“Slave”: Bad Company Corrupts Good Theology
For many years John MacArthur’s teachings from the Bible have had a tremendous impact on my life. I always received his teachings as well balanced between showing God’s greatness and sovereignty, imparting encouragement, and teaching practical application. He also did a great job of relating how the Christian walk is experienced in real life. Certainly, I have never deemed his teachings as “not vertical enough.” But trust me, his latest book, “Slave” is plenty vertical. In recent years, I have noticed a considerable decrease of practical application in MacArthur’s teachings, and “Slave” is no exception.
The back cover states the following by way of introduction: “A cover-up of biblical proportions. Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it’s been purposely hidden and covered up ever since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover-up!
In this book, John MacArthur unveils the essential and clarifying revelation that may be keeping you from a fulfilling-and correct-relationship with God. It’s powerful. It’s controversial. And with new eyes you’ll see the riches of your salvation in a radically new way.
What does it mean to be a Christian the way Jesus defined it? MacArthur says it all boils down to one word: SLAVE.”
In fact, the book is an awesome resource, probably THE resource, in showing the true significance, as stated in the Bible, regarding our slave / Lord relationship with Christ. MacArthur begins by giving a detailed historical account of how “bond slave” was re-translated as “[hired] servant” with much lighter implications for seeing our true relationship with the Savior. MacArthur then proceeds to to give an in-depth historical account of slavery during biblical times and how the prophets, the apostles, and Christ used that contemporary reality to illustrate truth about redemption and our relationship with the lord.
As an aside, if you have ever wrestled with the question of ecclesiastical authority verses the authority of Scripture, note pages 60-68. Good stuff, and it will put that question to bed.
A huuuuuuge portion of the book is about God’s sovereignty in justification and sanctification. Got any friends you want to convert to Calvinism? It is one of the most painstaking apologies for Calvinism that I have ever read.
So, after the excellent historical case and roughly 150 pages of monergism, MacArthur got into some practical application on page 183; slaves will be judged based on their performance at the judgment seat of Christ. A great motivation to partake in the “O” word. And then it happened; on page 186, he quotes none other than John Piper. As much as I love MacArthur, he just drives me nuts when he does that. Why? Well, a major theme throughout the book is the biblical concept of being set free from the slavery of sin and made free in slavery to Christ. Piper believes the exact opposite! Piper states the following in “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial”:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).”
Notice Piper quotes Romans 6:17 to make his point about “our” nature and: “We” [are]. Romans 6:17 reads as follows:
“But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.”
Piper uses the Romans passage, which is clearly in the past tense, to teach that Christians are still enslaved to sin. He routinely gets a pass on this sort of thing. Furthermore, Mac quotes Piper twice in the book (page 207 also) for good measure in his endeavor to heap creditability on Piper who also contradicts another major theme in the book; specifically, that we must accept the whole person of Christ which is Lord and Savior. Piper believes the following:
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
MacArthur also wrote a glowing forward in Piper’s book, “Desiring God” despite the fact that the book contains outrageous statements by Piper:
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
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.”
paul
Straight From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 7; The “Newfangled” Fifteen
Like the Antinomianism of the 19th century, the contemporary version of our day, primarily expressed in New Covenant Theology, is fraught with the same kind of “newfangled phraseology” that JC Ryle complained about. Ryle’s complaint is worth another look before we proceed:
“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements–or by overstraining and isolating particular texts–or by exalting one truth at the expense of another– or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them”
Likewise, NCT is not without its own newfangled phraseology. There are primarily fifteen:
1. Rich Typology: It’s so rich, that it doesn’t read like typology, but rather seems to be literal, being so “rich.” Example; “Israel” doesn’t really mean “Israel,” but is always a reference to Christ. God’s word really doesn’t mean “word,” or “Law,” but is also 100% synonymous with “the person of Christ who personifies the Law.” This typology is sooooo rich, that even though Proverbs personifies “wisdom” as a woman, that’s still speaking of Christ also. Wow, now that’s really rich.
2. In-Lawed in Christ: The Law is completely fulfilled in Christ because, He obeyed it perfectly. Therefore, we have no need to obey it, nor does it have any role in sanctification.
3. Deep Repentance: The process in which heart idols are discovered by evaluating desires that the idols produce. When we repent of specific idols, it empties our hearts and leaves a void that is filled by Christ, who then obeys for us.
4. New Obedience: The result of deep repentance – Christ obeys for us.
5. Progressive Sanctification: Ongoing justification, which isn’t a one time act, but is continually applied to us as needed. Some advocates of NCT acknowledge a daily “re-saving.” Paul Tripp says that Christians need a “daily rescue,” and cites Romans 7: 24.
6. Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics: Invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp in the 17th century and further developed by Geerhardus Vos. It makes NCT possible by supplying a prism that will always yield redemptive concepts from the text.
7. Christian Hedonism: Invented by John Piper in 1980. He believes that people are driven by their desires. Therefore, change the desires and you change the behavior. Piper believes that we can only change our desires by meditating on the glory of Christ as seen in the Bible. He also believes that biblical imperatives only serve to make us dependant on Christ and cherish Him more, because we are powerless to keep the Law. He cites Romans 6:17 to make this point, and believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sin.
8. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event: All biblical imperatives illustrate the work of Christ, not anything God expects us to do. As Paul Tripp states it: All biblical commands must be seen in their “gospel context.” If that’s not Antinomianism, what is?
10. Good Repentance: Repenting of good works, or anything we try to do in “our own efforts” as opposed to yielding to Christ and allowing Him to obey for us. Paul Tripp says this will result in “new and surprising fruit.” Tim Keller also suggests that repenting of good works is an essential part of a saving profession. As these people continue to pontificate such lunacy, nobody blinks and they are continually supplied with credibility by the who’s who of the Evangelical community, such as John MacArthur and RC Sproul.
11. The Apostle’s Hermeneutic: A supposed pattern of interpretation that’s patterned after RHH. However, despite numerous challenges from various writers, NCT proponents have never been able to articulate it.
13. New Calvinism: The expression of NCT and all of its tenets; Heart Theology, Gospel Sanctification, Christian Hedonism, and the Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.
14. Word Pictures: If your pastor starts using this phraseology, it’s a red flag. The insinuation is that the Bible writers were writing a gospel narrative / novel / story rather than a document containing specific ideas / instruction to be drawn from the text by evaluating grammatical construction and historical context.
15. What does that look like? If your leaders start using this phraseology, again, it’s a red flag. It’s an attempt to eradicate the implication that Christians are supposed to participate in the verb world. Instead of: “what should we do?” It’s: “what does that look like when Jesus is doing it for us?”
I don’t suppose this newfangled 15 would arouse any suspicions among God’s people, for I fear that we also “look like” another complaint leveled by JC Ryle:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
paul
New Calvinism: It’s Antinomianism, That’s Why…
“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”
~ Dr. Peter Masters
Some time ago, I posted an article in an attempt to answer articles written by bloggers who were bemoaning the behavior of John Piper in regard to who he was inviting to his conferences, etc (one example is Steve Camp’s post: goo.gl/h0R6X). In the post, I say the following: “Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybodies mind?” After all, what is our first clue that Piper is an Antinomian when he plainly says that Christians are dead to the Law in regard to sanctification? And, the Law’s only purpose for the believer is to see what Jesus has done for us, period, nothing else (Piper Sermon, “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”). The aforementioned post where I attempt to show the source for Piper’s behavior can be read here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-gG .
But what sparked my re-post of this issue is a couple of articles I stumbled upon by Dr. Peter Masters who is the pastor of Charles Spurgeon’s old church. My guess would be that the folks at the Metropolitan don’t let just anybody in there to be pastor. In the article I will cite, he calls out “New Calvinism” for becoming worldly, and names, names. It is my contention that the primary doctrine of New Calvinism is Gospel Sanctification, or, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. So obviously, if we could not utilize a role for the Law in justification, other than it showing us our sinfulness and our inability to uphold it, neither can we utilize it for any purpose in sanctification either. That’s Antinomianism: Christians are not obligated to the Law because they are powerless to uphold it and Christ already completely fulfilled it for us anyway ( the imputation of active obedience performed by Christ, not us. Some good articles on this can be found here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C . These links are 3 of 6 by the same author).
So, wouldn’t it stand to reason that such a movement would become more and more worldly? It should; after all, it’s Antinomianism. Dr. Peter Masters’ article is here:
And some of his concerns with John Piper’s theology concerning sanctification can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080513234516/http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/?page=articles&id=3
paul
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
With All Due Respect, Your Buddy “Joe” Piper Doesn’t Know Either
Here are three bits of information to start: I can’t say enough good things about Grace Community Church, and I can’t say enough negative things about Joel Olsteen; but with that said, I don’t like hypocrisy either. One of these days, I hope to make it to a Shepherds conference held annually at John MacArthurs church (Grace Community). Once again, my efforts fell short this year. One of the speakers at the 2009 conference was Pastor Steve Lawson of Mobile, Alabama. He brought the house down with a rendition of Joel Olsteen’s appearance on the Larry King show. Basically, Larry King asked Olsteen if non-Christian faiths were wrong about salvation because they didn’t believe in Christ. Olsteen said he didn’t know, which was bad enough, but Lawson was able to put a hilarious spin on the discourse because of the way Olsteen stuttered and stammered while answering. As I watched the video excerpt of Lawson‘s performance, I found myself somewhat offended. Why? Two reasons: I think everybody was having a little bit too much fun with it at the expense of one who is also created in God’s image. Secondly, they (Lawson, MacArthur, Mohler, et al.) seem to have a favorite buddy these days, John Piper. Lawson and MacArthur spoke with him at the Resolve conference this year. Like my grandmother use to say: “Birds of the feather flock together.” So, let me get this straight, Piper is less confused than Olsteen? Oh really? Consider the following outrageous statements he makes in his book, “Desiring God”:
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith.”
(John Piper, Desiring God, page 69)
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 61)
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 66)
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (page 67)
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure.” (page 68)
So what’s the big dif? That’s what Olsteen emphasizes, a hedonistic joy now; not only that, Olsteen is not the only one of the two that “doesn’t know.” Here is what Piper says on page 55 of the same book:
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)
“Could it be!?” What does he mean, “could it be?” Doesn’t he know? He’s talking about the gospel! So, why is it ok for Piper not to know, but not Olsteen? Oh, that’s easy. Piper is “reformed” and Olsteen isn’t. If you carry the reformed label these days, you have the Joe Biden thing working for you. You know, “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Yes, what an anomaly Joe Biden is; he can say anything he wants and “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Truly, John Piper has to be the Joe Biden of modern evangelicalism.
Recently, I read an endorsement for a reformed book posted on Facebook. Later, my daughter informed me that the author was a Charismatic. In fact, many who hold to Charismatic doctrine are now widely accepted in reformed circles because they have the “gospel” right. Such is the environment we find ourselves in. If you are “reformed,” you can toy with God’s word anyway you see fit, even in regard to how we are sanctified. Just believe in monergistic justification, and you are now free to play with God’s word anyway you want to.
Let me finish by saying something good about Joel Olsteen. At least he doesn’t pretend to be orthodox. The guy has plainly said: “I’m not a theologian.” That’s called honesty. Something could be learned from him in regard to that.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments