The 2007 John MacArthur Controversy: “It’s the Judgments, Stupid”
“Here is what many are missing: you can’t separate the gospel from eschatology. Your eschatology will be consistent with your gospel or inconsistent.”
Who can forget James Carville’s motto to keep people focused in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign? “The economy, stupid.” Carville didn’t want Clinton’s campaign workers to expend energy on matters that would not ultimately persuade people to vote one way or the other. Likewise, Christians love to pile-up Bible verses in a heap that doesn’t serve change in the least. Carville knew how to get change; Bush’s 90% approval rating could not keep him in office.
At the 2007 “Shepherds” Conference held annually at John MacArthur’s church in California, he opened the conference with a devastating, complete undressing of amillennialism. The controversy among the Reformed raged for several months. The often touted “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” was taken out with the morning trash. Per the usual, most of the Reformed gang who had spent their parishioner’s money to go to the conference moaned and screamed like alley cats in the night that MacArthur dissed “Reformed orthodoxy.” In the debate, also per the usual, Scriptural arguments were replaced with the endless droning of dead mystics and rabid Puritans.
But what’s the real issue? The real issue is sanctification by justification. That’s the authentic Reformed gospel; i.e., progressive justification. Bottom line: if there is a literal millennial kingdom before the new heavens and new earth, there must also be two resurrections and two judgments. That strongly insinuates two different groups and two different purposes in regard to the types of judgments. In the Reformed construct, there must be one judgment that determines everybody’s just state. MacArthur, even with all of his education doesn’t get that; his gospel of progressive justification doesn’t fit the eschatology that he dragged into his partial conversion to the authentic Reformed gospel.
This brings us to the four types of pastors in our day:
1. Authentic Calvinist: Luther and Calvin’s Gnostic progressive justification. These are the Neo-Calvinists wreaking havoc on the church in our day. Progressive justification (justification and sanctification are both monergistic because sanctification finishes justiifcation)/amil. Examples are Al Mohler, David Powlison et al.
2. Sanctified Calvinist: Leftovers from the periods in church history when authentic Calvinism dies a social death because of the tyranny that comes part and parcel with it. They change their soteriology but retain the eschatology of progressive justification. Monergistic justification/synergistic sanctification/amil. Examples are Jay Adams, and many other Presbyterians, and Baptist acadmiacs.
3. Inverted Calvinist: Converts to progressive justification that retain their former eschatology that is some form of dispensationalism. The best example is John MacArthur.
4. Biblicist: The Bible is their authority; not orthodoxy. This breed is an endangered species in our day.
Here is what many are missing: you can’t separate the gospel from eschatology. Your eschatology will be consistent with your gospel or inconsistent.
paul
Should SGM Investigation and Lawsuit Include Ligon Duncan?
Regarding “Pastor” Ligon Duncan’s formal statement in defense of CJ Mahaney and SGM “ministries,” I think a reader here at PPT makes a brilliant point. First, let me reprint the Duncan statement:
“I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs, and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM or authority to comment upon them, and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things.”
The reader had these observations in regard to Duncan’s defense of Mahaney:
And as far as discounting opinings…he says we should do that if they have no REAL knowledge or any relation to sovgracemin.org. Does he have REAL knowledge? I would think REAL knowledge lies with the key players, and “relation to SGM” would, imo [in my opinion], surely mean a bit more than just standing on stage together at conferences. Does he have a real relation to SGM? I don’t see how he can. Since he does not have any REAL knowledge, I will be happy to submit to and obey his third admonition and refrain from assuming that he is in a position to render any judgment on these things…his opining is dismissed.
Good point, and reveals the sheer stupidity of Duncan in contrast to his arrogant opinion of his own supposed intelligence. Maybe. This brilliant point by the reader begs an even deeper question: if Duncan is not guilty of what he is accusing others of, what did he know; and when did he know it? Being informed of a crime against a child and not reporting it to authorities is a crime; in and of itself.
Perhaps Al Mohler and Mark Dever are more intelligent than I give them credit for. I have always thought the two of them were just mindless Kool-Aid drinkers regurgitating the musings of a murdering mystic despot rediscovered by a Seventh-day Adventist. But now my assumptions are being brought into doubt—due to the fact that they are keeping their mouths shut. It’s wise to only defend your “friend” until the real truth starts coming out via people who the book-buying conference groupie Sponge Bob masses will listen to.
After that, well, that’s what buses are for.
paul
A 4-Point Evaluation of Ligon Duncan’s Defense of SGM
I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs, and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM or authority to comment upon them, and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things.
1. I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs,: He admits they are wounded, but that’s not the point. The totally depraved don’t deserve justice. Furthermore, getting raped isn’t the point, how that event glorifies God in the predestined scheme of the gospel meta-narrative is the point. By not accepting the event and seeking justice, the “wounded” are not “entering into the plot” of showing forth the gospel.
2. and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM: The knowledge of the philosopher kings is so much higher than yours, that even when it seems obvious that abuse occurred and it was covered up, that’s not really what’s going on. Please trust the higher knowledge of your local Reformed pastor king.
3. or authority to comment upon them,: Only the pastor kings have authority to speak to these matters. Anybody who speaks out is messing with God’s anointed who have been given all authority on earth.
4. and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things.: Only the philosopher kings can render judgement. The producers have no role in judging, they are the church’s producers. In America, Reformed elders have to fill the role of both philosopher king and soldier. And much to their frustration, there are laws that protect the producers. They must improvise because they are deprived of the stake and the gallows. Instead, they offer formal counseling where they can earn your trust and get documentation on your secret sins that can be used to blackmail you into silence or control if needed. This is one of many alternative controls they have contrived. It’s the exact one that CJ Mahaney used on the co-founder of SGM who attempted to leave SGM for doctrinal reasons.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment