- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/10)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/11)
5 More Questions with John MacArthur
- 02/10/11
- 70
Yesterday I shared the first part of a two-part interview with John MacArthur. Yesterday’s questions revolved around Dr. MacArthur’s new book Slave, the best Bible translations, avoiding scandal, the challenges he has faced in ministry, and the advice he would give himself if he could go back to the early days of his ministry.
Today the interview continues…
You are obviously a busy man. What advice would you give to pastors on loving their wives and children amidst the many demands of the pastoral ministry?
It is critically important that the pastor give priority to his family. As Paul told Timothy regarding the qualification of an elder, "He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?" So, this is a priority that comes to us directly from the Scriptures.
The most important things a Christian father can do for his children are to love their mother in a Christ-like way (Ephesians 5) and to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6). And the most important thing he can do for his wife is to pursue Christ, and then to love and lead her out of the overflow of his devotion for the Savior. Thus, the fundamental key for being both a good husband and father is to be a godly man--one who fervently loves the Lord and is shepherding his own heart and mind with the Word of God. And that is intensely practical. To be an effective parent and a model husband, you must be faithful in your walk with Christ. Everything else in life flows out of that. Then your leadership in the home will be marked by an attitude of humble sacrifice and selfless service. As the Spirit uses His Word to sanctify your heart, you will be able to shepherd and care for your family.
There are other important things that fathers must do, of course--such as praying for their children, correcting them with patience and gentleness, instilling within them a love for the church, spending time with them, encouraging them, befriending them, and helping them make wise friendships of their own. But the heart of Christian parenting is being a faithful Christian.
That kind of genuine Christianity, daily lived out before those who know him best, brings great credibility to the pastor's preaching and leadership in the church.
How can we best critique people who are “in our camp” and yet believe things different from us? Or behave in ways we do not appreciate? How can we know where to draw those lines?
Part of the responsibility of an elder is not only to teach and preach the truth, but also to warn the flock about error. We see this modeled by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament. When the gospel is at stake, and even when a core aspect of pastoral ministry or church life is at stake, it is important for us to warn people about falsehood and potential dangers.
When we disagree with people "in our camp" (which I understand to mean those who affirm a biblical gospel but differ with us on secondary issues), we have to respond on a case-by-case basis. And my response depends on the level of danger I believe that particular issue poses to those under my spiritual care. If an issue arises that could potentially threaten the congregation of Grace Church or the student body at The Master's College & Seminary, I might say something to the congregation. If the issue is significant and far-reaching, I might write an article, a series of blog-posts, or even a book about it.
I don't aspire to be a full-time all-round critic. The few well-known times when I have criticized people whom you might say are "in our camp," my concerns have been motivated by a deep concern for those under my spiritual care. I feel a heavy weight of responsibility for them, knowing that one day I will give an account to the Lord for my stewardship of them; and I'm willing to be unpopular within the larger evangelical community if that's what it costs to say what Scripture compels me to say.
One final thought to add is this: I believe that it is appropriate to respond publicly to that which has been taught publicly. If someone has published something in a book or on a blog or preached it in a sermon (which has then been made available online), it is now subject to public critique. I certainly believe this is true with regard to my own teachings. Anything I have preached or published (and therefore made public) is consequently subject to public criticism. And I don't consider my critics to necessarily be unloving just because they disagree with me. In fact, I welcome their feedback, because it is part of the sharpening process.
What are the two or three most urgent theological crises that you see in the North American Church at present?
Two of my primary concerns are addressed in the next two questions. So I'll save my responses to them for later. A third major issue that I see is the Arminian methodology that seems to characterize many in the Young Restless Reformed crowd in contradiction to their Reformed credo.
It is sadly ironic to me that those who claim to hold to a Reformed soteriology would simultaneously embrace ecclesiological and evangelistic methods that depend so heavily on current fashion, clever techniques, and human ingenuity. When pastors work so hard to be "cool" or "hip" or "trendy," thinking that the way they talk or dress will make the gospel message more appealing to the lost, they betray an intrinsically Arminian perspective. Words like "relevance," "innovation," and "contextualization" have become buzzwords, even in Reformed circles, for reaching the "unchurched." But these words expose a man-centered perspective that, I believe, is completely unbiblical.
How much better it would be to adopt the perspective of Jonathan Edwards during the Great Awakening. Edwards was surprised by the response to his preaching. He did not manipulate revival (like Finney did a century later). Rather, he focused on preaching the truth and trusted the Holy Spirit to do the work. If we are going to be Reformed in our soteriology, we should at least be consistent with how that works itself out in our practical ecclesiology--and particularly in our evangelistic srategy.
Since you wrote Charismatic Chaos we have seen the unexpected confluence of Reformed theology with charismatic beliefs (such as in the Sovereign Grace family of churches). If you were to write the book today, how would you affirm both love and critique for today’s Reformed Charismatics?
I would affirm my love and appreciation for C. J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and other conservatives in the continuationist camp. I consider these men to be friends and allies for the sake of the gospel. Charismatic Chaos was primarily written against the excesses of the broader Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. And those excesses are not what these men are best known for.
But, I would still challenge these men to reconsider their position on the charismatic gifts. I am convinced that the charismatic movement opened the door to more theological error than perhaps any other factor in the twentieth century (including liberalism, psychology, and ecumenism). That's a bold statement, I know. But once you allow experientialism to gain a foothold, the results are disastrous.
Moreover, I am thoroughly convinced that the biblical description of the charismatic gifts is incompatible with the charismatic gifts practiced in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today. For example, Acts 2 is explicit in describing the gift of tongues as the ability to speak previously unlearned foreign languages. The rest of the New Testament affirms this same understanding (as does the testimony of the church fathers). But that is the very opposite of the nonsensical gibberish that characterizes modern glossolalia.
So I would challenge them to explain why they hold on to a modern practice that, in reality, has no biblical precedent--especially when that modern practice is the gateway to all sorts of theological error.
One pressing issue in the church today is that of creation and evolution. Do you believe that a person can be genuinely saved and believe in some kind of theistic evolution? How serious a theological error is it to reject a literal 6-day creation?
It's a very serious error in my estimation, because it attacks the authority of Scripture at the Bible's very starting point. It employs a special hermeneutic in order to make the Bible mean quite the opposite of what it plainly states. And once you open that door, absolutely nothing is safe from the assaults of rationalism, skepticism, and rank unbelief.
I watch the propaganda being published by organizations like Biologos, and it's hard to resist the conclusion that many of the people who are involved in that project don't seem to be believers at all, given the large portions of Scripture they regularly have to explain away in order to justify their convoluted worldview.
As a matter of fact, the history of modernist rationalism is littered with vivid examples of why it is unsafe and spiritually destructive to subject Scripture to naturalistic presuppositions. I wrote on this topic in detail at the very beginning of my book The Battle for the Beginning.
But in answer to your specific question: I do think it is possible for a genuine believer to be confused or befuddled by scientific arguments regarding evolution and the age of the earth. (It is certainly possible for believers to be inconsistent in their beliefs--to hold all kinds of errors in varying degrees. That's called cognitive dissonance.)
Well-meaning evangelicals have experimented with several ways to reconcile old-earth theories with Scripture. One of the more popular ideas (until Henry Morris exploded it) was that there's a gap in the white space between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2, and (so the theory goes) that silent gap might accommodate countless ages of change and chaos in the universe. Spurgeon held to a version of the gap theory, and the original Scofield Bible embraced both the gap theory and old-earth cosmology with blithe enthusiasm. Of course we would not consign everyone who ever held such an opinion to the ranks of unbelief.
Nevertheless, as evolutionary theory has developed and devolved into untouchable dogma--a favorite weapon for the current generation of angry atheists--I don't see how any sober-minded, well-grounded, fully-committed Christian who truly believes what the Bible teaches can long maintain faith in the various and ever-changing theories evolutionary scientists keep proposing. Biblical cosmology, the Genesis account of how the human race was created and subsequently fell, and the important parallels between Adam and Christ in the story of redemption--these are essential beliefs of Christianity; they have never changed; and they are diametrically opposed to every purely naturalistic theory about life's origins.
Anyone who takes seriously the authority of Scripture must ultimately set the opinions of men aside and simply trust what Scripture says. The earlier we do that, the better. Frankly, I have never understood why someone who believes in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ would balk at believing all of Scripture, starting with Genesis 1:1.
Many thanks to Dr. MacArthur for his willingness to do this interview.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (70)
On the second question (I suppose actually the seventh) I have a touch of insight. MacArthur distinguishes between the “biblical gospel” and “secondary issues.” I know for a fact that he is consistent on this.
In my first pastorate we made contact with an older couple who had moved to our town for health reasons. They had no church, and were disturbed by our covenantalism. Before joining the church, they wrote to Dr. MacArthur for advice. Could they trust these strange people called “Reformed Baptists”?
They received a response from an elder at Grace Community Church. The essence of the response was that while GCC would differ from us on certain issues (such as the future of Israel) we were sound Christians who preach the gospel clearly. The letter urged the couple to join our church without reservations as we were in their neighborhood and a solid gospel option.
That letter has been in my mind whenever I have had a slight difference with MacArthur. I remembered it when he preached his “All Calvinists should be Dispensationalists” sermon. His critiques of others are not unloving, and they do not indicate a failure to embrace gospel Christians.
It’s nice to see that the answers given in interviews like this are not mere platitudes, but the actual practice of MacArthur’s ministry.
Great interview.As a Young-earth Creationist and a Reformed Charismatic I am torn between cheering things he said and disagreeing thoroughly with other things he said.It was a great interview though and I thank you for posting it here. May God continue to bless him in the next years of his ministry.
z.
John Macarthur is a brilliant man, a fine preacher and utterly tenacious … year after year after year. Thanks so much for including the interview. He’s been faithful and diligent and tender-hearted. The Macarther study Bible was very helpful to me. The one thing I really don’t understand about him, though, is his “fear” of the charismatic/pentecostal movement. [Of course, he would utterly deny it’s fear. I get that.] And yet, for some reason, he seems to go to his default place on this issue and boy, he ain’t budging. He crosses his arms, and baby, that’s it. Very weird. At least he’s consistent. I’ve never understood it, not when I read Charismatic Chaos years ago, and not now. Now that he’s older and continues to challenge men like Piper and Grudem to reexamine their positions, I can only shake my head. Even with leaders like Macarthur, I guess I have to say of him what is true of all of us … God keeps striking straight blows with crooked sticks. Sigh…
I love the response about Jonathan Edwards not “forcing” or “manipulating” revival. It should just be a matter of preaching the truth and allowing the Holy Spirit to move.
David, www.RedLetterBelievers.com, “Salt and Truth”
Thanks for the great interview!
I commend Dr. Macarthur for his scholarship and his uncompromising belief in the authority of the Scriptures. He is one of the people who has stood firm in Christian orthodoxy and is to be commended for this.
I am a tad put off by him though, because he seems to be quite concerned about just about everything. While I agree that there are pressing issues that need to be addressed, Dr. Macarthur tends to make all issues pressing.
His criticism of the Resurgence (who else is he talking about here) is quite humorous considering that there is not a movement in this country I would consider more Reformed AND Gospel centered than the guys leading the movement. His issue lies with their “Arminian methodolog,” or in other words, their creativity and contextualization. It seems that Macarthur would have everyone preach like Jonathan Edwards (but Macarthur does not read off of a piece of parchment in a monotone voice, now does he?) For all of his “criticisms” of methodology even Macarthur has adopted more the preaching style of Finney than Edwards.
But I digress.
Also, in regards to theistic evolution; I think (and many Reformed scholars and Church Fathers would concur) that he is off base. Science is ever changing, so I would caution against getting too caught in a theory or idea…it will likely change in 100 years. However, the best scientific theory we have available at the moment is evolutionary theory. Our biological processes and genetic DNA works according to the propositions put forth by the theory of evolution. If you don’t think so read Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God,” Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and a believer in Christ. Evolution is scientifically verified theory that we need to either 1)accept and adjust our understanding of Genesis or resort to we cannot trust science (even Christian scientist) and create elaborate deception theories.
Good luck with that.
Great questions. Both of these interview posts were very helpful (especially the question on loving your wife and kids - so simply yet profound). MacArthur has had such a huge effect on so many younger believers like myself. It was good to hear his explanation of his motives behind his critical approaches to other believers sometimes. I do wish that heart behind it came out more in his public comments sometimes, but it’s a good reminder when we take things he criticizes personally. His critique of the Reformed Charismatics was a great example of challenging believers doctrine in love.
It would be interesting to hear Dr Mac converse with someone like, say Greg Koukl on the subject of earth age — not debate, not talk about each other, just converse.
It would also be interesting to know how Matthew defines “scientifically verified theory”, and at what level evolution has been verified.
The issue of critique hits home for me. I have been intensely crticized by church brethern before. Even though the I do believe they acted out of love for me, I do not think I was wrong. A gulf developed when in their eyes I “refused to repent.” Those who criticized loved their conviction and stance more than they loved me, because they were more willing to get rid of me in the end than to allow ourselves to just diagree.
Willie Mac,
So, is evolution “the best scientific theory we have” or a theory that has been “scientifically verified”, making it a scientific fact - you claim both.
Evolutionary theory by definition cannot be verified by the scientific method (the method used to consider a theory scientifically verified), because it cannot be re-created or re-enacted. Hence, the best you can do is claim that the theory is supported by other scientific observations, and you cannot claim it to be “veruified” or “proven”.
I’d be interested to hear your explanation as why you exact same line of reasoning should not be applied to bodily resurrection. This a point driven home by Dr. MacArthur in his closing statement. Science says that it cannot happen. The Bible says it did happen multiple times and will happen again on a large scale at God’s command. Given your conclusions about evolution and the Bible, in order to be consistent don’t you have to say that we can either choose to “adjust our understanding of [the Bible]” in regards to bodily resurrection or deny science and “create elaborate deception theories”.
Dr. MacArthur’s statement, “And those excesses are not what these men are best known for” should be countered with the fact that these men are not known for ANY of the excesses characterized by the experiential movement.
It seems a bit inconsistent that Dr. MacArthur more or less demands continuationists like John Piper and Wayne Grudem to explain why they hold on to their view, while he cannot let go of the vestiges of dispensationalism which continue to moor him to a faulty view that is ultimately incompatible with his Lordship position, not to mention a pretribulational eschatology that has every bit the lack of precedent (and more, I would argue) that he claims is missing in continuationism.
I believe it is a myth that Edwards preached in a monotone voice. That myth is based on 1 eye witness account and how to interpret that account is debatable. If you read what Edwards himself said about the passion that is necessary in preaching I think you will be hard pressed to think his preaching was passionless.
If only he would budge…if only he would speak with his opponents and really listen…if only he would look at the evidence…”indeed, hath God really said?”
MacArthur is respected and listened to because he is rock solid on his biblical interpretation and preaching. Everything he says in this interview is not only Biblically based, but the views that have been held since the church fathers.
I for one am very grateful for MacArthur’s immense work for the church of Christ.
I agree Willie Mac,
“Science will change in 100 years so we should not get caught up in a theory.”
Instead, we should cling to God’s unchanging word that plainly teaches a literal six day creation by a supernatural Creator;
How is believing in the ordinary meaning and plain truth of Scripture an “elaborate deception theory”? That statement seems a bit more abrasive than almost any public rebuke I’ve heard released from Dr. Mac’s camp.
The comments made about Reformed Charismatics and the Resurgence saddened me. The types of ministry in the reformed community look different (as well as those preaching and ministering) because God’s kingdom is filled with different types of people and nationalities. God uses all types of ways to bring the gospel to bear on people’s hearts. How sad to think that you should just do ministry a certain way or it’s wrong. Certainly it’s the Lord who changes hearts and does the work of regeneration, but we can still pursue and plead with people to believe the gospel.
Over the years it’s seemed more and more to me like MacArthur is really a fundamentalist at heart who fears almost anything that he’s uncomfortable with.
Jay, if that was what MacArthur was speaking against (dissimilarity), then you’d be right. But I think you missed his point. The kind ministry he is speaking against is the “seeker-driven” movement in new clothes. It’s the unbiblical ecclesiology that the church is really for the unchurched.
Those who want to defend the Reformed Charismatic position should at least try to address the specific issue he raised—how do you reconcile the biblical description of tongues being known languages with the modern practice of ecstatic speech?
Willie, perhaps this is a lesson for all of us in missing the point.
To make MacArthur closer to Finney than Wesley is… well… missing the entire point. The issue isn’t whether one reads from a transcript or speaks extemporaneously. The issue is manipulative tactics.
When he references Arminian methodology, he isn’t referring to creativity. He’s referring to seeker-driven methods in new clothes (literally and figuratively). He’s referring to the unbiblical ecclesiology that the church is for the unchurched.
I’m a homeschooling mother of three plowing through the final two years of the high school years. My children and I L O V E John MacArthur, have loved him for years. We’ve used his Bible commentaries and sermons more than any other source for their Christian education. My daughters waited with me for your interview to be posted and we all thoroughly enjoyed reading the excellent questions and the answers.
Thank you so much, Tim.
God Bless You.
Interesting tactic I’m seeing in a couple of the comments here. I think I shall adopt it. Henceforth, anyone with whom I disagree will be declared fearful of my position. Why are charismatics afraid of cessationists? Why are old-earthers and theistic evolutionists afraid of a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why are paedobaptists afraid of credobaptists, and amils afraid of premils? Why are so many people afraid of John MacArthur? Where does all this fear come from?
Willie would do himself good to read this article:
The Last Young Earth CreationistIt’s long, so pack a lunch and dinner.
What a horrifically ignorant understanding of Dr. MacArthur’s positions with regards to dispensationalism.
His correct view that God has NOT broken His promises and covenants with Israel does not “moore him” but liberates him to fully glorify God and fully preach ALL of scripture. He doesn’t have to jump through strange interpretive hoops to make texts about Israel mean things other than what they plainly say.
To say that Dr. MacArthur’s premillinnialist eschatoloty lacks precedent also reveals that you have not actually read his position on the matter. Here, you can download them for free: http://www.gty.org/Shop/Audio+Series/300_Why-Every-Calvinist-Should-Be-a…
You win the irony award for accusing Dr. MacArthur of being soft or inconsistent with regards to Lordship salvation.
That was for David Mohler
Good interview, and obviously a very smart guy.
I appreciate that he thinks things through. I *don’t* appreciate his general my-way-or-the-highway attitude on a zillion secondary issues (such as Reformed theology v. Arminianism; charismatic gifts; and views on origins).
Let’s shoot at the first one, for instance. He seems to dislike the idea of “relevance.” But, in reality, he himself is also practicing relevance. He just has a much different audience to be relevant too. Relevance for them means a suit.
His theological brains are fantastic, but the need to be combined with humility, introspection, and honest assessment (“hey, am I doing the same thing that I’m condemning others for, just in a different way?”)… none of which are on display here.
I’d also add that until he severs his connection with the vitriol and assorted garbage that goes on at the Pyromaniacs blog, I cannot take his pronouncements seriously. That blog is well-named, in that its main purpose is to burn down rather than to build up. And Dr. MacArthur is the fuel for the flames.
E.G. -
It is unfortunate that you do not know enough about Dr. MacArthur’s ministry to be making such comments. It is unfortunate that ignorance is driving many of the criticisms against Dr. MacArthur.
“He just has a much different audience to be relevant too. Relevance for them means a suit.”
What does that mean? Have you ever been to Grace or watched it on TV? It is a melting pot of young people of all races, combined with middle aged and older folks. How is a suit “relevant” for the thousands of 20 somethings in his church? Unfortunately, you believe that Grace is only made up of old white people. So very wrong.
Which doctrines would you like Dr. MacArthur to not hold to with certainty? Which doctrines should we as Christians shy away from certainty on and glorify apathy or laziness (in study) in the name of “humility?” Humility should not mean uncertainty or wishy-washyness when it comes to Scripture. You can hold firmly to the truth of a doctrine without sacrificing personal humility, as Dr. MacArthur demonstrates.
Also, your basic understanding of Dr. MacArthur’s involvement at TeamPyro reveals your ignorance. He does not control the content there. In fact, one of the posters strongly disagrees with JMac on Israel, the end times, etc. That blog is not a unified, JMac-defending outlet. They do not speak for him, Grace church, or TMS.
Do you hold John Piper personally accountable for every single thing that happens at Justin Taylor’s blog?
I also noticed that a couple of my charismatic brothers referred to Macarthur (and thus) anyone else who disagrees with them as “fearing” charismatics.
This sounds worryingly like the rhetoric the homosexual lobby uses against those who disagree with them, doesn’t it sound more like Freudian mumbo-jumbo than a real analysis of the arguments or situation? Furthermore it usually degenerates from a so-called fear to a so-called hate.
Can I suggest that you need to think through such arguments before you start using them.
Disagreement is neither fear nor hates, nor is it founded on either fear or hate.
“But, I would still challenge these men to reconsider their position on the charismatic gifts. I am convinced that the charismatic movement opened the door to more theological error than perhaps any other factor in the twentieth century (including liberalism, psychology, and ecumenism).”
Dr. MacArthur is worthy of our deep respect and should always be listened to and heard with a careful and thoughtful ear. Whether his rebukes go too far or not far enough, they are rebukes that come from a sincere heart that is dedicated to embracing the fullness of God’s Word.
But, for what’s it worth, it’s statements like this one that cause me to cringe, because I have listened to C.J. Mahaney and John Piper wrestle openly with the issues Dr. McArthur is challenging with for years. And I have watched with great delight to see the massive positive steps forward (yes, long ways to go!) in a Mark Driscoll and a Matt Chandler regarding the supremacy of Christ in all things and over the centrality of his Word in the lives of a believer.
When it comes to challenges and concerns, does Dr. MacArthur see how God has moved in each of these men in a healthy biblical direction when it comes to his concerns? What about extending an extra measure of grace here and trusting that God will continue to shape and mold these men who call Christ their Savior and Lord?
I’m not saying he should stop rebuking these men, but there’s a point when the same rebuke over and over again loses it’s punch in the face of real, godly progress and change.
There can be no doubt that the evangelical landscape has been decimated by various movements and fads over the last 100 years. But the relatively recent awakening (albeit not full blown revival) that has taken place in ministries led by men such as Chandler, Driscoll, Keller, Mahaney, Keller, and Piper seems to be unnecessarily marginalized by Dr. MacArthur based on secondary issues. In practice, I see Dr. MacArthur’s ministry increasingly pulling away from these men rather than taking a great deal of joy in what God has done and is doing in their lives and in the lives of those they watch over.
In fact, all I seem to hear from Dr. MacArthur is concern when it comes to other large ministries in the Reformed community, but I can’t remember the last time he openly praised a Chandler, Driscoll, Keller, Mahaney, Keller, and Piper where the praise wasn’t just simply a preface for yet another concern (criticism). It wouldn’t surprise me if an example or two existed out there, but the point is that he certainly won’t be accused of any excesses when it comes to the joy he has publicly expressed for these men’s ministries.
Biblically speaking, I think that warrants some concern too because Christian love isn’t an abstract concept. We don’t love in a vacuum. And such love not only requires correction and rebuke, but patience and joy in what God has done and the continued hope that the God who rescues sinner’s hearts from the pit of hell will also continue his sanctifying work within them.
Gabriel, in response to your question to Jay about “how do you reconcile the biblical description of tongues…” I have a broader thought that addresses some of my disagreements with Dr. MacArthur.
The way MacArthur states his position is as if men & theologians like Piper, C.J. Mahaney, D.A. Carson, & Grudem don’t have strong biblical convictions and arguments in the area of charismatic gifts not ceasing. Grudem lays out many of these in Systematic Theology, and they are compelling for me personally. But the way MacArthur speaks, at least how I take it, is that there is no other truly biblical perspective to take than a cessationist position.
In specific answer to your question, there seems compelling arguments that tongues was not ONLY foreign languages a la Acts 2. 1 Cor 14:2 seems to suggest this reality. Grudem and other strongly biblical charismatics go into this.
There is no problem disagreeing with this, and arguing it out lovingly so that we truly strive to interpret Scripture correctly. But MacArthur’s tone, and even your question to Jay, seems to suggest that any other position than a cessationist one is foolish. After reading Carson, Mahaney, Piper, Grudem, knowing how deeply they love and believe the Scriptures, I think it is dishonoring to cast such a tone.
This is the problem many find with MacArthur I believe, myself included. Anyway, love your thoughts back! (Also, I am not attempting to get into a discussion on if charismatic gifts still exist, more wanting to comment on what most Reformed Charismatics find off-putting about Dr. MacArthur).
I couldn’t agree more Brad. Great thoughts.
Too bad that comment to me was from Anonymous. And too bad, all the more, that Anonymous assumes I have not read Dr. MacArthur’s position on the matter - which I have, and a whole lot more. Anonymous’ rush to quick-typed vitriol and assumption is disappointing to say the least. But it’s what some of us have come to expect from the MacArthur/Pyromaniac camp, so it’s not a surprise at all.
First of all, let’s be very clear, Anonymous: I said “pretribulational” - not premillennial. And “moor” is not spelled “moore”.
More importantly, I did not accuse Dr. MacArthur of being “soft or inconsistent with regards to Lordship salvation”. That’s not even implied. All I stated was my belief that his vestiges of dispensationalism are incongruent with Lordship salvation. In my experience, it was MacArthur’s Lordship position that eroded my ability to continue in my Grace Brethren-dispensational upbringing. I am not the only one who has had this experience. If that doesn’t make sense to you, Anonymous, then I invite you to leave it alone.
My comparison was meant to assert that Dr. MacArthur is not exempt from not being able to see the incongruences of his own doctrinal position.
When I was in College my friend and I were having a discussion on Rev 20. We disagreed if the chain was actual physical or spiritual metaphorical. So my friend suggested we call the only man we knew would have an opinion John Mac. I can’t remember Johns response but I do remember that when we called he picked up the phone and answered us. I was always impressed by that and while I don’t hold to everything Johns teaches I can’t help loving the man.
Anonymous #24, RE: Pyromaniacs
Phil Johnson runs the show there. Unless things have changed, his bio linked at the site states that “Phil has been closely associated with John MacArthur since 1981 and edits most of MacArthur’s major books.”
It also states that “Today Phil is the executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur.”
Here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bio.htm
I’m simply stating what I read on the official portion of that site. Sounds like a very close association to me. If I’m wrong, then the site needs updating. Feel free to correct me, and then let them know that they ought to fix it.
(Also, the fact that one poster disagrees with MacArthur on one topic does not exactly make the case for diverse opinions.)
To reiterate (and maybe clarify) my point… Dr. MacArthur is a Godly man and a scholar. I appreciate much of what he has to say. And, in fact, I appreciate his writings on things that I don’t agree with him on. It allows me to see what seem to be the most robust arguments on the other side of particular issues.
What I do have trouble with, though, is the lack of grace (ironic…) that he - and some of those who adhere to his theology - tend to show to others with whom they disagree.
Contextualization should not be a dirty word to the Reformed. It is merely acknowledging that Christianity - especially Protestant and particularly Reformed Christianity - developed in a fully western European context, and as a result the way that it has been traditionally practiced contains some “packaging” that are cultural and not part of the gospel. Just as modern (and prior) Reformed Christianity is in not in error for being culturally distinct from the church as depicted in the New Testament (Jerusalem Jews, etc.), non-western Christians are not in error for failing to pretend as if they are in either modern Kansas or Calvin’s Geneva.
Now some Christians claim that high western culture is a product of Christianity itself; of God moving through and working in a culture, and therefore the ability of an Asian, South American or Latin American to conform himself to that culture can be taken as a sign of that Christian’s spiritual maturity (sanctification?) if not necessarily their regeneration. If that is the view of McArthur and those like him, well it actually contradicts their cessationism. Instead, there can be no greater argument for continuationism than the position that the Holy Spirit shaped western culture to suit God’s purposes (especially since these purposes, by the way, are not contained anywhere in the Bible and would have had to have been divinely revealed to prophets later).
Of course, taking contextualization too far is wrong, but abuse of a good doctrine and practice is not the issue … what doctrine or practice exists that is immune to being distorted? Instead, if MacArthur takes the position that contextualization is man-centered, then that judgment needs to be applied to none other than the apostle Paul when he circumcised Timothy so that his being the uncircumcised son of a Jewish mother would not needlessly cast a stumblingblock before the Jews that Timothy was called to evangelize and pastor.
Re the last question to John MacArthur (creation and evolution), it is very unfortunate that respected Christian spokesmen like John MacArthur and Albert Mohler insist on continuing to promote the totally unnecessary false choice of either the facts of nature or one particular interpretation of the Bible. It is obvious that the book of Genesis was not intended to teach science and that there are many passages in the Bible that are not intended to be taken in a rigidly literal manner. If these Christian leaders were to publically allow for the possibility of other ways to interpret Genesis, Christianity might not be losing so many young people. Equating Christianity with Young Earth Creationism hasn’t saved anyone, but it has caused many to be lost. I grant that there are theological issues that need to be worked out and then disseminated, but this is being done, on the internet and in the literature. We need to get to the point where creation/evolution becomes just another one of those secondary issues on which Christians publically agree that there is more than one Christian way to look at it.
Paul:
You used the phrase “the facts of nature” presumably in reference to evolutionary theory and the big bang theory as explanation for the origin and history of the world that we see around us. Don’t confuse unproven and unprovable theory with proven fact.
You also said “Genesis was not intended to teach science”. Well, the young earth creationist makes no such claim. However, Genesis does in very clear terms explain the beginning of the universe, the creation of all things, the fall of man, and many other historical realities. Science, on the other hand, should not comment on the miraculous, for which it has no answer or explanation.
Tim,
Thanks for posting the interview. I like to think that in God’s providential movements in my life, I am a product of Grace To You and Ligonier Ministries. And while I ended up on the Presbyterian side of the two, I learned to love the Bible and studying it from, “Our Sufficiency In Christ.” I learned to take the Gospel seriously by reading, “The Gospel According To Jesus.” And, I learned to be teachable by reading, “Charismatic Chaos.” It took me many years to read that last book because I was offended by its content at first. I came from a Charismatic background and disagreed with it. I assumed that Dr. MacArthur hated people like me. After reading the book and taking my feelings out of the way, I attempted to actually, “hear,” the arguments that he made in support of his position. I don’t know if I totally agree with everything he said but I realize that more than anything I have learned from reading Dr. MacArthur’s books, is that this man LOVES the Word of God and is zealous for its proper interpretation and passionate about it’s uncompromising proclamation.He has stepped on my theological toes many times, as has Phil Johnson. I try to remember that these men are seeking God’s glory and the Church’s good. I thank God for them, though they may sometimes say things that get my theological nose out of joint. I am a better Christian for it because I have to go back to the Scriptures and study to show myself approved once again, knowing that what I believe is Biblically sound.
Thank you Dr. MacArthur.
God Bless You!
Job, with your statement…
“there can be no greater argument for continuationism than the position that the Holy Spirit shaped western culture to suit God’s purposes”
you appear to misunderstand the argument. Cessationists do not believe the Holy Spirit of God has ceased His work. They believe the sign gifts present in believers have ceased. I’m not sure how the sign gifts shaped western culture per se, especially considering they weren’t present after the close of the canon.
Job, I think you hit on a point that is important. I believe Dr. MacArthur sets up a false dichotomy with the “contextualization is always bad” and “I only preach the Word of God” posture.
EVERYONE contextualizes to some degree, even Dr. MacArthur. That is why he preaches in english and not Hebrew or Greek. He doesn’t wear 1st century clothes but modern suits. I haven’t been to MacArthur’s church, but I assume they use forms of modern technology that are contextualized to our time, instead of 1st century musical instruments or parchment.
I even think Dr. MacArthur’s books reflect a “coolness” and contextualization, dare I say. Look at his latest book, “Slave”, and tell me that it doesn’t have the latest, hippest form of style, which is simplicity (as exemplified in modern culture by Apple and such). Is the book cover EXTREMELY different than the cover of “The Gospel According to Jesus” when it first came out? Yep.
I don’t think this is wrong by any account, but I just want to point out the false dichotomy MacArthur has set up, in my opinion. The real question is WHY do we have the style, technology, and so on that we do? Is it to win the praise of man? Then we are wrong of course. I think this is what MacArthur is trying to get at in his criticism of the A29 people. But could someone accuse him of the same with the style adaptations of Slave? I think so if you use the same measure MacArthur does.
But if our style, tech, language and so on, is adapted to reflect the good aspects of modern culture (not sinful ones) and we do it for the glory of God, then have a hip cover to a book is fine.
Love to hear others’ thoughts on this.
Eric @34… I always find it interesting that proponents of young earth creationism often resort to what amounts to extremely postmodern-sounding arguments (“science really doesn’t prove anything,” “scientific truth claims are power plays,” etc.).
In general postmodernism is (rightly) tossed right out, but not in this realm. It’s rather fascinating. Situational postmodernism?
Interesting that you take issue with Dr. MacArthur over his stance against Charismaticism or Pentacostalism as if something has changed that should persuade him otherwise. While you’ve made it clear that you agree with Pentacostalism (or the Charismatic movement), you have not offered an iota of reason why John’s position should change.
Though you are careful to include everyone as ‘crooked sticks’, your indirect application of this description toward MacArthur puts you in a rather precarious position as judge.
I am so thankful for John MacArthur, because there are so many inroads into the church regarding questionable teachings, and he stands guard to protect the flock. He does not compromise on t.v. or in his writings. He may disagree with secondary issues, but his love for the Church is evident. His stand is at cost to his popularity with others. May I be so bold to proclaim truth. Not in a contrary manner as some of us are apt to do, but because I love the glory of God more than the accolades of man, as MacArthur exemplifies.
Tony,
Dr. MacArthur would probably respond by noting that, within contemporary evangelical circles, the Charismatic Movement has made much greater inroads than liberal theology ever could. The errors of liberal theology are generally obvious, because they begin with a blatant denial of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But the errors of Charismatic/Pentecostal theology are much more subtle. And as a result, the contemporary evangelical movement has been much more affected. From Dr. MacArthur’s perspective, this makes the Charismatic movement a great threat.
In a recent interview with Phil Johnson, Dr. MacArthur said this, “The Charismatic Movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess that it’s in today. In virtually every area where church life is unbiblical, you can attribute it to the Charismatic Movement, in virtually every area — bad theology, superficial worship, ego, prosperity gospel, personality elevation, all of that comes out of the Charismatic Movement.” (You can find the full interview on Grace to You’s website.)
Hopefully that provides some background to Dr. MacArthur’s point.
Great interview, Tim!
E.G.,Postmodernism says there is no ultimate authority, no absolute truth. Young earth creationist says the Bible, God’s Word, is the ultimate authority, not matter what science says. How you can equate the two, I’m not clear.
To say young earth creationists (YEC’s) state “science really doesn’t prove anything,” “scientific truth claims are power plays,” is building a straw man. YEC’s use science everyday, as we all do. They just make scientific theories submit to the authority of God before accepting it.
Here are few organizations that gladly use to science to demolish the strongholds of naturalism.
http://www.answersingenesis.orghttp://creation.comhttp://www.icr.org
Concerning theistic evolution, I believe MacArthur is 100% correct.We should never make the mistake of allowing outside sources to determine how we understand Scripture. True Science deals with proveable facts, which both evolutionists and creationists use. However, it must be admitted by all sides of this debate, we all start with our own presuppositions. The facts can only take us so far, that is where theory comes in order to reach those presuppositions. I am convinced that if it wasn’t for the pressure of evolutionist scientists, for the most part this wouldn’t even be an issue.
As to the Charismatic issue, MacArthur is right to point out the dangers of the Charismatic movement. As a former Charismatic myself, I can testify to the fact that this movement tends towards making experience trump Scripture.That being said, I must admit that some of the arguements that Cessationists use to prove Cessationism, I find less than convincing. An example of this is 1 Cor. 13: 8-10; where Cessationists believe that which is perfect is the completion of the canon of Scripture. While this is not a black and white issue and while it is not my intention at this time to say too much on this issue; I believe that which is perfect is the second coming of Christ. I make that comment not as someone who is convinced 100% on my position, rather the way I am presently seeing the issue. Another aspect that comes to mind, is the fact that many Charismatics themselves admit that gifts like tongues and prophecy ceased after the apostles died and brought them back around 100 years ago. This is something I find very telling and if it wasn’t for the fact that I do not totally agree with some of Cessationists interpretation of Scripture on the issue, I would be a convinced Cessationist.
Excellent interview Tim. When I read those answers, i was overjoyed because of his honest answers. The interview exceeded my expectations. Thanks for the interview.
I really liked this statement and it needs guts to say this “I’m willing to be unpopular within the larger evangelical community if that’s what it costs to say what Scripture compels me to say.”
His nice suit in the picture is contextualisation.
There is a difference between using contextualization as a “method” to “reach” people for the Kingdom (and thus replacing the power of the pure Gospel) and being contextualized by the times we live in. Frankly, it would be very silly if a proclaimer of the Word of God dressed himself in camel’s hair, don’t you think so? Thus, the comment about the suit is childish and foolish.
On the Charismatic issue. Tongues, prophecies e experiences bother me to no end, but if I had to pick the one that bothers me the most is prophecy (some background info, I was in the charismatic/pentecostal movement, and spent years in that system “thinking” I was saved. Not that “reformation” itself saves anyone, but a true view of God and ourselves brings us to the reality that we do need a Saviour). Now, bring that concept of tongues and prophecies into the reformation side and what do you get? Frankly, I am not sure. Being reformed and believing that prophecy still exists today is an oxymoron to me.
About 6 months ago I seriously started looking for another church. I had known that I eventually would have to do that (I wasn’t in the charismatic movement anymore but I needed to find a “real” church). I checked a couple of websites that I could trust, where they list some churches, and found a few not very close but in my area. One Sunday morning I headed to one of the closest two. After the service I sat down with the pastor (whom I had contacted through email beforehand) and asked him a few questions, and I went straight to the issue of being a “reformed charismatic”. Immediately he put himself on the defensive, and kind of “recited” to me things that are NOT in the bible, which in his view should give me enough proof as to why those gifts still exist. To my surprise, he tries to end his argument by telling me that “prophecies today are fallible - men are fallen thus they are fallible creatures” (as if the OT prophets weren’t fallen??!). I said that I was sure if God wanted to speak through anyone today He would certainly have the power to speak truth and not “maybe yes maybe no” truth. And even before I said anything about how false prophets were stoned in the OT, he said “the NT nowhere says to stone false prophets”. He himself admits that there are false prophets delivering messages that do not come from God. How does that thinking make any sense? It doesn’t. But in his mind, and in the mind of the so-called reformed-charismatics, it does.
One of the reasons, IMO, that tongues and prophecies remain today is that people just don’t want to give up having “experiences” - experiences appeal to the flesh.
Grace and peace to all,E.
EG,
I did not say in my comment at #34 that “science does not prove anything”. On the contrary, I (and fellow YECers) believe that science can and does illuminate many facts about the material world around us. What I did say in #34 was that evolutionary theory and big bang theory are not proven scientific facts, and that by definition they cannot be proven with the scientific method.
Simply put, evolution and the big bang are postulations, or someone’s best guess given their presuppositions. I certainly have presuppositions as well, namely that the Bible is inerrant and has plain meaning that can be understood.
or…How about, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it…
Anon,
Or perhaps better: God said it, that settles it, and I believe it.
David - thanks for pointing out the “fear” red herring. I’m so tired of that marginalization tactic!