Comment Post: The Difference Between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism
With addendum:
Lydia,
Authentic Calvinism eventually dies a social death. It looks like the following pattern: It dies, then there is a resurgence that lasts 30-50 years. The death usually lasts about 100 years before another “rediscovery.” Remnants of the resurgence live on with more biblically grounded soteriology, but retains the name, “Calvinism.” Moreover, this is why contemporary Calvinism (the remnant) has a soteriology that is inconsistent with their eschatology. Hence, many “Calvinists” of our day contend against “New Calvinism.”
The historical rediscoveries die out as a result of:
1. The novelty wears off and the “gospel” repetition becomes boring and lifeless.
2. The saints eventually discover that it is a false gospel.
3. It is always accompanied by escalating tyranny.
4. The lack of sound doctrine regarding sanctification begins to have ill results in the lives of many people.
New Calvinism is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism with a new twist: for the first time in church history, it was systematized and packaged for the present church culture via the Australian Forum (1970). This time, it may not go away and become part of the last day antinomian blitzkrieg that will precede Christ’s return. However, Susan and I have been visiting churches that were on the cutting edge of the most recent resurgence. They were the ones who embraced this Reformed model early on as the movement was picking up steam (early 80′s). And what we are seeing is almost surreal. The best way we can explain it is: the outward expression of praise and worship with no life. Almost like skeletons raising their hands in praise to Jesus. Lots of praise and worship, but in both cases, large crowds of people move past each other like ships in the night. While the message is love, love, love, joy, joy, joy; we were not greeted by anybody. Never in my life have I seen so many unfriendly people with smiling faces.
paul
Politics and Religion Have the Same Soul
When I didn’t know any better as a Christian, I was indifferent to politics because it made no sense to me. My problem was the following: I was always focused on outcomes. It never made any sense to me that regardless of outcomes, people would vote the same ideologues into office time and time again. In my frustration I would think, “Politics are a waste of time because people are stupid. Regardless of outcomes, they vote these same people into office time and time again.” This made absolutely no sense to me.
Until recently, church never made any sense to me either. Consider this picture: vast institutions pregnant with ultra-educated people coming up with ideas that plainly contrast Scripture. Again, regardless of the poor outcomes, the SYSTEM remains intact. The system seems to offer a devil that we know, and have become comfortable with, as opposed to a devil that we don’t know.
If you think about it, what is the difference between contemporary Christianity and the slave caste system of the Civil War era? To stand up against injustice is really the same thing as challenging the system. Action is stalled because people hope that the system will change (good luck with that)—that’s easy, changing the system is hard. However, we will fight harder to not change the system, as opposed to changing the system because it’s what we know. Hence, the system takes precedent over God’s justice and is protected by political spin dressed in biblical garb.
But people aren’t stupid, they just prefer whatever the normal is for the day—especially if they aren’t the ones being tied between two horses running in opposite directions. Pathetic, but it is what it is. And both politics and religion are kept alive by the same heart in this regard; the epic question of, “Who owns man?” Ownership is the soul of politics and religion.
Since the day that the framers of the American Constitution posed this question and answered it with the resolve of “Give me liberty or give me death,” be sure of this: the question of who owns man is the soul of American politics and always will be. Whether the American public realizes it or not, those who vote for Obama think government owns man. People who vote for Romney (albeit not their preferred choice) believe that we own ourselves, and are responsible to no other than God for the sum and substance of our life.
That’s the crux, until the day that the former wins the day—then politics will not be necessary because everything is decided in regard to the arena of ideas—there won’t be any arena—the government decides what a good idea is, and what it isn’t.
And religion is no different. That’s because the American framers of the Constitution were home wreckers. They caused the divorce between the European marriage of church and state. In Europe prior to the Enlightenment era that gave birth to the framers; as it was in the government, so it was in the church. There was no arena of ideas save the think tanks that devised efficient machines to eliminate free thinkers with as much pain as possible. Never before in human history has more science been poured into the technology of death machines than in Medieval Europe. And as part of the totally depraved masses, suggesting ideas privately or otherwise was extremely hazardous to one’s health.
It was a very efficient marriage. The church came up with the ideas and controlled them, and the government enforced the churches’ ideas. But there was a problem. The problem can be seen in one Bible verse among God’s full philosophical statement to man regarding truth: “Come, let us reason together saith the Lord.”
Reason. Even God presents His truth in an arena for man’s hearing. In the book of Job, we even find God challenging Satan in that arena. Like no other creatures, we are the ones called to reason—it is how we are wired by God. The results of shutting down man’s ability to think are abundantly evident from European history. Man is created to think. A man who is not allowed to think is exactly like a fish out of water. Eventually, he will start flopping around.
The framers understood this. They knew that any attempt by government to control ideas would only result in a repeat of European history. They also knew that religion is the fundamental gene pool in that regard. But systems die hard. Regardless of the eight-hundred-year European raging fire that could not be extinguished with blood, European religious tyrants who came to setup shop in America could only propagate their system in the government protected American-made arena of ideas.
The divorced couple must play by American rules thus far. In the American political system, it’s communism/socialism. In the religious realm, it’s European Reformed theology. The fight between the Europeans and the yanks continues in the arena of ideas instead of the battlefield. But be also certain of this: every drop of blood spilled in human history has been over ideas. The American framers of the Constitution, for the first time in history, invented a caste system that could implement ethics through politics without blood. Preferable in my book. And I am allowed to say so.
The soul of politics and religion is therefore the same. Who owns man? What could be more obvious? Does government own man? Or does man own man? It could be rightfully argued that God owns man, but even he says, “Come, let us reason together” while the European Reformer Martin Luther called reason a “whore” who should have “dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly.” The separated spouse, government, thinks they know best as well. Thinking, ideas, and reason, in the hands of the masses are supposedly the same as handing an eight-year-old a loaded gun as a play toy. And in the American arena of ideas, many are convinced that this is true.
Now you know the heart of the election that is now upon us. Obama has clearly stated that it is common sense that man exists for the government, and doesn’t build anything: “I hear business owners say, ‘I built this or that.’ You didn’t build that.” And obviously, the idea that led to the building project had nothing to do with it as well. The contrast can be pointed out in a recent speech by Romney at the Dayton, Ohio International airport in which he said that FREEDOM of IDEAS are critical to the overall American economy and wellbeing. It is also reflected in his recent bemoaning that 47% of Americans are dependent on the government and will not vote for him. Right. Exactly. That’s the crux: who owns man? And is he created to reason and think? And is it ok with God when man’s ideas produce positive outcomes?
What is at stake in this election? You only need to look at the governments estranged spouse—the church. For the most part, European Reformed theology has won out in the arena of ideas. The caste system formed by the Westminster Confession and rabid Puritans has been embraced willingly by those convinced that the church owns them. Sure, there is rape. Sure, there is the denial of ideas. Sure, there is injustice. Sure, there are no other answers but “the gospel.” Sure, we are still totally depraved and helpless. Sure, church is boring. Sure, the church is full of mindless followers. But what else is there? If not for the system, then what? If not for the system of Reformed “orthodoxy” enforced by church “polity” and executed by various and sundry unpleasantries that replaced the burning stake forbidden by our American forefathers, then what?
Ownership by government always leads to the same thing. Always. There are no exceptions. Regardless of outcomes, many American voters who like to be owned by their religion will also vote to be owned by the state. I also wonder how much this might be connected to the whole issue of culpability before God. After all, if we are unable to think for ourselves, and our ideas are dangerous to our own wellbeing, how can God hold us responsible? This provokes one to think of Nazi Germany and that people’s refrain, “The government made us do it.”
“One thing we don’t discuss in mixed company is politics and religion.” Right, because there is no doubt; that divorced couple is a volatile subject, especially when the two are poligion. We do know the devil of poligion, but change is hard and inconvenient. Luther suggested that reason be consigned to the “closets of the house” and we have obeyed. And whatever you do, don’t look in the closet—the monster of history is in there.
Nevertheless, when you pull the lever in November, the question isn’t, “Romney or Obama?” The real question is the soul of politics and religion: “Who owns you?”
paul
Reformed Masters and Blogger Slaves
That’s the consensus. Once again, a situation that is hopeless. A man who stood for what is right came to realize something: the leadership of his “family” church had subtly indoctrinated his wife over time to believe church “polity” and “orthodoxy” trumps his authority in their own home and his wife’s God given ability to think for herself. He never got it, but unfortunately, she did.
“But, they can’t tell her to divorce him, that’s against the Bible!” That’s what I used to say when I still didn’t get it. Now I get it. The Bible isn’t our authority because the masses are not qualified to interpret the Bible for themselves. The spiritual elite must interpret it for us. The agreed upon basic principles by the majority of the elite (certified by a seminary degree in indoctrination) is “orthodoxy.” Church “polity” protects the orthodoxy.
However, most of the spiritually ignorant masses cannot understand orthodoxy, so we have creeds, confessions, catechism, “Daily Bread” devotionals, and of course, books, books, and more books. The totally depraved masses wait at the doors of Christian publishing companies with bated breath for the next divine unction from the who’s who of neo-Calvinism.
On the Protestant side, it’s the “Westminster Divines.” On the Catholic side, it’s popes and cardinals, but there is no difference. The Reformation was a fight between philosopher kings for control of the mutton—nothing more and nothing less. The Reformers saw Rome as immoral philosopher kings. Gee whiz, something had to be done; they were supposedly better suited to rule the totally depraved. The Reformers then came up with a doctrine that was a different twist on the total depravity and utter ineptitude of man. But both parties were, and still are, fundamentality Augustinian in their philosophy.
Where has all of this taken us? Look for yourself. In the South during the pinnacle of slavery, I am sure there was an outcry among the slaves concerning the abuse by masters. How far did it get them? How many masters stood against other masters on behalf of the slaves? I don’t know what the primary conduit for the outcry was in that day, but today, it’s blogging. Where is it getting us in comparison? Look up “same” in the dictionary.
What kind of abuse? Oh, pretty much the same kind we see today: an expectation that you will burn yourself out for the masters, and to the neglect of your family which they will use against you for asking the wrong questions. If a master wanted to break up a slave marriage; done. If a master wanted a slave’s wife; done. If a master wanted to molest a slave’s son or daughter; done. If a master wanted to ruin a slave’s name; done. If a master wanted to deprive a slave of friends; done. If a master wanted to compel a slave to believe something; done. And for certain, if a master wanted a slave to keep their mouth shut; done. In regard to the master controlling what the slave learned and understood; done.
The masters of the South had the law at their disposal to control the slaves. The Reformed masters of our day have to improvise. That’s relatively new for them; in the past, they also had polity with government on their side to enforce the orthodoxy (Google, “Calvin’s Geneva, Inquisition, witch wars, peasant wars, The Thirty Years War, English civil wars 1,2,3, and Salem witch trials” to get you started). Controlling the slaves with polity alone takes creativity, but the Protestants of our day are getting the job done. We are slaves to the formal church by choice through manipulation. And worse yet, unlike the slaves of the South, we are paying good money for it.
And we are slaves. “No we aren’t.” Oh really? Then why do we keep giving our money to abusers and co-abusers who cover for them? Why do we keep going to their churches? “Well Paul, somebody has to be in control.” Exactly. Because somebody “has to be in control,” we are no better off than the slaves of the South—only more pathetic because we are willing participants who pay good money to our abusers. Google, “ABWE Bangladesh Missionary Kids.” As one former member of a Reformed church stated it: “I paid good money to have my marriage destroyed and my family divided.”
It took years, but we have finally been brainwashed into thinking that we need rulers in the church as opposed to leaders. And after all, rulers are never perfect. And after all, if not them, who? And after all, but for the grace of God, there go I. And after all, better that some suffer from elder boo-boos in quietness for the betterment of the whole. And after all, unity and peace are always the best remedy though imperfect in this totally depraved world. And after all, we know it’s bad, but where else can we go? And after all….you fill in the blank.
Far from the psyche of the American church is Christ’s call to value the one as much as the other 99. The Jewish proverb of, “He who saves one life—saves the world” has been replaced with spiritual Marxism and its cult of The Group. Many oppose the cult of group, while holding to the Protestant gospel of progressive justification. Sorry, that doctrine will eventually lead to the cult of group. Some of the Puritans who landed here wanted to shed the oppressive church polity of the Reformers, but retained the same gospel (Google, “Savoy Declaration”)—guess what eventually happened? Doctrine always, in time, dictates behavior; there is absolutely no exception to that rule.
The data that verifies the following formula is not hard to come by: Formula A; God > Bible > Elders > Orthodoxy > Polity > Control > Creeds > Totally Depraved.
Never before in church history has there been more Christian academia in an information age to boot; yet, never before in church history have the saints been more dumbed down. Ignorance =’s control. This is by intention. This is the Reformed endgame. Susan and I correspond with people all over the world about the doctrine of progressive justification, and the continual roadblock is the fact that most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification. How can this be? Answer: model “A.”
Formula B: this is the biblical model; God > Bible > Saints (led by elders) = Christ’s mandate to the church to make disciples.
If one breaks the bondage we are in today, and reads the Bible for his/her self—some amazing things are discovered. In an irony that I cannot even begin to put into words from a contemporary perspective, Jude began to write to a group of believers about the gospel, but instead addressed something more urgent: false teachers. And take note: the letter, like most others in the Bible, is addressed to the saints and not the elders. The saints were to take ownership of the problem. And this was regarding false teachers who were among them—who had “slipped in unawares.”
As with Peter, the instruction is clear: one way or the other; separate from them. This isn’t rocket science. But why does that not happen? Because Christians, by and large, operate by formula “A” which leaves them no choice. Supposedly. But think about it; if “A” is reality, what are your choices? You can only start your own church under the authority/approval of the same, and quitting church will get you excommunicated (Google, “Mark Dever excommunicates 256 members”). If leaving the authority of the church would put you in disfavor with God, what choice do you have? Hence, it is what it is; we suck it up and “trust the problem to those who are fully apprised of the situation.” Amen. “Just please trust us as we have the whole picture”; ie., there is dirt in the situation that you don’t know about (but probably not).
That wasn’t Jude’s approach at all. Not even close. He instructed the saints directly on how to detect false teachers. We are not to be associated with false teachers in any regard, period. There are no exceptions. And the premier heresy of our day is progressive justification. And progressive justification is the source of the abuse. And we have simply chosen to enslave ourselves to false teachers.
And model “A” is not our authority, and there is simply no excuse for this. We are owned by Christ, not false teachers. We often cling to model “A” because it’s easy and “safe.” Turning a blind eye to abuse is easier and more comfortable then fending for ourselves and others even though Christ has promised to be with us “till the end of the age.” This is a matter of trusting Christ and not vile men with impressive Reformed pedigrees. Is this what Psychologists refer to as “codependence”? Well then, I might have to give them credit for knowing something. Embracing evil as a way to avoid confronting our fears has never been becoming for anyone who names the name of Christ.
Quitting church is not the answer either. Jude totally missed the memo on that one. But it is high time that the discernment/anti-abuse blogosphere stops the whining, it is rather time to get solution oriented. The outcry of Southern slaves who could do nothing else is understandable, but there are many options available to ministries that deal with abuse. And by the way, “having a place to voice your pain” IS NOT getting the job done. The abusers are getting the job done, but not us. I think it is time to ask why that is.
There is only one thing that can stop tyranny: action. What action? The sky is the limit. The Dohse family will begin doing their part this Sunday. We will begin to hold church in our home with pastor Paul presiding. Maybe some of the spiritual orphans out there will join us. Then there are many options in the future if we grow.
Enough whining and psychobabble already. Form a coalition of bloggers who can organize things like a thirty-day tithing blackout. Do something, but for crying out loud….
Stop whining!
paul
John MacArthur’s Showing Without Telling: The Reformed Way of Preaching Progressive Justification
“Moreover, this paradigm, according to many Calvinists in our day including John MacArthur, asserts that Christians often obey and experience biblical truth that they are unaware of intellectually.”
“MacArthur had a choice: the authority of Scripture or Reformed orthodoxy; he chose the latter.”
“And, what exactly are the ‘implications’ that John MacArthur ‘explains’ from the text? If you assume a many-faceted full counsel of God, your assumptions would be dead wrong.”
Progressive justification is the gospel of John Calvin and present-day neo-Calvinists of all stripes. Forget the freewill/election debate; forget all of the haranguing over the residual issues; progressive justification is simply a false gospel.
It teaches that the power for our Christian living comes from our salvation or justification. At first, you may object to my objection on the bases that salivation makes Christian living possible, and I agree, but making Christian living possible and being directly powered by it are two opposing ideas with a crucial difference.
If Christian living is powered by our salvation (justification), and if our salvation does more than change our standing, position, or status, Christian living (sanctification) remains connected to our justification. This makes sanctification a spiritual minefield with endless and sobering implications.
Of which the least is not: preaching. When justification and sanctification are fused together, we are interacting with our justification throughout life; this would seem evident and terrifying to those who understand the implications because we can supposedly do things in our sanctification that can affect our standing before God.
Hence, in this fusion of the Reformed “golden chain of salvation” (what’s a chain?) we must be careful in how we (according to John Piper) participate in the links because we are not home free and there is a danger in sanctification. No kidding. There would be when justification and sanctification are fused together.
Furthermore, because this makes sanctification very tricky, the children of God (according to Doug Wilson) will be manifested at the last judgment. I sometimes receive complaints here at PPT that John Piper et al seem to state that we cannot know for certain whether we are saved or not until the last judgment. I am not surprised by these questions; they would be consistent with the logical conclusions one must draw from the theology.
This now brings us to our discussion about preaching. Obviously, Reformed pastors are going to be very careful not to preach in a way that will lead us in making our sanctification the ground of our justification. Or, leaping from the imperative to obedience. If we do not pre-bathe all obedience in our salvation, it is “making our sanctification the ground of our justification.” In Reformed circles, they call this, “The biblical command is grounded in the indicative event.” The indicative “event” is the crucifixion of Christ—all obedience flows from that event directly as the empowerment thereof—not a possibility that we participate in.
Therefore, all true obedience in the life of a believer is a mere natural flow experienced by joy and a willing spirit IF it is powered by our salvation. This is obtained through using our Bible to meditate on our salvation, and the works of Christ, and then just letting the Spirit take things from there. If the Spirit then instigates the obedience, it’s the Spirit applying justification to our sanctification and not us. Hence, we are safe from “making our own sanctification the ground of our justification.” Again, this is supposedly manifested and verified by joy (which Piper makes absolutely synonymous with saving faith and the struggle thereof dependent on our salvation [When I Don’t Desire God p.35]). Likewise, John MacArthur mimics the same nonsense as documented in the following PPT post:
Hence, creepy similarities to Piper’s theology appear in “Slave,” especially Pipers belief that true Christian obedience is always experienced as an unhesitating, natural response accompanied by joy. Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled.” On page 208, he describes our experience as slaves to Christ as “not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.” This, despite what the apostle John clearly experienced as recorded in Revelation. But regardless of the fact that there is nothing sweeter than being a slave of Christ, to suggest that our experience is never mixed with bitterness (taste, not attitude) is just plain nonsense. A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. Also, even though I realize the importance of joy in the Christian life, I make this observation in “Another Gospel” (page 78):
“Only problem is, among many, is the eleventh chapter of Hebrews contradicts everything in Piper’s statement above. Hebrews 11 is one of the more extensive statements on saving faith in Holy writ. The Hebrew writer defines the faith of at least twenty believers in regard to the decisions they made and obedience. Joy or pleasure, even pleasure in God, is not named once as being an attribute of their faith. The only semblance of feelings or emotions mentioned is that of strife and fear of God more than man. The truth of Hebrews 11, as well as many other Scriptures, makes a mockery of Piper’s theory of Christian hedonism.”
According to John Piper, if we find ourselves in a situation where we find no joy in the obedience—go ahead and obey, but be sure to ask God for forgiveness because of your sinful obedience (John Piper: Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial; pdf booklet available on Desiring God .org). Moreover, this paradigm, according to many Calvinists in our day including John MacArthur, asserts that Christians often obey and experience biblical truth that they are unaware of intellectually. A prime example of this would be the following excerpt from an article written by New Calvinist Bill Baldwin:
Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is (Bill Baldwin: Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel 08/02/1996).
My best information is that MacArthur bought into this nonsense circa 1994. He was persuaded by, among others, John Piper and Michael Horton that the Reformers in fact held to a progressive justification. MacArthur had a choice: the authority of Scripture or Reformed orthodoxy; he chose the latter. Therefore, MacArthur’s preaching will ape that of most Reformed teachers: heavy on the glory of God and very light on practical application or specific instruction. As Baldwin states it: “….the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification.”
And even though MacArthur is far more subtle in his anti-instruction/application than most Calvinists (probably due to the habits of his prior preaching which was heavy on sanctification elements), Christians have nevertheless noticed his lack of application (most likely due to the contrast) and questioned him on it. His defense reveals his dastardly selling out of the truth.
In, “Why doesn’t John MacArthur add much application to his sermons?” (Online source: http://goo.gl/P0eR9), MacArthur defends his Reformed Application Light sermons. But for you skeptics, let me get your attention. In regard to my accusation that this paradigm doesn’t require intellectual knowledge for experience or application, MacArthur concludes his defense by stating the following:
So now you know. You’ve been experiencing this. You had no idea what you were experiencing, right? (Applause) Okay.
The “applause” part of the transcript is the barf factor when one ponders the mindless following of philosopher kings such as “Pastor” John MacArthur Jr. Nevertheless, MacArthur continues:
Now let me tell you what happens when you preach effectively. You do explanation. In other words, you explain the meaning of Scripture, okay? The explanation carries with it implication. In other words, there are implications built into this truth that impact us. You add to that exhortation. And I’ve said things tonight to exhort you to follow what is implied by the text. Now when you deal with the text and the armor of God, like tonight, all I can do is explain it. That’s all it does. There aren’t any applications in that text. It doesn’t say, “And here’s how to do this if you’re 32 years old, and you live in North Hollywood.” “Here’s how to do this the next time you go to a Mall.” “Here’s how to do this when you go in your car and you’re driving in a traffic jam.” It doesn’t tell you that. And if I made my message mostly a whole lot of those little illustrations, I would be missing 90 percent of you who don’t live in that experience.
Unfortunately, MacArthur has gone the way of New Calvinist ungodly communication. He makes application of Scriptures the same thing as applying it to petty life concerns; such as, going to the mall. It’s the classic New Calvinist demeaning of biblical application and obedience. What is really behind it is an antinomian spirit. Let me point out MacArthur’s error in regard to the above quote concerning the idea that there is no application in Ephesians 6:16-20, only “explanation.” That text is full of imperatives and applications in regard to the full armor of God: “Put on…., stand against…, take up…, that you may be able…., having done all…., having put on…., Stand therefore…., having fastened…., and having put on…., in all circumstances [what circumstances? It would be wrong to draw examples from our life?]…., with which you can…., to that end…., [etc., etc., etc].” To imply that Ephesians 6:16-20 doesn’t contain instruction for practical application is ludicrous.
Also, adding to the absurdity of MacArthur’s statement is the fact that “putting on” is a major theme of that passage. This refers back to Ephesians 4:20-24, and the Apostle Paul’s discussion of putting off the old nature and putting on the new. So, MacArthur is not only denying application from our life experience, but specific life application specified in Scripture. Dr. Jay E. Adams notes 45 life applications to the putting off/putting on concept that he didn’t deduct from life observation, but are specifically mentioned in Scripture regarding life application (INS Training in Biblical Counseling by Extension: Introduction Principles and Practices; pp.22-24).
Surely, other than what good preachers should be able to draw from life for biblical application, specific biblical applications regarding life are too numerous to list. For example, Paul states in I Corinthians 7:41 that Christians should only marry “in the Lord.” The life application is what Nehemiah stated about Solomon when he didn’t follow that mandate; ie., even a man of his spiritual wherewithal fell into grievous sin by violating said spiritual principle.
Nehemiah 13:26
Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women.
No life application in that? Really?
MacArthur continues:
It’s not for me to do that. Application belongs to the Spirit of God. All I’m interested in is explanation and its implications [What about 2Timothy 3:16,17 and the issue of “instruction” ?]. And the power comes in the implication and the Spirit of God takes the implications of what I’ve said tonight, all these things I’ve said, I don’t need to say all kinds of little scenarios to you and paint all kinds of little individual circumstances. All I need you to know is this is what the Word of God says and the implications are powerfully brought to bear with authority on your life and I exhort you to respond to those implications, it is the Spirit’s work to drive those implications into direct and personal application. That’s why you’re not going to, like so many preachers, you’re not going to hear me create all kinds of practical scenarios about how this all fleshes out in everybody’s world because you may hit somebody, you may hit a person here or there, that’s kind of a rifle-shot approach, the shot-gun approach that sprays everybody is the implicational essence of Scripture. That’s the power. And that’s when everybody walks out and says, “Wow, that hit me!” because you already have a commitment to the authority and the power of Scripture.
So, Reformed preaching merely explains Scripture, and the Holy Spirit applies it. So what do we need “instruction” for? (2Timothy 3:16,17). As we have clearly seen, this is an iffy proposition. If this is the case, why does the Bible command specific life application? Does the Spirit need to inform Christians as to what He may or may not do in their lives? I contend that this is MacArthur’s nuanced way of propagating the whole Reformed idea that the Holy Spirit obeys for us, so that our sanctification will not be the “ground of our justification.”
MacArthur further explains:
You already have a commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture. All I want you to understand is what it means. And in the meaning expanded beyond the given text to other texts so that you build all the theological implications, I leave you with the implications and an exhortation to be obedient and I leave the application to the Spirit.
Obedient to what? Obviously, there can be no specific instruction from the pulpit, only “explaining.” Instruction would imply specific application of the text. So, not only does the Holy Spirit apply the text, does he also teach the Christian how to apply it specifically? Or does that just come as a mere natural flow? Well, since, “So now you know. You’ve been experiencing this. You had no idea what you were experiencing, right?” Answer: like Baldwin, and for that matter, all New Calvinists, the “obedience” is “experienced” (not personally applied) without necessary intellectual understanding or knowledge. Let me reiterate MacArthur’s exact words:
So now [present tense] you know. You’ve been [past tense] experiencing this [experiencing what? Answer: obedience]. You had no idea [this should speak for itself….] what you were experiencing, right?
Right John. Whatever you say.
And, what exactly are the “implications” that John MacArthur “explains” from the text? If you assume a many faceted full counsel of God, your assumptions would be dead wrong. MacArthur makes it clear what should be primarily mined from the Scriptures in his Forward to Rick Holland’s Gnostic masterpiece, Uneclipsing The Son:
As believers gaze at the glory of their Lord—looking clearly, enduringly, and deeply into the majesty of His person and work—true sanctification takes place as the Holy Spirit takes that believer whose heart is fixed on Christ and elevates him from one level of glory to the next. This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds. We are transformed by that glory and we begin to reflect it more and more brightly the more clearly we see it. That’s why the true heart and soul of every pastor’s duty is pointing the flock to Christ, the Great Shepherd….The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock.
What MacArthur endeavors to “explain” in every verse of Scripture is Jesus and His works (as stated by many New Calvinists), “not anything we would do.” As can be seen in the above MacArthur quote, he also follows the Reformed tradition of making God the Father and the Holy Spirit of lesser significance than Christ. Sadly, throughout church history, those of Reformed tradition has burned many at the stake for misrepresenting the Trinity while they are in fact guilty of the same thing.
There is certainly no reason to believe that MacArthur has not completely embraced this doctrine which also suggests that the saints can only get an adequate explanation of the Scriptures from Reformed elders. Saints dare not even fill up half of their plate with anything but Reformed elder preaching:
You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul (Elder Dr. Devon Berry: How to Listen to a Sermon; Clearcreek Chapel .org).
MacArthur’s defense of his preaching being discussed here implies the same idea:
But I want you to understand, if you don’t already understand, what I think should happen in effective biblical preaching. You heard a testimony tonight in the waters of Baptism from Juan about how he kept coming to Grace Church. And in spite of the fact that he wanted to be a hypocrite, the power of the Scripture began to overwhelm him.
Notice that the “power of the Scripture,” which should be understood in context of what we are discussing here, is not the primary crux of the point, but rather, “….he kept coming to Grace Church.” The “power of the Scripture” coming from the pulpit at Grace Church seems to be the point, and would also fit with the Reformed view of anointed elder preaching. MacArthur’s Bible Commentary is now published in the official New Calvinist translation of the Bible, The English Standard Version. It is published by Crossway, which is totally in the tank for New Calvinism. In the following promotional video clip, MacArthur hails the translation as the best ever: http://youtu.be/L1VxhQqsGXU. Again, MacArthur is now a dyed in the wool New Calvinist in the same order of the ones he supposedly despises like Mark Driscoll. While whining about their view of alcohol use among Christians and other residual issues, he is a believer in the same gospel (progressive justification).
The fact that John MacArthur is one of the most popular preachers in church history should be a chilling realization for those Christians who still love the truth.
He is also an excellent acid test for those who really want to know if they are followers of men or followers of the truth.
paul
9 comments