It is awfully hard to write a blog expressing disagreement. I particularly have trouble when it comes to naming names. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong, I am just saying I don’t do it well. I would rather keep things generic. On top of all this, it is really hard to write criticism about someone whom I respect so much. John MacArthur, the pastor, teacher, author, and Christian spokesman, is a man of God who has brought so much growth in my life in so many ways. He is an incredible Bible teacher who has changed many people’s lives for the better.
(Of course, when something starts this way, nothing before the “but” really matters, does it?)
But . . .
In his “Strange Fire” conference (that starts today), book (upcoming), and ensuing promotions, John MacArthur has, I believe, acted very irresponsibly and is doing incredible damage to the body of Christ.
It is no secret that John MacArthur pushes the polemic line and causes many of us to be uncomfortable. This is just who he is and I don’t really expect him to change. But this conference is an excessively eristic and unnecessarily divisive crusade against charismatics. And, to be frank, it is even over the top for him.
Now, let me make sure you know: I have not seen the conference or read his book. But I have been reading reviews of the book and viewing the promotional videos, created by John MacArthur, for this anti-charismatic campaign. You can see some of the videos here. It is quite the production. And this is not some passing slip of the tongue that may be excused (as is sometimes the case). This is a full-blown, all-out war he has declared.
Please understand that I am not charismatic. I have often expressed myself as the most “wannabe charismatic” non-charismatic you will ever meet. As well, I used to be as anti-charismatic as anyone you would ever meet. Frankly, charismatics made me angry. I attributed all that went on in charismatic circles to the work of Satan. I called, pleaded, and prayed that charismatics would “convert” to cessationism. And my arguments were, at least to me, persuasive.
However, I changed. God put way too many flies in my ointment for me to remain in this excessively polemic position. I suppose the first fly was “what’s his name” that sat next to me in undergrad. He was a charismatic. Worse than that, he spoke in tongues. I practically had a demon next to me! However, all semester long I observed this guy. I came to realize that though he knew everything I knew, he was still charismatic. What gave? I thought the right answers dispatched would bring home the booty of change. But he remained charismatic and continued to speak in tongues (though not in front of me). On top of this, he seemed to love the same Jesus I loved. On top of that, he seemed to follow the Lord better than me. I came to realize he was a better, more devoted Christian than I was. How could that be, if he had a demon? He was the first fly and this fly worked me over.
Eventually, I began to realize there was a whole other world of charismatics I had never met. My primary exposure to charismatics had been through crazy people on television and a highly controversial local pastor. Crazy church services, uninterpreted tongues, being “drunk” in the Holy Spirit, erratic prophecies left unchecked, people barking in the Spirit, and people howling at the moon was all I had known. John MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos and Hank Hanegraaff’s writings increased my faulty views. But, this one fly — “what’s his name” — disturbed it all and introduced me to something different. This new exposure was filled with intellectual heroes. J. P. Moreland and Wayne Grudem were the next flies. How could these guys who were so theologically astute, thoughtful, balanced, and godly be charismatic? After all, they were thinkers. Charismatics are not supposed to be thinkers!
Soon, the flies became so many that I had to throw out the ointment altogether. Gordon Fee, John Piper, Sam Storms, Craig Keener, C.J. Mahaney, Stanley Horton, and many other scholars made me rethink my position and return to the Scriptures. I now have a relationship with many of these guys and call them friends (one, I call pastor). Of course I have not been convinced by them (as I am not charismatic), but I have changed. No longer am I anti-charismatic. I am a non-charismatic wanna charismatic.
The reason I changed is because I quit characterizing all charismatics by their red-headed ugly stepchildren.
But for some reason John MacArthur hasn’t followed this same path. His criticism of the charismatic movement is more intense than ever. In fact, I would say that it is sinfully irresponsible. (Oh, that hurt to write . . . forgive me, Lord, if I am wrong.) He unnecessarily and continually lumps all charismatics together with practically no distinction. He says that the charismatic “offers to God unacceptable worship – distorted worship.” He calls it “strange fire.” He says they are “Satan’s false teachers, marching to the beat of their own illicit desires, gladly propagat[ing] his errors. They are spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans.”
Now, of course, many who claim to be charismatic do fit this description. I don’t think anyone would disagree.
One of the problems I have observed over the years is that the beginning of a movement is always the easiest to criticize. Many Christian movements in theology and piety are, at their beginning, very unrefined. Sometimes they contain some heretical elements. But over the years, they begin to change, adjust, mature, and sand down the rough edges. Think about dispensationalism for a moment. When someone criticizes dispensationalism, they almost never criticize it as it stands today. Criticism is made of Darby and Scofield. But so much has changed!
It is irresponsible to criticize a movement in a form that has already faded or is fading. Like dispensationalism, the charismatic movement has gone through many maturations. We talk about it in waves: the first wave, Pentacostalism; the second, the Charismatics; the third, led by John Wimber and the “Signs and Wonders Movement.” I think we are in a fourth wave where we have the rise of the “intellectual charismatics.” Either way, things have changed.
More than this, it is irresponsible to criticize the easy targets within a movement. We call this a “straw man” argument. It is when you choose the worst representative you can and argue against him. Of course, with charismatics in popular culture, the easy targets are the “crazies” who get all the air time. Why do they get the air time? Well, it is entertaining for many to watch. And the sensationalism that can come from these abuses is also easy for the non-charismatic to look at and discredit. But think of all the movements which are part of the Christian fold today that could be picked apart because of some abuses and excesses within. The first two that come to mind would be Calvinism and Pretribulationalism. Certainly conferences could be done about both, characterizing each by the worst-of. But how responsible and godly is that? Yes, you may make a qualification at the beginning and the end saying, “Look, I realize that not all Calvinists are arrogant SOBs, but the movement is dangerous. It is filled with monsters who believe God hates unbelievers.” Or, concerning Pretribulationalism, “I know that not all Pretribulationalists are date setters, but the theology is dangerous and produces an unbiblical mentality. It is filled with date-setting and causes people to be unconcerned with this present world.” Of course, these criticisms can be true, but they are not the necessary outcome of their beliefs and, more importantly, they don’t deal honestly with the arguments.
But it is not simply this issue that has compelled me to write this post. If this was the first time John MacArthur had irresponsibly characterized a movement he is against, that would be one thing. But, unfortunately, this is what he is becoming known for. MacArthur is already seen by many as a divisive heresy-hunter.
The worst of it all is that John MacArthur knows of Gordon Fee, Sam Storms, John Piper, and all the others. Yet he does not seem to acknowledge their influence. Why doesn’t he have some of these guys join his conference? They all speak against the same excesses within their own movement. A unified voice would actually be more effective in helping people guard against these abuses.
Because of all this, John MacArthur is losing his voice, and I don’t want him to. His reputation dismantles his platform to speak at just about any conference. He has worked himself into a corner where every time he writes a book or opens his mouth, many of us say, “Oh no!” before anything else. His radio program is called “Grace to You” and we are often left thinking “grace to who?”
John MacArthur says the charismatic movement “blasphemes the Holy Spirit” and “attributes to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan.” Maybe he should think about who is actually attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. I am not a charismatic, but such a statement really scares me. And because of this it would seem (even though the conference is sold out) that John MacArthur may be losing his voice.
223 replies to "Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice"
I think I saw Weakened Pneumatology open for CCR in 1977.
The soloist hasn’t lost HIS voice!
Tio, then what you are decrying is not really a lack of free resources, but any kind of useful index of said resources. There are dozens of free (very helpful) MP3s on this web site alone. Not to mention millions of free sermon MP3s from all over the world. Most (all?) of Piper’s books are available as free PDFs. That’s just a few examples off the top of my head.
I remember going to a bible conference in San Antonio in the 1970s. One of the speakers was Bertha Smith. Prior to this Ms. Smith spent many years as a missionary to China sponsored by the SBC. I listened to her speak and was amazed by her commitment and love for Jesus. Many of the other speakers, Adrian Rogers, Jack Taylor, Manley Beasley also spoke about her accomplishments in advancing the Kingdom.
Years later, she revealed that “she experienced a private prayer language”. As a result, she became persona non grata in the SBC.
In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things love.
Brendt, Yes and when searching for specifics it is so hard to find. An example is when I wanted to find the passages suggesting the destiny of the un evangelized, I knew in the 263 questions video classes it teaches about this, but when searching for it; it took me to the program you must purchase the series. This is one area of contention from the atheist, and since my best friend is one, I couldn’t back up my ideas, yet they are there. It is almost like pulling teeth when you set out to get resources for evangelizing…It shouldn’t be tat hard! Regular google searches almost always land you in some sales pitch site!
Tio, I’d suggest crowd-sourcing over search engines. If you aren’t on FB, get thee there now, and gather together a bunch of weird friends like me. 🙂 Then throw out your question — “I’m looking for XYZ.” You might even get a “my pastor just preached a great sermon on that topic” and a link to something that’s never seen the light of day at Google.
Are the following terms synonymous and interchangeable? Or do they have distinctions that should be observed? I use them synonymously, but should I change that practice?
(A) Pentecostal
(B) Charismatic
(C) Continuationist
To me, they all seem the same.
—-
FWIW, I think the side of wisdom would have been for CMP to have read the forthcoming book and/or watched the Strange Fire speakers before writing such a condemning post of Pastor John MacArthur. If he had, he might not have written this post. Or not written it as harshly as he has.
But hey, we all make unwise decisions.
Hi Michael, I feel the same way (I also hope Mr. MacArthur is not losing his voice). Let’s pray for him that he is not walking into a hornet’s nest. It never seems to help when anyone on either side of the aisle, tries to “up root” a particular “fellowship”; however, we are to expose false doctrine and maybe this is what Mr. MacArthur is trying to do? So then, my request for all of us is to please hold him up in prayer. This may be a dangerous territory that he is treading upon.
At the end of the age (also know as the harvest, Matthew 13:38-42), the angels of God are the ones assigned to separate the tares from the wheat. Thank God we don’t have to do this as we may up-root some wheat in the process of up-rooting some tares. Are we to expose false doctrine? Yes, of course (2 Tim. 4-1-4 & 2nd Peter 2:1-22), and we are to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3-19); but, we should leave the decision to the people. Then, when the end of the age comes (the harvest), God’s angels will do the sifting and separating of the tares (goats) from the wheat (God’s sheep).
Hopefully, Mr. MacArthur is simply exposing the error found rampant within the body of Christ. Truth sets people free to serve Christ without carrying around any extra baggage of false teaching. So then, hopefully what he is teaching will help the people whom God is drawing to Himself.
TUAD, nice “Fail Safe” question in the start of your comment.
I just read Frank Turk’s post above and couldn’t help but notice that every last one of the things he wishes to discuss is a complete and utter red-herring or rests on fallacious reasoning.
(1) A quantitative discussion of the ratio of “good charismatics” vs. “red-headed step children”.
Even if is is 90% Prosperity Gospel loving heretics to 10% John Piper’s this doesn’t allow you to paint the whole movement with a large brush. As has been pointed out ad nauseum it is not “one movement”, but many. Each must be critiqued individually. This is no different than the line of reasoning used by Atheists when they lump in Christianity with all other religions and claim that they just believe in one less god then we do.
(2) A quantitative discussion on the experience of miracles in the church.
What is the relevancy as to quantity? Out of all the sick people in Palestine how many were healed by Jesus or the Apostles? Furthermore miracles are just one thread of the discussion.
(3) A qualitative discussion on the relationship of the Charismatic movement to the spread of the Prosperity Gospel.
Cum/Post hoc ergo propter hoc and irrelevant to boot. Even if some strains of charismaticism lead directly to the Prosperity Gospel this would not be grounds to judge all strains. For instance I highly doubt I will see John Piper (any many like him) preaching the Prosperity Gospel anytime soon.
(4) An open discussion of the consequences of Grudem-esque (that is: allegedly “cautious charismatic”) doctrine in the life of a church.
The effects of something do not determine its truth. This again is a common line of reasoning used by Atheists against Christians.
TUAD – I consider myself C not A or B. I’m not defining these here because I suspect that will just create another rabbit trail. If he hasn’t already, perhaps CMP will create a chart for this.
Hilarious.
TR posse gaming the system, voting up posts of their ilk in order to gain the yellow background
nice. Of course, it doesnt make their screeds any better…
“TUAD – I consider myself C not A or B. I’m not defining these here because I suspect that will just create another rabbit trail. If he hasn’t already, perhaps CMP will create a chart for this.”
Thanks Rick. Eventually, I’d really like to know what the distinctive differences are between a Continuationist from that of a Pentecostal or a Charismatic.
Maybe Sam Storms can help CMP create that chart.
Pentecostal: “I’m a Pentecostal.”
Continuationist: “I’m a Continuationist.”
Pentecostal: “I’m a Continuationist too.”
Charismatic: “I’m a Continationist too.”
Bystander: “Okay, you’re all continuationists. Happy now?”
From the vantage point of no fire, any fire looks like strange fire.
Michael,
I think you are a little young to get a sense of some of the history. There were intellectuals among the pentecostals of the ’50s, but not having recognized credentials, the cessationists refused to engage. In the ’60s, when they were highly credentialed (they referred to themselves as charismatics – the term has only become generalized in the last thirty years or so) the cessationists refused to engage. There was no will for further engagement in the ensuing decades, so it is scarcely surprising that engagement is minimal today. After one has put the prisoner in the cart and paraded him through the streets, there seems little reason to debate as to whether the blade should be dropped or not.
It amazes me that we are quick to give our opinion and never use the Scriptures to justify our position. Check out what Paul wrote to Titus in Titus 1:10-16. A lot of the charasmatic teaching does this.
How about 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
Can we simply use Scripture to justify why the man is wrong in approaching this area wrong? Can we use Scripture to justify our position that he is right? When we fail to go back to the Scriptures, not our rational or experience, we open ourselves up to human reasoning.
Can we at least go back to the Scriptures? What did Paul, Peter, James, and others have: the Scriptures! They didn’t have commentaries, books, and all of the other things that get us to reason on what is right or wrong. The Scriptures should be the source of judgment only. If not, we can start to show an apostate side that could deem any one of us not being a part of the faith.
Surely CMP should have waited until all the “evidence” was in! (Reading the book itself!) 😉 Sorry Michael, having met and had lunch with John MacArthur, with a friend (a few years back), he is surely one of those rare pastoral prophetic types, who preaches and teaches from his great conviction! He is of course just one pastoral man, and thus subject to mistakes like all the rest of us. But he is also seeking to expose the great emergent errors which quite abound in many charismatic circles. Not to mention too the loss of the American democracy, daily! And Mac has plenty of “fire” btw, just listen to his preaching!
Mike J: “Can we simply use Scripture to justify why the man is wrong in approaching this area wrong?”
Perhaps we can, but there is stuff that’s so blindingly obvious that God didn’t bother to write it down. That’s where the “commentaries, books, and all of the other things” can come in handy.
Note, I too practice the gift of the so-called “prayer language”, in my personal prayer closet, (1 Cor. 14: 2). But hey, I am an Anglican too! 😉
Frank Turk –
We’ve tried to engage Pyromaniacs and others from a biblical, theological and historical perspective on the continuing work of the Holy Spirit today at our blog To Be Continued. My colleague and I have been to DTS and CTS seminaries (stalwart cessationist seminaries), yet we remain continuationists. We would love some engagement with our plethora of posts looking at the positive case from a biblical, theological & historical standpoint.
By the way, Adrian Warnock of Jubilee Church in London has listened to the first session and has offered some thoughts. I expected this might be how things began at the SF conference.
Does it dawn on anyone that MacArthur could care less about his “voice?” As Challies pointed out recently, it seems that it is in style to criticize JMac – and this is potentially as sign of postmodernity leaking in a little bit – “we must affirm all – and condemn those who don’t.” Boldly he seems to care more about truth than about his reputation among the recent reformed literati.
I am not entirely with MacArthur on the issue of charismatic gifts. BUT I am totally with him in this conference! This is calling out the 99% of Charismatic ministries who are nothing more than tools of Satan.
Perhaps some of my brothers are so buried in the Piper/SovGrace/Grudem movement they think that they are the mainstream Charismatics. But the truth is they make up such a small percentage of charismatics it is negligible. So, I don’t see how MacArthur attacking the likes of Benny Hinn is so offensive – we should rejoice and join him in the effort.
In conclusion: More gratefulness to our cessationist reformed brothers, please. After all, they are the ones who have fought for a biblical understanding of salvation for at lease 500 years. I cannot think of even one great truth the charismatic movement has defended.
Apollos: Charles Parham, a key figure in the Pentecostal movement … was a racist.
King David, a key figure in the lineage of Jesus, had some guy whacked to cover up the fact that he had knocked up the guy’s wife.
But as long as you bring up racism, it should be noted that MacArthur’s attitude stems from the same place. He starts by poorly characterizing an entire demographic based on a small sample set. If the distinguishing characteristic of the demographic was pigmentation, we’d call this “racism” (admittedly a different issue, but the same spirit).
But then he adds that, even if you aren’t in that demographic, but you don’t view it as poorly as he does, that you’re just as bad. Taking it back to the epidermal parallel, I keep seeing some 90-year-old grossly obese plantation owner accusing another man of being a “n****r-lover”.
Brendt Wayne,
Did the apostles and early church fathers need all that stuff (books, commentaries, etc.)? Did you take the time to read 2 Timothy 3:16-17? It states that Scripture is given for rebuke, correction, etc. so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK!
When does the Bible have to be second guessed by books and commentaries from the ideas of man? When the Scriptures are no longer Sola Scripture, we open ourselves up to doctrines of devils.
Scott,
I cannot value Adrian’s opinion for the simple fact that he embraces Rick Warren and says that he has learned a lot from him!! Really, what has the “purpose driven life” done for the Body of Christ?
Don’t engage Frank Turk on this subject. He doesn’t even bother to read the top charismatic scholars on this subject, such as Fee or Keener. His public interaction with Triablogue–hardly a bastion of charismatic theology–was as revealing as it was embarrassing. Frank Turk’s definition of “serious” certainly doesn’t entail intellectual rigor. He just wants a “debate” he thinks he can win, one where he can bully and shame the opponent into acquiescence.
FWIW, the Pyros have engaged and interacted with Adrian Warnock on their TeamPyro blog a while back.
———-
Frank Turk: “(1) A quantitative discussion of the ratio of “good charismatics” vs. “red-headed step children”.”
Michael T.: “Even if is is 90% Prosperity Gospel loving heretics to 10% John Piper’s this doesn’t allow you to paint the whole movement with a large brush. As has been pointed out ad nauseum it is not “one movement”, but many. Each must be critiqued individually.”
Disagree. General statements are fine. FWIW, Scripture does employ hyperbole at times to establish a teaching point.
“Even if is is 90% Prosperity Gospel loving heretics to 10% John Piper’s”
Surely, that’s something that would be worthy of notice and concern and further examination.
Mike J, where did I say anything about “need”? And where did *anyone* say anything about “second-guessing”? Nice strawmen — Ray Bolger is holding on line 2.
And yes, I read (and have memorized) the Timothy passage. It speaks to the sufficiency of Scripture — i.e. it’s all we *need*. But nowhere in this passage (or anywhere else in the Bible) is truth in other forms/venues decried. Such an argument is for solO Scriptura — not solA Scriptura.
Mike J, I cannot value the opinion of someone who reduces a person’s influence to one book that he wrote. But even if I could, Adrian’s article (did you take the time to read it?) is as much simply quoting MacArthur as it is Adrian’s view on the issue.
Tim Challies: “He [John MacArthur] paused to state that he is not discrediting everyone in the movement. He knows there are charismatics who desire to worship God in a true way.”
MacArthur: I’m not discrediting everyone in the movement.
MacArthur: Nothing good has come out of the movement.
Everyone sing along: “One of these things is not like the other ….”
Brendt,
Sorry my man……. Anyone that embraces all religions has nothing to do with one book. Good try to call a “strawman”, but you have yet to use the Scriptures to justify what you are talking about. Whenever Scriptures are not the sole judge of everything, you are left with human reasoning. This is where you find yourself…….
Kenneth Hagin is a good prime example. His plagarism of E.W. Kenyon and the likes with New Age Mysticism mixing it with Scripture has hurt “innocent” people more than it has helped. So, yes, one book tells a lot about what your foundational teaching is.
Another example is Mr. T.D. Jakes. His background is Oneness Pentecostalism (OP). OP was basically kicked to the curb by Assemblies of God due to their denial of the Trinity of the Godhead. Yet, Mr. Jakes always “scapes” around the subject when asked about the Trinity.
Mr. Joel Osteen who gets on CNN and says that he doesn’t preach on sin and that he cannot judge homosexuality because that is up to God. Do we need go on about simple things that define what their foundation dictates. If any man lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ, let than man be accursed!
Also, memorizing and reading Scripture does nothing for a person. If the Scriptures aren’t lived out, what does it profit a man? Even the devils tremble and believe.
Brendt,
You are doing a great deal of reasoning with no backing up with Scripture? Help us all out by using the Word as justification!
New Age thought can easily creep in to distort the proper view of Scripture!
And to use “Ray Bolger”??? Really?? Out of all of the posts you have made, there has yet to be a single use of Scripture to back anything you are quoting.
While I understand the sentiments expressed by this author, I disagree with him. Perhaps it is a part of human nature to want to avoid any topic or conversation that may seem “divisive”. But human nature is always wrong when it is disagreement with divine truth.
Sometimes I believe that people within the church are more concerned about unity and receiving the praise of men, rather than seeking to honor of God alone. The criticisms expressed by the author of this blog (though I am sure heartfelt and expressing the beliefs of many other people) remind me of the critiques that were leveled at Spurgeon during and after the Downgrade controversy.
Spurgeon considered whether it was worth risking losing his influence for the sake of standing for biblical truth. His conclusion rightly was that it was God who had given Him that influence anyway, and therefore dishonoring God by compromising for the sake of “unity” and maintaining that influence was sinful. (As if God needed Spurgeon to be popular in order to accomplish His will).
Immediately Scripture, and eventually history have proven the correctness of Spurgeon’s position during that time.
The same is true (testimony of Scripture) and will probably be true (testimony of history) of Macarthur as well.
Grace and Peace
Adrian Warnock said, “he was clear he believed that everything we attribute to the work of the Spirit is really the work of demons.”
That was an unfortunate misrepresentation. MacArthur didn’t say that.
Mike J, it is a logical impossibility to state that “Scripture doesn’t say” and then back that statement up with Scripture.
But, you want chapter and verse? OK, here. 2 Timothy 1:7 tells us that God has given us a spirit of a sound mind. There is nothing “sound mind” about the self-contradiction I pointed out in comment #83.
Susan, MacArthur stated that Charismatics are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to attribute to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit, or vice versa. Warnock didn’t misrepresent MacArthur at all; he merely distilled what MacArthur said.
BTW: I think that Jack Deere’s defense of continuationism in “Surprised by the Power of the Spirit”, while having good points, completely misrepresents the other side, lumping them all together as dangerous just as John MacArthur has done. The difference is that Deere does not stand behind a pulpit with such a visible and polemic history.
Brendt,
You are doing what charasmatics love to do: take Scripture out of context. Either the Scriptures will be used in context on what they mean and how it is meant or it is distorted. 99% truth is still a lie.
It is amazing that you want to discredit MacArthur and agree with the poster of this blog. If the poster of this blog writes on something you disagree with, will you discredit him as well?
We all have to come to the conclusion that Scripture is truth. Our reasoning and flesh will always disagree with truth because there is enmity between the carnal and spiritual.
Go back to all of your posts!
And Deere, like MacArthur, knew better.
TUAD,
“Disagree. General statements are fine. FWIW, Scripture does employ hyperbole at times to establish a teaching point.”
I’m not quite sure you understand hyperbole and furthermore I’m pretty sure that MacArthur’s statements are not intended to be interpreted as such. Hyperbole is a rhetorical tool which implies that it is not meant to be taken literally. I’m pretty sure MacArthur means what he says.
“Surely, that’s something that would be worthy of notice and concern and further examination.”
Perhaps worthy of investigation. Yet in this case the facts are quite well known. Basically anybody who believes that any of the spiritual gifts are for today labeled as a continuationist. Yet within this group the belief that at least some gifts are for today is about the only thing that is agreed upon. Everything from the method for arriving at the conclusion that they are for today, to the authority of the gifts, to exactly which gifts are for today differs. Often different strands of the group have views that are directly contradictory to another strands view. Given these facts there no reason to question continuationism as a whole (at least on these grounds), at least no more so than the fact that over half of those who believe in the literal resurrection of Christ are Roman Catholic should cause us to question the literal resurrection of Christ. You simply can’t lump people who fall under a broad label together when they have drastically different beliefs and methods for arriving at those beliefs. Rather certain groups within the larger group should merit our concern. To suggest otherwise is simply logically fallacious reasoning. It is a bit like saying that since a large group of those who reject the Pope also reject the authority of the Bible we should be concerned about all those who reject the Pope.
FWIW, on the TeamPyro blog there is a post where John MacArthur and Jack Deere met. I believe Phil Johnson wrote that post.
To all…
Conflicting theology within the church isn’t new. In 1st John (~60 years after the resurrection) we find error was already creeping into the church. Any work of God throughout history we can find the satanic counterfeit in operation, times of revival included.
The real enemy isn’t flesh and blood, it’s the arch enemy of our souls leading folks down a path to open their mouth (we all do it) and say things we shouldn’t say, espouse the thoughts and aspirations of our mind, even writing a book.
All to say, we need (me especially) need to be quick to hear, slow to speak, pray for discernment and not feel like we need to comment on everything. God help me and bless all of you.
I listen to J. MacArthur’s sermons every now and then on the way to work.
He is a real assurance destroyer. He plants doubt. ‘If you are not living a certain way and behaving in a certain way…well…maybe you just aren’t a Christian.’
He is a legalist and a modern day Pharisee.
I grew up just a few miles from where his church is located in the San Fernando Valley, CA. (just an aside)
Michael T.: “Rather certain groups within the larger group should merit our concern.”
Okay. Which certain groups within the larger group of continuationism do you have a concern about, Michael T.?
Recently, I watched John MacArthur’s video in which he encouraged “faithful Pentecostals” to join his war against the Charismatics. This video is a sham and a joke. MacArthur firmly believes that both Pentecostals and Charismatics are guilty of counterfeiting the gift of tongues. Therefore, how can he with a straight face ask one group of counterfeiters to help him fight against another group of counterfeiters?
LT, I think I needed to respond to this:
“This is an ill-advised post for several reasons:
1. You haven’t heard or read what you are critiquing. That means you are speaking about things you don’t know. That’s unwise and dangerous.”
I was critiquing the videos. They are all teaching and expositing Scripture. Have you watched them? They are very substantive. Why are they beyond the ability to critique?
“2. It partakes of the emotionalism you decry. You can’t make an emotional argument that these guys are nice guys and therefore their theology doesn’t matter. I would say their theology matters more because they are nice guys.”
That was completely misreading me. Who would ever believe that I think someone’s niceness makes them right. Did you really get that from this post. I think I may not be the one who is making emotional interpretations.
“3. You are factually incorrect. MacArthur is aware of Piper, Grudem, Mahaney, etc. He has even spoken with some of them and had them to speak at his church. Somehow you fail to consider (at least here) what that means.”
Factually? Okay, now I don’t think you read the post. I said JM knows these guys. That is what makes it so bad. Please read carefully before you critique!
“4. You fail to discuss the issue on its merits. You admit to being non-charismatic, but your focus is not on the issue that matters–namely, the theology and resulting confusion of the movement you disagree with. The issue has to be theology, not personality.”
I have a 16 session podcast where I argue in studio against Sam Storms. I have a 300,000 word post series dealing with every issue with Sam Storms. Just click on the charismatic section here on the blog. Not every blog post can do everything. Please get to know the person you are critiquing before you respond. It not only gives a bad impression of rashness, but it does not help people who are reading.
Probably best to ask questions first.
This post seems a little uncharacteristic of Mr. Patton.
He knew the MacArthurites (eg Turk) would be reading and would respond with intensity.
And he knew that the hyper-sensitive Charismatics would jump in and pile on and argue.
It’s hard for me to figure out how this post is Kingdom-minded (or any better than what he is accusing JMac of doing).
Mike J, let me put this another way. Early on you alleged that a “lot of the charasmatic teaching” aligns with the error that Paul pointed out in Titus 1:10-16. And yet there is *no* Scriptural backing for that allegation whatsoever. Rather, you used your God-given intellect, observed certain phenomena, and reached a conclusion. Now if indeed (as you state) “[t]he Scriptures should be the source of judgment only”, then what you did was wrong. But I don’t think that what you did was wrong (even though I disagree with the conclusion) and 2 Timothy 1:7 backs that up.
But if my lack of Scriptural context for every statement that I make is wrong, then so is yours, and you need to retract several statements.
As to the irrelevant red herring as to whether I would call out Michael if he wrote something I disagreed with, I certainly would. In fact, I *know* that there are things that he and I disagree on, and if I haven’t called him out on those already, it’s simply because there has not yet been an intersection of his writing and my (infrequent) reading of this blog.
Some people are missing the point. The very nature of the Holy Spirit cannot be contained. He will do what He wants. He has that authority. This conference that John MacAurthur is putting on, is saying that the Holy Spirit is limited. Which is incorrect. We don’t need to read J.M.’s books, or attend his conference, he is limiting the Holy Spirit simply by hosting this event. I am praying the Holy Spirit shows up and wows the crowd. Wouldn’t that be a fun twist? Anyone care to join me in prayer for this? Lol