You cannot make this stuff up!
We will be writing more on this on Monday. I am going to the mountains to see the foliage and wanted to leave you with some reading material. Warning: We do not necessarily agree with some of the assessments on these sites. We are linking to these posts to give you a basic understanding of the controversy and events.
We are hearing from people around the globe (Special shout out to Belgium) who are deeply distressed by the pronouncements of MacArthur at his Strange Fire Conference. Here are a couple of perspectives.
Strange Fire: John MacArthur claims no good has come out of the Charismatic Movement
In the meantime, James MacDonald, apparently finding this more fun than a game of poker, joins his good buddy Mark Driscoll to engage in some *innocent* hilarity. Here are two overviews of the situation.
Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Strange Fire and Leslie Nielsen
What did Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald think they were going to accomplish here? They both look like buffoons–buffoons who were going to be headline speakers at an “Act Like Men” conference. They had to know what they were doing was tasteless at best and trespassing at worst. Not that John MacArthur doesn’t need to have some opposition stirring up his day–but not this bogus kind of “opposition.” MacArthur, Driscoll and MacDonald need to confront the damage they’ve done to people, all three of them.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
What damage has MacArthur done?
@ Nicholas: He has miffed off the entire body of charismatics.(20-30% or more of evangelicals) Even some of his own reformed buddies are displeased.
There are people who claim Deb and I are too broad sweeping in our complaints about the NeoCalvinist movement. However, we do try to point to names, conferences, etc with which we disagree. MacArthur has condemned an entire movement instead of being specific.
@ Nicholas: He is also (among other things) virulently anti-Catholic.
a very intolerant man, imo.
Nicholas wrote:
I think Julie Anne can answer that question from her personal experience. Eventually she’ll find her way over here.
Oh, I just looked at Julie Anne’s blog, she’s got some comments about what a pastor at MacArthur’s outfit told her ex-pastor to do:
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/10/17/strange-fire-conference-john-macarthur-reformed-theology-is-not-a-haven-for-false-teachers/
That’s the kind of garbage that comes from John MacArthur. No Thanks.
I don’t really agree with the theology of anyone involved in any of this. 😆
However, as someone brought up Southern Baptist, I have always been open to the possibility that speaking in tongues could be true today, as well as God doing the miraculous today, but I’m not on board with the “Prosperity Gospel / Wealth and Health Gospel.”
I’ve yet to hear someone today actually speak in tongues.
Every time I hear a guy on TBN “speak in tongues,” as I said on an older thread, it sounds really bogus; it sounds like 1950s American “doo wop” songs, maybe crossed with old Bing Crosy / Sinatra songs, where they say, “Ama rama shoo wop, dooby dooby doo wop, ram bam boo.”
I don’t agree with Calvinism of any stripe, and some of the guys in this Strange Fire story are Calvinists.
Some of these guys are complementarians, and I disagree with complementarians.
MacArthur tends to be fundamentalist and too harsh with people.
I kind of agree with the guys at Strange Fire critiquing the excessives or theological errors of charismatic beliefs, though.
But I disagree with some of their religious views, and I’m turned off by the personalities of Mark Driscoll and several of the others involved.
Mark Driscoll is juvenile – and as other people have pointed out, that is ironic given that he was also in town to speak at an “Act Like Men” conference.
If MacArthur’s teaching produces men like CON and whoever told CON to sue, then I agree that MacArthur has done harm. My comment was only meant to inquire if there have been any other controversies/scandals associated with MacArthur or GCC.
I’ll bet that MacArthur’s views on church discipline are the same as Mark Dever’s.
In fact Phil Johnson, one of MacArthur’s men, claimed in a comment at Pyromaniacs that the SGM scandal “is not even in the same ballpark” as Elephant Room 2.
It’s always amusing to watch Sola Scriptura evangelicals ignore all the entreaties from Jesus and Paul not to bluster or pick unnecessary fights with fellow Christians. Surprise, surprise, Driscoll’s passive-aggressive scheming here is about the opposite of humility. I’m reminded of that hilarious Elephant Room trailer where the wrestling announcer-voiced narrator says “We’re brothers, not catty sisters”. Sure, Mark, sure.
Wow. That’s pretty offensive.
I spent 23 years in a Pentecostal church. (Well, ok, mine was a cult.) I never saw anyone bark like a dog. I may have seen someone roll on the floor once. But, for me, the charismatic experience was not about speaking in tongues, demonstrative worship, or what Challies thinks is a mockery to the Holy Spirit. For me, the charismatic experience empowered me to overcome sin in my life to a greater extent than I was able before. Not that people with this experience aren’t still sinners. Far from it! But I think it’s wrong to knock sincere Christians who believe they are walking with the Lord.
I don’t believe I will ever be an atheist, but things like the Strange Fire Conference make me embarrassed to identify as Christian.
How sad this must be for all this grieves the Holy Spirit. All this name-calling, all these false accusations, and innuendos.
We are all supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ here and past this – we are to be his disciples.
Before you bare false witness against your brother perhaps you can analyze these men’s individual works.
The Emergent Church Movement is an aberration of Orthodox Christianity. It does not represent the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Pastor Driscoll can quickly be dismissed as a false shepherd. Many of his teachings run contrary to the Bible. But those who pride themselves on discerning the Spirit clearly have no such discernment.
While Calvinism has its grand flaws – the works of John MacArthur stand for themselves. Most of this man’s teachings mirror the Scriptures not subjective “feelings” as so prevalently found within Charismatic circles.
As for James MacDonald? He teaches a biblical gospel but has also fallen victim to the worship of Mammon.
One must stand for Truth – and out of these three men there is only one who has consistently, whether good, bad, or indifferent stood unwaveringly against the scourge of Roman Catholic ecumenism, subjective charlatanism found with Charismatic circles, and the overall falsehoods taught by modern liberals posing as Bible believing Christians.
Wake up Christian. Test these things and see if they be so.
All three of these men are worthy of respect, honor, and our compassion.
However, only one, I believe, has a more biblical foundation and should be treated as a true Protectorate of the Faith and this man is John MacArthur.
One comment not approved. Sent back to commenter to revamp.
John MacArthur also teaches some dangerous things about marriage.. If you go over to the blog, A Cry For Justice, you can read all about it.
The devil (if there is one) must be watching with glee all this internecine warfare.
I’ve spoken in tongues and soaked on the floor with the best of them, and I also checked out Calvin’s Institutes as “light reading” when I was in law school. And I’ve been a lot of places and seen a lot of things that would blow your socks off. I’ve been through the religious mill.
And I walked away from it all, because in the end, all the intensive scriptural parsing of the Calvinist, reformed, biblicist, evangelical, fundamentalist camp and the loosey-goosey gifts of the Spirit of the charismatic, pentecostal, spirit-filled camp failed at two things. First of all, they covered up the original Jesus in so many trimmings and additions and thoughts and meanderings and scriptural notations and sermons and prophecies and tongues and who knows what all else that you can’t see what’s there.
And the second, more devastating thing to me is there is no way to tell that the Gospel writers, Paul and the other writers of the canonical New Testament weren’t doing the same thing when they set up their own versions of Jesus.* In other words, I can’t even say, “let’s get back to the Jesus of the Gospels,” because there’s no way to tell if the Jesus depicted there is faithful to the guy who lived nearly 2000 years ago. (And some might argue there are multiple versions of Jesus depicted, too, even in the four Gospels.)
Even now, just writing this, I’m in tears because I lost the cornerstone of my life. I cannot go back to just carefully ignoring what I know and relying strictly on faith and dogma, because, well, I can’t stuff all these thoughts back into the box and slam the lid shut. It won’t work anymore.
And I have to live this life, so I’m going to work on the sleeve to this sweater I’ve got here. (Yeah, I live in Arizona and I’m knitting a sweater, go figure. We do get a few cold days here.)
So, back to the original subject: Really, if there is a devil, he’s laughing in glee because MacArthur and his fanbois are doing the same thing as Driscoll and MacDonald and their fanbois and I gotta ask, where is Jesus in all this, even if I’m no longer a beliver.
—
*Some scholars argue that the writers of James and 2 Peter (cf. 2 Pe 3:16) were writing against Paul, for example. It’s an argument too long to get into here and I can’t do it justice in any case.
So who is lying about the books being either confiscated or gifted? I guess it will all get sorted out in Novermber with MD preaches on
TEN COMMANDMENTS: SET FREE TO LIVE FREE
“PART 9
IX. DO NOT LIE
Video coming: November 10, 2013”
Marshill dot com
JP Maxwell wrote:
Trigger alert.
This is a favorite and much over used rebuke in certain circles. The irony of the rebuke is accusing one of “bearing false witness” could easily be “bearing false witness” when discussing PUBLIC WORDS and BEHAVIOR of those who want us to buy conference tickets and their books.
I am especially glad such silliness does not work here with thinking people. But it is working in many of their churches to shut people up from asking embarrassing questions or disagreeing with the celebrity.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Hi SD,
I’m not asking you to answer this here since it’s so personal, but have you asked Him how He would like you to worship Him and how to deal with what you feel? Just a thought.
I can imagine how painful your dilemma is for an Evangelical. Even though I’ve spent most of my life as a Catholic and non-inerrantist (though I feel estranged from Catholicism since the abuse scandals), the fundie guys can get inside my head and make me feel very bad. God bless you.
JP Maxwell wrote:
True Protectorate of the Faith? Good night!
JP Maxwell wrote:
OK- let’s get to work. Which false accusations? I never ever ever knowingly post anything that is not false. So, you better tell me which one is false or you might be the one really involved in false accusations.
Nicholas wrote:
I have not had any personal dealings with MacArthur, but I have had personal dealings with his right-hand man, Phil Johnson. We had a one-hour phone conversation and have exchanged a few e-mails, one in which I challenged the Facebook note he posted on his page (about my case) the day after our one-hour conversation.
I have also had many run-ins with Fred Butler, long-time Grace to You employee and Grace Community Bible teacher, who was pressured into publicly apologizing to my family because he posted gossip about my daughter being sexually immoral. His behavior was akin to National Inquirer gross exaggerations and inaccuracies. He failed to publicly disclose, after being questioned several times, that he had been in communication with my pastor behind the scenes. Eventually he did.
I used to have a lot of respect for MacArthur and his work. I found his study Bible to be helpful. I learned much about how he talked about False Teachers and exposing them. I respected how he himself did not mind when people challenged him publicly because his ministry is public.
But the fruit I see coming from the leaders of his church concerns me greatly. The way women are treated concerns me greatly. One of the growing concerns and I’ve had quite a few e-mails on this, is that those who leave this “mecca” often times abandon their faith entirely because if JMac’s version was the mecca, then obviously every other church is inferior.
With regard to Strange Fire conference, I find huge hypocrisies. If he was so hot on this topic, then why would he invite Piper and Mahaney to speak at his conferences, sell their books. Which one is it? This black/white stuff drives me crazy. This “my way is the only way” mentality drives me crazy.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
SD, my heart breaks with you. I hear exactly where you are. Take that crap and chuck it. It’s not Christianity. It is man-made garbage. You are right to be angry with that. It’s false. Go to Jesus, not men.
I love this. I have not had the itch to knit in a long while, but I just bought my son’s school colors to knit him a hat. And if my high schooler son wants his mama to knit him a hat, I better get my rear in gear and do it 🙂
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I went through a time in which i questioned the basics of the faith. How we got our canon and how we can know the truth. I read Dawkins, Hitchens, HIndus and Buddhists.
But one day, it dawned on me. There have been people much smarter than I am who have confronted these issues and held to the faith. I think of GK Chesterton and CS Lewis and guys like Francis Collins and Mark Noll. These people were not self-deceptive. So, I spent time reading people whose intellect that I respected. And I found peace with my faith…It took time.
Ask why brilliant people believe. Are they deceived? Read their words. And above all, look at this mucked up world and think about the place for grace and why it was needed.
I will pray for you. Please know you are loved and welcome-belief or not. Your comments are so well written.
Read this comment somewhere regarding this publicity stunt by Driscoll vs. Mac:
@ dee:
Dee, you need to edit this comment. It is misleading a bit.
@ Arce:
There seems to be an unintended “not.”
Pastor Mark, Do Reformed Churches Really Neglect the Holy Spirit? http://tinyurl.com/m6tt9hk
I can relate to the folks who are wondering where Jesus is and what’s what and what they believe. And with all the foolishness in churches, sometimes I feel like it’s all just being redone and I don’t want to hear another sermon or repetitive song or more Christian lingo. I guess I feel tired.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I think it’s a “YOU STOLE MY SHTICK!” situation.
Like when John Todd(?) and Mike Warnke came to blows backstage at Melodyland.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Or was that Bob Larson and Mike Warnke?
Former CLC’er wrote:
He got thrown under the “Act Like Men” bus.
And the YEC bus…
And the Calvin/TULIP bus…
And the End Time Prophecy bus…
And the Biblical Gender Roles bus…
Joan wrote:
The Fundie Guys are REAL good at doing that.
Julie Anne wrote:
In other words, he was talking smack about your daughter being a ho under marching orders from the Man-o-Gawd.
Heather wrote:
And he’ll find a way to work alimentary canal erotica into it.
Daisy wrote:
During some Eighties coverage of GOP hopeful Pat Robertson, one reporter described it as sounding like “Scat-Singing in Hebrew”.
numo wrote:
That’s just Street Cred among the Truly Reformed.
“ROMANISM! WE HATES IT! WE HATES IT FOREVER! (gollum! gollum!)”
Speaking of Driscoll weirdness: http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/10/acts-29-pastor-asks-have-you-had.html
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I nearly spewed cookie crumbs all over my desk, computer monitor, keyboard, cat, knitting…
“I received my first Bible after ten years in the convent. It was not put into my hands by the Catholic Church, but by a group of charismatics.”
-Donna Spader Shire (Formerly Sister Madonna Therese) from “The Truth Set Us Free: Twenty Former Nuns Tell Their Stories of God’s Amazing Grace,” page 118
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
“And the second, more devastating thing to me is there is no way to tell that the Gospel writers, Paul and the other writers of the canonical New Testament weren’t doing the same thing when they set up their own versions of Jesus.* In other words, I can’t even say, “let’s get back to the Jesus of the Gospels,” because there’s no way to tell if the Jesus depicted there is faithful to the guy who lived nearly 2000 years ago. (And some might argue there are multiple versions of Jesus depicted, too, even in the four Gospels.)”
Yeah, I went there too. But the earliest church didn’t have the Bible, it wasn’t even considered authoritative until the 3rd C., they still *to this day* don’t all have the same books in the bible. The last change was in the 1600s by the reformers. The creeds came later also – the Nicene creed in 325 (and this got changed in 381), the Apostles creed isn’t mentioned until the 3rd C. and even then, it isn’t written out, so we have no way of knowing if that was what we read today.
But, I began to learn about the OT and realized it too has a similar history in Jewish faith. Books were added, and removed, scrolls were lost and rewritten after the exile, likely a lot was lost to the ravishes of history in the Old Testament too.
So, we are saved by faith alone. Really. We don’t have a tangible human proof to rest on in this life. Not even the church has been able to agree on what is authoritative, so I am neither sola scriptura, nor sola church(ura), or what the Catholics call “tradition” – which means their own tradition with no regard to other’s traditions. The creeds didn’t show up any earlier and also aren’t universal (Christian universal, I mean). As far as I can tell, God doesn’t want to be pinned down (who can pin down a Spirit that is described like the wind?), that is just our human weakness wanting a tangible guide to live by (like when they tried to make Jesus King for giving them bread and fish). He doesn’t allow us to grab at his tangible (“fleshly”) self and worship it (neither by creed, book or tradition) and use it to declare him. It has always been, and always will be about his Spiritual relationship to us (plural). (But I am not going into the whole Charismatic/ non-Charismatic debate on this post). Likely everyone is slightly wrong – from the Biblical Cannons we use to the creeds we say to the views we have on God’s being (Trinity vs. Modalism), as we “see in a mirror only dimly”.
Instead, we follow what is good, faithful and true about Christ (a peasant who shook up this world) and like Paul, I can only say “I know nothing except Christ Crucified” (although I would add, “and victoriously risen”). And we can only say that through faith, because there is not one shred of evidence out their that Christ overcame the grave or why that matters, only people’s beliefs about it. Yet, the Judeo/Christian faith has lasted 4,000 years, taken over the world, changed the world from largely polytheistic to largely monotheistic. Christianity has the largest amount of adherents to it’s belief system the world has ever seen. It was started by an uneducated peasant some 2,000 years ago, who wrote nothing down and didn’t travel more than 200 miles from is place of birth. Yet he has been loved and revered since then. If his story has evolved, and it has, the tenants have remained, he loves us, came to rescue us, walked with us, willingly died for us, and beat death for us. We may reap little benefit from this individually, but collectively, people are living longer, collectively more people than ever before have access to “human rights”, like no slavery, or equal intrinsic value (even if it is in name only). Even if unbelievers have played a part in it, they played that part because the society they were born in viewed humans as beings able to have “dominion” over their lives (even if it was obscured or invisible, the belief that we could change things was a possibility planted there by people who rejected pagan fate-oriented thinking in favour of “we can have dominion over __________” because once, 2000 years ago, a peasant walked the earth in a small out-of-the-way corner, and shook down governments, and belief systems by turning power and authority on it’s head and calling others to follow himself, a lowly peasant, as the only God this world had.
@ dee:
I think JP Maxwell is either “Bill Rogers” using a variant style, or some similar wind-up merchant. Nobody talks like that in real life.
Ken how I had this idea for a “zoo” page in which troll comments could be posted? Laughter being like medicine, yah? The spate of recent almost-certain-spoof comments suggests another idea: Parody Corner. For posts that are so egregious, or just plain weird, that they are probably jokes. Then we can vote on them.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Wait now. You went to law school and you do not see the problem with this statement? What do you care “where is Jesus ” if you are “no longer a believer?” There is an inconsistency here. If you no longer are a believer why do you talk like you are a believer? If you found out “where is Jesus” what would you do about that? You sound like you would latch on to that information and be right there too, wherever that was. Why? Well, it surely sounds like you think that wherever Jesus is there is where you want to be and that is where truth is and that would clear up some excess religious background noise in your thinking. Well, yes. We all think/feel that. You know why? Because we believe that about Jesus. Stated another way, we believe in Jesus, and that is called faith. You sound like you think that you would recognize Jesus if you saw him. That you would know that here is Jesus because you would know. I think you would. I think you are a believer in Jesus who thinks that that is not enough. You have to get all the doctrine organized? You have to identify a specific group of believers? You have to solve various historical problems with scripture? You have to have more answers and less confusion? Good luck with that. Give it up. Stand here with the rest of us who say “it is about Jesus, but some of the church stuff one just has to step over and go on.”
@ Nick:
No, he sounds very much like an average anti-Emergent blogger. He’s probably for real. That crowd really tends to idolize John MacArthur. Though I have to admit “Protectorate of the Faith” was pretty out there even for that corner of the internet, esp. since a protectorate is a state and not a person…unless of course he’s referring to the Lord Protector. 😉
TW wrote:
Did you know that if you would go to Catholic Mass religiously for three years on Sundays and two years during the week that you would would hear the majority of the Bible read?
I guess that former nun wasn’t paying attention at mass.
What Catholics don’t do is to have Bible studies where they sit around and each person says how they interpret a particular scripture.
As for this “incident”, they are all right, at least partly. If you are a protestant and believe in Sola Scriptura, then everyone’s interpretation of scripture is equally valid, just like the Bible study group attendees giving their interpretations. Honestly, this is a big reason I am a former protestant.
@ Nancy:
Nancy – Excellent comment. I think SD is dealing with what so many have dealt with, including me. We cannot measure up to the practices of the theology and get lost amidst that chaos. Not only do we get lost amidst the chaos, Jesus is lost, too.
@ Hester:
I know what you mean, though it’s precisely the “typicalness” of the language that hints at parody to my mind. The comment reads like the transcript of a speech made by a politician around 100 years ago (or by a preacher today – potayto potahto).
I agree about the Protectorate of the Faith thing – it is amusing to think of Mr MacArthur as a state being protected by The Faith.
@ Val:
Sorry Val, with all respect, I just don’t buy your suppositions. If the scriptures or the church aren’t your authority, then you are the authority. You say we can’t really know truth, but are dogmatic about “faith alone.” Even “faith alone” is your interpretation of scripture. Actually, you would have had to be taught that because you couldn’t come to that conclusion if you just read the Bible without someone exegeting the scriptures for you.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, don’t laugh. I can remember hearing McArthur preach something to the effect of the Founders defied their God instituted leaders (king was defender of the faith, remember?) and was founded in sin or something to that effect. I wish I could find it as it was rather bizarre. It was all based upon the premise that God institutes the government and we should not defy it.
So the language the follower of McArthur uses, is not far off the mark even though it sounds a big cultish and right out of Lifton’s thought reform. The last thing I would expect from those quarters are independent thinking processes.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, I have read your blog and found two posts you wrote to be comforting when searching for healing from spiritual abuse. I have benefited from your wisdom.
While I love satire and find amusement in parody, I must caution you.
At first I found Fred Butler amusing when he “engaged in his light-saber battle” with Julie Anne – his Profile pic with “Star Wars” light saber. But now I am not amused. I am ALARMED. Even more so after watching “Strange Fire” this past week.
This has come into our area – over 2,000 miles away from CA. The new push against anything considered “charismatic” is the “objectivism vs. subjectivism” argument. Objectivism being “Sola Scriptura”. The new “F” word is “Feelings”. Feelings were forbidden at “former church” as the they are “dangerous”. When the words “Holy Spirit” are mentioned even that caused alarm in the leadership.
Be careful, dear brother Nick. This is a very dangerous hybrid of Baptist fundamentalism and Reformed doctrine. We soon discovered that we could never be bound to this teaching which pretended to “protect us from false teachers”. We soon learned from writings by Pastor Ken Garrett and studying the Word that the false teachers are not always outside the church. His series of posts that Julie Anne linked to are very good, but I don’t have time to link to them this am.
We have been listening to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermons on Ephesians. He held Reformed views and was a cessationist, but he did not “quench the Spirit”. He has been gone many years, yet Lloyd-Jones speaks of this false dichotomy of “objective vs. subjective” and has much wisdom on this in his Ephesians series.
Mark wrote:
I don’t doubt your word Mark but that really wasn’t my point. I was attempting to show that charismatics do a lot of good in the world and perhaps shouldn’t be so readily dismissed by MacArthur.
“Sometimes critics of Christianity say, ‘We don’t deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit, but only the inspiration, the reception and the awareness of it. It is only this feeling of the Spirit, this being moved by the Spirit, of being filled with it, which we say has no place in sound religion.’ But this word ‘only’ is not a minor matter. They deny the whole Scriptures, the whole truth, and the whole promise of God!
The Anglican Church knows nothing of this devilish distinction. The Book of Common Prayer speaks plainly of ‘feeling the Spirit of Christ’, of being moved by the Holy Spirit and knowing and feeling that Jesus is the only name through which we can receive life and salvation. We are taught to pray for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are taught to ask that we may be filled with the Holy Spirit. Every Anglican clergyman professes to receive the Holy Spirit when the bishop lays his hand on him at his ordination. Therefore to deny any of these is, in effect, to renounce the Anglican Church as well as the whole of Christian revelation.”
-John Wesley
“Sermons on Several Occasions by the Reverend John Wesley, Translated into Modern English by James D. Holway” page 29
Mark wrote:
In a droll, lifeless, monotone?
Dead letter style?
That’s how I remember when I attended Mass.
Mark wrote:
I would respectfully differ Mark. In all my years of dabbling in Protestantism, both fundamentalist sect and mainline liturgical flavor, I have seen all of them beholden to their particular interpretation of Scripture by way of their respective central authorities. Much in the same way that the Catholic Church has its Magisterium, Protestantism has its analogue with its various gurus, teachers, and theologians.
TedS. wrote:
I’ve seen the other extreme in Protestant sects where the Bible is transformed into an object of veneration much like the replicas of downed WWII aircraft the New Guinea tribesmen used to build with materials from their jungles.
@ JP Maxwell:
Let me begin by saying that I love my brothers in Christ – all of them – and despite my oft-too-sharp wit, I try not to disparage individuals, even as I disagree strongly with some of their positions. Of course, when it comes to sin, I have little compunction against pointing it out. Regarding John MacAurthur, however, I have to go back to the words of Jesus – we are known by our fruit and by our love for one another. Unfortunately, I find these things conspicuously lacking in MacArthur’s ministry. A quick glance at those men who closely surround MacArthur reveals something troublesome – a complete lack of grace. In fact, I cannot read their writings and find any of the fruit of the Spirit; neither love, nor joy, nor peace, nor patience, nor kindness, nor restraint, nor gentleness. Whatever MacAurther is teaching on paper, it has not translated into the lives of its hearers in such a way as to produce fruit. I consider this a tragedy, really, and pray for all those beguiled by his ministry. I do not wish the man ill, but certainly cannot hope for the success or propagation of a ministry that produces even teachers and ministers who fail, in my mind, to meet the most very basic test of authenticity proscribed by Christ himself. I have no desire to condemn MacAurthur or his tribe, but his works speak for themselves.
Val wrote:
Jesus was NOT of the peasant class. He was of royal blood (the house of David) on his Mother’s side.
@ TedS.:
The best reading I ever heard of Isaiah 9:1-7 was by a little old lady at midnight mass last Christmas Eve.
@ Muff Potter:
There are competing views here, but it seems that under Roman rule classes were financial/economic, rather than by blood line. One notable example is the way in which anyone of sufficient wealth could purchase citizenship. As for Jesus, the vocation of carpentry seems to have been a skilled labor position, and would certainly not be classified as peasant in the sense that it 1) did not work the soil and 2) provided more than a living wage. While powerless in the political realm, historical sources seem to indicate that carpenters were actually fairly well-to-do. On the other hand, Jesus seems to have left all this behind, and while he was never a peasant in the sense of exploited labor he does seem to have been a mendicant.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Dr. Fundystan,
This is pretty much what I saw, too. I really think the internet has allowed us to see a side to things that might have taken years to see even if we were in close proximity. It is not just their blogging but the easy access to every sermon, conference talk, etc, etc. It is quicker to connect dots, see inexplicable associations with other gurus and so on.
I had always questioned the bit of McArthur I was exposed to concerning cessationism, gender roles, etc. But when Pyro came along, I was able to see up close and personal the lack of fruit in the dynasty from another perspective, not just in the content but also in the interactions, worshipful veneration of McArthur, etc. It was just another large dot to connect.
And there were also other websites of those who came out of the Grace to You movement that sadly sounded much too familiar. It is strange how many empire building tactics/methods are the same.
Is it no wonder there has been a McArthur connection to what happened to Julie Ann? Phil Johnson, one time blogger extraordinaire, thought he could swat away certain bloggers by simply insulting them as “discernment divas”. Or, That “Monstrous Regiment of Women”.
These are not nice guys. Their fruit is arrogant and rotten.
@ Anon 1:
It makes perfect sense actually (not knowing a thing about McAurthur, except he is reformed-baptist). The earliest reformers were still living at a time when the “Divine Right of Kings” was believed. Luther never even wanted to overthrow the Catholic church (at first) but reform it (hence the name). It wasn’t until the Enlightenment, some 250 years later, that people even dared question those in authority. Early Calvinist, such as John Knox, wrote interesting comments about England’s Queens. He was upset that England was being led by a Catholic when Queen Mary took her father’s throne – and ranted against Catholicism? no, just the idea of having a woman in power. When her sister Elizabeth overthrew her reign, Knox cheered Elizabeth on (she was Protestant), with accolades about how God set up the leaders in power, etc. He got around the “woman in charge” issue by comparing Queen Elizabeth I to Deborah of the OT.
Anyways, after reading all that, I was amazed at how the early Calvinist saw Kings and Queens as ruling by ‘Divine Right’ and not to be questioned (complete irony from Knox, given what he said about Queen Mary). It was pointed out their views on authority (any authority, Church or State) were formed pre-Englightenment and that is why we are having so many “authority” problems with the Neo-Cals today. What about non-Neo Calvinism? Well, it has had many confessions written since ‘Jean Cauvin’ passed on, the latest is the Belhare Confession, and many other confessions addressed some of the later issues brought in by the Enlightenment. This crop of Reformed-Baptist-Neo-Cals, thinking they are doing better to go back to the original texts, have bypassed the years of history and confessions, and are, unwittingly, attempting to push the church back to a time when people accepted the Divine Right of Kings and never questioned authority. It won’t work. Especially when they preach “all humans are dirty rotten sinners” as well, since the pre-Enlightenment (left over from the pre-Protestant days) crowd also believed Kings and Queens were better people (why we call men “gentlemen” comes from a time when gentle meant “good’ and the rich were thought to be better at “goodness”). This is also why the Queen of England today is also the head of the Anglican (Episcopal in the US) church, since only God-Appointed people could become Queens and Kings.
As an aside, their is another time in history the church began to devolved into denominational bickering so badly they ignored the global crisis around them. That was in Germany, pre-Worl War II. I just feel like McAurthur’s dividing lines are going to turn the church even more myopically on itself and set the future up for failure. If Christian’s can’t agree on what is from God and what isn’t, we will likely get a lot more of what isn’t in the near future. History repeats itself, they say.
@ Muff Potter: You know Muff, I lived in the Indian State of Rajasthan for a while. There is a whole cast there called the Rajputs. They were fantastic turbans, the men have long, waxed moustaches, the women wore elaborate cast-declaring jewellery, and they adhered to elaborate, financially crippling marriage customs. Raj means “Emperor” in Hindi. Once, long ago they had been the rulers of the magical state of Rajasthan. They were proud and fierce warriors. The men would fight to the death. If it was inevitable that they were going to lose, the men would dress in their finest and ride out to met their enemy and try and do as much damage as possible. The women would dress in their finest, build a huge bonfire and all immolate themselves in the fire, as they were all now widows and that was their custom. They took their kids in with them. To this day, families will go into financial ruin trying to marry off their daughters and there were news reports of brides committing suicide on their husbands funeral pyres more than once while I lived there. They thought of themselves as royalty, but in reality, many were dirt poor, had no means, aborted or killed daughters rather than letting them live an not giving them those elaborate, insanely expensive weddings/dowries. If you go to Rajasthan today, you will see peasants dressing up and acting like royalty. You will also see far fewer girls in a gathering. If you go to a “poor” hospital, you will see rows and rows of mothers and sons in the beds, yet nary a daughter to be found (don’t daughters get sick or injured?). Jesus was in the line for a throne of a de-throned kingdom. Harrod was not Jewish, there was no Jewish king in his day. Rome would never have allowed it.
Val, Loved your comment. I find the history so interesting and instructive if we are willing to learn from it.
I can remember reading about Knox (In a very old book by Stephan Zweig on Mary, Queen of Scots) which was so fascinating. And then found that history is usually more “well rounded” when written by those with no agenda as much Reformed leaning history keeps some of the very sorted stuff out.
Knox is of “Monstrous Regiment of Women” fame. He “needed” Elizabeth to make safe passage through England so he was no big fool. He also plotted murder against Mary’s husband, Lord Darnley and the Queens protege’, Rizzo. He even went so far as to write a sermon defending the murder. But what creeped out his parishioners the most was his marriage to a teen ager (15 or 16) when he was in his 50’s.
I pass by a John Knox Presbyterian church on many days and wonder if they know the full extent of history or care. Perhaps they think like so many making “man of his time” excuses. When it was really “divine rights of his time” thinking depending on who was in power!
I do agree with you on the “divine rights” thinking coming back in vogue when it comes to pastors/leaders. You can pick up on it all the time if you are listening closely. Not long ago, Mohler was very upfront about it speaking at a pastors conference at FBCJax. He said:
“The main means by which God saves his people from ignorance is the preaching and teaching of the word of God. That’s why a conference like this is so important. It’s not just because we think of the pastorate as a profession set along side other professions so that we can gather together for a little professional encouragement to go out a be a little better at what we do.
No, we’re here because we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God’s people from ignorance. ”
Scary stuff. “God appointed”. Who says? Benny Hinn thinks he is God appointed, too. :o) It is also inherent in Dever’s “keys to the kingdom” teaching. I think that whole movement is very scary.
The earliest Reformers sought the protections of princes/protectorates, etc, who were also going against the Catholic church. They could not imagine the church outside the civil power to compel yet there were those who could and were hunted down for it often punished harshly even to death. Calvin demanded power for his second time around in Geneva before he would come back again. They were so concerned that people were starting to go back to the Catholic church, they agreed and the rest is history. Just more of the same ‘divine rights’ from “God’s anointed”.
Nicholas wrote:
Spiritual Prostate Exam —
(ed.)?
Val wrote:
That is to be expected when you introduce pre-natal sex-selection ultrasound and abortion on demand into a society where only boy children have value. Your birth ratios will run around 90% male. Bake at 350 for a generation or two and see what it does to your reproductive success/population numbers.
Val wrote:
Similar to the Salafi movement in Islam, which tries to return everything to As It Was in the Days of the Prophet.
Muff Potter wrote:
Really?
The only place I have seen such actual veneration of the Book on a grand scale, along with a host of other inanimate objects, is the Roman Catholic Church.
Kind of funny. Kind of sad. Kind of irrelevant.
In my early Christian years, I met many Charismatics who have a real and deep walk with the Lord. I still know many like that.
I am not a cessastionist based on the text of any scripture. I believe it is possible that God can do anything. But as a reader of Christian history and an observant person, it seems that what the NT describes in some instances is not being replicated today. Why? I don’t know. Can God do those things? Yes. Is there a scripture that says that He stopped? No. Could he have stopped or could some of the miraculous signs in the NT be very rare? Sure.
Most of what I have seen in terms of “miracles” “tongues” and such from the Charismatic movement is embarrassing. All you have to do is rent Borat for a modern portrayal of that.
The Health and Wealth teaching is a product of Charismatic Christianity in the US, and it is a major topic for them.
But there are persuasive ways to address this, and there are non-persuasive ways, too. MacArthur should be more careful if he wants to persuade.
I will also not that many non-cessasionists like Driscoll and Mahaney merely hold non-cessastion as a doctrine, not as day to day practitioners. I suspect that if one went to their churches every Sunday for a year that you would not hear one person speak in tongues. What kind of a non-cessasionist is that?
I think that guys like that are profoundly embarrassed by much in Charistmatic Christianity, hence, they don’t practice it. But they will never come out and say that. And it feeds into their claims that they can see the pornographic visions of others or that God is speaking to them directly, like Apostles. You need to be a Charismatic is some way to claim either of those things, or your followers might question your claims.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: He was an artisan. Given the location of Nazareth, it’s not unlikely that some of his family (maybe most of them) farmed and/or kept sheep.
As for Jesus’ descent from David, I think *lots* of people at that time were descended from him in a direct or indirect way. Not sure that it is anything like what was developed in Europe, re. divine right, royal blood and all the rest of the things that we usually think of when we think of royalty and lineage.
The irony is that the “charismata” are not the stuff fae 1 Corinthians at all; they are from Romans 12. They include things like leadership (the only time in the NT that such a gift is mentioned), serving, encouraging and giving – things that very few of us believe have ceased, obviously. The 1 Cor stuff are called “phaneroses”, usually translated as “manifestations” although the word is derived from components whose literal meaning is a flashing forth, as of light.
I suppose nobody really wanted to be in a phanerotic church. I can understand that.
It so happens that I am not a cessationist (in the usual sense of the word) either. But I still believe some things have ceased. For instance; Jesus’ death on the cross (once was enough for all of creation for all of eternity). And the writing of scripture (thank God – we can’t even agree on the scripture we’ve got, so the last thing we need is any more).
@ numo:
Most of the historians I have read use the term “skilled laborer”. I haven’t heard the term “artisan” used before. Is that considered a genuine social category in 1st century Nazareth?
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: I hate to use this citation, but it’s quick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I hear you, totally. Mine is for slightly different reasons to do with what Christian Smith calls ‘pervasive interpretive pluralism’ that is, the ability to interpret the Bible in many different ways, & (for me) not really being able to find the sufficient reason to finally go for one interpretation as over another. Makes me feel like I can’t know God & am yet expected to throw my whole life into his hands. I did that until I felt utterly ‘dropped’ during my Mum dying. She was not the only thing that died…my certainty & hope did too. I’m left with a fear of God, in case he is as the hard core Calvinists describe.Val wrote:
I find this SOOOO hard…how do you devote your life to something so dim & unknowable? It leaves me asking who God is, & can I love him? And before anyone asks, of course I’ve prayed. I prayed about this kind of thing for over 20 years, always asking that Christ would help me see him through the Bible & love what I saw…& yet here I am. Very confusing. I actually think maybe he’s not there, or he doesn’t want me. And yes, losing my Mum, my faith & not being part of a big church anymore over the last 3 years has been losing my cornerstone, my north star & my bearings. Much love to you Southwestern Discomfort.
Beaker and Southwestern Discomfort,
I am so glad you guys come here.
Anon wrote:
Hmm. What does it mean when no matter what one says in a discussion the response is: Can you show me a verse for that? Or: that is not in the Bible.
Is that not veneration of sorts? :o)
off topic but so worth the time to read it:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/power-word-of-love/
(Ht-Bill Kinnon twitter)
@ numo:
Oh, I see. I think we are referring to the same basic idea. Historians tend to be very specific with their choice of words, and for better or for worse, all of my training in NT history has been based on the works of a few very liberal scholars, so I tend to have a limited vocabulary. Crossan, for example, calls Jesus a peasant in order to juxtapose his position against Roman imperial authority, a theme he is keen to explore; however, he spends several chapters explaining that Jesus wasn’t actually a peasant. I suppose it is all fair game when you have as openly a post-modern framework as Crossan does…
Beakerj and Southwestern Discomfort –
You both probably love others more than the best of those who call themselves Christian. Love in the name of Jesus. Love is Jesus. Peace and comfort to both of you.
Anon wrote:
I think you misunderstand. I used the word ‘veneration’ in the context of ideology, not a physical object. Protestant sects which tend toward fundamentalism are strikingly similar in their view of the Bible as is fundamental Islam with regard to their Qu’ran.
Nancy wrote:
No. I’m sorry that you misunderstood where I’m at. Today, I can admire and respect some of the things said about Jesus in the Gospels, but I don’t believe in Jesus as a salvific deity because admiration and respect does not bridge the gap to faith.
I could say far, far more, but I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not standing stubbornly outside the circle of the faithful who have a problem with the church and just want to clean things up a bit. The reason I’m outside the circle is because I don’t believe anymore.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
from Stephen King’s The Stand:
“…[Mother Abagail talks to Ralph and Nick about what God has told her. Ralph reads Nick’s response.]
Ralph Bretner: Uh, Nick says that… he says he don’t believe in God.
[Mother Abagail laughs.]
Mother Abagail: God bless ya, Nick! But it don’t matter! He believes in you…”
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: No worries! I’m just applying the word artisan as = skilled craftsman. that seems to be pretty standard in books/articles about art and social history, at least the ones I’ve read.
I like what I’ve read of Crossan (even though I don’t agree with him much), and got a chuckle out of “Jesus is a peasant/no, he isn’t – here’s why.” (From your description; haven’t read the book you’re referring to.)
I think that folks with Crossan’s training are less likely to use words like “artisan” than, say, those with training in the history of art/the arts (generally speaking).
Muff Potter wrote:
You mean they believe the Bible is true?
Gee, so did Jesus.
Daisy wrote:
LMAO…
Interesting twist to James McD’s stance as a continuist — the pastor of the Harvest Bible Chapel in Hickory, NC was once on John McArthur’s staff, and makes no bones about being a cessationist. One of the many reasons many of the original members of the charismatic congregation adopted by Harvest have gone elsewhere. These guys sure make strange bedfellows.
I’m not going to get into the argument over whether Romists or Protestists venerate whatever more than whoever. But I beg to offer the following observation on the doctrine of “The sufficiency of Scripture” as put forward by some, including but not limited to Mr MacArthur. What I know of his views on this come in part from an article in the UK magazine Christianity in which he states why he believes the gift of tongues has ceased, in which he elaborates on sufficiency. That is: scripture is all-sufficient. No other revelation is possible because any revelation from God would imply that scripture is insufficient. And (quoting from someone else now, I think) God only speaks through his inspired Word, namely the scriptures.
It’s simple really: a number of preachers declare this, but none of them has ever truly believed it. The clue is in the word “preacher”. If scripture is as sufficient as they claim, how could we need preaching? We should simply read from the all-sufficient scriptures. Any sermon, by word-count, will be pretty much 99% non-scripture; the preacher is adding his own words to those of scripture and thereby – quite rightly – rejecting the daft notion of the “sufficiency of scripture”.
Maybe things are different in the US. But I have never, ever, once, in 25 years of being around “charismatic” christians in the UK, heard anyone say God gave them a revelation that is binding on all Christians for all time and that should be added to scripture. Nor have I ever come across such a thing happening. The closest thing I’ve seen is when preachers claim God has shown them the correct interpretation of a particular fragment of scripture; just as the truth about Esther came (supposedly) to Park Fiscal once he had finished “studying and praying”.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That has been my observation also, right here in the Bible belt of the US.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Brilliant, Nick.
I was taught the all sufficiency of scripture. Of which I guess I do live by. The fighting between all the dogmatics was one reason that I rejected that Christianity could be true. But many years later on the day I told God that I wanted to know him, first my stone heart was instantly changed, I set out reading the all sufficient scriptures for myself and of course praying to God to help me understand. I became a tongues speaking/praying Christian during that process after reading the new testament which seems to me to say that I am still in the age of the New Testament. So, I guess these are my possibilities. I am either like the JWs who say that if you read the Bible alone without the Watchtower you will fall into darkness within 2 years, or I am either deceived somehow and have a demon speaking tongues through me, or I truly am OK. I will still graciously listen to any of my friends who angrily try to deny me of my ‘pentecostalism’ in fact I’m spending a week at the coast with a few old friends that were raised like me, one other has become Pentecostal also. One shoved a john MaCarther book in my face after I shared my testimony, but it was too late.While I do believe that Satan tries to counterfeit everything Jesus Christ does, I always go back to scripture, and if it seems to contradict itself, I dig into the original meanings as much as possible. I won’t argue or listen to any of my friends anymore about all this if they are only shoving MaCarther et al. material or quoting their own preachers, etc. I will debate only with those who study without the help of their own personal watchtower gods. My friends and I have unity in the faith on the areas that we can agree on.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yes, this is an excellent observation. Thanks for sharing it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Slightly tangential: A couple weeks ago I read about an Australian preacher being arrested in Perth, apparently for yelling too loudly in the street. A Scottish preacher wrote an article doubting that this was really persecution. He or a commenter questioned whether it’s really even preaching, if no one is listening. An American preacher commented that if he went out in a Montana field and preached to the prairie dogs, God would providentially cause someone’s car break down, so they could hear the Word. The Montana preacher is of the same Tribe as MacArthur, and may share his “sufficiency” beliefs. If so, he can skip the preaching and just place Bibles in the prairie dog holes. He might find a feared Arminian or two hiding in them, in need of the true gospel! 🙂
TedS. wrote:
Jesus taught and preached from the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament canon hadn’t yet been voted on by the post Constantine fathers.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Good analysis Nick! The model for the perspicuity of Scripture (aside from the Nicene father’s requirements for orthodoxy) you describe in your last paragraph is almost exclusively American in origin and not much more than 40-45 years old.
Muff Potter wrote:
On my way to a nuanced view of “inerrancy” that would lead many evangelicals to burn me at the stake, I had to give up on perspicuity as well. I am amused by Peter’s statement about Paul’s writings that “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand…” No kidding!
And now for something completely different. If you need to fake speaking in tongues, just say IshouldhaveboughtaHondabutIboughtaHyundai. It sounds pretty close. 😉
Dave A A wrote:
If the canon of biblescripture were NOT closed, and my epistle to Nick got in, future scholars could argue whether I meant Perth, Australia or Perth, Scotland. One would argue (incorrectly) that the plain perspicuous meaning is Aus., since the preacher is from there. Another would argue correctly that since Nick is in Scotland, I’d assume he’d assume that one!
@ Dave:
…or the prairie dogs could cock their heads and peer quizzically at him with their squirrelly little black eyes. And then walk away. God could providentially send a black-footed ferret to interrupt the sermon, but in that case you should stop preaching and contact a zoologist immediately.
Let’s be clear, if a MacArthur man was giving out McArthur books at a Driscoll conference Driscoll would have his guards go Old Testament on them. Also,though Driscoll thinks he is a bit of a Charismatic, I can imagine if a prophet got up in one of his meetings and prophesied about any abuse that was going on in his church. The same man would be strongly dealt with and certainly not listened to. The ‘prophets’ at Mars Hill would have to prophesy along the Driscoll ‘party line’ or else it would be regarded as a false prophecy. Mark Driscoll like others like him are their own prophet, priest and king- there is no room for any who might disagree with them which TWW has consistently shown.
@ Daisy:
I added a comment to the “Creation Museum” post that deals with a point you raised.
@ Dave A A:
Another would point out that, being a native Pom, I’d be more likely to have heard of Perth, Western Australia. Someone else would dig up ancient (but non-canonical) correspondence in which I observed that I actually did assume the Australian preacher was in his native Oz, whereas the Scottish commenter may well have been in the Scottish Perth (which, it so happens, is less than 20 miles from here as the haggis flies). Two separate denominations would form and would remain hostile to each other until Jesus came back.
I conclude with one of my all-time favourite exchanges from cinematic comedy (from the film “Dark Star”).
If MacArthur has said in his book some of the things that some folks say he has said about charismatics and pentecostals, then the SPLC has nothing to fear from Christians. They can direct their efforts elsewhere. At the rate we are going we will undercut and destroy each other without the need for any outside opposition.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
And both denoms would miss Apostle Dave’s point– preaching to prairie dogs in hopes a human audience will magically show up is, well, a tad silly.
@ Nick Bulbeck: and one of those groups would be bent on making sloppy joes a universal food, while the other would do the same for bolognese sauce… 😉
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Let there be light…
andrew Kenny wrote:
Wasn’t one of the major differences between a True and False Prophet is the False Prophet told the King what the King wanted to hear and the True Prophet told the King what he NEEDED to hear?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Sounds like a Fiscal aphorism. A true prophet told whatever God told him to tell, and not just to the King. Moreover, false prophets don’t just tell you what you want to hear. They’ll also try and discourage you when you’re actually on the right track. But Fiscal’s theology is founded on the belief that Christians remain hell-bent on sinning, and must be constantly man-handled along the narrow path by Godly™ leaders.
The prophet/priest/king fad founders badly on the rocks of Biblescripture (there being no basis for any such division of calling in the Body of Christ). And it fairly vanishes up its own backside at the point at which men try to install other kings in the Kingdom.
@ Dave A A:
Dave, that is sadly hysterical. You cannot make this stuff up.
What’s wrong with being anti-catholic?
@ numo:
@ andrew Kenny:
So true. Except McArthur would have to send Frank Turk. :o)
@ numo:
you’re funny!
@ Hester:
Or, if God sends a machete-wielding Bobcat or Grizzly, call Security to disarm and escort him out of the “sanctuary”.
Anon 1 wrote:
I should look up the original quote, I suppose, so it doesn’t look like I did make it up!
Pingback: John MacArthur Miffs Off Charismatics While Mark Driscoll and … – Charismatic Feeds
@ Anon 1:
I won’t quote, since in a comment section you can’t really know who wrote it, but it’s near the top comments:
http://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/persecuting-preachers-in-perth/
Mark wrote:
That is not necessarily any better than allowing one group who claims authority to tell you that they will do all the interpreting for you. No thank you.
oldJohnJ
Thank you for the heads up, but I normally try to stay out of Creationst/ Evolution threads here.
After I say my piece once or twice, I prefer to duck out.
I would encourage folks to soften the tone towards YECs, though, to stop characterizing all of them as being “liars” or as being ‘anti science,’ etc.
Even I drop out of Calvinist debates on here at times when the Calvinists start saying they feel offended by my tone (or someone else’s).
—————-
John MacArthur’s Distracting Extremism Regarding Charismatic Mov’t at Strange Fire Event (Pt. 1)
Dave A A wrote:
“Persecuting Preachers in Perth”?
Not only is that alliteration worthy of Twilight Sparkle, but the line reminds me of this old Tom Lehrer piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY
So John MacArthur is anti-Catholic? The Roman Catholic Church teaches another gospel, and what, we Christians are supposed to be “tolerant” of that? I grew up in that Satanic system that believes that the priests have the AUTHORITY to call Jesus down into the wafer and challis to turn them into the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ!! They also DON’T believe that Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross was good enough by believing in purgatory. They throw out the entire book of Hebrews in their sacrificial mass by teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice WASN’T “once for all”. So what’s the problem with Pastor MacArthur’s hatred for this apostate church?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, you might want to read the bible to see that we Christians are commissioned to preach the word…start with the book of Acts…all the best.
Ah, yes, that old “You don’t agree with me, but if you actually read your Bible, you’ll see that I’m right” nonsense. Good grief!
One of Ron White’s sayings, “You can’t fix stupid,” seems rather apropos here. Just saying…
@ Tim Yakich:
Teach and preach Jesus Christ maybe? The word (as in bible) didn’t exist and most people couldn’t read even if they wanted to read the OT scriptures that did exist. The message and gospel of Jesus Christ was shared by word of mouth and the power of the Holy Spirit, not by preaching from a book.
Tim Yakich wrote:
And so the Reformation Wars rage on, 365 years after the Treaty of Westphalia.
“ROMANISM! WE HATES IT! WE HATES IT FOREVER! (Gollum! Gollum!)”
Capped with a passive-aggressive Jesus Juke.
Tim Yakich wrote:
You misunderstand. Nick is not opposed to preaching and teaching the Word (as Bridget explained it)– he’s opposed to MacArthur’s view of the sufficiency of scripture, which would logically mean a cessationist view toward said preaching/teaching. IE, “We have the completed Bible now– we no longer need Spirit-filled preaching, which was just for the Apostles and no longer necessary post-Maranatha (end of Revelation).”
As a Bulbeckian, I’d like your response, or MacArthur’s likely response to this from Nick yesterday:
“The irony is that the “charismata” are not the stuff fae 1 Corinthians at all; they are from Romans 12. They include things like leadership (the only time in the NT that such a gift is mentioned), serving, encouraging and giving – things that very few of us believe have ceased, obviously. The 1 Cor stuff are called “phaneroses”, usually translated as “manifestations” although the word is derived from components whose literal meaning is a flashing forth, as of light.
I suppose nobody really wanted to be in a phanerotic church. I can understand that.
It so happens that I am not a cessationist (in the usual sense of the word) either. But I still believe some things have ceased. For instance; Jesus’ death on the cross (once was enough for all of creation for all of eternity). And the writing of scripture (thank God – we can’t even agree on the scripture we’ve got, so the last thing we need is any more).”
This is a point in the whole continuationist discussion which I don’t believe I’d ever heard before, and, IMO, a crucial one. It also indicates to me that, just possibly, Nick does indeed read the Bible.
@ Dave A A:
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Amen to both of you. And thanks for the provocation of thought about this issue and the possible long-term misunderstanding of the scripture.
@ Arce:
You’re welcome!
@ Dave A A:
I consider it a great honour that you consider yourself a “Bulbeckian”! And you’re quite right, of course; that was exactly what I meant.
It is a feather in TWW’s cap that friends here, whom I have met only online, are willing to speak on my behalf in response to posts like Mr Yakich’s kindly-proferred, but less-than-optimally-informed, suggestion. (Others have found the same, too.)
By contrast, we had friends in a previous church, whom we’d known for years, prayed alongside, contended and evangelised and reached out alongside, and served many hours a week in a church alongside, who dropped us like plague-infected corpses as soon as the CEO declared us “divisive” and refused even to countenance listening to our side of the story.
In conclusion, to Deebs and the other regulars: you get many visitors here denouncing you as prideful, envious, haters, etc – you know the list and there’s been a spate recently. While one should never be afraid of criticism, I believe you should ponder these in earnest when, and only when, you are criticised for posting an attack on someone who is small, poor, uninfluential, disinherited or who otherwise has much in common with the orphan and the widow with whom God himself identifies. I’m not holding my breath, btw.
And now, this:
http://theresurgence.com/2013/10/25/see-you-in-seattle-pastor-john-macarthur
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I had hoped Tim Yakich would return and engage in discussion…. Hoped he might ask what a Bulbeckian is, so I might inquire whether he’s a MacArthurite.
@ TedS.:
That’s a pretty good article and an even better invitation! Wonder if Mac will oblige him? As Chaplain Mike commented last week, “Funny, I just had a fleeting warm feeling for Mark Driscoll.”
@ TedS.:
Ok, I read it. You know what? These are little men with WAY too much time and money on their hands.
Driscoll cracks me up–he is so predictable. He writes like he is some gentle guy just coming by to be with friends and give away his books. (how many times did he mention that?). Oh and how many times did he use the word “kind”? And I would NEVER look to Driscoll to learn anything about the Holy Spirit. Since “his” Holy Spirit gives him porno divinations.
What passes for Christianity has become so bizarre world.
@ Dave A A:
If anything, this back and forth is good PR for both of their almost released books! Doesn’t Driscoll usually do some odd stunt previous to a book release? Maybe it will up the sales for both their books . . .
@ Bridget:
I’m trying to give Driscoll just a LITTLE benefit of the doubt. Then Anon 1 goes and calls them “little”…. He tells Mac, “Despite taking numerous shots from you over the years (some of which I deserved, as I had erred and needed to publicly repent and grow by the Spirit’s grace)…”. Probably should have included/specified his “They’re confiscating my books!” tweet.
Bottom line is you’re right, it’s all about the books!
@ Dave A A:
I think he was just a bungee-troll.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022117927_marshillbellevuexml.html
JMac now has an opportunity to mention how MD and company reacted to HIS invitation to dsicuss SOS, doesn’t he?
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
I just saw an article yesterday that Mars Hill was shot down. The church was trying to purchase a big building or more land and was turned down.
Or wait, I guess the story I saw is an off shoot of your link:
Seattle-based Mars Hill Church Hits Snag in Plans to Move Headquarters
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
@ Daisy:
I like the Justin Dean quote in the CP article that they want everything “under one roof so that we can really support the pulpit better with our central operations.”
Support “the pulpit”!?
Noticed they want to move to Bellevue… Back when I was around those parts, Bellevue wasn’t exactly the low-rent district (including, in its Medina suburb, the home of the wealthiest human being in the universe). Maybe an HQ in Rainier Valley would support the pulpit just as well?
@ Dave A A:
This is probably a stupid question, btw, but what is a Bulbeckian?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Just a way of saying I agreed with your original comment, which Mr Yakich found so Biblically wanting…;)
🙂 (for want of better words!)
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
What her pastor did was horrible. I don’t believe that John MacArthur believes that all reformed pastors are Biblical either. If you listen or read, you can see where he calls some out (Mark Driscoll being one). What I don’t understand from your post, is what did John MacAuther specifically do? Allow him to come to the conference? The article clearly states that his church did not encourage him to sue. If they stopped allowing people to come to a conference….I can just see the articles and blogs from that.
Wow, are you kidding????
Jmac runs with the worst of the ungodly – Phil Driscoll
C J mahaney and Doug Phillips.
Jmac -Protectorate of the Faith?!!
Jmac is a Usurper of the Holy Spirit,
(Who by the way,
Is The Real Protectorate Of the Faith.)
Jmac makes his living off of accusing the Holy Spirit filled brethren
Of Not being saved? God help us all!!
He is a hypocrite to anyone not drunk with his Koolaid
So back to you…..
Wake up Christian. Test these things and see if they be so……
However, only one, I believe, has a more biblical foundation and should be treated as a true Protectorate of the Faith and this man is John MacArthur.
Persecuted wrote:
You probably mean Mark Driscoll (no relation). Phil plays a pretty mean trumpet– 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13GEdVKK2jo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
@ Persecuted:
So far as I know, JMacArthur doesn’t run with any of those guys. JMacDonald does run with Driscoll. I do agree with you about MacArthur’s teaching, usurping, and accusing!