leaning
on me physically because that’s what he was doing in his spiritual heart as well. I prayed that God would
give him strength and we prayed, and then he prayed, and I prayed again-we prayed quite at length that
the Lord would restore him and that if he had committed sins in his time of weakness, the Lord would
forgive him.
To me, that’s the kind of thing that I sense here. No so much disease-related as the weakness that comes
in the spiritual battle and the spiritual struggle. It could be illustrated, for example, by the illustration of
verses 17 and 18, which is not an illustration of healing, by the way, but an illustration of rain coming to
a parched ground. A spiritually weak person is in the dry place, and desperately needs God to bring the
rain that brings strength. So, that’s kind of how I would handle that, alright? Thank you.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Singleness
Question
What signs and circumstances does one need to be alerted to that God would use to confirm the gift
of celibacy?
Answer
Well, that’s a good question: what do you need to confirm to you that you have the gift of celibacy? I’m
sure there are many people who are wondering about that question and that’s a pretty subjective thing,
but I would say this, basically--by the way, I did a series of tapes on I Corinthians 7 on the gift of
singleness; you might want to get those out of the Book Shack [Grace Community Church's Book Store]
. Have you listened to those? Then go over there and tell them to put them on my account and pick them
up, Ok, so that you can listen to them because they’ll give you a more detailed answer.
But I believe this: I believe the gift of celibacy equals being totally content to be single. Ok? Totally
content, totally fulfilled, and furthermore, for the purpose of spiritual ministry. The gift of celibacy is not
something that comes upon you by default. “Well, I’ve tried 13 of them and they all said no. I must have
the gift.” No, that’s not the gift. That’s not the gift. The gift of celibacy is complete contentment to be
single for the purpose of ministry because you are drawn to a ministry.
Now, at some point in time, that celibacy might be tested. You might say, “Well, I wonder if I”--you
know who usually tries to test your gift of celibacy? Your mother. Your mother. By the time you’re 30
and you’re not married, she’s asking all kinds of silly questions. “Is something wrong with you? What’s
wrong with you? You don’t like girls?”--you know how that whole conversation goes. The gift of
celibacy is not a gift that operates independent of a life committed to ministry. Now, it might not be
professional ministry, but there’s just a freedom and a liberty to totally serve God with that gift. That’s
what that gift is for.
Now, celibacy itself is something else. I mean, a person may be celibate simply because God wanted
them to be, because maybe they missed the perfect purpose of God and, you know, their life wasn’t what
it ought to be, and since they weren’t the right guy, the right girl didn’t know that: know that they were
the guy. There’s a lot of factors that could leave you single that would be different than the gift of
celibacy. That’s a unique facility whereby God provides you with singleness for the specific purpose of
ministry.

John MacArthur - Singleness
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Single Women
Question
My question is, there are a lot of references in Proverbs 31, Titus 2, I Peter 3 about what a godly
woman, like a married woman… What is your definition of femininity to the single woman?
Answer
Well, first of all, the standard for a godly single woman is the same for a godly married woman. Proverbs
31 would be the same thing, only without the household environment. She would be gracious and
submissive and yet enterprising, virtuous--all of those principles would be the same for a single woman
as for a married woman. And of course, in the scriptural sense, while she was single, she would be still
under the protection of her father so she would have a responsive relationship to his leadership in her life.
So I believe that there’s no real difference in the quality and the character. In fact, I believe unless you’re
that kind of single woman, the chances are you’re not going to be that kind of married woman. The one
just grows into the other.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I been reading on the impeccability of Christ: Christ not being able to sin. I
believe that Christ could not sin when He came into this world, but somebody has
come to me and they said, "Well, if He didn't sin then I cannot be acquainted with
a God who could not sin because He doesn't really know my sins?"
Answer
Well, that really doesn't make much sense because the fact is He didn't sin; so if
you are going to make His ability to understand you the fact that he had to
understand your sin, then whether He could or couldn't have sinned couldn't be an
issue because he didn't sin--so what's the point? The point is a mute point.
The thing that you are driving at, and I know that people bring this up, is that they
say, "Do you believe that Christ could sin?" Of course He couldn't sin; He was
impeccable He could not sin. "He was in all points tempted like as we are,"
Hebrews says, but He did not sin. He did not sin because He could not sin. But
that's a ridiculous question any way because the fact is He didn't sin, so what is
the argument about whether He could of or couldn't--He didn't. So who could
ever say He could have any way? You can't sort Him out; what has humanness
done that He didn't do? What does your humanness do that you don't do?
Nothing, if your humanness did it--you did it.
No, here's the point, the question that people always struggle with is, "If He
couldn't sin then how could temptation be legitimate?" That's really the issue and
the answer to that is very simple: have you ever been tempted and not sinned?
Have you ever been tempted and not given into it? Yes. Have I ever been
tempted and not sinned and not sinned? Of course. Yes, and I have been tempted

Question
and sinned, but there have been many times when I was tempted and did not sin.
Now was that temptation illegitimate because I didn't sin? Of course not,
sometimes that temptation was very strong.
In fact, if I can push the point a bit, it just so happens that for Christ who never
sinned, He must have known temptation to its limits, because at some point in the
temptation when we give in the temptation is over because it has accomplished its
purpose, but in One who never gave in temptation would literally run itself to its
extreme limit every time. I mean, when have you sweat great drops of blood?
When have you ever been so tempted as to tears and to strong crying and
sweating great drops of blood in the agony of stressful temptation? Hebrews
says, "We have not yet suffered unto blood." I am not sure the parallel is there,
but the point is the same. We give in long before that.
So to say that because Christ couldn't sin He couldn't experience temptation is

just opposite the truth. The fact that He didn't sin meant that He endured
temptation at extreme levels, especially when you realize the fact that if there was
one creature in all the universe that Satan would want to have sinned--it would
have been Him. I mean, he may fuss with us for a little while and if we don't give
in (if that temptation is an external thing) leave. In Christ's case there could be no
internal temptation so it was always external, but Satan would stay (believe me)
and besiege that fort unendingly. So I think the fact that Christ did not sin is not
only a statement that he could not sin, but it is a statement that He endured
temptation to its absolute limit.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question

Question
Question
I am looking for your interpretation of Hebrews 10:26 in context with the passage which says, "For if we
sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."
In desiring to use the Word of the Lord accurately, I have often used this passage in sharing with people
who would consider themselves Christians and desire to continue to live with their girlfriends, or
Christians who justify getting divorces.
Answer
I think that it is the non-Christian it is talking about. I think it is talking about a person intellectually
convinced of the gospel who knows it but goes on living in sin, willfully already knowing the truth, and
if he rejects the sacrifice of Christ--there is no hope. I think that it is basically another one of the warning
passages that are all through the Epistle of the Hebrews. Those warning passages are directed at people
who are intellectually convinced of the truth of the gospel, but will not separate themselves from sin and
come to Christ. The warning there is, "If you keep on doing that, you are really treading underfoot the
Blood of the Covenant, and counting it an unholy thing." In other words, "You are trampling the Blood
of Christ, you are ignoring that, and there is no other sacrifice for sin." So, I think it is a message to an
intellectually convinced unbeliever who won't break with his sin. Now, you may be giving it to the right
people, and they may say they are Christians, but if they continue in a protracted state of sinfulness, there
is a good chance that, that might be their case.
Do you know what might be a better approach to someone who is a Christian, at least from God's
perspective, when somebody is continuing to sin?
Answer (continued)
Romans six, "Shall we sin, that grace may abound? God forbid......and if you died with Christ and risen,
then you better walk in newness of life, and mortify the deeds of the flesh, so shall you live." I would hit
Romans six. And then Romans seven, the cry of Paul, "Wretched man that I am!" Who wants to see
himself delivered from that kind of thing. But, Romans six, he says, "You were the servants of sin, but
now you have become the servants of righteousness." If you are not a "servant of righteousness," either
you are not saved or you are contradicting everything that you salvation means.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314

Question

Online since 1986

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question
"Does a Christian have an old nature?"
Answer
Does a Christian have an old nature? Okay, back to Romans 6:7. It’s a hard thing to just explain this
briefly, but I’m going to make a stab at it. I believe that you have to start with this:
The Bible never uses the term "old nature," but that’s not a problem--it never uses the term, "new nature"
either, so we have to realize that those are artificial terms that we have sort of conjured up. But when you
say, "Does a person have an old nature?" what you are basically saying, and most of us have come out of
that background if we’ve been Christians for very long, that you used to be just an "old nature"--that’s all
you were--sin, sin, sin, then you got saved, and you got a new nature. Now you have a new nature and an
old nature and they fight each other, right? Like the black dog and the white dog? They used to tell me
that the black dog is the old nature, the white dog is the new nature, and the one you say "sick’em" to
will win. So say "sick’em" to the new nature or the white dog and so forth and so on.
Well, there is a rather severe, what we would call, epistemological problem inherent in that view. The
problem with that view is it makes salvation addition. In other words, when I get saved, nothing happens
to my old nature, I just get something else. So, salvation is not transformation, it’s addition. In other
words, I was an old nature and I’m still an old nature, I just got something. So nothing changed, just
something new was added. That is very difficult to defend Scripturally…that salvation is addition.
Everything I read about it is that, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation." It’s got to be
metamorphosis. It has to be transformation.
And so, what I believe then is that your old person, your old man, your old nature is transformed. It’s
eliminated in the reality of conversion and you become a new creation. Do you have an old creation?
No, no, not in the sense that your old one is still there fully intact, just like it was and now you’ve got a
new one side by side with it. No.
But your new nature still has a problem. That is sin that is in you in your flesh…in your humanness. So
let me say it this way so that I’m not misunderstood. The people that have the idea that you have a new
nature and an old nature, postulate that idea because they want to acknowledge that sin is still in our
lives. And sometimes when I talk about not having an old nature people go into hysterics and they say,
"Oh, MacArthur doesn’t believe that you have sin in your life." I didn’t say that at all. Just don’t call it an

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
"old nature". Just call it what the Bible calls it, "Sin that is in me, that is in my flesh." So as long as I
have humanness, I have sin, but I am one new creation in Christ. So the answer to your question is, "No,
we do not have an old nature. Yes, sin is still there." But let’s use biblical terms and lets not say we are
an old nature and a new nature and make conversion look like it was addition rather than transformation.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Sin
Question
We know that sin entered the world through man--I assume the word "man" is used in a generic
way, since all enter the world in sin. So, if Mary, by her own admission, needed a savior, making
her a sinner, and since Jesus was part of her flesh as well as out of the Holy Spirit…I accept by
faith that Jesus was sinless, but don’t understand how Jesus would not be tainted by sin, since he
was born from her body?
Answer
Well, that’s a good question, and you don’t understand it and neither do I, and neither does anybody else.
So, you’re in good company. But, it’s the fact; it’s an absolute fact. And, now, you people are getting in
deep here. You understand now, and you’re asking me to unscrew the "unscrutable." Because, basically,
the question you’re asking is, How is the sin nature passed? How is it passed? Is it passed through the
bloodstream? Is it passed through DNA? Is it passed through the genetic code? Is it passed through the
chromosomes? I mean, that’s a very difficult question to ask.
Certainly, the capability of the human body to grow old is passed through the
chromosomes/DNA/genetics, and Jesus’ body grew old. The ability of a body to be injured and wounded,
even die--Jesus experienced all of that. So, there was some of the essence--and understand this--there
was some of the essence of what it means to live in a truly human form. To say there was some of the
components of real humanity, which has the capacity to feel pain, and suffer and hunger and thirst and
die--Jesus had that. And that came through the very real flesh of his own mother.
But, somehow, God filtered out, in that process, any influence of sin whatsoever. How He did that He
knows; I don’t know. But, your question is a good one because it does assume that one sinful parent
should be enough to make a sinner out of you. And, in any other circumstance, we would say that is true.
I mean, one sinful mother (we could certainly understand) could beget a sinful child, if one could beget
singularly, and one can’t, but hypothetically. But, in the case of Mary, though she was a sinner, God
somehow filtered out the sin that normally would be passed to the child. He did that miraculously. It
shouldn’t surprise us that He did that miraculously since it’s even miraculous that He conceived within
her that child by planting the seed, not by having a man. So, the whole thing is miraculous. How He did
it, I don’t know. But, Jesus came out fully human, bearing all that is full humanness, and yet without sin.
God just filtered that part out--screened that out, somehow, supernaturally.

Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Is it sin for a Christian Actor to "act" out sin?
Question
The third commandment--“don’t take the Lord’s name in vain”… So, if a person is an actor and
he’s going to play a part in a movie and he is going to take the Lord’s name in vain, should he not
take the part? Or, if he takes the part, is he going to answer to God?
Answer
Well, I think the Bible is pretty clear; It says, “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.” That doesn’t
somehow get set aside if you’re playing a role. I think that, as far as the audience is concerned, the
Lord’s name has been taken in vain. For me, I would have a difficult time doing that. Somebody would
say, “Well, now wait a minute. People in the world take the Lord’s name in vain, and you’re simply
playing a part of someone in the world that takes the Lord’s name in vain.” My answer to that would be,
you’re still taking the Lord’s name in vain. In the end, I wouldn’t want to take the Lord’s name in vain.
Certainly, I wouldn’t do it myself, and I wouldn’t want to pretend that I was doing it because I was
playing a role. I think this is a very difficult thing.
Through the years, we’ve dealt with a lot of people who are, you know, involved in acting. And they
come up against this kind of thing, not just in that sense, of taking the Lord’s name in vain, but in playing
roles where behavior is dishonoring to the Lord. That is a very great challenge. It’s very difficult for a
committed Christian who wants to honor God to find the kinds of parts where they actually are either
neutral or honoring to God. That’s a great challenge. But, I don’t think that because I’m playing a role, I
have liberty to dishonor God, even through the person whose personality I am only portraying.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Is it sin for a Christian Actor to "act" out sin?

John MacArthur - Degrees of Sin
Question
Are there degrees of sin, as far as...I’m thinking of lusting in your heart verses adultery?
Answer
Well, I think we would have to say that there are degrees of sin, yes. Just from the practical standpoint. I
may entertain a thought of sin briefly; I may entertain that thought at length; I may allow that thought to
become a deed; I may allow that deed to become a habit. So there would certainly be degrees of sin, and
the Lord would say, the first time you have the thought deal with it then, and if you continue to have it,
deal with it, and if you start to do the act, deal with it, and if its become a habit, deal with it. I mean at
any point in the process the Lord would want us to halt it and not carry it to the next degree, to the next
expression.
So, yes I believe there are degrees of sin. I believe sins of thought are an abomination to God, because
any iniquity no matter how small abominates God. But, from the standpoint of practicality God will bless
you if you cease from your sinning. God, I’m sure would be grateful if the thought of sin never became
the act of sin, if it was dealt with at the point of the thought. Do you understand what I’m saying? You
can’t just say, "Well, I thought the thought; I might as well do the deed! I did the deed I might as well
make it a habit." I don’t think so. I don’t think so. So, God would be satisfied if you just stopped over
here, and not convince yourself that because you thought the thought you’re as good as done the deed,
and you might as well just let it run its course. No.
There’s another component to that, and I think it is perhaps worth mentioning. And that is in Hebrews
10, and here is a specific sin that certainly brings about a severer degree of punishment. Hebrews chapter
10, verse 29, “How much severer punishment, do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot
the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and
has insulted the Spirit of grace?” What’s he saying? Well, all those who aren’t saved go to hell. All those
who do not come to God through Jesus Christ will go to hell. But, the hottest hell and the severest
punishment is reserved for those who knew, the most fully, the gospel and trampled on it. If a person
rejects God, never hears the gospel, doesn’t live up to the light they have, is indicted on the basis of
Romans, chapter 1, they will suffer punishment. But it won’t be like the punishment of one who has
come to understand the gospel, come to understand what Christ did, who he was, fully understand that
and trample him under his feet. That person will suffer the greater punishment.
So I think there are degrees of sin from the practical standpoint, and there are definitely degrees of

John MacArthur - Degrees of Sin
punishment, which would reflect back on the level of one’s sin. So I think the answer to that question is,
yes. I think what God would want you to do in your life is to cease at whatever degree you have reached,
and not let it go anymore beyond that. A wonderful truth is that God forgives that sin, and God wipes out
and blots away the past and remembers it no more. So the sooner you cease, the sooner it’s forgotten.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Essence of Sin
Question
What is the essence of sin?
Answer
Essentially, sin is any transgression or violation of God's law. This is seen in 1 John 3:4 where John
wrote, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." The New American
Standard says, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." In other
words, any lack of conformity to the perfect moral standard of God is sin.
But our problem with sin goes much deeper than simple acts of disobedience, which are merely outward
manifestations of inner fleshly compulsions. The basic inclination and orientation of man toward self-
gratification-however religious or moral we may appear on the outside-is directly hostile to God. Even
the good deeds of an unbeliever fail to fulfill God's law. Why? Because they are produced by the flesh,
for selfish reasons, and from a heart that is in rebellion toward God.
Romans 8:7 tells us that the natural man is at enmity with God-meaning that he has a positive hatred
toward God and stands in opposition to Him. Sin seeks to dethrone and depose God, usurp His authority,
and put self in His place.
At its core all sin is an act of pride. Pride says, "Move over, God, I'm in charge, I'll do what I want."
Therefore all sin at its core is blasphemy because it attacks God. When we come into this world we love
sin, and so we love our rebellion and we love our pride and we love our blasphemy. We delight in it and
we seek every opportunity we can to manifest it.
Jesus taught that the central demand of God's law is to "love the LORD your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And
the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment
greater than these" (Mark 12:30-31).
Thus, the essence of all sin is the failure to love God. That is the primary violation. And the essence of
sin is most clearly seen in unbelief. This shows up in John 16 where Jesus said He would send the Holy
Spirit who would "convict the world of sin…because they do not believe in Me" (John 16:8). In other
words, any failure to love and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ is a failure to love God. Thus, the apostle
Paul wrote, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be damned" (1 Corinthians 16:22).
So, the ultimate sin, the epitome of sin and the summation of sin, is any lack of love for God and His Son
Jesus Christ. "And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-essence.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:21:03 AM]

John MacArthur - Essence of Sin
and love one another, as He gave us commandment" (1 John 3:23).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-essence.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:21:03 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-christianssinning.htm
Question
How far can Christians go in sinning?
Answer
I recently read a book about Christians and sin that began with an unusual account. The author of this
book was acquainted with a pastor who had been sent to prison for robbing fourteen banks to finance his
dalliances with prostitutes! The author was fully convinced the bank-robbing Lothario was a true
Christian, and so he wrote a book to explore how such a thing could be possible.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is fair to raise the question of whether someone who regularly robs
banks to pay for illicit sex is truly saved! That man's sin was secretly his lifestyle. There is every reason
to believe that he would still be committing his crimes today if he had not been caught. Can we concede
that this "so-called brother" is a genuine Christian, just because he was once an evangelical pastor?
True, we cannot judge the man's heart, but we must judge his behavior (1 Cor. 5:12). "Or do you not
know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In those verses
the apostle Paul was describing sins of chronic behavior, sins that color one's whole character. A
predilection for such sins reflects an unregenerate heart. Paul reminded the Corinthians, "Such were
some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (v. 12, emphasis added).
But wait. Doesn't Scripture include examples of believers who committed gross sin? Didn't David
commit murder and adultery and allow his sin to go unconfessed for at least a year? Wasn't Lot
characterized by worldly compromise in the midst of heinous sin? Yes, those examples prove that
genuine believers are capable of the worst imaginable sins. But David and Lot cannot be made to serve
as examples of "carnal" believers, whose whole lifestyle and appetites are no different from unregenerate
people.
David, for example, did repent thoroughly of his sin when Nathan confronted him, and he willingly
accepted the Lord's discipline (2 Sam. 12:1-23). Psalm 51 is an expression of David's deep repentance at
the end of this sordid episode in his life. The point, after all, is that this was merely one episode in
David's life. He was certainly not predisposed to that kind of sin. In fact, 1 Kings 15:5 says, "David did
what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him
all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite" (emphasis added).
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-christianssinning.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:21:04 AM]

Lot is a different case. Not much is known about him from the Old Testament account, but what is
recorded about him is disappointing. He was a pathetic example of compromise and disobedience. On the
eve of Sodom's destruction, when he should have fled the city, "he hesitated" (Gen. 19:16). The angelic
messengers had to seize his hand and put him outside the city. Near the end of his life, his two daughters
got him drunk and committed incest with him (Gen. 19:30-38). Lot certainly did seem to have a
proclivity for sins of compromise and worldliness.
Yet the inspired New Testament writer tells us Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of
unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his
righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" (2 Pet. 2:8). He hated sin and desired
righteousness. He had respect for holy angels-evidence of his fear of God (Gen. 19:1-14). He obeyed
God by not looking back at Sodom when God's judgment rained down (cf. v. 26).
Lot was certainly not "carnal" in the sense that he lacked spiritual desires. Though he lived in a wicked
place, he was not wicked himself. His soul was "tormented," vexed, grieved, tortured with severe pain at
the sight of the evil all around him. Evidently his conscience did not become seared; he "felt his
righteous soul tormented day after day" with the evil deeds of those around him. Though he lived in
Sodom, he never became a Sodomite. Those who use him as an illustration of someone who is saved but
utterly carnal miss the point of 2 Peter 2:8.
What is the lesson of Lot's life as Peter saw it? Verse 9 sums it up: "The Lord knows how to rescue the
godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment."
In Lot's case, one means the Lord used to rescue him from temptation was severe chastisement. Lot lost
his home; his wife was killed by divine judgment; and his own daughters disgraced and debased him. He
paid a terrible price for his sin, being "tormented day after day." If Lot proves anything, it is that true
believers cannot sin with impunity.
God always chastens and disciplines His children who sin. If they do not experience chastening, they are
not truly His children, but spiritual bastards. Hebrews 12:7-8 explicitly states this: "What son is there
whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become
partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." The specific purpose for which He disciplines
us is "for our good, that we may share His holiness" (Heb. 12:10).
All of that flies in the face of the notion that millions of Christians live in a state of unbroken carnality. If
these people are true children of God, why are they not constantly under His discipline?
(Excerpted from John F. MacArthur, Faith Works [Dallas: Word Publishing] 1997, pp. 127-129.)
Tony Capoccia


Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
I thought I became a Christian 22 years ago, but if I’m more aware of my sin now than I was then,
does that mean I’m not a Christian?
Answer
That’s a good question, and it does not mean that you’re not a Christian. I’m more aware of my sin now
than I’ve ever been and it seems that every year I live, I become more and more sensitive to my sin. I had
nowhere near the sensitivity to sin when I was first converted that I have now; that’s part of spiritual
maturity. God has a total aversion to sin and so, as you grow spiritually and you become more godly-as
you become more like Christ-you have an increasing aversion to sin. It isn’t that you for the first time
want forgiveness; it isn’t that for the first time you recognize your sin; but it is part of spiritual maturity
to have an increasing animosity towards sin. That goes with spiritual growth. In fact, that stimulates
spiritual growth! If I never felt worse about my sin, I’d be content with where I am, right? So it’s not
only the positive side of learning more about the Lord and wanting to love and worship the Lord;
growing spiritually means becoming more and more aware of how bad I am as I become more and more
aware of how glorious He is.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Why did God allow sin? -- John MacArthur
Question
Why did God allow sin?
Answers
There are questions like, “Why did God allow sin?” and the why questions are very difficult when they
get into the nature of God! He did allow it and that suffices the issue because we just don’t know why.
We can speculate why He allowed it--theologians have done that for years--that’s called the problem of
theodicy or why God permitted evil.
And maybe the best solution to that question is to simply say He allowed it in order that He might
destroy it. By that I mean this: if there is a right, there is a left; if there is an up, there is a down; if there’s
an in, there’s an out; if there’s a good, there’s a bad. And so, if there was goodness, there was always
potential evil and maybe God allowed evil to exist in order to ultimately destroy it so that it could no
longer again exist. And that’s what heaven is all about.
But that’s a stab at it--that’s the way I kind of look at it--but there are some questions that are very
difficult to answer because we just don’t know the mind of God and there is no specific revelation in the
Scripture regarding such questions. Why did sin enter the world? And again we have the difficulty of that
same question, and I mentioned it to you earlier: there is no answer to that question. We don’t know why;
we just know that it did.
But the question that followed that is important: why did Adam sin? You ask most people, “Why did
Adam sin?” and they say, “He was tempted by Satan and he sinned.” That isn’t true. Was Adam
deceived? No. Paul said to Timothy, “Adam was not deceived; the woman was deceived.” Eve was
deceived. That’s why women have (for one reason) taken the subservient role in God’s order: because
they sinned, they were deceived.
Why did Adam sin? The best answer to that is that Adam sinned because he loved Eve and once she was
what she was, he wanted to be what she was. In addition to that, there is no answer. But apparently--and
most scholars say--to be what Eve was. I mean, at that point he didn’t have a lot of choice; she was the
only woman around! If you wanted any kind of compatibility, that was how it was. It shows you the
foolishness of man’s first decision.
Now don’t ask me what would have happened if he hadn’t done it. “What if” questions are tough too.

Why did God allow sin? -- John MacArthur
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

God cannot sin, so how could Christ have been tempted by Satan to sin? -- John MacArthur
Question
God cannot sin, so how could Christ have been tempted by Satan to sin?
Answer
Now, as I said before, you know, when you ask about how and why questions and you’re dealing with
the nature of God, you have a very difficult time in answering. “How does God do this?” or “Why does
God do this?” are extremely difficult questions. But I do think the question shows one thing that we must
make clear. It says, “God can’t sin, so how could Christ have been tempted?” Now watch: you must
understand that there is a difference between being tempted and--what? Sinning.
Listen, can you be tempted and not sin? I hope so! I mean, if you can’t, we’re in real trouble! Of course!
I could be tempted and not sin. Why? Because temptation is not sin! Temptation is to bring about sin.
And in I Corinthians 10:13, listen, “There has no temptation taken you, but such as common to man and
God is faithful; who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able. But will with the
temptation make a way of escape that you may be able to bear it.”
Listen; there is a difference between temptation--saying you never are tempted at the place where you
cannot have victory! The difference I think is clearly indicated to us in a simple passage of Scripture;
well, there’s many really, but I think one simple one, James 1 (and there’s a couple of things we could
look at), but James 1:13, “Let no man say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted of God.’ For God cannot be
tempted with evil; neither tempts He any man, but every man is tempted when he is driven away of his
own lust and enticed.”
Now, temptation is the enticing (and it isn’t God that does it)… Temptation is the enticing. Verse 15:
“Then, when lust conceives, it bringeth forth,” what? “Sin.” You see, the incitement of the lust is not the
sin; it is when the lust conceives and begins to actuate that you have the sin. “And sin, when it is
finished, brings forth death.”
Now, God cannot be tempted in the sense that God never falls into lust. But Jesus Christ, in his
humanity, was tempted. God is not tempted. Jesus Christ, in humanity, was “tempted in all points like as
we are, yet,” what? “Without sin.” And you see, it isn’t a question of why; I don’t know why and I don’t
know how and that’s just what the Bible says! Read it: Hebrews 2:18, Hebrews 4:15. He was tempted
and yet without sin; that’s the fact.
How He could have been tempted is simply answered this way: God can’t be tempted in his deity, but

God cannot sin, so how could Christ have been tempted by Satan to sin? -- John MacArthur
Jesus could be tempted in his humanity. And just because He was tempted does not mean that He sinned!
In fact--watch this--if He was tempted--and you better believe He was tempted intensely, right? If Satan
wanted to get anybody, He wanted to get him--and if He was tempted and never gave in, that meant that
He endured the absolute limit of all temptation. He would have suffered temptation beyond the point that
we would ever know it. Why? Because we give in. We get tempted up to a certain point and whoa, we
give in. But Jesus never gave in, which meant He took the full fury of every temptation to its limits! So
when it says, “He was in all points tempted,” that’s what it means. He was tempted; that’s a fact. How;
that’s a mystery.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Fellowshipping with a sinning Christian
Question
I have a question about worshipping and fellowshipping with so-called, or a professing believer
who is in sin, hardened sin of a grievous nature. You’ve come along side them to confront them and
there is no repentance. They go to another church and that church does not practice Matthew 18,
and so you have a situation where the four steps of Matthew 18 are not applied by their church.
They want to go to conferences with you, perhaps pray with you, have fellowship with you, and yet,
you’re reluctant to do that because of their lack of repentance.
Answer
Well, I think you should be reluctant to do that. I think that’s the whole point of putting someone out of
the church’s fellowship. I don’t think that means you can’t come in the building; I think it means you’re
disconnected from the people who are the church. And I think that that’s exactly the intent of Scripture
when we are instructed that we have to separate from these people in the fullest sense. I think anybody
who walks disorderly--I’m just looking at the end of II Thessalonians--“who walks disorderly and not
according to the tradition which you received from us. You yourselves know how you ought to follow us,
for we were not disorderly among you. We did not eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but work with
labor….” and so forth and so forth and so forth. If anyone doesn’t work, then he shouldn’t eat, and if
there’s somebody walking disorderly (not working at all), they are “busybodies,” and he says, you know,
“These are the people who affect the fellowship.” And he says in verse 14, “If anybody doesn’t obey this
word in our epistle, note the person and do not keep company with him.” That’s verse 14. Why? “That he
may be ashamed.” In other words, you want to heap the real shame on him that he deserves.
You don’t count him as an enemy; don’t consider him an enemy. But, admonish him as a brother. And
how would you admonish a brother? Get it together--confess, repent, get your life right. But, do not
“keep company.” That’s as explicit as it can be.
Even without the application of the four steps of Matthew 18?
Answer (continued)
Oh sure, because that’s going to be very difficult; I mean, how many churches are doing that? I mean,
where is that going on? I think regardless of that…and there are those sort of freewheeling Christians that

John MacArthur - Fellowshipping with a sinning Christian
don’t ever attach to any church. I always worry about people like that. Even people who come here--
when I see people’s attendance at the church become sporadic or fragmented and inconsistent, I only
make one conclusion: sin. Sin, because that’s what keeps people away. They don’t want the exposure,
they don’t want the accountability, they don’t want to sit under the conviction of the teaching of the
Word of God, and they don’t want to have to answer to the people.
You know, in fact, it kind of works this way--you can take it if it applies, and not if it doesn’t. You watch
some people in the front of the church, and then a little later they’re in the middle of the church, and
finally they’re in the back of the church. Now, when that--there are others who are in the back and are
moving towards the front, but, what that tells me is people in the front: they’re here because they love to
be here and they’re here all the time. As soon as they don’t want to be here all the time, they don’t sit in
the front anymore, or people know they’re not here all the time. Right? They start in the back because
then people don’t know if they’re here or not. And when you start to see people follow that kind of
pattern, you know that there’s an increasing diffidence or difference towards church and the things of the
Lord.
There are just people who just--and you never are able sometimes to deal with that because they sort of
move away. So, when you know about it--whether the church has acted on it or not, whether you have
had anything official or not--I mean, if you know about that, then I think you have to follow that
instruction.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Slander
Question
How do I deal with seemingly Christian people, who love the Lord a lot, who are coming to me,
telling me...these are not [just] Charismatic people; [but] these are just people who look in the
Word of God and [say] "you" say “works,” “works.” How do we deal [with this]? Because I want
to stand up and say, “No way, this man is standing up for the Word of God.” But how do we show
compassion to people who are saying that like Pastor Hocking, Pastor MacArthur is a cultist? Do
we put them aside?
Answer
Yes, I think that you could approach it several ways, but the right thing to do is to say to them, “Have
you gone to him? Have you spoken with him? Have you asked him if these, in fact, are the things that he
believes? Because if you have not gone to him to confront him and to find out from him that this is in
fact true, you’re guilty of slandering a servant of the Lord without really knowing it, whether it’s true.”
That’s what I would say. If you don’t have the honesty and the integrity…well, I would say, “If you had
the integrity to go to him and sit down with him and discern whether these things are true, then maybe
I’d be interested in listening, but, I’m certainly not going to be a bucket for your rumors,” to land in. And
be gracious when you say that!
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I was wondering what your opinion was on the sovereignty of God concerning picking up hitch
Question
I was wondering what your opinion was on the sovereignty of God

concerning picking up hitch-hikers or keeping a gun in your house. Do you
believe that you need to take a step out in faith when taking risks like that?
Answer
I believe in the sovereignty of God, right, but I don’t lay in the freeway and say,
“Oh, God, I know you’re sovereign. I think God has given us, in his sovereignty,
the sense to do things that are wise and intelligent and he gives us, I think,
direction by the Spirit. I have picked up hitch-hikers, but I’m in a different
position than you are.
I’m just saying in general, I’m trying to make the point is that there might be a
time and a place and a person to pick up a hitch-hiker under certain
circumstances. There might be a time and a place for a person NOT to do that,
under other circumstances. One great consideration is whether you are a
somewhat large man or a somewhat vulnerable woman, so, I know what you are
saying, because I have many times felt guilty driving past a hitch-hiker and
wondered if God hadn’t wanted me to take that person somewhere, so that I could
witness to them. I mean, I feel that way every time I go by a guy on the freeway
who is changing a flat, but I’m by him before I knew what was going on and then
my wife always says to me, “You know if you were spiritual you would have
stopped and told that guy the Gospel” (not really). But anyway, I know what you
are saying. I really don’t think we need to feel guilty about that. I think we need
to use great discretion and wisdom in regard to who we pick up and I think we
need to realize that God will lead us to the people that he wants us to
communicate the Gospel to and it doesn’t have to be something that we
instantaneously grab in a sort of a furious moment and wonder if we’ve failed
God because that moment never came to fruition. So I do believe that you need to
use your own sense and your own discretion and be cautious about that. If God
wants to use you, I believe he will make it possible and you don’t need to feel
guilty for that.

In regard to a gun, I can only tell you that personally I think that’s a decision you
have to make yourself. Nothing in the Bible indicates that you should or you
should not defend yourself with a certain weapon. I mean, obviously you have
every right to self-defense. If some man comes to attack you, and I know
everybody is sort of nervous about that because of the stalker, the guy that’s
going around killing all of these people and rightly so. You know, have the sense
to lock your doors and do all of that.
I can tell you that there was a guy at our house one time and he was trying to
kidnap Melinda. He was an escaped mental patient and he knew about the church
and all this stuff and all these various things and so I warned the family about
him. They put him in the mental institution and he escaped and the mental
institution people had the foresight to call me at the church, because they knew he
had this aberration toward me and my family and he may well have been demonic
and he may have been an agent of the enemy. So they called and they said we fear
he’ll go to your house because he knew where we lived. And so I quickly called
home and at the very time I called home, the doorbell had rung and Melinda was
on her way to the door to open the door, and it was him and he had a big butcher
knife. So, I told Patricia as fast as I could and she ran and kept the door locked
and they got the police and they finally got him and put him back in the
institution and so forth.
On another occasion, he came to my house in the middle of the night, it was about
4 o’clock in the morning and he threatened, he was screaming and the kids, of
course, were frightened, they were younger, and so I went downstairs and he said,
“I’m going to come through this window and I’m going to kill you,” and the only
thing I had was a baseball bat. Now, I played a lot of baseball and I can hit the
ball pretty hard, so I just simply said to him, “You come through the door and
you’re going to find your head in Encino.” That’s exactly what I said! (laughter
and applause), which wasn’t a bad line when you are under pressure, right? And I
would have done that, I mean, self-defense and the defense of my own family I
think is a reasonable, rational thing. I mean I’m willing to die for the Gospel, but
I’m not going to lay down for a maniac. So, I do think that, you know, you do

have to make the decision yourself, as to how you defend yourself.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Spiritual Gifts
Question
I was wondering, are there conflicts between the different spiritual gifts? I mean, like do you have
problems, like if you have an exhorter and a teacher?
Answer
Well you may have problems. You have problems wherever you have people, you know. Wherever we
are, there are problems. But the idea of the spiritual gifts is simply that the Lord uses that gift in a unity,
in a unifying way. For example, your spiritual gift can be operated carnally in the flesh, then you'll have
problems. But if you're walking in the Spirit and the Spirit is ministering through you and the Spirit is
also ministering through everybody else, then there will be a unity that the same Spirit will create. But
there will come discord.
For example, we find often that a person will have a problem and you'll get three different people trying
to tell that person what to do and they'll have three different perspectives on things and everything gets
confused. We've had this occur many times. And we realized that then somebody's out of whack with the
Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit isn't the author of confusion. So it may be that if you would use your
gift in a fleshly way, not really walking in the Spirit, that there could be confusion. But if the Holy Spirit
is really working through these gifts and we're yielded to Him, then there's going to be unity and unifying
is going to take place.
The thing you need to do is not worry about what your gift is, just worry about walking in the Spirit,
living a Spirit-controlled life, confessing your sin and yielding to Him and the Holy Spirit will operate
the gift through you whether you know it or not. And then as you begin to recognize it, you can kind of
get in on the blessing.
There is one other question on this that I'm interested in and that is if you do have more than one would
one be more predominant?
Answer (continued)
It is possible that it could be. We don't know from the Scripture. The Scripture doesn't give us all
information about spiritual gifts but it can be that one gift is more predominant. But it's hard to measure

what we mean by predominant. For example, a speaking gift appears to be a more dominant gift than one
that isn't a speaking gift, like showing mercy or something like that. But it isn't more important. And it
may not be used in terms of opportunity and time, it may not be used anymore. It just appears to be more
dominant because of its nature. For example, I have the gift that is obviously a dominant type of gift. In
other words, I stand up and I tell everybody these things and so that tends to dominate where there may
be a whole lot of you here this morning who have other gifts and I can't even see those gifts because
they're just ministry gifts rather than vocal gifts. That doesn't make any difference between them in terms
of usefulness or in terms of frequency. Now in the life of a single individual there may be variation.
There may be a certain time in my life that I am more useful to God in the gift of teaching and other
times I am more useful to God with the gift of administration. So it's hard to be analytical about it. One
may seem to dominate for a time and another one may come to the fore. But God uses them by His Spirit
as He wills. I don't think you need to worry about that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
On the willingness to appropriate those things which are ours...on a number of occasions Jesus said in
Matthew 13, speaking about the parables and also in Matthew 25 speaking of the parables of the talents,
He said, "For unto everyone that has shall be given and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath
not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Does that in any way imply that we could have
spiritual gifts but because of our unwillingness to use them Jesus would take them away?
Answer
Generally the principle could be used to apply to that. If you take it in its most general sense. It really
isn't talking about the removal of gifts nearly as much as it's talking about the removal of rewards. That's
the point of the parable. But if you were to take it in a general sense it could mean that if you fail to use
your gift long enough, it would atrophy to the place where you just wouldn't use it. You wouldn't be able
to use it. I'm sure that that's a possibility. But I think that that would only be from that passage in a very
very general sense.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
In regard to Luke 22:31, how might that apply to some of the experiences that Job went through?
Answer
Luke 22:31, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift
you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, strengthen
the brethren."
I think that the only thing that can ever happen to a believer is what God allows to happen. But in the
case of Job I think it was distinct. I think Job was assaulted by Satan as a direct expression of the will of
God. I think that Peter was assaulted by Satan because he was disobedient--and there is a difference.
I believe that it is possible that God may allow Satan to do certain things to an individual who is godly,
who is virtuous, who is righteous, to refine that individual to accomplish His own ends--that's Job. But I
think that God also is going to allow a believer, as it were, to make his own bed and then to have to lie in
it--which was Peter's situation. I think, obviously, what was going to happen to Peter was directly related
to his denial of Christ, whereas, Job never denied God and was therefore attacked by Satan, but rather
God set out for His own purposes to allow that to happen, and the goal was reached: Job said in chapter
42, verse 6, "I have heard of You in the hearing of the ear: but now my eye sees You, and I repent in dust
and ashes." In other words, the purpose of Job going through that, was not only to prove his faithfulness,
but to give him a vision of God that was greater than he had ever had before. In the case of Peter it had
to do with his sin.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Why do the innocent suffer?
Question
I’ve witnessed to several people who question the existence of God by saying, “Why does He let the
innocent people suffer, innocent people get killed, children die, etc., etc.?”
Answer
Well, in the first place, nobody’s innocent. And that’s the first problem. God doesn’t let any innocent
person suffer; nobody’s innocent. It just so happens that the fabric of humanity is stained, that the root
was sin, and the wages of sin is what? Death.
Everybody’s going to die, everybody. Who am I to assume that one or another death is less significant or
tragic than another? People always say, “Isn’t it tragic when a little baby dies?” Not nearly as tragic as
when someone who has lived a whole life dies, and never knew how to live or how to die--never knew
God.
What does God do for the babies? I mean, they never heard…
Answer (continued)
Sure, I know what you’re asking. Let me just follow that up very briefly. I believe the Bible indicates to
us that when a little baby dies, when an infant dies or a child dies, before they can come to the point, to
the age of understanding (often called “the age of accountability”) that God takes that little one to
Himself. You remember when David’s little son died in the Old Testament? That infant born of
Bathsheba died… That was a child born out of sin, born in sin, a sinful child, but it died--he died--and
David said, “He can’t come to me, but I will go to him.” And I think David expressed a confidence:
David knew where he was going. And he believed with all his heart that where he was going was where
that little life was, that the God he knew to be a God of grace would have gathered that little life to
Himself. Jesus said in Mark 10, “Permit the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of
such is the kingdom of God.” And then Jesus took the little ones into His arms, and a most interesting
statement: “He blessed them; He laid hands on them.” What does that mean? Well, I believe that Jesus
had a very tender spot in His heart and a very special place in His eternal kingdom for little ones. And the
truth of the matter is that in those countries that are the most pagan countries in the world, very often
they have the highest infant mortality rate, because God, in His grace, redeems those little ones before

John MacArthur - Why do the innocent suffer?
they can grow up and be old enough to be raised in a godless culture.
So, don’t ever question God’s wisdom. And anybody who starts saying, “Why did God do this and why
did God do that?” is throwing you a smokescreen. The issue is not that. Let’s forget that and set that
aside. The issue you’ve got to answer is, “Who is Jesus Christ and what does it mean that He said, ‘If you
love Him, you go to heaven, and if you don’t, you go to hell’?” If He is the Man who determines the
destiny of every soul, then you better find out whether He was right or not. That’s the issue. So, get them
off of that onto Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Suicide
Question
Can one who commits suicide be saved?
Answer
Suicide is a grave sin equivalent to murder (Exodus 20:13; 21:23), but it can be forgiven like any other
sin. And Scripture says clearly that those redeemed by God have been forgiven for all their sins--past,
present, and future (Colossians 2:13-14). Paul says in Romans 8:38-39 that nothing can separate us from
the love of God in Christ Jesus.
So if a true Christian would commit suicide in a time of extreme weakness, he or she would be received
into heaven (Jude 24). But we question the faith of those who take their lives or even consider it seriously--
it may well be that they have never been truly saved.
I say that because God's children are defined repeatedly in Scripture as those who have hope (Acts 24:15;
Romans 5:2-5, 8:24; 2 Corinthians 1:10, etc.) and purpose in life (Luke 9:23-25; Romans 8:28; Colossians
1:29). And those who think of committing suicide do so because they have neither hope nor purpose in
their lives. Furthermore, one who repeatedly considers suicide is practicing sin in his heart (Proverbs
23:7), and 1 John 3:9 says that "no one who is born of God practices sin." And finally, suicide is often the
ultimate evidence of a heart that rejects the lordship of Jesus Christ, because it is an act where the sinner
is taking his life into his own hands completely rather than submitting to God's will for it. Surely many of
those who have taken their lives will hear those horrifying words from the Lord Jesus at the judgment--"I
never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23).
So though it may be possible for a true believer to commit suicide, we believe that is an unusual
occurrence. Someone considering suicide should be challenged above all to examine himself to see
whether he is in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-suicide.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:21:18 AM]

John MacArthur - Suicide
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-suicide.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:21:18 AM]

Question
Referring to your message this morning on Titus and the ability to teach, is there a difference, and
what is the difference, between the ability to teach and the spiritual gift of teaching that is
mentioned in I Corinthians 12? And then, flowing from that, is it possible to be in an elder position
or a pastor position likes yours, without having the gift of teaching?
Answer
Okay, let’s start at the end: no, it’s not possible to be in a pastor or teacher role without having the gift of
teaching or preaching. And all preaching has to have the teaching content. That’s that statement, you
can’t have “kerugma,” proclamation, without having “didache,’ teaching. So, even a preacher is teaching
while he’s preaching. He’s proclaiming content. It is possible, I suppose, to say a man has the gift of
preaching, the emphasis in preaching, and is not strong in the classroom--he is not a strong teacher, as
such. But, no one could be an elder with neither of those capabilities. Okay?
And then, the question before that was, “What is the difference between the ability to teach and the gift
of teaching?”
There is no difference in my mind. I am always referring to the spiritual gift. Now, here’s another point I
could have made this morning: a person can have the gift of teaching and not be an elder. There are many
women in the church who have the gift of teaching; there may be many other men in the church who
have the gift of teaching. Some of them are not elders because, one, they’re not desiring that office--the
Spirit of God has not called them to that, not prompted them to that. Secondly, they’re not elders
because, maybe they’re not “one-woman men,” maybe they haven’t demonstrated that leadership in the
family that sets them apart, maybe their character has not been above reproach and all those other
qualifications aren’t there.
But, it may just be that God hasn’t elevated them to that particular office, and they’re very content to
teach in the church. This church, for example, has many men and many women who have the gift of
teaching but are not elders. So, you can have the gift of teaching, which is a spiritual ability to teach, and
not necessarily be an elder. You can’t be an elder without either the gift of teaching or preaching. And
the difference between the ability and the gift in the church--there isn’t any difference. Outside the
church, there are people who have the ability to teach, but it’s not the spiritual gift. I believe inside the
church, when we’re talking about teaching the Bible, teaching spiritual things, we’re talking about a gift.

Now, let me take it a step further. It is conceivable, and it is probably very common, that you have people
in the church who have the ability to teach--schoolteachers, university professors--but they don’t exercise
the gift of teaching in the church. That’s another completely different thing, that is a spiritual enterprise.
Does that help sort it out a little?
Yes, but when you talked this morning about the ability to teach being a skill, then how would that
be developed or is it just a gift from God?
Answer (continued)
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to talk about it as a developmental thing, but I do believe it is developed. I hope
I’m a better teacher and preacher now than I was when I started. I had the gift then, but it’s a matter of
developing and refining and exercising and using and enhancing that gift. And that’s how the Spirit of
God works. I mean, even Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. We’re all in
a progressive kind of growth and our ministries certainly should reflect that development. So, I believe
when you’re saved, the gifts are there--the Spirit of God probably gives them then, as I Corinthians
would indicate: “He divides severally to every man as He will,” at the same time we receive the Spirit of
God. At that point, the gift is there; it begins to be enriched and strengthened as we exercise that gift.
But, it is a skill in the sense that it’s something we do in a function that sets us apart from other people.
In other words, being honest, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, being hospitable…the other things
that are there: being devout, being self-controlled--those aren’t skills. Those are character qualities. Now,
when you’re talking about teaching and preaching, you’re talking about a skill. That skill, in the church,
is a spiritual gift.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

MASTERPIECE, Spring 1989 Editorial
Question
What has television done to the way we communicate?
Answer
And Now a Word from Our Sponsor
Ever notice how many television commercials say nothing about the products they advertise? The typical
jeans commercial shows a painful drama about the woes of adolescence but doesn't mention jeans. A
perfume ad is a collage of sensuous images with no reference to the product. Beer commercials contain
some of the funniest material on television but say very little about beer.
Those commercials are supposed to create a mood, to entertain, to appeal to our emotions--not to give us
information. They are often the most effective commercials, because they make the best use of television.
They are the natural product of a medium that offers a surreal world view.
On television, real life mingles imperceptibly with illusion. Truth is irrelevant; what really matters is
whether we are entertained. Substance is nothing; style is everything. In the words of Marshall McLuhan,
the medium is the message.
Amusing Ourselves to Death is a perceptive but disquieting book by Neil Postman, a professor at New
York University. The book argues powerfully that television has crippled our ability to think and reduced
our aptitude for real communication.
Postman says television has not made us the best informed and most literate generation in history.
Instead it has flooded our minds with irrelevant and meaningless information. Television has conditioned
us only to be entertained and has therefore made other critical forms of human interaction obsolete.
Even the network news, Postman points out, is a performance. Suave anchormen coolly read brief reports
about war, murder, crime, and natural disaster. These stories are punctuated by commercials that
trivialize the stories and isolate them from any context. Postman recounts a news broadcast where a
Marine corps general declared that global nuclear war is inevitable. The next segment was a commercial
for Burger King.
We are not expected to respond rationally. In Postman's words, "The viewers will not be caught
contaminating their responses with a sense of reality, any more than an audience at a play would go
scurrying to call home because a character on stage has said that a murderer is loose in the
neighborhood."
Television cannot demand a sensible response. People tune in to be entertained, not to be challenged to
think. If a program requires contemplation or demands too much use of the intellectual faculties, no one
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/amusing.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:23:05 AM]

watches.
Television has lowered our attention span. Would anyone in our society, for example, stand for seven
hours in a sweltering crowd listening to the Lincoln-Douglas debates? It is frankly hard for us to imagine
that our great-great-grandparents had that kind of stamina. We have allowed television to make us think
we know more while actually lowering our tolerance for thinking and learning.
By far the book's most trenchant message is in a chapter on modern religion. Postman, no evangelical,
nevertheless writes with piercing insight about the decline of preaching. He contrasts the ministries of
Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Charles Finney with the preaching of today. Those men relied
on depth of content, profundity, logic, and knowledge of the Scriptures. Preaching today is superficial by
comparison, with the emphasis on style and emotion. "Good" preaching by the modern definition must
above all be brief and amusing. It is entertainment--not exhortation, reproof, rebuke, or instruction (cf. 2
Tim. 3:16, 4:2).
The epitome of modern preaching is the slick evangelist who overstates every emotion, carries a
microphone as he struts around the platform, and gets the audience clapping, stomping, and shouting
while he incites them into a frenzy. There's no meat to the message, but who cares as long as the response
is enthusiastic?
Of course, preaching in most conservative evangelical churches is not that exaggerated. But sadly, even
some of the best of today's preaching is more entertainment than teaching. Most churches typically
feature a half-hour sermon with lots of amusing anecdotes but little doctrine.
In fact, many preachers think of doctrine as undesirable and impractical. A major Christian magazine
recently published an article by a well-known charismatic speaker. He mused for a full page about the
futility of both preaching and listening to sermons that go beyond mere entertainment. His conclusion?
People don't remember what you say anyway, so most preaching is a waste of time. "I'm going to try to
do better next year," he writes; "that means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending
much more time preparing short ones. People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as
they get out before noon."
That perfectly sums up the attitude that dominates most of modern preaching. There is an obvious
parallel between this kind of preaching and those trendy jeans-perfume-beer commercials. Like the
commercials, modern preaching aims to set a mood, to evoke an emotional response, to entertain--but not
necessarily to communicate anything of substance.
Such preaching is sheer accommodation to a society bred by television. It follows what is fashionable but
reveals little concern for what is true. It is not the kind of preaching Scripture mandates. We are to
"preach the Word" (2 Tim. 4:2); "speak the things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1); and "teach
and exhort...the doctrine which is according to godliness" (1 Tim.6:2-3). It is impossible to do those
things if your main goal is to entertain.

The future of expository preaching is uncertain. What does a pastor with integrity do to reach people who
are unwilling or even unable to listen to carefully-reasoned expositions of God's truth? This may be the
greatest challenge for today's Christian leaders. We cannot yield to the pressure to be superficial. We
must find ways to make the truth of God known to a generation that not only does not want to hear, but
may not even know how to listen.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
Question
How do you know when you are being "tempted" by Satan or "tested" by God?
Answer
How do you know when you are being "tempted" by Satan and "tested" by God? And the answer is that
they are one in the same. If you fail, Satan succeeded in tempting you, if you pass, God gets the victory
for seeing you through the test--in a sense.
Now, there are some things that are not a test by God at all, but are purely a temptation--it depends on
where you are--it is hard to define that. The word "temptation" and the word "testing" are the same word--
"peirasmos" (Greek), same word, no difference. It depends on how you respond. For example, if
something comes on the TV that is evil-- it will either demonstrate my strength or demonstrate my
weakness--true? So, it is either a test by which God is able to show me my strength, or it is a temptation
by which Satan shows me my weakness. It depends on what I do with it.
That's an over simplification, in a sense, but you understand what I am driving at? The "trying of your
faith works patience, and patience wants to have its perfect work," James 1. So the Lord is going to bring
trial, trial, trail. Now, none of those trials is a direct solicitation to evil. A direct solicitation to evil is not
included in those, and that is why in James 1, it says, "God tempts no man."
The Lord will bring trials into your life, which if you fail those trials will turn into temptations, but the
Lord will never bring a direct solicitation to evil. So, having said what I said initially, when trials come
into your life, if you fail them, they turn out to be temptations in which Satan was victorious. If you pass
them, they turn out to be victories, in which God was trying and strengthening you, but a direct
solicitation to do evil is always from the enemy and never from God.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Where Do Evil Thoughts Come from?
Question
Correct me if I’m wrong, but last week, you said that the devil couldn’t put any thoughts in your
mind?
Answer
“What I said was that if you are living a godly and a righteous life, and thinking on things that are pure
and lovely and honest and so forth, and if your life is pure, that you have that protection, of the helmet of
the hope of salvation and the breastplate of righteousness. But, if you’re sinful, I believe that there are
ways in which Satan can activate your thinking processes towards sin.
Well, I just thought that it could happen, because I’ve heard that you’re not guilty when you first
think a sinful thought, but when you continue to think about it over and over again.
Answer (continued)
I’m so glad you asked that. Listen: when you think a sinful thought, that may have absolutely nothing to
do with the devil. If it’s any encouragement to you, you could live your whole life from birth to death,
and the devil never bother you once in your entire life. He’s not omnipresent. He’s fast, but he is not
omnipresent. Well, he fell from heaven like what? Lightning. Lightning is fast, but there’s no reason to
assume that he’s bothering you. You say, ‘Where do those thoughts come from?’ I’ll tell you where they
come from. It’s very clear; you don’t have to expect the devil to do that. Listen. It comes right out of
your own heart. That’s the sad reality of it. ‘Lust,’ when it conceives, says James, what? ‘brings forth
sin.’ So, it comes right out of your flesh. In Galatians, you remember, chapter 5…the deeds of the flesh:
immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, dispute,
dissension, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, things like these.
Your flesh will conjure those thoughts up…but you’re exactly right: the first time you think that thought
is the temptation, not the sin. And if you turn away from that thought immediately, then you have not
sinned. That’s right. Even Jesus was what? Was tempted. That meant the thought was planted. Now, in
His case, did it come from flesh? No…it must have come outside of Him from the system, which Satan
orchestrates to bring that temptation to our mind. And at first, instantaneous thought, Jesus always
rejected it. So the first thought is not sin.

John MacArthur - Where Do Evil Thoughts Come from?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Did God tempt David to Sin?
Question
In II Samuel, chapter 24, verses 1 and thereafter (about 5 or 6), it would almost seem as though
God is prompting David to sin with respect to the taking of an inventory of his army and his
troops. And, of course, in a footnote in the NIV, it says that God did not cause him to sin, which is
true: everybody has free will. But, if it was to reveal his sinful nature--I’m assuming--if that be the
case, would it not have come about regardless of whether God prompted him with the quote where
it says, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah” and yet that’s clearly contrary… Because of
pride--it almost seems as though He’s prompting him to do such…if I haven’t muddied the waters
by the question.
Answer
Well, no. And this is a question that has been asked and it comes up very often. The bigger context, has
to be an understanding that God is “of purer eyes,” Habakkuk 1, “than to behold evil, cannot look upon
iniquity.” Further, that God is “holy, holy, holy.” Further, James 1, “God tempts no man.” And that’s
explicit. So, the larger context is to understand that God doesn’t tempt people. Now, the answer to your
question comes--and you’re talking about II Samuel 24, “the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel
and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go and number Israel and Judah’.” But, there is a
comparative passage--did you note I Chronicles 21:1? I Chronicles 21:1 records the same account with
these words, “Now Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” So, in Samuel, you
have the Lord aroused against Israel, and it appears as though He moves David. But, in I Chronicles 21,
the Holy Spirit has inspired the writer to tell us that it was only God who sovereignly permitted this to
happen, but it was actually Satan who did the inciting. That is consistent with the bigger picture. The
bigger picture is that God must allow sinful things. If He didn’t allow them, none of them would happen,
right? So, God for His own purposes, allows things.
In the little note that I wrote in the study Bible, “II Samuel 24:1 reports that it was God who moved
David. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by understanding that God sovereignly and permissively
uses Satan to activate or achieve His purposes. God uses Satan” and I give a whole lot of different ways
David’s census brought tragedy and that tragedy, in effect, was the judgment of God. So, God,
sovereignly, comes to a point where he is prepared to judge Israel. He allows Satan to incite the action on
the part of David that brings about that judgment. So, I think you have to compare I Samuel 21 and the
bigger picture that God does not tempt, that God does not incite people to evil--that would be against His
holy nature--but within the bigger picture, God allows Satan, as He did in the case of Job, to affect
certain purposes, which, for His own glory, achieve His purposes.

John MacArthur - Did God tempt David to Sin?
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
There is a very popular Charismatic TV program that promotes the "law of reciprocity," as far as
tithing goes--giving money to the Lord. In effect, that whatever you give to the Lord, you are going
to receive it back while you are on earth. I just want to hear you views on that.
Answer
They teach that if you give something to the Lord then you will get it back (in greater amounts). Open
your Bible to a very important portion of Scripture that has to be considered in any discussion like this,
on that question, and that is 2 Corinthians 8-9, because this is where the issue is discussed. The principle
that is laid down here has to be brought into thought. The whole section of 8 and 9 is talking about
giving, by the way, there is nothing in here about tithing--there is nothing in the New Testament anyplace
to advocate tithing, and just as a starting point before we look at this.
Tithing, are you familiar with the concept of tithing, you know, "Give 10% to the church," you know,
that kind of thing? Tithing, basically, is never, ever advocated in the New Testament; it is never taught in
the New Testament--ever! It is referred to a couple of times, that's all, as a historical fact: it talks about
tithes being offered by Abraham to Aaron, you know, "in the loins of Abraham," it says, Aaron paid
tithes to Melchizedek--it is just an historical reference. It talks about the fact that Abraham gave tithes,
also of a tenth of the heap, which he took in the battle with the kings. So it is only an historic reference,
and then in the gospels it talks about the fact that the Jews tithed to their government, again a historical
reference. No place in the entire New Testament is it ever advocated for us to give tithes, that is, for us to
give 10% to the church.
You say, "Well what was it in the Old Testament?" Every year a Jew had to give 10% of all of his crop
and all of his produce, and all of whatever he had. He gave 10%, which was called the "Levite's Tithe,"
and what you have to understand is that the nation Israel was a theocracy, that is, it was ruled by God
through priests. There were 24 different orders of priests, with thousands upon thousands of priests--they
were the government officials, they were the Senate, the Congress, the whole thing, only they different
have to vote on anything--they just sought God and God told them what to do. So it was a theocracy
ruled by God and that rule was disseminated through these people. Well, since they were the agents of
the government, they had to be supported. Do you remember that the twelve tribes were each given land,
but they split the tribe of Joseph into two tribes: Ephraim and Manasseh to make up twelve, because Levi
was taken out, because Levi was the priestly tribe and they owned nothing. So they had to be supported
by all the other tribes.

Question
They were given cities in the locations of the other tribal areas and people had to give money to support
their livelihood--part of their sheep, part of their crop, and everything had to go to support Levi's tribe,
because they were the ones who represented God in the government. So when you gave your 10% each
year you gave it to the government for the care of the country, the nation. Secondly, you gave another
10% every year, which was for the festivals and the religious convocations of the nation. In other words,
all of the big things that were held in Jerusalem, all the things that had to be done to prepared for the
feasts and so forth in Jerusalem, and all the holy days, and all the Sabbaths, and all the everything else
that went with it. So you pay 10% to the Levites to support them as they operated in behalf of God in the
government; you paid 10% to take care of the national festivals, which were many, many. Then you paid
another 10% every third year, which went to the poor and the widows. So if you broke that down, you
are about 23.3% per year. Now what that was, was an income tax system. That was a system of taxation
to fund the government and its religious activities and its welfare needs.
So when people today say, "We want to tithe now like they did in the Old Testament," they can't stop at
10%, they got 23.3% to start with. In addition to that, you paid a half shekel temple tax every year, in
addition to that, if you had a field, you had to harvest the field in a circle and leave the corners open for
the poor. It was a profit-sharing plan. If you dropped a bail of hay off your wagon, on the way to the
barn, you had to leave that for the poor. So you start adding that up and you are looking at about 25% of
their income went to fund the national entity of the government.
Now when you get into the New Testament, the Jews were still doing that, because they still had a
nation, even though they were an occupied nation, they were still a nation. They were occupied by the
Romans, but they weren't run by the Romans. They had their own religious hierarchy, they had their own
school systems, they had their own festivals, and all that stuff, and so they had to take care of that. They
had their own priesthood; it all had to go on, that is why Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar's," in other words, pay the Romans what they asked, and render to God the things that are God's.
So just to clarify that at the very beginning, when you are talking about a tithe, you are talking about the
"taxation." Now when you translate that over into our time, it is kind of interesting to me that the base tax
system in our country is about 20%, you add sales tax to that and you probably get another 5%, we are on
about the same level they were then--about 25% of our income goes out for taxation, if you are in the
normal tax bracket and with normal deductions, unless you are really doing well, but then they get you in
different ways, because the more money you have the more things you buy, the more things you buy, the
higher sales tax you pay, so maybe it comes out even harder for people who have more. Nonetheless,
that's taxation. OK?
Giving was always something different, always you gave whatever you wanted, like when they built the
tabernacle and God said, "Let every man bring whatever he purposes in his heart; let him do it willingly,
whatever he wants to give." And they kept coming, bringing so much that finally they said, "Stop, don't
bring anymore--that's enough." So giving is always a "freewill," it's always an expression of love and
appreciation--whatever you want to do.

Question
Now you come to 2 Corinthians, chapter eight, and you learn how the church gave. The church knew
there was a need so the church gave. How did they give? Well, it wasn't 10%, it says, "The churches in
Macedonia, 2Cor 8:1, gave abundantly out of deep poverty. It says that their deep poverty abounded to
the riches of their liberality." Here was a very poor church in Macedonia, very poor, but they gave
generously, out of their hearts liberally. In fact, verse three says, they gave beyond their ability. They
gave more than they should have given--more then they could of given, and the reason they did that was
in verse five, because they first gave themselves. I mean when you give yourself then everything you
have belongs to the Lord. So, Paul is saying to the Corinthians, "If you want a lesson in giving, look at
these people--out of deep poverty they gave everything they had." In fact, they gave more then they
should of, but they did that because they had already given themselves to the Lord. Now you have the
key motive in giving; what is the right motive in giving? It is not to get anything. It is in that whole
hearted abandonment, "they gave everything."
I worry about this Charismatic "Health and Wealth" prosperity business, where you are just simply
saying, "Well I am going to give my money so I can get it!" That is not the spirit of the Macedonians,
they didn't even have enough to give what they gave, but they gave it anyway, because they had already
given themselves to the Lord. Their whole program was a "give myself away" program, not a "get for
myself" program. We are suffering today, in Christianity, from an absolutely pervasive greed. Our
contemporary Christianity is so self-indulgent it boggles the mind. That is why we don't reach out to
people, because we are consumed with feeding ourselves. It's a mentality that all of us fall prey to.
A guy in our church told me the other day that he was meeting with a group of Christians, and all they
could talk about was their latest investments. You look around you and you see people all around the
world, you know, who have need. I was talking to Mitz (sp.) and he was telling me there are about
32,000 people in the city of Los Angeles who are homeless. We have been strategizing the last few days
about what we are going to do about that. Some people are talking about how they can get another
Mercedes, and there are some people who are trying to get up out of the gutter to feed their family.
So, we have a mentality, and of course, what we have done, see, we justified our materialism by
developing a theology to accommodate it--you know, "Jesus wants you healthy and wealthy."
There was a book called "Prime Time Religion" about Oral Roberts, and it showed how he has become a
multimillionaire by the way he works things. In the book it points out, for example, he writes a book or
has someone write it for him, and then he publishes it with his own publishing house (it describes all this,
one of the guys on his staff wrote the book--unhappily for them); it shows how he publishes the book and
then sells it to the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association--sells them about two million copies so they can
send it out to all the people on their mailing list, who send them twenty-five bucks, only he sells to them
for a dollar profit on each book. So he writes a book, publishes the book, makes a buck profit selling it to
his own organization, pockets two million dollars and then they distribute it.
Now, those are the kinds of people, for the most part, who are on television begging you for your money,
and telling you that God is going to make you rich and so forth.

Question
So there is a theology that has developed, and then what they do, trying to live with that is very difficult,
so in order to live with that kind of thing you develop a theology that says "Jesus wants you wealthy,"
and that's how you deal with your conscience--"God wants you rich!" I mean, you read in a magazine--
we were in Israel and we find people, who go over there to lead tours to Israel, demand $1,000 per day
rooms, they demand limousine service everywhere, they go into these little shops where they take their
tourists to buy things, and one guy told me that one group went in there and the leader wanted $12,000
worth of jewelry to bring his group to their store.
These are the people who develop this kind of accommodating theology, "Jesus wants you wealthy, Jesus
wants you rich, Jesus wants you prosperous, He wants you healthy and all that kind of thing," and I really
believe that it is a "back door" means to justify a materialistic attitude, and the Lord needs to deliver us
from that.
These people [2 Cor 8:1] gave out of their deep poverty, not because they wanted anything back because
they were so abandoned to the Lord. Having said all of that, all right--this is a long sermon--I want you to
look at chapter nine, verse six, "But this I say, he that sows sparingly shall reap sparingly; he that sows
bountifully shall reap bountifully." In this sense, we have to admit that they have a kernel of the truth,
because if you sow a little bit you reap a little, if you sow a lot you reap a lot, and it is true that when you
give to the Lord--He does give back, but if that is your motive--it's warped. It is true that He does that,
but if you come to the Lords work and say, "I'm going to put this in, because I know that I am going to
get back multiplied, then your giving is illegitimate. But if you can do it with a free, clear conscience,
and even though you have to fight yourself, you know, sometimes you say, "Boy, I know the Lord is
going to return this but that's not going to be my motive," you know, you kind of go back and forth, but if
you have a clear conscience about that then it is ok. So, "you sow sparingly, you reap sparingly; you sow
bountifully, you reap bountifully." There is the fact that God will bless, Luke 6:38, Jesus says, "Give, and
it shall be. . . ." what? "Given unto you, " That's a great statement, "pressed down, shaken together and
running over."
Did you ever buy a box of crackers and shake it, and open it, and you got about a third of a box of
crackers? But that isn't how it is going to be when the Lord gives, it will be pressed down, shaken
together, and still running over. He'll give.
Now, you say, "Yeah, I know what will happen to me. I will give all of my money and the Lord will give
me back all spiritual blessings." That might happen, but in verse seven it says, "every man according as
he purposes in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, nor of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver.
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that you, always having all sufficiency in all
things, may abound to every good work." And, he will minister (verse 10) "He that ministers seed to the
sower will minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your
righteousness." Verse 10 is really key: He says He will not only give you back what you sowed; He'll
give you back bread for your food--He'll take care of your physical needs when you give, and He'll
increase the fruit of your righteousness. It doesn't say that He'll make you wealthy, does it? It says, He'll
meet your needs, and He will fill your life with righteousness. So maybe that gives you some answer--I

Question
hope.
I did notice that most of the verses they used to promote this were out of the Old Testament.
Answer (continued)
It's very popular doctrine--people want to be rich, they want to be wealthy. The hottest new cult there is,
is Terri Cole Whittiker (sp.)--I don't know if you've seen her? She is nothing but a slick Doris Day type
Reverend Ike! She is in it for the money. She comes out of "Science of Mind." She's manipulative--she
has figured out how to make a fortune and she is "milking" it for every dime that she can get out of it.
And she can do it because people will do anything to get rich. People will do anything to get two things:
money and health--and if you can promise people health and wealth, they will follow you off the end of
the pier--believe me, they will.
Why do you think Jesus told the disciples when He sent them out, "Take no money when you heal,"
because if they would have taken money, they would have become instant millionaires--people will pay
any price for healing--and they could really do it! And they [people] will pay any price, they will invest
anything, if they think that they can get rich.
You see, this is what "Reverend Ike" did for years. What he did was, he told these people, "You send me
money--you might get rich." And he told story after story, after story about it and what "his" company
did was, at random they would pick out people off their mailing list and deliver a new Cadillac to them.
They would do that to 100 to 200 people a year, with the millions that were coming in, and then they
would have them get up and give a testimony, how that one day there was a new Cadillac delivered in
front of their door. And it becomes a lottery system--that's all it is. It is like buying a ticket in a raffle,
and you know raffles work and people are gamblers--look at Las Vegas.
So if people think there is a way to get either health or wealth they will do anything, and that kind of
doctrine will be popular and people will send money to it like "gangbusters." Oral Roberts has been
doing that for thirty years. You ought to read his letters, "If you will send me $25 today, right today, the
day you get this letter, I'll promise you that Jesus will give you back $250 within the next six months
from an unexpected place." Very typical letter. And you know, you are liable to get $250 back
somewhere you didn't expect it. Right? You old Aunt died, or you got an income tax return, or you got a
social security check you didn't expect, or whatever. In the long run it hooks people--it's really tragic.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Giving and the Tithe
Question
Does God require me to give a tithe of all I earn?
Answer
Two kinds of giving are taught consistently throughout Scripture: giving to the government (always
compulsory), and giving to God (always voluntary).
The issue has been greatly confused, however, by some who misunderstand the nature of the Old
Testament tithes. Tithes were not primarily gifts to God, but taxes for funding the national budget in
Israel.
Because Israel was a theocracy, the Levitical priests acted as the civil government. So the Levite's tithe
(Leviticus 27:30-33) was a precursor to today's income tax, as was a second annual tithe required by God
to fund a national festival (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Smaller taxes were also imposed on the people by
the law (Leviticus 19:9-10; Exodus 23:10-11). So the total giving required of the Israelites was not 10
percent, but well over 20 percent. All that money was used to operate the nation.
All giving apart from that required to run the government was purely voluntary (cf. Exodus 25:2; 1
Chronicles 29:9). Each person gave whatever was in his heart to give; no percentage or amount was
specified.
New Testament believers are never commanded to tithe. Matthew 22:15-22 and Romans 13:1-7 tell us
about the only required giving in the church age, which is the paying of taxes to the government.
Interestingly enough, we in America presently pay between 20 and 30 percent of our income to the
government--a figure very similar to the requirement under the theocracy of Israel.
The guideline for our giving to God and His work is found in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7: "Now this I say, he
who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully.
Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a
cheerful giver."
For further study:

John MacArthur, God's Plan for Giving (tape series).
Tony Capoccia
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-tithe.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:13 AM]

John MacArthur - Giving and the Tithe

Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-tithe.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:13 AM]

Question
Question
In Acts 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 12, it talks about the tongue as a spiritual gift. My question is, "How is the
tongue supposed to be used today, and how can we misuse it?"
Answer
It is very clear in Acts 2, that God gave to the Apostles the ability to speak in languages that they did not
know. As a result, it says, people were hearing in all different kinds of languages, the wonderful works
of God. Now, I believe that the purpose of that gift was to establish the fact that a supernatural presence,
a supernatural message, was to be proclaimed. It call the attention of everyone who was hearing this.
Some of the people concluded that they were drunk because it was early in the morning, but it collected
the people around the phenomena of that wondrous ability to speak in those languages which they didn't
know--that was a Holy Spirit miracle. Then when the crowd was all gathered, Peter stood up and
preached in a language that everybody understood and in his own native tongue the gospel of Jesus
Christ and 3,000 people were saved and the Church was born.
I see in that then that the tongues were a sign, a sign of the miraculous power of God. A sign of
supernatural presence which drew the people together and made the message that was preached more
powerful, more acceptable, more authentic in their eyes. So, in that occasion we see it clearly as a sign
that God was speaking and when God got their attention, then came the message of the gospel. By the
way, if you follow that through, I believe "tongues" probably occurred in Acts 8 even though it doesn't
say that, but where you have the church moving out into Samaria, and then in chapter 10, definitely
occurred when the church moves to the Gentiles, and then later on in 19, when John the Baptist's
disciples were brought into the church, you have it again.
I believe in the Book of Acts the reason that you have the "tongues" repeated again is because every time
the next dimension of people were added to the church it was important that they have the same
phenomena so that they would know that they were being added to the same body. So that the sign given
of the Day of Pentecost was repeated at each new phase of the church.
Do you remember that the gospel was to go forth and they were to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea,
Samaria, and the world? When the gospel came to the Samaritans there was the same phenomena; when
it came to the Gentiles there was the same phenomena; when those who followed John the Baptist were
brought in, they saw the same phenomena. Peter came back and reported (you remember) to the council
that "on the Gentiles came the same thing that came on us." So as the Lord built the church they had this
same sign, the same supernatural sign so that the Jews would not think that they received something
special that Samaritans and Gentiles didn't get. So, it was a sign gift.
Now you come into 1 Corinthians 12-14, it is still a sign gift but it was being perverted in the Corinthian
Church, and I believe that it was being mixed and mingled with a lot of ecstatic speech that was a part of

Question
the pagan religion of that day. It was still (if it was used properly) to be a sign gift.
Paul, then in 1 Corinthians 12-14 regulates it. He says how it is to function, he first of all introduces it as
a gift in chapter 12. He tells at the end of chapter 12 that it is an unimportant gift. In chapter 13 he says
"love" is much more important. In chapter 14 "edification" is much more important. He says, "Women
are never to exercise it. It is never to more than two or three people. It's never to be without
interpretation." But it doesn't change the nature of it--it was a sign gift--a sign of the presence of God
and a sign that God was about to speak so that when the speaker spoke they would know it was from
God.
In that sense it is a sign that we don't need any more because when a speaker speaks today we know
whether he is from God or not by how he is consistent with Scripture. I don't need "signs and wonders"
to attest to a prophet--if he sticks with the Book I know he speaks for God. But in that day when there
was no New Testament to compare him with, God gave, as it says in 2 Corinthians, "the gifts of an
apostle, and signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (12:12).
So, "tongues" was a sign gift (and I am giving you a condensed version, again you can get the book on
"Tongues." I hate to keep saying that, but it there available if you want one--pick one up "on me."). But
the gift of "tongues" was a sign gift.
Now, I believe it has ceased. I believe that it has passed away. 1 Corinthians 13, "Whether there be
tongues they shall...(and it uses a reflective form of the verb) . . . cease by themselves." I believe when
the end of the Apostolic Era came--tongues ceased. I believe that you can chronicle through the history
of the church the cessation of tongues--they didn't exist, except in aberrant forms.
It was revived in the early part of the 1900's and brought back in as if it were some legitimate gift--it is
my conviction that it has no place in the church today--no place. It was part of the "Signs of an Apostle,"
such as healing, and the gift of miracles, which I see as "dunamis" (Greek) or the gift of "power"--that is,
to cast out demons on the spot--at will.
So, I think that it was one of those temporary gifts that passed away, was used to signify the spokesman
for God who were speaking, so that the people would know they spoke for God, which we now know by
whether they stick with the Word.
Now you say, "Now, what is it that people are doing today?" Well, I think, the people who are speaking
in what they call "Tongues" could be explained in many ways:
1. I think much of it is learned behavior, just learned behavior--they learned how to do it. They are in a
group that does it, in fact, I have heard it in many places around the country, I have listened to it on tape.
When I was working on the book I got involved in studying some of the reports of it, and it is very
interesting that much of it is the same language and the same repeated symbols--it is a non-language, but
it is very often learned behavior.

Question
2. It can also be explained as sort of mental perocisms (sp) where you sort of flip out in a sort of self-
hypnotic situations.
3. Some of it can be demonic.
There are other explanations, but I see that it has ceased from a Biblical viewpoint, and has no function
in the church today.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Tongues
Question
In the account in Acts 2 of Pentecost, as I read my New American Standard Bible, over and over I
come to the feeling that this miracle was in the hearing. I’ve never heard anybody comment on that
and I just would like to hear your opinion of that.
Answer
There are those who believe that it was a miracle of hearing; there are those who affirm that. There are
quite a few who would because they say, “everyone heard in his own language.” I don’t hold that view,
and I don’t think that view holds up very well, particularly when you recognize that they were all “filled
with the Holy Spirit,” verse four, “and began to speak with other languages.” That seems to me to be a
fairly open-and-shut case for a miracle of speaking rather than a miracle of hearing.
But there are those who believe that. In fact, if you would read any treatment, I might suggest to you
maybe The Theology of the Holy Spirit by Frederick Dale Bruner, you can find it in our great library.
Bruner might have a section dealing with that in which you could get the argument for that.
But, I believe it was a miracle of speaking rather than a miracle of hearing, particularly when you see the
cloven tongues of fire and when you compare the rest of Acts and the other phenomena that occurred,
which seems clearly to be a speaking phenomena rather than a hearing.
But then when you come to I Corinthians 14, it is definitely speaking and not hearing. So, why would you
have tongues...why would you even use the expression “languages” if you’re not talking about languages
and you’re talking about the hearing miracle? So, I don’t think that that really holds up very well,
particularly if you want a consistent interpretation of the miracle of tongues in Corinthians; it is very
clear that he’s talking about a language spoken, not a language heard.
And in my book entitled The Charismatics--I don’t know if you have that--it would help you. Also, I
wrote a book called The Truth About Tongues.
Tony Capoccia

John MacArthur - Tongues
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
My question concerns the end times. If I understand you clearly, last Sunday you said that, the
Church will not be here before the events of Matthew 24 take place. In Matthew 24, Jesus uses the
second person pronoun "you" referring to all the believers who will be around at that particular
time, but in one way or another, the "you" in the future has an attachment to the "you" of that
particular period--namely the Apostles. Christ was answering their question, therefore, He says
"you" and He exhorts them, and corrects them, and comforts them. To me, I see that Christ saw
the existing body of believers, which later were pioneers of the Church, as of the same body of
those who would be around in the Tribulation time. Secondly, in Matthew 24:9, Christ says, "You
will be hated by all nations on account of My name," which purports that this will be Christ's
disciples, and in verse 22 and 24, He calls them "elect," and in John, chapter 11, verse 52, Caiaphas
was prophesying and he didn't know it, and the Bible says that he did not say that on his own
initiative, "But being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the
nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together into one the children
of God that were scattered abroad." And in chapter 10 of the same book, He says in verse 16, "I
have other sheep, which are not of this fold: I must bring then also, and they shall hear my voice;
and they shall become one flock." If the Church won't go through the Tribulation, and Matthew 24
has some believers who will be in the Tribulation, how do we separate the Church and these people
since the Bible has them as one nation?
Answer
I think we only separate them by virtue of the Rapture, that's all. The Rapture is not dealt with in verse
24, so it is very difficult to stick it in there. I only did that because people would wonder where does this
happen and who is He talking about. The Rapture is something you have to deal with; you have to put it
someplace--definitely you have to put it someplace. If you put it at the end of the Tribulation you got all
kinds of problems, because you got two things happening at once: you got the righteous being taken out
and you have the unrighteous being taken out at the same time--it doesn't make sense. There is a lot of
problems with that, so I think that there is reason to put the Rapture at beginning.
Having said that, I think that the Lord will take away His Church as a restraining influence. Now, I think
He then redeems people on the earth. They are, for all intents and purposes, a part of the one flock. They
are part of the one group. They come to Christ through faith just like anybody else does, there is no
distinction there. They are redeemed from out of all the tribes and tongues and peoples and nations, and
they are redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb. The whole process of salvation is exactly the same as it has
always been. The only distinction I see is the removal of the Church during the period of time of
judgment on the earth. Out of that judgment there is a group of people redeemed who will be brought

Question
together with the other people who are redeemed, just as we have been brought together in the future yet
with those Old Testament saints. The Old Testament saints, you realize now that there spirits are with the
Lord, their bodies have not yet been resurrected. According to Daniel 12, they have yet to wait the day of
resurrection, when final judgment comes, and final glory for their bodies--some of them. There is going
to be tribulation saints who have a resurrection at the end of the times.
So, I understand what you are saying, and what you are saying is, if the church is taken out, then what is
this group? I just see them as an extension of God's redeemed people, that's all. You have Old Testament
people, you have people in this period of time, and you will have people in that period of time. Some of
them are definitely Jews; some of them are Gentiles from all over the world, they are a part of the one
redeemed people. It is the same as Hebrews tells us in Hebrews, chapter 12, where it says, "That we are
also identified with the innumerable host, the spirits of just men made perfect."
We are all one with that innumerable company in heaven already. So, I don't see a problem with that, all
I see is that the Rapture uniquely occurs to remove the redeemed people for the judgment on the earth,
and out of that judgment other redeemed people are gathered together, just as they were in the Old
Testament to be collected all together in one great flock for eternity.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
A Mormon asked me this question a number of years ago, and through the years here at church,
I’ve asked a number of people this question, and there seems to be a divided opinion on it, and I
wanted to get your opinion. She asked me--it was a Mormon lady--asked me, when I was
witnessing to her, “Do you have to believe in the Trinity to become a Christian?” And I didn’t
know how to answer at the time.
Answer
I would answer yes. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you don’t understand who God is. You may
say the word “God” but you don’t understand His nature. Secondly, you couldn’t possibly understand
who Christ is. I know what I’m saying when I say that. It’s going to not only impact people that you may
have witnessed to, but there are even people in one form of the Charismatic or Pentecostal movement,
called United Pentecostals, who are called the "Jesus-Only" who believe in a kind of modalism, where
God is God for awhile, and then He gets to be Christ for awhile, and then He gets to be Holy Spirit for
awhile, but He’s never all three at the same time. It is my conviction that true salvation is built upon an
understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ, that He is both God--fully God, and that God at the same time
is fully God, and that that’s the whole point of what He did in the gospels. I mean, Jesus was never
satisfied with having people accept Him as anything other than God. I think that was the whole thing that
He was demonstrating, was the Trinitarian nature of God. So, I think not to understand the Trinity is not
to understand who God is and it’s not to understand who Christ is and therefore, it’s not to understand the
gospel properly.
The same question arises about the virgin birth. I would say a person could become a Christian if they
didn’t know about the virgin birth because they would assume that Jesus Christ must have had a unique
birth if He was both God and man, right? But, if someone says, “I would deny the virgin birth,” then all
you’ve got is a man. You’ve got something less than the incarnate God. It is conceivable that somebody
would say, “No, He wasn’t born of a virgin; He was born of Joseph and Mary and God just infused the
“logos” spirit into Him… And it could get a little confused that way. But, basically, I think you need to
believe that God is expressed fully in Christ and yet exists as God, and that the Spirit of God was doing
the work through Christ--that’s what He said--and anything less than that… He said, “If you don’t see the
Spirit working in me, what is that? Blasphemy.” So, I think the Trinity is inherent to the gospel
understanding.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Trinity
Question
The Trinity, how could there be three in one?
Answer
I haven’t got the faintest idea. But there are three in one, and it’s not something that I can understand in
my puny mind. But, God is one in essence, and yet manifests himself at all times in three different
persons. I’ve heard all kinds of silly little description of it, like somebody said, it’s like H2O. H2O can
either be steam, water, or ice. That doesn’t do it for me. But, you understand what they are trying to say.
The problem with that argument is, it can’t be steam, water, and ice all at the same time. That’s the
nature of God.
One of the things you want to learn about God is, God is beyond comprehension. You know there are
some things you just don’t understand. You just can’t understand them, and no matter how hard you try
you can’t understand them. And if you work at it harder and harder you still won’t understand them. If
you keep doing that you’ll find yourself under the bed saying the Greek alphabet. Because your trying to
unscrew the unscrutable. It’s just impossible to understand, but God is three in one, and he is so far
beyond us, that we can’t fully comprehend what that means. I know this: God is one, that’s clear, "The
Lord our God is one," Deuteronomy 6:4. And at the same time, within the oneness of God, the Father
loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit loves the Father and the Son, and the Father
and Son loves the Spirit, and they work together in perfect harmony. They’re not just blended together
because they talk to each other. How that can be explained humanly, I don’t know. That’s one of those
things you just believe.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Trinity

John MacArthur - Trinity
Question
In a recent conversation with a coworker who’s an orthodox Jewess, she and I were discussing
theology and we were fine on the Old Testament to a point, and then she turned around and said,
“Christians are polytheistic.” I had never thought of this as being polytheistic and I didn’t know
how to answer her.
Answer
Well, the reason they say we’re polytheistic is because we teach the Trinity. See, that’s simply saying if
you believe God is God and Jesus is God, then you’ve got two gods. That’s what they’re saying.
But how do you answer her and prove to her from the Old Testament that Christians are not
polytheistic because she won’t acknowledge the New Testament?
Answer (continued)
Yeah, well, all you want to do is prove the Trinity from the Old Testament. Go to the bookstore; there’s a
marvelous little book that--I hope it’s still in there--a little paperback book on the Trinity in the Bible.
It’ll give you all the verses, all the verses. You can go through the Old Testament and show the Trinity
there. The first place to start would be in Genesis. “And God said”--what?--“Let us”--who’s that? And
then you start and you show the Trinity through the whole Old Testament.
Is this a widespread notion?
Answer (continued)
Among Jewish people, sure. That’s one of the accusations against Christianity, is that we’re polytheistic
because we have God and we say Christ is God and [therefore] we have two gods. You see, the one most
fundamental, foundational truth about Judaism is the belief in one God. See, that’s what set them apart.
That’s the “shama.” That’s Deuteronomy 6, “The Lord our God is one.” And that’s what they wrapped
on the phylacteries on their arm, that’s what they wrapped on the phylacteries on their head, that’s what

John MacArthur - Trinity
they put on the mezuzah of the wall of their house--Deuteronomy 6 was everything. Why? Because they
were a monotheistic people in a polytheistic world. And God called them out of the other nations with
their many gods and He said to them, “The Lord our God is one… Teach this to your children. Talk
about it when you stand up, sit down, lie down, and walk in the way,” and that is the monogram of
traditional Judaism.
So, they look at Christianity and one of the major points of rejection is to say, “See, they have more than
one God,” and they try to make a case for that. But that case doesn’t hold water. Even in the Old
Testament. Ask them how to explain the Psalms where it says, “The Lord said unto my Lord”--that’s a
Trinitarian conversation. There are a number of texts that will help you with that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
There are some movements in the body of Christ to unite the body of Christ. I’m not just talking
about channel 40 or KTBN, but I am thinking of Wycliffe too, where they have Catholics and some
Charismatics in their organization. Do you think that there are any movements that are good, or
do you think that they all endanger sound doctrine?
Answer
Well, thank you for the question. First of all, let’s make one thing clear. The body of Christ is intact,
spiritually. God knows those that are His—they are His flock, they are His body, and it’s intact. So,
from the spiritual side, we are one. And therefore, it behooves us to pursue a temporal expression of that
unity. So, I want to say at the very beginning that we must do everything we can to endeavor to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, right? We want to do everything possible we can to maintain
the unity of Christ.
It is, I believe, that unity that is crucial to our testimony. Jesus said, “By this will all men know that you
are my disciples, because you have love one for another”…as He told the disciples in John. So, let me
say that no one is a greater advocate of the unity of the body of Christ—the expressed unity of the body.
The body is one; we’ve all been baptized into one body, right? I Corinthians 12, “We’ve all been made
to drink of one spirit.” So, we are one in Christ. He that is joined in the Lord is one spirit. Everybody
who’s joined in the Lord is one with the Lord so everybody’s who’s joined to the Lord is one with each
other. That is a spiritual reality, and I believe, by the way, that in John 17, when Jesus prayed that they
may be one, that prayer is answered. It is answered in the spiritual unity of the church. I don’t think His
prayer was for ecumenicity. I think His prayer was for spiritual unity of the body of Christ, and I
think—and I know—his prayer was answered.
Now, to the issue at stake, the church has always struggled with unity—the apostle Paul struggled with it,
right? That’s why he wrote about unity, and that’s why he wrote Christians not to argue and quarrel and
abuse each other, but to love one another and to pursue unity on every front. But, as you’ve pointed out,
unity is not true unity at the expense of theology, true doctrine. And, to be honest with you, I don’t see
any great movement in the church today to bring together a visible unity around doctrine, around the
truth. I see an awful lot of effort to try to bring together a unity that doesn’t want to talk about the truth
because the truth divides. I think it’s such a remote possibility, because doctrine is such a remote issue.
I mean, how are we ever going to get a real unity when we don’t even want theology to be an issue. Not
only can’t we agree on doctrine, we can’t even agree doctrine is important.

Question
On the other hand, I’m not sure that you could ever create some kind of ecumenical unity in this temporal
life, but I can certainly be one with a brother or a sister in the body of Christ who has a different view. I
can express my love to them. I want to build on what we agree on, and if I happen to be, say, with
someone who’s convinced about the gifts of the Spirit differently than I am, I can choose not to make
that an issue of fellowship or of love or of ministry. I would definitely choose not to make that an issue.
However, if somebody is wrong about the Gospel, I will make that an issue. Or, if they are wrong about
the deity of Jesus Christ, I would make that an issue. Or, if they are wrong about issues of the
atonement, such as we were just discussing, I would make that an issue.
But again, I’ve never felt compelled to create an organization to make this happen. Here we are at
church like this. Now, just out of curiosity, how many of you come, say, from—well, let’s start with
what might be the largest group—a Baptist background, put your hand up. Ok, put them down. How
many of you come from a Presbyterian background? Ok, a few noble souls. How many of you come
from a Methodist background? How many of you come from a Lutheran background (probably more)?
Yeah. How many of you come from some kind of Independent background, that only you could define?
Ok. How many of you would come from a Roman Catholic background? Put your hands up. Or, how
many of you would come from a Jehovah’s Witnesses background? Anybody? Yes. How many from a
Mormon background?
You want to see unity in the body, there it is. Only, it’s around the truth. Now, to be honest, I can’t
orchestrate that where I have no influence. I can’t orchestrate that where there’s no agreement on truth,
but I’ll tell you what. If the Lord continues to bless our church and we keep sending out other men to
minister and other men to teach and preach the Word of God, we are affecting—by the lives that we train
and send out, the men and women that we send out to serve and minister and be pastors and leaders in
churches and missions around the world, we can find that kind of unity. And it does exist.
If I go to—in fact, I have to go to Russia; I think I may have mentioned that to you last Sunday. Did I
say that? Or, Ukraine rather. Because they had a meeting and Bob Provost called me and said, of
course, "Dokonchenko" (sp?) died two weeks ago and they lost their leader. So, when Bob Provost went
over there, they were all sitting at a table and they said to him, “We want John MacArthur to come.”
And he said, “He’s very busy,” and they said, “Yes, but he loves us and if he knows of our need, he’ll
come.” There is a bond between us—there’s nothing to create—and the bond is built upon a common
love for the truth, and it transcends this church, but there’s a common love of doctrine and a common
commitment to the Word of God that ties us with people beyond the people we have normal influence
with.
And I am not really concerned with trying to orchestrate some other kind of unity than that which is
organic unity built around the truth. I don’t really see that as happening much in the current picture in
the church, because the church has downplayed the role of doctrine to such a degree that if you bring it
up, you’re considered to be sort of anti-unity. Now, this week I got a request to go meet with some
people that I wouldn’t necessarily agree with doctrinally, but I know they love Christ and so I want to go
and I want to celebrate with them the unity that we share around those things where we commonly
believe. But, I certainly don’t want to create an artificial unity that wants to ignore doctrine.

Question
So, inevitably, when we meet, we’ll rejoice in the common faith and then we’ll discuss the differences.
As gentlemen in love, but we always wind up discussing those things because that’s the issue of
interpreting scripture. Good question. Thank you.
I wish we could say there was a real coming together in the unity of the church, but I see the church
getting fragmented. In fact, folks, you know, it’s funny, I write a book and I think, “Well, that has cover
that issue,” and before that book gets out, I have to write another one on another issue that’s fragmenting
the church—it just keeps breaking into so many pieces.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Unequally Yoked
Question
My question is about being unequally yoked. Some people have told me that this is talking
exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other
situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what
type of a guideline should I have if it is OK for me to have a business partnership with a non-
believer?
Answer
Well, this is a very, very important question. II Corinthians, chapter 6, is what you’re asking about. The
concept of "yoke" gives you the key, I think. You have to apply it yourself. I mean, there’s no hard and
fast rule. But a yoke was something that was put over two animals in a common enterprise, OK? Now,
what Paul says in II Corinthians 6:14 is “Do not be bound together with unbelievers. For what
partnership have righteousness and lawlessness? and what fellowship has light with darkness? And what
harmony has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? And what
agreement has the temple of God with idols?” Now, what it’s saying is if you are in the same yoke,
pulling the same plow down the same furrow; that is, you’re working side by side in the same enterprise,
and you’re yoked together with an unbeliever, you’ve got problems.
Truly, that would refer to marriage because there’s no firmer, stronger, more binding yoke than marriage,
right? If you go beyond that and you say, “What about a business partnership?” it would depend upon the
nature of that partnership. I mean, if, for example, there’s a limited partnership in buying a motel and
there’s ten guys buying into this deal and I’m one of ten, that’s one thing. Why, I’m investing. I might
put my money in a bank; that’s a form of partnership too, with other people. I don’t think that’s the issue
here. What is the issue here is linking up, side by side, under the same yoke, pulling the same furrow, in
the same direction. Now, that might mean a partnership in a common business where you’re working
side by side because you’re going to have problems.
The obvious meaning here, the most obvious meaning would be in some spiritual enterprise. I think that
that’s the primary thing. The primary thing is don’t ever link up with an unbeliever in a spiritual
enterprise. Does that make sense? People do it all the time, by the way, strange enough by taking money
and involvement with unbelievers. So the obvious thing, first of all, the obvious thing: "no" in marriage,
because that’s a believer and an unbeliever yoked. "No" in any common spiritual enterprise. And then
secondarily, be very careful if you’re pulling the same yoke, down the same furrow, in front of the same
plow, with an unbeliever because it’s inherent that there will be conflict because the standard by which

John MacArthur - Unequally Yoked
you operate is different. You have to make that judgment as to what the partnership involves. The Spirit
of God will lead you in that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Tape GC 70
Question
A couple of weeks ago, you were teaching in I Timothy, and you were teaching about widows. In
chapter 5, verses 9 and 10 it gives the qualifications for the "widows indeed"...or the requirements
for who may be on that list. It says in verse 10, "...if she has brought up children...", that
particular requirement...and I think you said something to the effect that this meant bearing and
rearing children. It's really a little confusing because, suppose that there is a lady that gets
married and cannot have children, so they decide to adopt a child and later on she becomes a
widow. She raised the child, but she couldn't have the child, would she be qualified to be on this
list?
Answer
Well, let me answer the question this way, by saying, what it says here, as I remember, "If she has raised
children or brought them up." The emphasis here of course, is for a very unique role in the church's
ministry. O.K., now you have to understand something very important, a "widow indeed," or a truly
bereft woman is to be cared for by the church, whatever might be her situation relative to children. In
other words, when you have a woman who has lost her husband, the word "widow" in the Greek
language has nothing to do with death, remember that? It has only to do with being bereft. It literally
can be translated, "having been left alone". So, a woman may lose her husband in many ways. Death,
desertion, divorce, separation, whatever. That woman, then needs to be cared for because God has not
designed women to care for themselves, but women to be under the care of a man. So, we said then that
women of any kind, who have no human resources, no husband, no brother, no man in the family who
would care for them, the church would care for them as well.
Now additionally, when it comes to verses 9 and 10, he is discussing what some have chosen to call a
semi-official function in the church, and that is, women over 60, who having lived their life to the glory
of God, and having exemplary testimonies, are called on to form a group of women for the purpose of
instruction, example and ministry to others in the church. Now, in no way does that official group limit
anyone elses service. It's just a unique group.
Now, I would go so far as to say, also, and I need to go back and check my notes to be specific, but when
it says in verse 10, she is to have a reputation for good works and to have raised children, the idea here is,
of course, if she is going to go out, like in Titus II and instruct younger women to love their husbands,
love their children, be keepers at home, etc, etc, chaste and all that, she is going to have to come from
that vantage point and that experience to have the credibility that it takes to get into that kind of
ministry.
So, I would say this, that if a woman, and I don't think the text forbids this, if a woman has raised
adopted children and she has proven herself to be a godly woman, I don't think she would be
disqualified. If a woman had never had children, or never raised children, then you can debate and argue
about whether they would qualify or not. The simple fact here says she is to have brought up children.
So I would say a woman who didn't bring up children, wouldn't qualify to be in this group, as I tried

Tape GC 70
point out in Titus II, because I think one of their primary roles was in helping younger women to know
how to handle children and the situation in the home. But that in no way eliminates or limits anybody's
ministry. I tried to say this when we were studying about elders. An elder is not better than, an elder is
not superior to, and elder simply has a unique function in the church. And I will be very honest with you
and say that there are many laymen across this nation, who are more affective at winning people to Jesus
Christ than many elders and pastors. There are some laymen who are more affective and more gifted
teachers of the Word of God than many pastors are, so we don't want to put some kind of premium on an
office in the church and make it a symbol of spiritual status or make it a sort of an elite group. If a
woman qualified to be in this kind of group to do this kind of ministry, so be it. If she didn't, then let her
minister in any other way where she was gifted, where she was experienced and where she could be used
by God. So let's not get this boxed in where we think people might be second class if they don't fit that
certain pattern.
Let me add a footnote to that. You know what it says in I Corinthians chapter 7, it talks about singleness
being to the glory of God. A person who is single has not the cares of this world and doesn't have to
worry about spouse and family and all of that, and is free to serve the Lord. So, we could just as well say
that a woman who never got married and never had children, never had a lot of the baggage that some of
the rest of us have had, that in many ways can limit the service that you can give to the Lord. So, we
don't want to under cut the fact that any person in any state, totally abandoned to the power of the spirit
of God and walking in obedience to God's holy will is going to be able to use to the maximum capacity
of their God given ability.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

How do I know the Will of God for my life? -- John MacArthur

Question
"How do I know the Will of God for my life?"
Answer
I had about ten people ask that. "How do I know the Will of God?" "I'm trying,
I'm praying, I'm asking how do I know if its me or if its God, and so forth and so
on?" How can I know the Will of God? I have a simple little formula, and if you
get this in your mind, I think it will help.
The first thing you do is to go to the Bible. Sound reasonable? You go to the
Bible and find out what the Will of God is. Good, let's look very quickly.
1Timothy, chapter 2, verses 3 and 4, and I will quote it from the King James
Version, verse 3 and 4, "God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved and
to come to the knowledge of the truth." The first thing that God wills, is that you
be what? Saved. You be saved. Do you want to do the will of God? Then get
saved, come to Christ.
Second thing, Ephesians chapter 5, verse 17, says, "So then, do not be," what?
What is it? "Foolish." Can you think of a word that means the same and starts
with "S"? Right. Don't be Stupid. "But understand what the will of the Lord is."
Now, let me ask you a question, if you don't know what the will of God is, what

are you? What are you? You say, "Is that in the Bible?" It says, "Don't be
stupid, know the will of God. If you don't know the will of God then you are
stupid. You say, "Well, now wait a minute, it should say, 'Don't be foolish, but
try to find the will of God.’" No. You say, "I'm looking, I'm looking."
Well, don't look too far its in the next verse, "Do not get drunk with wine for that
is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit." The first thing God wills is that you
be saved, the second thing He wills is that you be Spirit filled.
"Spirit filled," what does that mean? Controlled by the Holy Spirit. That's God's
will. That's God's will. 1Thessalonians, chapter 4, verse 3, you know it is
amazing to me, people running around looking for God's will. I have seen this
through the years, "You know I am trying to find God's will. I am searching for
God's will, you know." And they get real mystical, they think they are going to
run down the street, slip on a banana peel and land on a map of Argentina. You
know, that's a missionary call. They are waiting for God to say something out of
heaven.
Look, verse 3, "This is the will of God, your," what? "Sanctification." God wills
that you be saved; God wills that you be Spirit filled; God wills that you be
sanctified. What do you mean by that? "That you abstain from," what? "Sexual
immorality." That's God's will. Stay away from sexual immorality.
You see God's will is very, very specific. Look at 1Peter, chapter 2, verse 13,
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake, to every human institution, whether to a
King as one in authority, or to governors as sent by Him for the punishment of
evil doers, and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God, that
by doing right, you may silence the ignorance of foolish men."
Fourth thing, be submissive. Submit to the authorities, be a model citizen, do

right, that's the will of God, that's the will of God. Very basic, that's God's will.
God's will is that you be saved; God's will is that you be Spirit filled; God's will is
that you be sanctified; God's will is that you be submissive.

And then would you notice in chapter 3, verse 17, "It is better, if God should will
it so, that you suffer, for doing for what is right." How committed are you to
doing what is right?
Five things, Saved; Spirit filled; Sanctified; Submissive; willing to Suffer for
doing what is right. You say, "That doesn't help me to know God's will." Sure it
does. Let me tell you something. If you are saved, Spirit-filled, sanctified,
submissive, and doing right to the degree that you would even suffer, do you
know what the next step in God's will is? Whatever you want!
You say, "You are kidding." No, because, who is controlling your desires? Do
you know what it says in Psalm 37:4? "Delight in the Lord, and he will give
you," what? "The desires of your heart." Do you know what that means? That
doesn't mean, "Delight in the Lord, and he will give you what you want." What it
means is, "Delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart."
He will put His desires in your heart.
People say, "Well, why did you go to Grace Church?" And I say, "I wanted too."
"Oh! You wanted too! That's not very Spiritual." Well, it is if you are saved,
Spirit-filled, sanctified, submissive, and suffering, because who is in control of
my wants? God leads through your desire, beloved. But don't trust you desire
unless the things you know of God's will are true.
Simply, this is the system: If I am doing what is already revealed as God's will,
then I am not going to have any trouble with the part that isn't revealed. Right?
He's going to lead me to the right place; lead me to the right people; lead me to
the right relationship.
Guys always say, "How do I find the right wife?" Very simple, be the right
husband. You be all that God has called you to be, you be living in the will of
God, saved, Spirit-filled, sanctified, submissive, suffering if need be for what is
right, and if you are the person that God has designed you to be then God will

lead you the next step and give you the desire of your heart for the woman that he
wants you to marry.
God moves through desires in the heart of the person that is committed to Him.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
Could you please tell me how we can each know what God's special plan is in our lives, in terms of how
we can use our talents, or how we know when we are using them in the right direction?
Answer
Well, I think that it is simple to answer that by saying, "Walk in the Spirit and He will lead you where
you need to be." I never plan too far ahead. I just think that we live in the present tense. The only thing
I know about even my own ministry is that I want to do today what God has lays upon my heart to do. I
kind of lean on a verse, and you know it, I am sure, very well, "Delight in the Lord and He will give you
the desire of your heart." I really do believe that part of spiritual life (I don't want to over-simplify the
situation) but, a great part of our spiritual life can be reduced to that principle of Psalm 37:4, it is down to
the fact that if I delight in the Lord then He is going to fill my heart with desire, and He is going to fulfill
those desires.
When it comes to, "How do you know your gift?" Don't go to a computer and try to figure out your gift.
Don't go to an analysis. When you are walking in the Spirit--what do you like to do? And when you
walk in the Spirit and you do what you like to do--what kind of response do you get? If I said, "I'm in the
spirit and I want to preach. Boy, I just want to teach God's Word, and study God's Word." That would
be the way God expressed that through me. Now, on the other hand I want to be sure that everybody
agrees. I could say, "Boy, I am gifted to teach, I'm gifted to preach," and everybody out there saying,
"Mercy, mercy, shut him up--get him out." So, you want to have a confirmation on that.
But, I really believe that if you walk in the Spirit, and you let the Spirit control your life, that the gifts
that He has given you and the ministry that He has placed before you will flow and it will
happen. Expose yourself to as much opportunity as you can and see where the Spirit of God directs your
willing heart.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - The Will of God
Question
If everything happens in the will of God, then why do people say, when you’re doing something
wrong, “Oh, that’s not in the will of God; that’s not the will for your life”…if everything is in
God’s will?
Answer
The answer to the question is that you have to distinguish between God’s will, in the sense of what He
permits, and God’s will, in the sense of what He desires, and God’s will, in the sense of what He loves or
what is a reflection of His pure, holy will. In other words, let’s go through those three.
There is that big, large category of things that are the will of God only in the sense that He permits them.
We just talked about one, where God, for His own purposes, allows Satan to cause David to number
Israel. Or God allows Satan to tempt Eve in the garden or God allows Satan to tempt Christ or God
allows Satan to tempt us. There are calamities that are the result of sin and fallenness. There is even
eternal hell. In the big scheme of things, God wills (in a general sense) that those things happen. But only
in the sense of allowing them. He gives a certain latitude, a certain space, a certain freedom to mankind
to function within his fallenness and He wills that sinners have the liberty to express their sin, and also
wills that, in the end, they will be judged. That is His broad will.
Secondly, there is a narrower sense in which God permits certain things that don’t reflect His righteous
nature, but they achieve His righteous purpose. And we just had an illustration of that. God allows or
permits, specifically, Satan to cause a numbering in Israel that produces the need to judge, which God--
or, the occasion to judge--which God had already planned to do. So, there are things in a narrower sense
which, though they are sinful in themselves and do not express His righteous will, He uses for His own
ends. For example, God allows believers to be persecuted. You could ask, “Is it God’s will that Church
be persecuted? Is it God’s will that Christians be martyred? Is it God’s will that the apostles be killed? Is
it God’s will that Paul had his head cut off and Peter be crucified upside down? Is it God’s will that
missionaries be boiled in a pot and eaten by cannibals? Is it God’s will that they be massacred?” Etc., etc.
Well, in a sense--more than just the general sense that God tolerates evil--there is the secondary sense
that God permits certain things, sinful things that happen to His people because they perfect their faith,
because they strengthen the church, because they allow the believer to be stronger and more effective.
And the great illustration of that, of course, is Peter in Luke 22. Jesus says to Peter, “Satan desires to
have you, that he might sift you like wheat” and you know, if you were Peter, you’re going to say, “Well,

John MacArthur - The Will of God
you told him no, right? You told him he couldn’t have me?” And the Lord says, “No, I told him yes,
because after he’s sifted you, you will be able to strengthen the brethren.” In other words, “there will be
an impact in your life. You’ll be stronger spiritually because of what you’ve suffered through this
defection and this denial. And I’m going to let Satan do this to you because I know the end result is going
to be great strength.” And, it was in the case of Peter.
The same is true of Paul in II Corinthians 12, where Paul has a thorn in the flesh, a messenger from
Satan, an angel from Satan: a demon, and this demon is tearing up the Corinthian church and Paul says,
“This is greatly disturbing.” So, three times he prays that the Lord will remove that demon, the Lord
would stop that disaster going on in the Corinthian church, and the Lord never does it because the Lord
says, “It’s in your weakness, and it’s in your humbling that you become strong.” So, there is a category
where God allows sinful things to happen to His people because there is a strengthening and there’s a
deepening and there’s an elevating of their spiritual capacities by that.
And then, thirdly, there is that will of God, which is the perfect and precise reflection of His holy
character. And that is always righteous and holy and good. So, it is too general to say everything is God’s
will if you mean by that, everything is a direct expression of His holy nature--it isn’t. There are many
things that He allows, in the broad sense of allowing sinners to sin, there are some things that He allows
in the life of a believer that in themselves are sinful, but produce righteous ends. And then there is that
specific expression of His will, which, in fact, is righteousness itself. And when the Bible talks about
doing the will of God from the heart, to believers, what it means is He wants you to behave in a manner
that is consistent with His own righteous nature. That is, He wants you to do what is holy and righteous.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - God's Will
Question
How does a person making decisions know what is the will of God?
Answer
The will of God is not meant to be a secret we must uncover. God wants us to understand His will far
more than we want to understand it. He always makes His will clear to those who seek it with an
obedient heart.
Most of the real problem areas in the question of God's will are settled for us in Scripture. The Bible
reveals that it is God's will for all of us to be:
Saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9)

Spirit-filled (Ephesians 5:17-18)
Sanctified (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7)
Submissive (1 Peter 2:13-15)
Suffering ( Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 3:12)
If all those things are true in your life, you may do whatever you want. Psalm 37:4 says, "Delight
yourself in the Lord; and He will give you the desires of your heart." That means that if you are
conforming to God's will in all the five ways listed above, He will place in your heart desires that reflect
His will. So do what you want to do!
I have written a little book on this subject called, Found: God's Will, available from Chariot-Victor.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-Godswill.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:57 AM]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-Godswill.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:57 AM]

Question
How can I make decisions consistent with God's will for my life?
Answer
Decision-making can be a daunting task for anyone, but Christians have the unique advantage of making
decisions that are informed by God's Word. To do so, there are at least three factors to consider.
First, you must obey the moral will of God as it is revealed in Scripture. If Scripture prohibits the action
in question, your decision is easy: don't do it. Likewise, if one of the options in your choice causes you to
neglect something God specifically commands you to do, you are required to make the choice that will
allow you to fulfill your biblical obligation. For example, if God requires you to be an active part of a
local church-Hebrews 10:25 indicates that He does-any decision that prohibits you from that is against
God's revealed will. In order to uphold God's moral will in your decision making, ask yourself, "What
does God's Word say about it?" If it says anything, obey that (1 John 5:3). If it says nothing, you have
freedom and do not need to fear missing God's will or sinning against Him (Romans 14:2-6, 22).
Second, good decision making requires that you exercise biblical wisdom. Such wisdom comes from a
diligent study of God's Word, coupled with God's generous provision. James encourages those who lack
wisdom to "ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to
him" (James 1:5). To make wise decisions, you need to gather necessary information, consider all the
options carefully, seek godly counsel, and then choose the option that seems the best rationally (Proverbs
2:1-11).
Finally, you need to consider your own desire. If the Bible is silent about your decision, and if one choice
is not clearly wiser than the other, then do what you want. You have the freedom to do so, and God
sovereignly works out His plan through your desires (Psalm 37:4; Philippians 2:13).
The above process presupposes that you are submitted to Christ and filled with the Spirit. Otherwise you
won't be able to make biblical decisions, as sin blinds your ability to understand and apply God's Word to
your life. However, if you do have a vital relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are walking in the
Spirit-as opposed to the flesh-you are free to make decisions so long as they don't violate God's revealed
(moral) will. You shouldn't be concerned that your decisions will somehow derail God's sovereign will
for your life, because He routinely works through your decisions to accomplish what He purposes.
Tony Capoccia
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-godswill2.htm (1 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:59 AM]


Box 119
Online since 1986
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-godswill2.htm (2 of 2) [5/21/2002 9:23:59 AM]

Question
Can you elaborate on your principles for knowing exactly where God wants us and some patterns maybe
we can follow to find that out for sure?
Answer
It goes back to this idea of desire. What is the thing you most want to do? You know, if you had your
choice which would you do? If you don't know which you would do, just do something. Just don't do
nothing, you know. Make any choice at that point and let God lead you in it.
Personally, I think I would probably choose whichever of the two appeared to be the more difficult.
That's just a personal feeling. Believing that...that the greater the challenge, the more it will demand of
me and the more it demands of me the better success it's going to be. I find that usually when I choose
the easiest of two things that I've chosen for the wrong reason. That's not always true, but...the most
difficult thing. I don't know how to answer that other than to say I don't believe the Holy Spirit wants a
Christian in limbo and I believe that the Holy Spirit will show you the right thing.
Do you feel that perhaps He would be leading you through a period of indecision, perhaps to test your
faith and to show you to trust Him completely?
Answer (continued)
Sure, there are times like that. Sure. No question about that.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question
I always hear that God helps those who help themselves and like you mentioned, you ought to do
something, you shouldn't just be in limbo. How do you draw the line between the point where you are
doing something that God can work on and where you're doing so much that it shows that you really
don't have faith that He's going to answer your prayer?
Answer
That's a very difficult question because I think it would be different in the life of every individual. You
know, again we go back to the simple things: the only thing you can do in your life, and you can't get too
analytical. I say this so often. We all get analytical. Am I doing too much of this? Is this the Holy Spirit?
Is this me? Who is doing this? Is this the devil? Is this God? All this stuff. If we would just walk in the
Spirit, study the Word of God, commune with the Father, and just do and not analyze, we'd be a lot better
off. Just accept what's happening and don't...don't chastise yourself over the idea that, "Oh, it's probably
me and not God doing this," just be doing this. And as long as your conscience is clear and your heart is
pure before God, don't be concerned with that. You know, it's like losing yourself in the pursuit of Christ
and let everything else take its place.
I was speaking the other day at a place where they train psychologists. And I was talking about the fact,
to the student body, that one of the things that really disturbs me is that psychology so often just takes a
person inside and leaves them there. And their whole life is absorbed with themselves. And the
debilitating aspects of their own self destroys the possibility of ever growing out of that. And you've got
to turn people outside, focus on an external thing, the reality of Christ over here and just follow that and
don't be analytical. Because your own mind is not regenerated fully, you still have a mind that's confused
by sin and you can't really make those evaluations. So don't let that be a struggle. Now that may sound
vague but maybe it answers what you're thinking.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Online since 1986

Question I have been reading
Question
I have been reading, or I have read in the past where Spurgeon, and Luther, and Whitfield were all
drinkers--they were all imbibers of the "Fruit of the Vine," if you will. And, I have always been
taught to pattern my life after godly men and so on. My question is, and I have heard a lot of. . .
.heard this and that about what you believe on this issue. I would like you to answer the question in
light of this, and that is, Psalm 104 and Deuteronomy 28, and Proverbs 3, all talk about wine, and it
is the context of a blessing, and the way that I understand it, is that the same Hebrew word in
Psalm 104 and Proverbs 3 and Deuteronomy 28, that same Hebrew word is the same Hebrew word
used for the wine that Noah drank and that Lot drank. So you are reading and think, "Aw, that's
grape juice," and you would throw it out, but the way I understand it, at least the way that I do, is
that it is wine--it's real wine, and it is a blessing, and it is from God, "And wine makes glad the
heart of man and God."
Where do you stand on the wine issue and why?
Answer
First of all, I don't know about Spurgeon, Whitfield, and who else? I don't know what the source is, and I
don't know how accurate it is. I don't know what they [Spurgeon, Luther, and Whitfield] did, but what
they did was between them and the Lord and their understanding.
Personally, there is a lot involved in this--let me see if I can give you just a couple of brief statements.
First of all, I don't drink wine. I don't drink anything with alcohol in it. The simple reason is--I don't need
to, so why would I put myself in a position to be controlled by something, when it is not necessary. In
other words, I live in a culture where it doesn't have to be that way. The reason that there are so many
strong warnings about drunkenness in the Bible is because they were living in a society where everybody
drank the "fruit of the vine," and without refrigeration process everything fermented. So in Biblical
times, when you talk about wine, you are not talking about grape juice, all of it would have been wine, in
effect, because it wouldn't take very long for it to ferment. So the process of fermentation (and I don't
want to go into all of this) and the process of purging and separating out the vinegar and pouring it from
bag to bag, to bag, to bag, and all of that (bags of skin) to get as pure a wine as possible did not preclude
the fact that it could be alcoholic.
But the best indications and the best evidence continues to be that there were two kinds of drinks: one
was called "strong drink" and one was "wine," and you will see those two distinguished words in the Old
Testament. "Strong drink" was unmixed, and "strong drink" is not commended. "Wine" was mixed,
"strong drink" unmixed, and the mixture of wine with water was the common means of dilution of the

alcohol so that that which had to be drunk would not make you drunk. Now, if you are living in a culture
like Palestine where it is hot, and you have this very dry and arid kind of climate, obviously there would
be a major thirst problem, and if you are working in the heat of the day and you just keep drinking
straight wine all day because you can't drink water because there were not the purification processes
necessary. . . .In those days, bodies of water tended to be bodies of sewage as well, and they had
problems with that.
The mixture of water with wine did two things: One, it diluted the wine, and two, it also purified the
water because the alcoholic content of the wine would act in a disinfectant way on the water to purge it
from whatever might be there. So it was common, and you can check all kinds of historical sources on
this--the best one was an article in CT a number of years ago on this very issue [Christianity Today], in
which the historical data was pretty well pulled together and the resource material was given. But the
bottom line was they mixed their wine, anywhere from 3:1, 4:1 to 8:1, so that it was greatly diluted, so
that you could not hold enough of that liquid to be drunk. But the warnings against drunkenness are
repeated in the Old Testament and the New Testament because it was so easy to fall into that
pattern, because basically that was all you could drink--the "fruit of the vine." There was, I supposed
what we would call, "artificial drinks," you know, there were no "Coca Colas" and "7 Ups" and that kind
of thing.
So, I believe that out of necessity they would drink real wine which would ferment, but they would mix it
with water so that it would not be full strength. After all, a glass of wine has the same basic alcohol
content as a can of beer, which has basically the same alcohol content as a shot of whiskey. The reason
you get drunk faster on whiskey is because you can consume so much more of it than you can the volume
even of wine or of beer.
I believe what the Scripture was indicating was that you want to avoid anything that can have an undue
influence on you. Certainly drinking mixed wine for the quenching of your thirst, and drinking a
pleasurably tasting drink would bring pleasure, would bring joy to you and joy to God, just as God would
rejoice when you ate the food that He created in the world. But I don't think that there was any joy on the
heart of God, at all, for a person who drank something that affected their thinking. That is really made
clear in Proverbs 31 where He says, look when it comes to the role of leadership, spiritual leadership,
there has to be a different standard. It says in verse 4, "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to
drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink, lest they drink and forget what is decreed, and pervert the
rights of all the wicked. Give strong drink to somebody who is perishing."
Give strong drink to somebody who in such physical pain they need some atheistic. And give wine to one
whose life is bitter. Not to get him drunk, but to give him a little of the joy of what God has provided in
the good things of life.
So when you come to the New Testament it talks about Elders and Deacons. It says an elder, well, let me
just point you to the text, 1 Timothy 3, and it says that, "he is not addicted to wine," or "not to be beside
wine." That is true of an elder; that is true of a deacon--he is not someone who is beside wine--who sits
and consumes wine, for obvious reasons, because in positions of spiritual leadership it would be too easy
to become skewed in your judgment.

So I think that God knew the danger of it; the system of mixing it with water took care of that danger, but
we live in a time when wine is not mixed today and can cloud someone's thinking and someone's
judgment, and I don't want to have part in anything that does that.
Furthermore, the principle of Romans 14 and 15 enters in. I don't want to do anything in my life that
makes somebody else stumble, and I will tell you right now, if I drank wine, a lot of people would say,
"John MacArthur drinks wine--I can drink wine," and they would become alcoholics and destroy their
lives. I don't want to set that kind of pattern.
So I think from the standpoint of making sure you don't set a pattern that others follow and stumble, that
I would abstain from that as well. That's my own position.
Recently, somebody at a certain institution in this country announced to the students that they don't think
John MacArthur drinks, but a lot of his staff members do--a lot of the pastors do. I would just affirm to
you that none of our pastors or elders do. We collectively take the same position on that. So in case
anybody wonders about that--that is the case. So I hope that gives you a little bit of input into that.
If you saw somebody drinking wine, you couldn't actually point your finger at them, if they are
drinking it in moderation, you couldn't point your finger at them saying, "You're in sin." Is that
correct? Because, it was diluted--it had some alcohol in it, so obviously you can't say somebody is
in sin for drinking some alcohol because they did it then, if they are doing that in moderation now.
Answer (Continued)
I think there are compelling reasons not to do it. I wouldn't say that if a person happens to drink a little
wine that they have committed some kind of sin, unless they have done that knowing that someone
seeing that would stumble. But I think the greater part of discretion is abstinence--that's the better
judgment.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986


Question: What is the right Christian stand on drinking? -- John MacArthur
Question
What is the right Christian stand on drinking?
Answer
What about drinking? Well, the Bible says so much about that and I’ve said it all
in the past. Recently, a new article came out that I thought was very, very
interesting. It was in Christianity Today and I thought I’d give you some
thoughts from it that were very helpful. Written by Robert Stein, it says this
(among other things): “The wine of the Bible was not unfermented grape juice.
Yes, it was different from the wine of today.” What he means by that is some
people would say, “Well, the wine Jesus drank wasn’t fermented.” Of course it
was fermented. How could they keep it from being fermented? But it was
different from today.
Listen: “In ancient times, wine was usually stored in large pointed jugs called
amphorae. When wine was to be used, it was poured from the amphorae into
large bowls called craters where it was mixed with water. From the kraters, cups
or kylixs were then filled. What is important for us to note is that before wine
was ever drunk, it was mixed with water. The kylixs were filled, not from the
amphorae, but from the kraters. The ratio of water to wine varied. Homer
mentions a ratio of 20:1”—twenty parts water to one part wine. “In ancient
works, Athenaeus, The Learned Banquet written to AD 200, we find in book 10 a
collection of statements from earlier writers about drinking practices. A
quotation from a play by Aristophanes reads, ‘Here, drink this also: mingle three
and two.’ Demus (sp.) says, ‘Zeus, but it’s sweet and bears the three parts well!’
So here again is an indication of history that it was always mixed. There are
mentions of everything from 2:1 to 20:1. Now sometimes in history, the ratio of

mixing water to wine goes down to 1:1 and when it does, it is not called wine, but
it is called ‘strong drink.’” This is important. “Drinking wine unmixed, on the
other hand, was looked upon as a ‘Scythian’ or barbarian custom.
“Athenaeus, in his work, quotes Mnesitheus of Athens, and this is what he says:
‘The gods have revealed wine to mortals to be the greatest blessing for those who
use it right, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse, for it gives food
to them that take it and strength in mind and body and medicine that is
beneficial. It can be mixed with liquid and drugs and bring aid to the wounded.
In daily life, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer. But if
you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get
madness! Unmixed, bodily collapse!’
“From these incidents in history, it is evident that wine was seen in ancient times
as a medicine or a solvent for medicines, and, of course, as a beverage! Yet, as a
beverage, it was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch says, ‘We call a
mixture wine, although the larger of the components is water!’ The ratio of water
might vary, but only barbarians drank it unmixed, and the mixture of wine and
water of equal parts was called ‘strong drink’ and frowned on. The term wine (or
‘oinos’ in the ancient world) then did not mean wine as we understand it today,
but wine mixed with water! In fact, when it was unmixed, they used the term
‘achratestaron,’ (sp.) which meant ‘unmixed wine.’”
Barbarians drank that, people who wanted to play around with the edges drank
1:1, but people who had sense and propriety always drank it mixed. Even the
Bible makes the distinction: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, ‘Drink no
wine nor strong drink,” and there’s the differentiation, “when you go to the tent of
the meeting.”
Well, there you can see people, the safest and easiest method of making water
safe to drink was mixing it with wine, which acted a purifier. But the wine was
always safely diluted. To say, “Because they drank wine in Bible times, I am free
to drink it today” is to miss the point. They drank it diluted because it purified
the water. In fact, in the early church an interesting note: unmixed wine was

found unacceptable. Always it had to be mixed with water.
I think that’s interesting. To consume the amount of alcohol, listen, that is in two
martinis, by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, you
would have to drink 22 glasses. In other words, it is possible to become
intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts of water, but one’s drinking would
probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind. That’s pretty clear,
isn’t it?
People, what it means is this: nobody drank strong drink unless they were
considered a barbarian. That just adds to the things we’ve already said in the past
about it. I hope that’s helpful.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a friend who, when the Jehovah Witnesses come or the Mormons, says,
"Close the door, don't let them in--hide!" And I have another friend, that when
the Mormons come or the Jehovah Witnesses, she says [to them], "You are false
teachers; you are liars; you are going to hell. Repent from your sins. Get away!
I don't want to listen to you; I don't want to talk to you." My question is, should
we be bold to these people [or hide]?
Answer
I think it depends who you are talking to. I have done all of those and more. I've
invited them in and tried to love them and sit them down, and I guess, maybe, you
sort of experiment with them. And I've labeled them that way, I've said, "You
false prophet; you viper; you wolf; you whatever bound for hell," and I've given
them the whole prophetic shot. I mean, I have done that.
I remember there was a guy in our church who got ripped off by the Mormons
and I went over to the house because somebody told me the Mormon Bishops
were at his house; so I went to his house. I just decided that I would make a whip
and throw everybody out, in effect. I just really told them what they were; and I
hope that I did it at that time--I thought that the Spirit was leading me to do that--
but at the time I thought that I wanted to impress upon their minds so
unforgettably how serious their error was, their damning heresy, that I wanted to
speak to them in terminology that the rest of their lives they would never forget.
To plant in their minds this lingering reality that this might be true.
I guess the one thing I don't want to do is to give them even a small sense of
acceptance. I can also understand the "lock the door; turn out the lights and hide"
Question
approach, because there are times when you just don't want to get into the
situation.
So again, I don't know that there is any right answer on that. As I said earlier,
obviously the best thing to do might be to first of all, try to negotiate an
opportunity, and if there is no opportunity there and they are completely closed
(this would be my approach), and you can't negotiate the opportunity to
communicate the truth to them, at that particular point, with graciousness you
might want to tell them the truth about what they are. I think that they need to
know that.
You take a young vulnerable (you know they usually come in pairs: one is a
strong one and one is a weak one)--you take that young person and literally put
fear in them with the right kind of Biblical picture of a false teacher and it can
have a profound effect and a very unsettling effect, and it is certainly a method
that our Lord used.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Question
I would like to ask a question of Luke 8:16-18, "Now no one, after lighting a lamp, covers it over
with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, in order that those who
come in may see the light. For nothing is hidden, that shall not become evident; nor anything
secret, that shall not be known and come to light. Therefore take care how you listen: for whoever
has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be
taken away from him." What does it mean?
Answer
I tell you it is a great, great parable. Very simply, when a guy lights a lamp he puts it out where it can be
seen--he doesn't hide it, he sets it on a lamp stand. I think, in a sense, what you have here is the Lord, and
you and I are kind of like the lamps, and He lights us. Some day He is going to put us on display--the
Lord didn't light our lamp to hide us, the Lord lit our lamp to put us on display. It may not be here that
we show who we really are, but it will be there and that is verse 17, "nothing is secret that shall not be
made manifest, neither anything hidden that shall not be known and come to light."
What happened to the early church; what happened to the early believers; what happened to the Apostles
was the world didn't know who they were, and He says, "the day is going to come when the light is going
to show and the world is going to see." It is the same thing He says in the tenth chapter of Matthew, He
uses the very same terminology, the very same illustrations basically, He says, "The world may hate you
now and the world may persecute you now, but don't fear that, because the day is going to come when
the Lord is going to reverse everything and the secrets are going to be made known," which means that
the lights are going to get turned on; the world is going to see who the shining lights are, that God has lit,
and the people who are to be blessed and who are to be rewarded. "Everything is going to come to be
known," verse seventeen, and verse eighteen, so you better listen very carefully, because if you try to get
it all now, you know, for it says, "whosoever has," if you have it now, if you have a relationship with the
Lord now, if you are lit now your light is going to get brighter, and if you don't have the light now it is
going to be just as black then, only blacker.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119

Question

Online since 1986

Question
Question
I have a question in relation to Ezekiel, chapter three, God appoints Ezekiel as a watchman over
the House of Israel, and He says in verses 18 and 19, "When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely
die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may
live, that wicked man shall die in his inequity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you
have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself."
My question is, "If what way or any are these verses applicable to modern day believers in relation
to our responsibility to tell unbelievers about the Gospel?"
Answer
You have to go on, I think it is the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, where I think all that is kind of
"flattened out" and you have individual responsibility advocated there very strongly. Let me just put it
this way, a prophet of God stood in a very unique relationship to God, and with high, high, high privilege
comes high, high, high responsibility. It would be much more like James 3:1 than any other thing, where
it says, "Stop being so many teachers, for theirs is a greater condemnation." The more ministry you bite
off, the more accountable you are. That's like Hebrews 13:17 says, "Submit yourselves to those who have
the rule over you because they have to give an account for what they do. In other words, when you run
real fast to get in the ministry, you better stop and realize what's involved.
Here you have a very unique and very special and very personal thing: God says to Ezekiel, "You are a
prophet, you're anointed by me, you are called by me to a unique office--you better be faithful to that
office or you will be required to pay a price. I don't think that he would have lost his salvation, I just
think he would have demonstrated unfaithfulness and been severely chastened by God. Now, that is not
something that can be extrapolated out of that thing and applied to every believer, as if to say that the
blood of every unbeliever who dies and goes to hell, that we might have witnessed to, is on our hands. I
think that it is a completely different situation. I think that you will never find anywhere in Scripture that
I am responsible for somebody else's lostness. The only thing I find in Scripture is I am responsible to be
obedient to the Lord to take the message to everyone. If I was responsible for somebody being lost then I
ought to go to hell, but every person is responsible, and that is in the eighteenth chapter and he clarifies
that there, so that where we all fit together is different from where a distinct prophet of God fits in his
relationship to God.

Question
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Witnessing
Question
My girlfriend came by the other week and we went into a shop. As usual, we were talking about the
Lord and stuff and the guy came up that owned the shop and he said, you know, “What are you
talking about?” and we said, “Well, we’re talking about Jesus Christ. Do you know him?” And this
gentleman was in--I guess it’s a cult called “Est”--and, I mean, it was like talking to a wall.
Well, we would talk to him and he would--this is a stained glass shop--and he’d say, “Well, that’s
what you say, but touch this,” so we’d touch the stained glass. “This is real.” So we were trying to
tell him about the Word of God and that it was real. “Well, that’s what you say. The only thing
that’s real is what I can touch.” I guess my question is, when you’re talking to people, trying to
witness to people like that, you know, what can you do?
Answer
Well, I think the issue is always Jesus Christ. You know, let’s not talk about stained glass; let’s talk about
Jesus Christ. Do you know who Jesus Christ is? Have you studied the life of Christ? You see, Jesus
Christ said that every man who believes in him is bound for heaven and every man who rejects him is
bound eternally for hell. Now, when He said something like that, that is pretty serious. He says He is the
determiner of every man’s eternal destiny. If He’s right, if He’s right…let’s just assume He may be right:
you better check into that. If He’s wrong, you ought to study it too because then you can eliminate that
option.
In other words, the issue is always Jesus Christ! I don’t care who you’re talking to; you could be talking
to all these cults and "isms" and "schisms" and "spasms" and all these "yogis" and it doesn’t matter what
it is! And you always want to come back to Christ: who is Christ, who is Christ?
But he would say, “Well, that’s what you would say.” That’s what he kept coming back with.
Answer (continued)
But still you plant the seed! The issue is Jesus Christ and the claims of Jesus Christ. See, his thing--"Est,"
Werner Erhard… Werner Erhar isn’t even the guy’s name; the guy’s name is, [John Paul (Jack)
Rosenberg]. But he took this exotic German name and he has all these people go to these big seminars

John MacArthur - Witnessing
and spill their anxieties and scream at each other, stamp their feet and yell and claw and get out all their
inhibitions and do whatever they want--it’s just total liberation, total freedom. Spill your guts, scream, do
what you like, and then you go away and you’re supposed to have solved your problems.
So, it’s totally humanistic, totally self-centered. It isn’t even a religion in the sense that it has any
particular dogma.
It is a religion in the sense that it worships man. But it doesn’t have any god, as such; man is god. So,
what you want to do with someone like that is confront them with Jesus Christ. My approach to that is,
“Have you read the Bible? Before you criticize the claims of Christ, you probably ought to know what
they are." Put the burden of proof on him. Make him feel guilty for not doing it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Is it safe to say when you are witnessing to people to say that Christianity is not a religion
Question
Is it safe to say when you are witnessing to people to say that Christianity is
not a religion, that religion is man trying to make himself presentable to God
through his own means and his own actions and Christianity is a relationship
with God, having no confidence in the flesh and putting all of your faith,
hope and trust in Jesus Christ, Who was God in human flesh?
Answer
Sounds good to me! (laughter from audience) I don’t like to use the word religion
for Christianity, because I think that washes it off with everything else.
Tony Capoccia
Box 314
Online since 1986

Question
I’ve been involved in a couple of Bible studies where women have ended up sharing throughout the
time, so I did some studies on it. I was reading the MacArthur I Corinthians commentary and I
came to a sentence that I wanted you to clarify for me. It says, “There are times in informal
meetings and Bible studies where it is entirely proper for men and women to share equally in
exchanging questions and insights.”
Answer
Well, I think that’s exactly right. If you read in the book of Acts--I mean, I would hate to have a Bible
study with my wife and her never say anything. She has so much to bring to the discussion. I think the
key New Testament illustration is the illustration of Aquila and Priscilla in the Book of Acts. There was a
man named Apollos and Apollos was a great preacher of the Old Testament. But, Apollos was
uninformed about Christ. It says in 18:24, he was a “certain Jew named Apollos, born in Alexandria”--
eloquent man, mighty in the scriptures--he “came to Ephesus… He had been instructed in the way of the
Lord, fervent in spirit; he spoke and taught accurately the things of God, though he knew only the
baptism of John.” His whole theology ended with John the Baptist; he didn’t get to the Messiah. He
“spoke boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila”--that’s Mr.--“and Priscilla”--that’s Mrs.--“heard him,
they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
Here is a husband and wife taking home not just any “yahoo” off the street--this is a great, eloquent, Old
Testament theologian and preacher. They sit him down, no doubt over bagels or whatever--no, these are
Greeks--they sit him down over whatever Greeks ate…Baklava, is that what it is? And they explained to
him the truth. So, I think that’s entirely right and that’s what should happen in a Bible study and it should
happen in times of fellowship with men and women. There is no male or female in the body of Christ;
we’re only talking about the limitation that’s imposed upon the church in its due course of worship,
where women are not to take authority and they are not to preach and teach--that’s explicitly taught in I
Timothy 2 and it’s reinforced in I Corinthians, chapter 11. But as far as the Spirit of God working in the
hearts of women, and as far as the spirit of God teaching them and instructing them and guiding them in
the grasp of Scripture and through the work in their lives, and them making a contribution to Christian
fellowship and mutual study of the Word of God, I think that is absolutely essential to the growth of the
body of Christ.

And when would be a church circumstance?
Answer (continued)
Well, I think when the church comes together… You have I Timothy--this is in I Timothy 2--I Timothy
is designed (the third chapter gives the purpose of the book: to teach people how they ought to behave in
the church)… So when you come into the worship of the church, and it’s leading the church--to take
leadership in the church, and preaching and teaching--that’s reserved for men because that’s reserved for
the elders and elders are men, clearly by qualification I Timothy 3, Titus, chapter 1. Anything outside
that official service of the church is merely a matter of Christian fellowship and sharing in the scriptures.
There is no limitation on the participation of women.
So, if there aren’t elders, then it’s okay?
Answer (continued)
Well, even if there are, it’s okay. I mean, everywhere I go, there’s an elder present, but if I want to have a
Bible study, I want women to participate; I want them to share the things that they’re learning, give
testimony to the work of Christ in their life, testimony to their understanding of Scripture… I don’t think
there’s any restriction on the informal, normal fellowship in the life of the body of Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Women Preachers in Pentecostal Churches
Question
Would you tell me why the Pentecostal churches use women pastors?
Answer
There are a lot of churches that have women pastors; that is not just the Pentecostal churches. I’m sure
you well know that there are women pastors in the Methodist church, there are women pastors in the
Presbyterian church, there are women pastors in the Episcopalian church, there are women pastors in the
Baptist church--I think the American Baptist church has ordained some women--there are a number of
churches that would have women ordained.
Why do they do that? Well, there are a number of reasons. Some are historical: the Pentecostal church,
from its inception almost, has had women pastors because in the main early on, it was generated largely
by women. I think it was more experience-oriented than doctrinally-oriented. Consequently, women sort
of led with that experience. There was not a strong theology; there was not a strong theological
foundation to that movement at all. And, of course, from a more contemporary perspective, the modern
foursquare movement was basically generated by a woman: Aimee Semple McPherson, who had a real
impactful ministry here in Los Angeles. So, there’s a historical element to it as well. That wouldn’t be
true in the Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, or Methodist areas--that is a late capitulation to the
feminist movement, which is a completely different issue.
But, from the standpoint of historic Pentecostalism, most of those groups go back to sort of a common
source, where women were very high profile, and it’s been sort of a historic thing. Once you get in the
flow of that and you see that women have ministry and it seems that people get saved under their
preaching and good things happen and so forth…and experience is your compelling issue; then,
experience will dictate continuity to that.
As a footnote to that, perhaps it ought to be said that from a biblical standpoint, there is no tolerance
in Scripture for women leaders in the church, apart from women leading other women--older women
teaching younger women and leading their children and so forth.
It is so patently obvious that God created Adam and that Eve was made as a helper to Adam. So, man
and woman were designed in the way that man leads and a woman helps, and comes under his
leadership. What literally sent the human race down the proverbial drain was when woman stepped out
from under submission, acted independently and sinned, taking the male role by leading. Man then, went

John MacArthur - Women Preachers in Pentecostal Churches
under woman. He wasn’t even deceived! He just sinned because his wife sinned. And before you get too
mad at him, think men: we’ve done things because our wife did them too. And if you were the only man
in the world and she were the only woman, there might be a sort of a compelling there that otherwise
wouldn’t be there.
But, Eve steps out from under the authority of Adam, Adam steps under the authority of Eve--the whole
thing is convoluted. But it’s interesting to me that when we go back to who is responsible for man’s sin,
Paul doesn’t say, “As in Eve, all died.” He says, “As in Adam, all died.” Because even though Adam
vacated his role of leadership and Eve usurped it, God still held the leader responsible, and that means He
sees male headship.
When you come into the New Testament, out of all the patriarchs it never says “the God of Rebekah,” it
never says “the God of Sarah,” it never says “the God of [any woman]”; it’s “the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.” It’s not the God of Rachel, not the God of Rebekah, not the God of Sarah. Why? Because
God sees male headship. There was never a female priest. There was never a queen in northern or
southern kingdom. There was no woman who wrote any book out of the 66 books of the Bible. There
was no woman chosen to be an apostle. There were some women God uniquely used, as Deborah, to
speak His Word on one occasion, though she--you remember--gave up the leadership role to someone
else. There was occasion when the four daughters of Philip spoke for God, but as far as we know they
had no ongoing ministry.
So, there is a very clear indication in scripture, from front to back that leadership belongs to men. And
what I was saying this morning kind of fits that, doesn’t it? How God has designed us genetically to fit
that role.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question How would you reply to a believer
Question
How would you reply to a believer, in the Charismatic movement, who agrees that revelation [new]
cannot be added to Scripture, but would still argue that God still gives "Words of Knowledge" in
the church, for direction as long as it falls in line with the Scripture?
Answer
In answering the Charismatic there are a number of ways, my book on the Charismatics goes into that in
some detail, but revelation is revelation. If a person says that "I am getting direct 'Words of Wisdom,
Knowledge, Revelation' from God," then that equates with Scripture, in the sense that it is the pure,
unadulterated, true revelation of God, and so it confuses the issue. We have, according to what Jude said,
"A faith once for all delivered to the saints." We have, according to what John writes in Revelation, a
revelation which does not permit addition, "If anything is added, it shall be added to the person, the
plagues that are written in the book."
The idea that God is giving revelation, and that it is somehow not equal to Scripture, or not on a par with
Scripture poses some difficulty. If it is absolutely true and divine and from God, then it is divine
revelation. God reserved divine revelation for special times which were encompassed in the written
Word, and since that time revelation has ceased. Let me give you an illustration of that.
At the end of the Old Testament era there was a 400 year period in which there was no revelation, and
then God spoke again in the New Testament. So having a time period in which there is no revelation is
not new. When God completed the Old Testament He stopped speaking, and then He spoke again in His
Son, Hebrews one says. I believe that when He completed the New Testament He ceased to give
revelation and we have the "Once for all delivered to the saints faith."
Furthermore, I would say to a Charismatic the same thing that they say to me all the time, whenever I
have talked to them, "How do you know it's from God?" And inevitably they will say, "Well, we think
it's from God," because they can't know. Why? Because it was very, very clear in the New Testament era
who the prophets of God were--who the Apostles of Christ were. The Word came through recognized
authorities. Today, anybody and his brother might get a revelation from God, and on what basis are we to
assume it's from God? Is it attendant with "Signs and Wonders?" Can they heal the sick? Can they raise
the dead? Can they cast out demons at a word--authoritatively like Jesus and the Apostles did? Those
were the signs of an Apostle. See anyone who had the ability to give revelation had to be accredited, and
the accreditation was, according to 2 Corinthians 12, "the signs of an apostle"--and it was known to all
who these people were, or the fact that
they were Apostles or that they were those who were associated with the Apostles.

So I think that it is very, very important to understand that:
1. Revelation ceased.
2. Even when it was being given, not everybody got it. It never was something that God just passed out
indiscriminately to all kinds of people.
So I think that those would be the approaches that I would take.
I remember reading a book that was published by one of the Pentecostal presses in our country, in which
it said this pastor was pleading for people to stop standing up in churches and saying, "I have a Word
from the Lord!" He said, "We know that these are from the Lord or they are not, but we don't know how
to know which." It is very confusing. This pastor gave an illustration of a church that was in the process
of calling someone to be their pastor, and some lady stood up and said, "I have a Word from the Lord,
'This is the man.'" Immediately it through the church into chaos because they didn't know whether it was
from the Lord or not. That's very typical.
I know very well a man who took me into his office, a very well-known Charismatic pastor, and said,
"God had given him a vision," and he showed me on a board the vision that God had given him for an
area of the city which the Lord had set aside for him. Within five years that vision was gone, that board
had disappeared in a trash barrel somewhere and he had a new one. This would be a man that everyone
would assume, if anybody was going to be able to know when he got a revelation--he might. Again, it is
very whimsical.
It is very frightening, also, to say that you have a "Word from the Lord." In the Old Testament if you said
you had a "Word from the Lord" and it was tested and found to be not from the Lord--you were killed!
That's how important the issue is, because you can't have people running around loose saying, "God told
them this" and "God told them that." So before anyone would ever say anything like that, they would
want to take very careful stock of the issues at hand.
Furthermore, are we to assume that somehow the Spirit of God can't do His work unless He gives
revelation to some people? Unless He gives revelation indiscriminately to all kinds of people? I think
not.
Furthermore, it seems to me of grave concern that those people who are getting revelation tend to be in a
movement which is the most Biblically illiterate--to be real honest with you. They don't know theology,
they don't know doctrine, and they don't know how to interpret the Scripture very well, and because of
that lack of content they fall into a mystical category. Because they are not able to really carefully
exposit the Word of God; without that content orientation, they fall into the category of "looking for an
experience." I'll give you an illustration of it.
I was watching the television program "Today" from "Church on the Way," and there was a guy singing
a song and the song went like this, "When there are no answers, there is Jesus," and he went on to say,

"When there are no answers, there is Jesus." And I thought to myself, "What in the world does that
mean?" Does that mean that you can either go with a cognitive approach and find answers to questions,
or you can just junk that and grab Jesus? You see that is a very mystical approach to truth--"Where there
are no answers, there is Jesus"--wait a minute! That's abandoning the search--for an experience! The
song should say, "When you are looking for the answer, Jesus has it"--the Bible has the answer! But
there is a very experiential kind of milieu in which many of those dear people exist, and I think they
substitute those revelations, very often for understanding.
So I think that there are a lot of ways to approach that. I don't say that with unkindness, I say it because I
believe that it is true and that it is correct.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Is it ok for a wife to work outside the home, and what are a wife's priorities?
Question
Is it ok for a wife to work outside the home, and what are a wife's priorities?
Answer
The question of whether a wife should work outside the home cannot be answered with a simple yes or
no. It can only be addressed in the context of a clear understanding of God's priorities for women. A
fundamental priority for every Christian woman is to live a sensibly. At its most basic level a sensible
woman is one who understands God's priorities for her life and lives a self-controlled and an orderly life
consistent with those priorities.
What are God's priorities for women? Seven priorities of a godly wife are spelled out in Titus 2:3-5
where Paul exhorts the older women to teach "young women to love their husbands, to love their
children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God
may not be blasphemed."
Failure to live according to these seven priorities will cause the Word of God to be dishonored.
Conversely, a wife who orders her life according to these priorities will honor God's Word.
Seven Priorities of A Godly Wife

First, wives are to love their husbands. This command is simple and ambiguous. There are no conditions
or exceptions. It is not simply that love of husbands is a virtue but that not loving them is a sin. Paul is
not referring to romantic or sexual love, although that has an important and proper place in marriage. He
is speaking of committed love that godly wives choose to have for their husbands, just as godly husbands
choose to have for their wives (Ephesians 5:25, 28). Philandros is a noun, here rendered to love…
husbands, and refers to willing, determined love that is not based on a husband's worthiness but on God's
command and that is extended by a wife's affectionate and obedient heart. Even unlovable, uncaring,
unfaithful, and ungrateful husbands are to be loved. This sort of love of husbands and wives for each
other involves unqualified devotedness and is a friendship that is strong and deep. And when a wife does
not truly love her husband she must, in obedience to the Lord, train herself to love him.
Second, wives are to love their children. Whether the children are their own offspring or adopted they are
to be loved with a love that, like the love of spouses for each other, should be selfless and sacrificial. As
with love for their husbands, love for their children is not an option. It isn't based on the personality,
intelligence, attractiveness or worthiness but on their need. The most important responsibility of love for
believing parents is to lead their children to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But Paul's admonition is
inclusive. Mothers are to love their children in every way-practical, physical, social, moral, and spiritual-
with a love that has no conditions and no limits. This kind of love, to be fully expressed, is extremely
demanding as the mother seeks to fulfill her obligation to raise godly children (see 1 Timothy 2:15).
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/wifeworking.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 9:24:17 AM]

Third, wives are to be sensible. This is the same quality that should characterize elders (1:8), all older
men (2:2), and, in fact, all believers (2:12). Common sense and good judgment should improve with age,
but they should be evident even in early adulthood.
Fourth, wives are to be pure. Hagnos (pure) refers primarily to moral purity, and, especially in this
context, to sexual purity, marital faithfulness. Like older women, in fact like all Christian women, young
wives are "to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and
gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to
godliness" (1 Tim. 2:9-10). "Modesty" refers to a healthy sense of shame at saying anything, doing
anything, or dressing in any way that would cause a man to lust. "Discreetly" refers to moral control, to
keeping passions, especially sexual passions, subdued. First Peter 3:3-6 gives similar instruction to
women.
Fifth, wives are to be workers at home. One of the hardest things for many contemporary wives to do is
be satisfied with being a homemaker. Part of the reason is that modern appliances and other
conveniences greatly simplify and reduce housework, and time that is not used for something
constructive inevitably produces boredom, dissatisfaction, and often increased temptations. Women who
have no children or whose children are grown obviously have fewer obligations in the home and
therefore much more time available, and the point is not so much that a woman's place is in the home as
that her responsibility is for the home. She may have a reasonable outside job or choose to work in the
church or to minister in a Christian organization, a hospital, a school, or many other ways. But the home
is a wife's special domain and always should be her highest priority. That is where she is able to offer the
most encouragement and support to her husband and is the best place for extending hospitality to
Christian friends, to unbelieving neighbors, and to visiting missionaries or other Christian workers.
In regard to being workers at home, young Christian wives today must take special care to be sensible, as
they are admonished earlier in this verse. In consultation with their husbands, they must use good
judgment in deciding how much time can justifiably and wisely be spent in activities outside the home,
whether at a paying job or in some form of service. When they have a genuine desire to obey and honor
the Lord in all things and to conscientiously seek guidance from His Word and in prayer, they can be
assured that He will provide the necessary wisdom and resolution.
Sixth, wives are to be kind, the meaning of which is obvious. They are to be gentle, considerate, amiable,
congenial, and sympathetic, even with those who are undeserving and unkind to them. To be kind is to be
godlike, "for [God] Himself," Jesus said, "is kind to ungrateful and evil men" (Luke 6:35). Similarly,
Paul admonishes believers to "be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in
Christ also has forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32).
Seventh and finally, wives are to be subject to their own husbands. Like all other Christian wives, they
are to "be subject to [their] own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as
Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is
subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:22-24; cf. 1 Tim.

2:11-14).
There is nothing in Scripture that specifically forbids a woman from working outside the home as long as
she is fulfilling her priorities in the home (Proverbs 31).
Whether or not a woman works outside the home, God's primary calling is for her to manage the home.
That is the most exalted place for a wife. The world is calling many modern women out of the home, but
not the Lord. His Word portrays the woman's role as one preoccupied with domestic duties. It is a high
calling, far more crucial to the future of a woman's children than anything she might do in an outside job.
The ultimate decision is a personal one that each woman must make in submission to her husband's
authority. Obviously, a single woman would be free to work and pursue outside employment. A married
woman with no children is perhaps a little more restricted in the amount of time and energy she can
devote to an outside job. A woman who is a mother obviously has primary responsibility in the home and
would therefore not be free to pursue outside employment to the detriment of the home. In fact, from a
parental perspective it is difficult to see how a mother could possibly do all that needs to be done in the
home with the upbringing of children, hospitality, care of the needy, and work for the Lord (cf. 1
Timothy 5:3-14) and still work in an outside job. Indeed, any wife who fulfills God's priorities in her life
and home will be a busy lady. However, her children and her husband will rise up and call her blessed,
and a woman who fears the LORD shall be praised (Proverbs 31:28,30).
(Adapted in from John MacArthur's The Fulfilled Family (pp. 224-6) and Titus: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary,
pp.76-90)
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question on Working Wives -- John MacArthur
Question
In a Christian marriage, should the wife work?
Answer
That’s a good question. I’ll give you a rule of thumb that I always go by: that’s
optional. You say, “Huh, that’s profound, MacArthur… I came all the way down
here to hear that? What do you mean by that?” I mean that the wives are to
submit to their husbands…that comes into play, don’t you think? Maybe her
husband says, “Honey, go to work.” Consideration.
On the other hand, Titus 2:3-5, “the aged women.” I know none of you in this
audience would include yourself in that category, so let me change the word a
little bit. The mature women. “The mature women, likewise that they be in
behavior as become with holiness, not false accusers, not lingering long beside
their wine, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be
sober-minded.” Know your priorities—that’s what it means. Love your children,
love your husband, be discreet, pure, take care of the house, be kind, obey your
husband that the Word of God be not blasphemed.”
What is a wife to do? One, submit to her husband. Here it says she is to know
the priorities, love the husband, love the children, take care of the house. That’s
priority number one. Do you have time to love your husband? I mean, do you
have time to give yourself totally to your husband, to pour out your affection, to
pour out your love on him? That’s important.
Do you have time to pour out your life into your children, to love your children,
to invest your life in your children? Do you have time to keep your house, to
obey your husband? All of that is good. If you work, are you able to be chaste,

pure, godly, and so forth? All those priorities have to come into account. Do you
have opportunity like in I Timothy 5 to be hospitable and open your home, to
wash the feet of strangers as it were, to take care of those who have needs, etc.?
Now, the priorities then: submit and love your husband. Take care of your
husband. You know, let your relationship just lavish love on him. Time to invest
in loving your children. Time to invest in keeping your home for the sake of the
family’s happiness and so that others might come in and enjoy the hospitality you
provide.
Now, you say, “Well, John, you just gave your answer.” Not really…there may
be opportunity even within that framework for you to work. Proverbs 31—we’ve
answered this question before, but Proverbs 31 talks about a righteous woman, a
virtuous woman. And boy, she’s a clever gal! She works. There’s a lot of good
things about this gal: gets up before daybreak and makes breakfast—a lot of
wonderful, wonderful traits…but, she’s real enterprising. She has her own
business, kind of. This is so good, verse 19—well, no, let’s go back a little. We
ought to cover more of this. Verse 16, “She considers a field and buys it.” She’s
got the bagel jar so full of, of, extra money, you know…for so many years, she’s
been saving and saving, that she’s got enough to go out and buy a field. That’s an
enterprising lady. “She buys it. With the fruit of her hand, she plants a
vineyard.”
She’s earned enough money. She’s a wonderful woman. She takes care of her
husband; “she does him good all her days.” She’s just a fantastic—in verse 14,
“She’s like the merchant ship: she brings her food from afar.” She’ll go to the
market where the sale is, no matter how much gas she wastes, and so forth.
Verse 17, “She girds her loins with strength and strengthens her arms. She works
with energy and force. She perceives that her merchandise is good; her lamp
goes not out by night.” She doesn’t go to sleep unless she has to—she works.
Listen, this is the Word of God! Now, verse 19 tells us what she does: “She lays
her hand to the spindle and her hands hold the distaff”—you know what that is?
Flax tied to the staff and she spins to make thread. “She stretches her hand to the

poor.” You know why she makes these things? For what reason? To give them
away. She got a field though, to make a little profit. But she made some things
to give to the poor.
“She reaches her hands to the needy. She isn’t afraid of the snow for her
household; all her household are clothed with scarlet.” She anticipates the winter
and makes clothes for everybody! “She makes herself coverings of tapestry.”
Her clothing is white linen, really, the Hebrew—white linen and purple! And
“her husband is known in the gates.” He comes in and they all say, “That’s the
husband of so-and-so.”
“She makes fine linen and sells it and delivers belts to the merchants.” She’s
enterprising! “Strength and honor are her clothing” and so forth. And she’s got
wisdom and so forth. All these beautiful virtues… “Her children rise up,” verse
28, “and call her ‘blessed’ and her husband also, and praises her” and so forth.
Here is a woman who is able to care for the family so that the people in the town
talk about her, so that her husband blesses her, so that her children rise up and call
her blessed. At the same time, she’s enterprising. But notice: she is enterprising,
really, for three areas. Number one, for the sake of the family; for the sake of the
wise nvestment—to secure the family; and for the sake of those who have needs.
So, I submit to you that a woman should work only when she can still lavish love
on her husband and her children, keep her home, and that her work has to do with
necessity, never luxury. Necessity, never luxury.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
GRACE.
Question
"Recently, you appear to teach that acceptable works will determine our eternal fate, that is,
heaven or hell. Do you really mean that?"
Answer
I do believe (now listen carefully) that works "reveal" our eternal fate. I do not believe they "determine"
it. What determines it, is our faith in Jesus Christ, but what proves that, that in fact has been determined
is the evidence in our life. Now, I said it last time and I will say it again, the cause of salvation is faith in
Jesus Christ plus nothing (no works). But the consequence of that is works. Let's see if I can illustrate
this.
I was riding with a man who was an executive in a seminary, and he said to me, (we were talking about
something and I saw a Liquor Store) and, He said to me, "Oh yes."
I said, "That's an interesting thing, it's called the 'Finest Liquor Store'. What a strange name for a Liquor
Store--The Finest."
He said, "Oh, that's a chain, they are all over the place."
I said, "Really?"
He said, "Yeah, I know the man that owns them. He's in my Sunday School class!"
I said, "He is?"
He said, "Yeah, he comes regularly. He's been coming for years."
I said, "Is he a Christian?"
He said, "Oh yes, he's received the Lord."
I said, "Well, is the rest of his life in order, or is this something off. . . ?"
"Well, not really" he said, "He's been shacking up with a young girl and he has left his wife and so forth."
I said, "How long has that been going on?"

Question
"Well its been going on nearly a year now, and we have been trying to work with him and so forth."
And then he said this to me, "You know, I just can't understand how a Christian can live like that?"
And I looked over at him and I said, "Have you ever thought that maybe the guy is not a Christian?"
And he said, "Well I remember when he prayed the prayer."
I said, "What prayer?"
"Well, the prayer that invited Christ into his life."
Is that what saves you? I mean, you say, "All right Lord. . . ." I know that there is one theologian in
America who says, "If you say that to God on a dare, He has to save you, no matter what your life is after
that!" Is that true? That's not what James said, "Faith without works is. . . ." what? "dead!" That's not
what Hebrews 3 says, when it says that you will enter into rest "if you hold your confidence fast to the
end." That's not what James said, when he said, "You better be a doer and not just a hearer or you will
wind up deceiving yourself."
You see, the point is this, works do not determine your salvation--they just manifest that you really were
saved. Do you see the point? So that when God judges men He will judge them on the basis of their
deeds, because their deeds will manifest whether, in fact, they are regenerate or not. That's the issue. I do
not believe in works salvation, neither do I believe in a salvation that has no works that follow it. I mean,
we have a lot of people in that boat.
People sometimes say, "I know so and so and I know that they don't go to church and they are living an
awful life, but I remember the day when they went down the isle." Well, do you know what it meant
when they went down the isle? It meant that they went down the isle! Do you know what that meant? It
meant that they went to the front, and it didn't mean anything more then that they went to the front.
Because if there is nothing there, James says, "Then don't tell me that's faith, because faith that has no
works isn't faith at all!" I mean, if you believe that the Bible says, "If any man be in Christ, he is a. . . ."
what? "a new creation," then you have got to believe that has to be manifest.
Now some people are tough to figure out, because it is possible for a Christian to fall into a lapse of
disobedience. And it is even possible for a Christian to fall into a lapse of disobedience and never come
out of it because the Lord takes him home. Right? Some of the Corinthians died in the middle of their
disobedience. Ananias and Sapphria were snuffed that fast, right in front of the whole Church, and you
know what the word was, "Don't join that organization--one false move and your dead!" I mean, "You
better be serious about that bunch." And that was just after they had given the biggest offering of their
life. The problem was they told God they were going to give it all and they didn't. Don't make promises
to God that you don't want to keep. I mean, we don't want to haul people out.
So please understand that I do not believe that you are saved by your works. But I believe God can look
at your works as the objective proof that you have been saved. And He will look at your works and see
the pattern of righteousness, not just relative human goodness, but true righteousness born of a love for

Question
God. And He will also see that your name is written in the Book. Subjectively and objectively, you
belong to His kingdom. That's the issue.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

John MacArthur - Worship
Question
One thing the [Church] body does and we do it together is worship. Would you explain two things? What
worship is and why do we do it on Sunday?
Answer
Worship is simply praising God. It can take a lot of different forms. Any way that you praise God is
worship. I really feel that the two key things in worshiping God would be to extol His character, or speak
of His character. For example, in the Old Testament they worshiped the Lord by saying, "God is great
and God is wonderful and God is holy and God is righteous and God is a pure God and God is Almighty
God." And any time you recite the character of God, that praises God. That in a sense is worship.
Another aspect to worship is not just reciting the character of God and thinking on the character of God
and meditating on the character of God but on the works of God. We worship God when we say, "God,
You're the God who created the world. You're the God who made man. You're the God who parted the
Red Sea. You're the God who led Israel out of Egypt. You're the God who restored Israel from Babylon.
You're the God who sent Jesus Christ. You're the God who raised Him from the dead. You're the God
who gave the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. You're the God who has done this in my life. You're
the God who has built Your church here." In other words, when you not only extol His character but His
works you are in a true sense worshiping God. Worship is a simple thing, then, it's simply our
concentration upon the character and the works of God. And, of course, the heart from which worship
comes must be a pure heart. God accepts our worship when it comes out of a pure heart.
You can't say, "Well, God, I want to tell You how wonderful You are and how thankful I am for You,"
while you're harboring sin in your life. That's mocking God. So worship must come from a pure heart.
Worship in Scripture can include many things. It can include reading the Scripture. We have illustrations
of that. It can include praying. Worship can include singing. Many times in the Old Testament they
worshiped the Lord in song, extolling His character and His mighty works in song or in prayer or in
reading of the Word.
Worship can also include the communion table because the communion table exalts the work of God in
Christ on the cross. It exalts not only His work on the cross but doesn't the communion table remind us of
His love and His forgiveness and His mercy and His grace and all those aspects of His character? So the
communion table is an act of worship. You can worship God alone. You can worship God with a group.
You can worship God with any size group. Worship isn't stained glass windows and organ music,

worship is the attitude of your heart praising God for who He is, for what He has done.
Now the reason Christians worship on Sunday is simply because Sunday was the day that the Lord Jesus
rose from the dead. In the Old Testament they worshiped the Lord on the last day of the week, the
Sabbath day as a day of rest. But when Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, they
began to celebrate the resurrection. The church was born out of the resurrection. And the very next time
we see the disciples meeting together, it is on the first day of the week and then again on the first day of
the week. That became the pattern and all the way through the book of Acts you begin to see them
meeting on the first day of the week. And this was to commemorate the resurrection. The Sabbath law of
the Old Testament was set aside for Israel for their rest. It's interesting that even though it's in the Ten
Commandments, the only one of the Ten Commandments that's never repeated in the New Testament is
the commandment to keep the Sabbath day. More than a day of rest, the Christian's Sunday is a day of
remembrance, of Christ's resurrection from the dead. And there is plenty of evidence in the New
Testament that the early church met for worship, corporate worship, on the first day of the week and so
we accept that. But that is simply the traditional day. Our worship of God should occur all day long every
day, seven days a week. And it really doesn't matter, you're as much involved in worshiping the Lord
today on Saturday morning as you would be on Sunday morning. There's nothing sacred particularly
about the day, it's simply a day that was established because of the remembrance of His resurrection.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question
Seeing that Christianity is the only true religion and God only accepts worship from a heart--a
clean, pure heart (as the Psalms say over and over again: “clean hands and a pure heart”), why
would you say it is that we’re constantly told even from the pulpit that we have wicked hearts?
And if we don’t, if we do have new hearts, as the Bible teaches, could you clear that up for us?
Answer
Sure. That’s one of those things that has a simple and yet profound answer. No true Christian will say
that he has no sin, right? I mean, if you’re truly a Christian, you’re not going to say that you have no sin
unless you’ve been led astray by somebody who has told you that mistakes and sins are different--and
there are some theologies that espouse that. We are all very much aware even as [we] grow in Christ of
our sin. To say [we] enter with clean hands and a pure heart is simply to say that sin is as much as is
possible being confronted and dealt with in our lives.
It can be illustrated in the words of Jesus who said, “If you have something against your brother, make it
right; then come and worship.” It isn’t that you’ll never again have anything wrong with your brother, it
doesn’t mean that you have to be a person who never offends anybody, but if you know there’s
something wrong, you go make it right; then you come and worship.
In Hebrews--we were quoting some things from Hebrews early in the morning service today--there is a
call in the book of Hebrews to a cleansing of one’s own heart. Hebrews, chapter 10, it says, “Having
boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.” Well, I have to go into the holy place by the blood of
Jesus because I’m a sinner. I don’t have any access there unless I go because Christ has made the way for
me. So I go in, in a sense, recognizing that a sacrifice had to be made for me to even enter that place. I go
through “a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and
having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,”
and then this, “having our hearts washed from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure
water.”
In other words, whenever you come to worship, you need to be going through a heart examination and
seeking that the Lord would cleanse your heart. That’s what it’s all about. That’s the clean hands: there’s
no unconfessed sin. There’s no sin in my life that I’m holding onto, that I’m harboring, that I’m
entertaining, that I’m indulging in--that is unacceptable to God. The fact that I am a sinner is reality. If
I’m going to come and worship the Lord, then I need to do what Hebrews 10 says: I need to draw near

with a true heart, having my heart washed and my body washed to make sure that I have brought myself
before the Lord for appropriate cleansing and that’s confession and repentance.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

Question I ride the busses quite frequently
Question
I ride the busses quite frequently. I see on these busses these advertisements for this guru, "Have
all your spiritual needs answered!" And in light of 1 Peter 3, Romans 13--I tear them down,
because I cannot in my "being of beings" allow this to influence other people on the bus. I would
like your comment on that because it is something that I feel. . . .if I had to pull a verse out it
would be John 2:17 about, "My zeal for the Kingdom of God." I would just like your comment in
regard to those actions in light of such things as "Operation Rescue" etc.
Answer
If you feel that, that is a blasphemy to the true God and you tear it down in good conscience, then you
have to be ready to pay the consequence. If you are willing to do that, which I think is part of your good
citizenship--to accept the consequences for that, then that is your prerogative. If you are offended, if I
am offended by something that blasphemes God and I feel that I need to react to that offense, then I can
react to that offense in good conscience recognizing that whatever the consequences are I must bear it.
Tony Capoccia
Box 119
Online since 1986

MacArthur Q&A

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MacArthur Q&A

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Main Page

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers

MacArthur's Quick Reference Guide to the Bible: A Book-By-Book Overview

http://www.biblebb.com/macqa.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 7:47:31 AM]

--Easter, Elders, Election, End Time Events, Enoch, Eternal Security,

V --(None at this time)

http://www.biblebb.com/macqa.htm (2 of 3) [5/21/2002 7:47:31 AM]

Go back to Bible Bulletin Board's Home Page.

http://www.biblebb.com/macqa.htm (3 of 3) [5/21/2002 7:47:31 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers

I’d like your comment on pregnant women who go to practitioners, that

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/a.htm (1 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:45:37 AM]

I recently have been studying apologetics and studied the

Is appearance really everything?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/a.htm (2 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:45:37 AM]

My question is threefold, 1. How can the Bible be read to teach "Limited

Do you hold to "Limited Atonement"--that Jesus Christ did not suffer,

Continue to John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subjects: A B C D

Go back to Bible Bulletin Board's Home Page

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/a.htm (3 of 3) [5/21/2002 8:45:37 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers

Who or what is Babylon the Great, as listed in the seventeenth

If you have been baptized in another church, whether by immersion

Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/b.htm (1 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:49 AM]

I was listening to a tape by Al Martin where he was pointing out that

Now, my Mormon relative quoted to me, some time back, 1 Corinthians

Occasionally, you will mention in one of your sermons, and especially

I am becoming extremely confused and frustrated. This is when you,

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/b.htm (2 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:49 AM]

Can you give me a reference of some people that have, or maybe

Which Bible translation is best?

What about those Bible Study courses advertised in the newspapers

What does the Bible teach about birth control?

"I have a question on Isaiah 7:14-16. In the context

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/b.htm (3 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:49 AM]

In your message “Can God Bless America and Preserve His

My question is relating to your sermon on “Can God Bless America?”

Blood of Christ [01]

Could you clarify this issue with the "blood"?

Continue to John MacArthur's Questions and Answers - Subjects: A B C D

Go back to Bible Bulletin Board's Home Page

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/b.htm (4 of 4) [5/21/2002 8:45:49 AM]

John MacArthur's Questions and Answers

Carnal Christians [01]

Could you draw a distinction between the Biblical teaching on a carnal

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm (1 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:45:51 AM]

"Do you consider John Wimber to be a Charismatic brother

I read an article in a "big city" newspaper, on the Pentecostal movement

I am trying to understand how to articulate or teach to someone in the

We have been witnessing, my husband and I, to a neighbor who is Jewish

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm (2 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:45:51 AM]

The Professor of the Christian Education Department, at Biola

You are quoted as saying, “Find a church where the

I am frustrated by the weaknesses in my church, but what can I do if

Why should I attend church?

When should a person leave a church?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm (3 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:45:51 AM]

Why or is it necessary to join a local church?

Confrontation How can we know when it is best to forgive or confront?

Contentment What is the secret of contentment?

http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm (4 of 6) [5/21/2002 8:45:51 AM]