A Reply to a Former Member and Present Members at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio: You Don’t Define Me
I love you Paul, but have been saddened for some time regarding the dearth of gentleness and truth in your blog,etc. Deep down you know that it is true. Turning logic on its head, twisting words, pseudo-scholarship, and outright attacking people for things that both you and I know they do not believe does no one any good. Please, this is not an invitation to debate. To reason together would be good, but I fear that is not your true motive. Praying for you and remembering our service together.
Mark,
Sorry, I no longer allow others to dictate the language and thereby frame the context of debate for a desired outcome. The arrogance of your presuppositions concerning me and anyone else who disagrees with those you follow is astounding. Telling me what “I know” deep down is indicative of this. You know what I know deep down? Really?
You, as well as others at Clearcreek Chapel misunderstand me totally. I am thankful for what happened. I thought I served with people who could think for themselves. I also thought I was among those who would stand up for me at all cost. I could still be there under such an illusion. Frankly, that’s pretty scary.
You, as well as them, claim to know and love truth, but you stood by and watched them ravage my family because I questioned their doctrine. The Clearcreek parishioners are the ones that know this; for anyone who was there, it is more than obvious that the trouble started when I asked questions in that disastrous Sunday School series that should have stripped the Clearcreek elders of all credibility.
First, per Terri Engle, and others, the Clearcreek elders handed core members manuscripts of said doctrine that they (core members) didn’t understand and had them dictate it in Sunday School classes to lend creditably to their doctrine. If you are dealing with truth, you don’t need to do that. Secondly on that point, it’s deceptive because the class assumes the teacher understands the material. Other than the fact that it was obvious what was going on, Terri Engle is a liar if he denies that he personally informed me of this. This alone speaks to the spiritual integrity of the Clearcreek elders.
When this ploy crashed and burned, core members were replaced with elders. When that crashed and burned because they could not answer the hard questions (not only from me), all the Sunday School classes were combined and the big gun was brought in, Russ Kennedy. That lasted for 2 classes. It was a disaster. That is when the Clearcreek elders started coming to my house unannounced, in groups, for shock and awe effect. Prior to that, I was called into a meeting with Mark Schindler and Devon Berry in which nothing about my personal life was of any concern. They requested that I not ask Greg Simmons questions in Sunday School classes. He was dissing Dispensationalism and didn’t even know what the word meant as he was dictating the manuscript handed him by the elders.
I will not much rehearse the fact that I left the Chapel rightfully, and according to Scripture. That is well documented. I will not rehearse the fact that Shirley denied all of the accusations against me by the elders under sworn testimony to PJ’s guardian ad litem. That is well documented. I will not rehearse the fact the elders coerced me into coming back to the Chapel by threatening to ruin my name, and held me hostage there for four months. I will not rehearse the FACT that while I was under discipline Chapel members were living in open sin and the elders knew. I have the documentation. Would you like to see the email from one who represented those who felt guilty about it?
Moreover, the Chapel was recently embroiled in another controversy concerning accusations that they were teaching, according to Dale Evans from the Chapel pulpit, “some kind of mysticism.” Go figure. Another series to answer for their questionable doctrine colliding with those left at the Chapel who still have a conscience for the truth. I assume the detractors were disposed of in the usual way.
Let me inform you, Mark, and the Clearcreek crowd about who I really am. I am a man who was seeking truth and found it in Jesus Christ. I came as a man who remembers the divorce of my parents when I was 9 years old like it was yesterday. When they told my brother and me, I remember what time it was. I remember the furniture we were sitting on. I remember what we had for dinner. I remember crying myself to sleep. That and the pain/sin of my former life altogether set my heart on fire in regard to being set free by Jesus Christ and His truth. I love that truth, and I will sit with it alone in the wilderness if I have to.
Now let me tell you who you are as well as anyone I ever knew at the Chapel. None of you are my friends and none of you love me. That’s a bunch of baloney. Please don’t insult my sensibilities. You are ones that Satan used to drive a spear through my heart in a way that could most wound me. You are all cowardly, mindless followers of men. You stand with the Clearcreek elders though they are guilty as hell in what they have done. They have devastated many families over a false doctrine and their judgment from God slumbers not. And if those who support them in ANY WAY think they do not share in their sin—they, and you, are sadly mistaken.
The Clearcreek elders sought to do evil to me by what they did, but God meant it for good. My new wife is a woman of astounding integrity with a mind of her own. She holds a Masters degree in education, and her faith has been severely tested and has emerged from the fire intact. Though she thinks my approach is harsh at times and I have greatly improved there by her counsel, she has deeply investigated my ministry theses and is of one mind with me.
Therefore, your accusation is against both of us and you owe us both a request for forgiveness accordingly. And by the way, you couldn’t even begin to carry water for her. She can think for herself, and you can bet that I didn’t marry someone who can’t after what I have been through.
This is who I am: before Russ Kennedy came back to the Chapel and assumed eldership under false pretense, I publically rebuked the congregation for falsely accusing him after his first departure. And I would have stood with him on that wise at any cost. That’s who I am. Don’t confuse that with who you are and what you call, “love,” and for that matter, “friendship.”
Anybody who stands against the tyranny of the Chapel elders is expendable. The Clearcreek definition of love is the following: those who follow them without question are worthy of it.
You don’t define me. If only there were words for how little I value your venquilitrist wisdom.
Paul Dohse
Clearcreek’s Russ Kennedy and Southwood’s Jean Larroux III: The Divine Right of Philosopher Kings
Though in the title, Jean Larroux, pastor of the gutted Southwood Presbyterian Church (the subject of several articles here at PPT), has little to do with the crux of the issue to be discussed here. This post is in response to some requests by Southwood members to divulge information I have concerning alleged indiscretions unbecoming of a pastor. I obtained the information through an email by a person who identified _____-self. The information has been vetted and is credible for several reasons. I have not re-contacted the sender of the email, but could probably obtain even more confirmation points if deemed necessary. Where I am going with this will require the laying of some groundwork. Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio will supply some additional and helpful examples.
“Cult” is a word that is thrown around quite a bit in Christian circles, but in reality, for good reason. The essence of a cult is CONTROL. Cultwatch.com posits this definition of a cult:
The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying.
Cultism dates back to the cradle of civilization and is part and parcel with a basic concept that forms the philosophical infrastructure of all false religious groups. It begins with the presupposition that the masses are spiritually incompetent, and that preordained individuals are selected by God, the universe, or some other higher power to rule the masses on the behalf of that entity. Determinism is almost always a mainstay in said presupposition.
In the Platonist construct (which replaced mythology in these systems with a more scientific approach), the philosopher kings rule, the soldiers enforce the will of the kings (father [entity] knows best), and the masses are the producers who’s sum and substance of life is for the predetermined good of society as a whole. And the philosopher kings know best how to bring that about. And therefore, they should RULE the masses.
If at all possible, philosopher kings will use the sword and fear to keep the process running smoothly, but mind control, brainwashing, and indoctrination will always be present as the staple modus operandi. Such reduces the need for the sword, but the sword has the final say if necessary. The authority of the philosopher kings to send you to hell for eternity is also a strong incentive to live for the group or the whole, which is the “vision of the good.” So, job one is CONTROL.
This is the staple doctrine of EVERY religion that operates apart from truth, capital T. So, wherever truth is not practiced in religion, there is going to be a strong cultish feel in the mix. From a pure biblical perspective, the word is SECT, or SECTARIAN. These are groups who divide with UNTRUTH. So, a strong, very strong element of the cultish motif is lots of division. While cults maintain an operative core, it is at the expense of relationships and other human infrastructures. AND, the primary focus of the philosopher kings—where most of their energies will always be expended, is in maintaining CONTROL—leading to the cultish aura. Hence, “Hey Paul, we are going to this you fill in the blankchurch and I know this sounds crazy, but I think it’s a cult.” I don’t doubt it a bit. ANY system based on the spiritually enlightened ruling over the incompetent masses WILL have the cultish aura.
With all of that said, what about the moral fitness of the philosopher kings? Well, that depends on the particular gargantuan-faceted variances of this ancient principle, but for the most part, the moral fitness of the philosopher king is irrelevant. And throughout history, those who think otherwise and are vocal about it have become a rare breed. Ever heard of a guy named John the Baptist? Especially in Reformed circles where we are all totally depraved “sinners saved by grace,” and all being captive passengers on the Love Slime Boat, integrity doesn’t have relevance in regard to the spiritual caste system needed to lead the totally depraved safely to heaven. Those who don’t get it are mercilessly slaughtered for the sake of the group and the wellbeing of the whole. In America where John the Baptist types can’t be burned at the stake, hanged, or beheaded; slander, bogus church discipline, character assignation, and false criminal charges attempt to fill the gap in silencing detractors. Furthermore, antinomianism may be the very doctrine of the philosopher king to begin with. This reality is known as the divine right of kings:
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings).
Therefore, the formula: higher power >+ enlightened proxy rulers >+ totally depraved = spiritual caste system = control = cultism = sectarianism = tyranny.
Let’s talk about the operative core that philosopher kings/pastors/elders are able to keep intact. Many people are inclined towards cult atmospheres. Some people are just there for the social community of it all. They like the people, the parties, the events etc. Many people there may be of the same cultural mindset as well. TRUTH is low priority—they hold to the doctrine of the leaders for the sake of community. A second group to consider are those who are simply adverse to change. Normality and business as usual is very important to them. Things would have to get pretty crazy before change would be considered. There is also a group that will follow whatever is placed in front of them. They simply have no discernment. Some know things aren’t right, but have been brainwashed into thinking that there isn’t anything better out there. Besides, to leave would also be admitting to complicity in unjust things that took place; things that are spawned by sectarianism. Finally, there are those who have totally bought into the doctrine. Dissenters who care enough about the truth to raise concerns are disposed with in one of several aforementioned methods.
But the bottom line is the following: churches that function by a caste system are in continual damage control mode. Everything else is window dressing. Real ministry is not taking place. The elders spend all of their time indoctrinating. Again, CONTROL is job one. Sermons are not focused on Scriptural life-wisdom—the focus is indoctrination for control purposes. There is going to be a constant tension, and one reason for this follows:
The written word of God poses a huge problem for the religious caste systems that have plagued the world from the beginning of time—the spiritual elite ruling the masses on God’s behalf via supposed direct revelation and authority. As church historian John Immel notes: The problem is that God is not standing there beside them and confirming His agreement. Or is He? The superintended life manual of God, and its availability to the masses poses a huge problem for those who wish to rule over men: God is telling us what He is telling them, and the tendency is to think God knows more than they do.
And it is clear that God’s word speaks to the individual. The books of the Old Testament and the letters of the New address the whole congregation of the saints. Yes, there are leaders among God’s people, but they are obviously very accountable. There are no closed board meetings between God and church leaders. Luke wrote two letters, really a book in two parts, for the benefit of one person. Why? “….that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Paul Dohse: False Reformation; p. 97, TANC Publishers 2012).
This is where Clearcreek Chapel, the church that incited my journey into these matters, supplies a helpful example. The leadership of that church is in constant damage control mode. Their sermon and teaching modules are continually focused on indoctrination and authority. Even when I was last there (circa 2006), there was a climate of fear. Often, their choice of sermon topics are driven by the latest challenges to their doctrine. Apparently, the last episode was in September of this year, prompting a sermon series entitled, “Biblical Authority at The Chapel”:
And, I want to dispel one false, wicked slander about us and churches like us. We do not believe or teach or require absolute, unquestioning submission to the leadership of this church. Whatever you have been told; whatever bad experience you have had elsewhere, I plead with you to listen this morning to God’s word. So in what I am going to say this morning, I am trying to hover close to the Bible and build a Biblical understanding of authority in God’s Kingdom. Tonight, Pastor Dale will help us think about how we take these precepts, principles and patterns and institute Biblical governance and guidance in the church. [and at the pm service: “A recent criticism has been leveled that we at Clearcreek Chapel engage in some sort of Christian mysticism.”].
No? They insist on “absolute, unquestioning submission” to “biblical authority.” BUT, they are the only ones that can properly interpret it! What’s the difference? As noted in the new publication of False Reformation (pp.110,111), another elder at Clearcreek plainly stated that personal study was only a supplement to efficacious elder preaching, and that the word came from God to the elders, then to the parishioner—back to the word, and then back to God with faith being the result. Clearly, the elders and the word are between the believers and God:
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. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.
In the first part of the series, Kennedy makes it clear where the authority to interpret resides:
The New Testament often uses the word translated overseer or bishop. This word was primarily was used in the culture to refer to a governor who was sent by a conquering king to govern a city/state on behalf of the king. The overseer, the governor was to exercise oversight under the law the king had given. He was serving, not on his own behalf, but in the place of and for the good of the king. This is the term used for Elders. We are to govern the church on behalf of our King Jesus using the Scriptures as that which expresses His will and frames His wisdom. We are to govern and guide according to the Word of God.
But by the same token, these elders, and many others like them believe that all Scripture must interpreted in a way to yield a Christocentric (grace) meaning. Again, as noted in False Reformation (p. 100):
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis.
Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is.
Kennedy illustrates this in the same message via the following illustration.
Taken together, it is clearly a mystical approach that sees every verse in the Bible as redemptive, and a task that elders are only qualified to execute. This is spiritual cast that dates back to the beginning of time and always leads to tyranny. The point here is to clarify the divine rights of philosopher kings.
Now let’s address the ill behavior of Jean Larroux, and why it’s not relevant. First, the behavior. Jean Larroux’s outrageous behavior in the name of Christ is well documented. Larroux is the subject of chapter 8 in Cathleen Falsani’s “Sin Boldly.” Right, that’s the title of the book. It’s a treatise on, let’s sin more so grace may abound. According to Falsani, Larroux told her (in a conversation endowed with cursing and cigarette smoking) that the depths of grace can only be understood via the depths of our sinfulness. This is no less than the doctrine of the knowledge of good and evil that adorns the vast majority of tyrannical spiritual caste systems—especially Calvinism. This is the same Christocentric interpretation that the Clearcreek elders constantly refer to. All Scripture must be interpreted via God’s holiness as set against our wickedness. Obviously, if wisdom is the goal, and obedience puts us in a good light as opposed to endeavoring to understand our evil more and more; well, you do the math.
But there is something interesting about the writings of those, like Larroux, that think it better yet to actually practice evil as well to better understand grace; the disturbance of the conscience is clearly seen. However, it is usually seen as a vice to be overcome and related to an inept understanding of grace. On a blog belonging to a pastorate that preceded Southwood, Larroux writes the following:
I am becoming keenly aware of how little I actually believe the Gospel that I have been called to preach. I find it ‘easy’ to preach the truth, yet believing it is harder and harder.
Nevertheless, Larroux is a member of a prestigious club of Presbyterian philosopher kings—he is untouchable, and his sin is irrelevant to the Presbytery, and frankly, to most of the Presbyterian producers. I seriously doubt that many are unaware of the things revealed in the email I received, though heinous.
I receive many emails from hurting people who see this in the church and don’t know what to make of it. When you love the truth, it’s hard to get your mind around it. The email revelation will only build hope that someone will care with the enviable disappointment to follow, and deeper wounding.
Come out from among them. Where will you go? Go anywhere but back there. But wherever you end-up, Christ our brother will be with you, and our Helper will counsel you with powerful words from the Scriptures as you go.
All you lovers of the truth—Christ loves you, and for what it’s worth, I love you.
Forever His, and forever a yokefellow to the lovers of truth.
paul
The Case for Caste
Is the American church a religious caste system? Consider: seminary students do not teach what they learn in seminary to congregants. In fact, those who do are ridiculed for doing so. Secondly, why are American parishioners so dumbed down theologically? Are the first two questions answered in regard to a higher knowledge that only pastors can understand? In Reformed circles, elders state openly that they are gifted to understand things that parishioners are unable to. Point in case: New Calvinist Dr. Devon Berry: Elder Preaching is Infallible .
Academic degrees have become the primary qualification for a pastor in our culture. Who would deny that? In pulpit committees, any resume that states less than a Masters degree gets file 13 immediately. But yet, academic qualifications are nowhere listed in the biblical qualifications for an elder. Also consider: how can the laity obtain degrees while supporting a family, serving their local church, and working full time? While 90% of all doctrinal error is coming from seminaries, the laity is deemed less qualified. The salaries being paid to heretical sheep abusers is 80,000 per year on the low side. And I might mention that what I have learned in the past five years through independent study would have never been taught to me in a seminary, No way. Not even close. Seminaries are maintaining the status quo.
Parishioners are living from a steady diet of materials published by the academics and not their own Bibles. Who would deny this? Why? Because they are supposedly critical to understanding the higher knowledge that the laity cannot understand. They interpret for us. What is more obvious?
Why do well-known leaders turn a blind eye to the abused laity? Why is John MacArthur Jr. completely indifferent to what his pal CJ Mahaney has done to people? Simple, the value of the laity and where they are in the caste system strata.
Why is getting justice for the sexually abused ABWE missionary children like pulling teeth from a leopard? Easy, Donn Ketcham is high on the strata; the missionary children are low, and of less value to the organization. The caste system protects the organization that cannot be destroyed over justice for the lowly. Besides, the lowly are expendable for the pleasures of the upper crust. Absurd notion? Then why do GARB churches continue to support ABWE en masse? Where is the outcry for justice? Why does the money continue to pour in?
Though the Bible instructs the church to publically rebuke elders that sin, this is NEVER done. Pastors get a pass while parishioners are disciplined and excommunicated routinely. Again, value is the issue.
The New Testament is replete with examples of Christ and the apostles contending against religious caste systems—formal and informal.
Following is my pictorial thesis:
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
What’s in a Video? Part One: MacArthur’s Fall
“CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent …. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.”
The promo video for this year’s 2012 Resolved Conference is sickening for anybody that can think for themselves. I use YouTube to post my videos, and have received comments from people there regarding the clip (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc):
Where is my barf bag? God, please deliver us from conferences and churches,
Kinda hokey. Just from the images…who do you think is being worshiped here?
For anybody who has any grey substance between their ears at all, it’s obvious who is being worshiped. But the video was not designed out of the figment of somebody’s imagination. The images and what is stated has meaning. I received the following comments on my blog concerning the light from heaven thing going on in the video:
Paul I am confused about the sparkly stuff that is falling down on these enlightened ones. Is this fairy dust?
That was very disturbing to watch.
What’s with the beams of light streaming down behind them and all the little snowflakes? It looks like they are trying to make them look like they are speaking to us from heaven or something…all ethereal and everything.
I was thinking of the same things you were about the fairy dust- strange indeed. Another thing to notice was the movie like ending of the promo- felt like I was about to watch the avengers or transformers. I guess that epic ending was to evoke a response of awe and wonder at the sheer excitement of seeing the “Christian” heros of modern evangelical movement. Next we will see them donned with capes and claim abilities of being able to see right through your depraved soul [actually, Mark Driscoll is making that claim of late].
But believe it or not, the “light from heaven” thing has meaning. Notice that the beams of light come down, but the little dots are going up. That’s the Gnostic cybernetic loop of how the totally depraved zombie sheep receive the truth of the gospel. The truth of the word is cycled from heaven through the spiritually enlightened elders. Farfetched? Well then, consider this statement from heretic/New Calvinist Dr. Devon Berry:
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
Berry was making the case throughout the particular message that sanctifying truth only comes through Reformed elders, a belief widely held among New Calvinists. And I believe that the coming down of light, and the going up of the dots are a subtle allusion to the direct connection that New Calvinists believe these men have with heaven that is efficacious to the evangelical peasantry. Other illusions to Gnosticism in this video will be mentioned in the forthcoming parts.
In all, MacArthur’s willingness to be a part of all of this speaks for itself. It is an endorsement of the worst kind of heresy (the fusion of justification and sanctification) and those who propagate it. MacArthur’s appearance at this conference illustrates his utter indifference to basic biblical principles; such as, the importance of reconciliation, justice, and the qualifications of elders. CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent. MacArthur also shows his true heart towards the spiritually abused and his total lack of compassion towards them. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.
The only thing in all of this that could be virtuous for MacArthur is the fact that this is the “Culmination” of the Resolved Conference. I strongly suspect that this is MacArthur’s way of gaining separation from Mahaney. But at the same time, it makes him a party to the concerted effort to protect the image of the New Calvinist movement which propagates a blatantly false gospel. It’s no accident that MacArthur is no longer invited to the T4G conference, and it is no accident that this conference (primarily sponsored by MacArthur’s church; ie, he has some control of it) is going to be terminated. Something is going on, but like the Piper controversy at Mac’s church, and the Mahaney controversy at RC Sproul’s church, nobody is talking. The image of the spiritual Camelot of our day must be protected. Gag.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments