John MacArthur: A Squandered Legacy
I woke up this morning to the news that John MacArthur has passed. Here are my thoughts. First, what made him the premier preacher in evangelical circles? Because he went beyond the gospel and preached practical application of the Bible…period. Church, in the tradition of the Reformation, made everything about the gospel. Conflating justification and sanctification was the primary thrust of the Reformation gospel. Clearly, the Reformation redefined the new birth, and made sanctification the progression of justification through the practice of church ritual.
Most born again Christians in the 80s were like me, they had a zeal for living a life that promoted God, his Son, and the Christian life. But, what did we find in church? The gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, and compromise with sin. The 70s and 80s were an evangelical wave produced by the failed spiritual movement of the 60s, otherwise known as the hippie movement or the so-called Age of Aquarius. When that movement failed, churches in the 70s were flooded with new converts, particularly in California where MacArthur’s church was located.
However, understand, that during the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, churches functioned according to the tradition of the Reformation, particularly the order of service, which reflected progressive justification, but denied its soteriology with a new birth concept that was relatively close to the Bible. Of course, being recreated, and secured forever as a literal child of God would have been appealing to those who experienced the spirituality of the 60s. Consequently, sanctification was seen as being chosen out of the free will of a changed heart, and church was a primary help for doing that; it was a place where zealous believers went to encourage each other unto good works. But, this was definitely NOT the ecclesiology or soteriology of the Reformation. More than likely, the confusion occurred during a time of independent/individual interpretation after the Revolutionary war. Fact is, Reformation theology as expressed by the Puritans in the colonies, and the tyranny thereof, was a major factor in igniting the Revolutionary war.
That was the landscape. Churches functioned according to Reformation theology, but intellectually, believed more like the Quakers, whom the Puritans hated, and routinley hanged, burned, and drowned whether men, women, or children. The mix resulted in an overemphasis on the gospel and the Bible being taught according to generalities and cliches. Furthermore, anemic sanctification led to the church looking like the world. MacArthur’s leadership was different. During the 80s, it was common for people to pick up roots and move to LA in order to be a member of MacArthur’s church. I almost did it myself. Single people, and even some families, just packed up their stuff and drove to LA without a place to live or a job, and just showed up at MacArthur’s church. Why? Hunger for practical application of the Bible.
In the 90s, the New Calvinism movement came calling. Why MacArthur capitulated to spiritual misfits like John Piper is yet a mystery to me. However, before then, MacArthur did show signs of being confused like the time he put a disciple of Larry Crabb in charge of biblical counseling at his church. That was a big head-scratcher for me.
Here, apparently, is what MacArthur didn’t understand: his congregation would have followed him regardless of anything; that’s how it works. In fact, if he hadn’t jumped on the New Calvinist bandwagon, I think the 80s would have repeated itself and his ministry would have been a refuge for escape from the spiritual herd mentality that church is famous for. Plenty of churchians wanted to flee the New Calvinism movement, but truly had no place to run. This is no surprise because the evangelical church was already primed for takeover because of its order of service that had never changed. And, even though he only had the gospel half right, I think he would have entered heaven as the most relavant church teacher since the apostle Paul.
But he capitulated. He let New Calvinism, which is a return to the original Reformation gospel of progressive justification, steal his full reward. In other words, they talked him into adapting the same everything-gospel preaching that people fled during the 80s to find refuge at his church. With that said, I don’t think God sends people to an eternal hell for being confused. Yes, I do believe that motives matter, and there is no doubt his motives were honorable. I believe he truly loved God with all of his heart, mind, and soul, and we will meet with him in heaven.
But like the Bible states, bad company corrupts good manners, and obviously, right thinking.
paul
Lawson, Church, and Protestantism; It’s Just That Simple
Paul – I think you are being too generous to Lawson, unless my antipathy towards Calvinism has got the better of me! I even looked up Wartburg Watch after about a decade, and the comment there that Lawson has yet even to mention his victim, the girl he had the affaire with, is very telling and indicates his repentance may be more remorse for what his actions have done to him. There is a history of men trying to get back into ministry via repentance but who don’t put things right with the victims. (I appreciate this is assuming she was not altogether willing due to the power differential, the internet is not party to all the details. I also don’t want to be pharisaiacal and deny him the very real forgiveness available if he genuinely turns away from his sins.)
Wartburg quoted Lawson on hell, and frankly he came across as a weirdo, something is clearly wrong with a man who talks like that.
In my observation of Calvinists and their strange doctrines in recent months I have been struck by the notion of regeneration being prior to faith, and indeed necessary for faith to be exercised. Now you have often pointed out the failure to see the the new birth goes beyond a ‘legal declaration’ of being righteous in the sight of God, but I wonder if Calvinists who have given mental assent to the facts of the gospel take this to mean they must be regenerate, their “faith” is evidence of new birth. How else would you know you are part of the elect? You have got to find some subjective evidence you have in fact been chosen for salvation.
What if they are ‘believers’ without the new birth, they have wrongly assumed they are born again? They could have any amount of theology and doctrine and Greek and Hebrew and church history, but no fundamental change has ever taken place, they are not new creations in Christ. They have biblical words, but do not possess what those words mean. Is this a possible explanation for Lawson?
___________________________________________
Whoa, where to start? First of all, Protestantism is Calvinism. Protestantism is founded on the Big Three: Augustine, Luther, Calvin. Luther and Calvin based their authority on Augustine, a Neo-Platonist. Platonism is the antithesis of the biblical new birth, which promotes the idea of deity being fused together with mortality. CLEARLY, authentic Protestant theology rejects the biblical new birth.
After the American Revolution, masses of people were reading the Bible for themselves, and along with influence from the Quakers, a more biblical view of the new birth took hold, and while the Protestant view of salvation continued to be reflected in formal church worship, Protestantism was taken over by a more individualistic biblical new birth mentality. Calls to return to the authentic Protestant gospel sprang up here and there, but fell on deaf ears. Most notably, as reflected by the book, “Disciplined By Grace” written by J.F. Strombeck in 1946. Note the title, and the idea that sanctification (the discipline of the Christian life) is effected by perpetual re-salvation (grace). Hence, discipline in sanctification is by salvation. Sanctification by justification.
The only problem with all of these attempts is they didn’t say the quite part out loud and in plain terms. Well, in 1970, the Australian Forum finally did. Their theological journal, Present Truth, was really a commentary on the Calvin Institutes and the writings of Luther. I document the history of the AF in The Truth About New Calvinism in painstaking detail (primarily chapter 4).
Fact is, the AF gave birth to the New Calvinism movement, which is a return to authentic Protestantism, and overtly denies the biblical new birth and the idea that salvation changes a person’s state of being. Hence, biblically speaking, this means that Protestants are still enslaved to sin with the behaviors we see coming out of church following. Church still advocates moral behavior as an entry level pretense, but then asserts that as people grow spiritually, they become Calvinists. This is why they handle those who “fall” they way they do…it’s all window dressing.
Lawson did what he did because he was taken captive by sin, and dragged away into death per the theology that he has preached for years. In addition, his peers knew it was going on. Hanging out with her publicly was hardly, “avoiding all appearances of evil.” Just consider the insanity of this affair; where did they think it was going to go or end up? They BOTH knew it was going to have a sorry end…but they couldn’t help themselves…they were enslaved to the sinful desire per their theology.
It’s just that simple.
Addendum:
Remember, all residual doctrines of Protestantism, like the idea that people are regenerated before salvation, are fruits from the poisonous tree. Furthermore, if the doctrines were true, the Bible would read differently. In context of cause and effect, God would be the cause in every sentence. Furthermore, in presenting the gospel, why do Calvinists attempt to persuade rather than just presenting the gospel and taking a wait and see posture? You never hear them say, “It’s not your decision, if God saves you, you will start going to church even though salvation doesn’t really change you, you are still totally depraved.” So, the Protestant gospel is not full disclosure by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, someone who hates their life and wants to change it would be misguided in believing the gospel for that reason. The only valid reason would be a strictly legal declaration and not a change in state of being, which the Bible contradicts (justification is apart from the law; a legal declaration is NOT apart from the law).
Protestantism is False Because of Romans 8:2
Most false gospels are based on interpreting soteriology from a single perspective on the law. Protestantism is included in this error as well. Romans 8:2 discusses two laws, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” and “the law of sin and death.” Both words for “law” in this passage are “nomos,” meaning a written law or moral code. Many Protestant theologians try to interpret nomos in this passage as two spiritual realms, which of course, is overt hermeneutical error. The word for a spiritual realm is a totally different word.
In addition, the correct interpretation of Romans 8:2 is confirmed by several other passages in scripture, particularly the Spirit’s two uses of the law to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come, and the Spirit’s use of the law to sanctify God’s children.
Because of Protestantism’s single perspective on the law, perfect law-keeping is the standard for righteousness, not the new birth. The so-called believer remains under the condemnation of the law, and being under grace is a covering for remaining under law. In other words, according to the Protestant gospel, a believer is both under law and under grace, or in other words, a “sinner (defined in the Bible as being under condemnation) saved by grace” (actually, being saved by grace because Protestantism teaches that salvation is a “process”).
Consequently, Protestantism denies a biblical definition of the new birth that plunges us into Jesus’ death resulting in the law of sin and death no longer having jurisdiction over us (because the old us is dead, and dead people cannot be indicted), and raising us together with Christ resulting in us being under the power of the Spirit’s use of the law for sanctification.
This doesn’t mean that a born-again Christian is free from all consequences concerning a poo-pooing of the law’s moralism. But, there is a clear biblical demarcation between condemnation and fatherly chastisement that is done from love and not wrath. Protestantism denies this distinction, and conflates condemnation with chastisement in the same way that it conflates all other distinctions between under law and under grace.
The unavoidable result of this is a salvation process that involves church. And by the way, 99.99% of all churches teach from a single perspective on the law. Church isn’t an option. No surprise then that the New Testament ekklesia is not church as we know it; church as we know it comes along about 300 years later.
paul
Interpretation
Christians like information. Between church, K-Love radio, and cable, we receive information nonstop. We also live in the Information Age. Never before has mankind received so much information.
But all information has a source, and the source of any given information is disseminating the information with a goal in mind, and that goal will depend on how the disseminators interpret realty. They have an agenda. Sure, some Hollywood producers merely want to entertain, but most want to educate according to their own good intentions. In Religion, agenda-driven education is always the goal. That’s us.
So, all information that we hear as Christians has an agenda. There is no exception here in this venue. And there is an all pervasive belief among Christians in regard to discernment: knowing how the teacher interprets reality is not important, I can take from the shelf what is true and leave on the shelf what isn’t true. The goal of the teacher based on how he/she interprets reality is not important. Every teaching has good and bad in it, but we can benefit from what is good. Hmmmm, really?
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how words work in communication. If you do not know how a teacher interprets reality, regardless of agreement on elements, through word replacement, and emphasis on certain words over others, you can be led to a functioning belief of the teacher’s choosing. I have watched this happen in Reformed circles firsthand. I know of churches that gleefully follow men that they would have run out of town ten years prior. I have watched this concept in action.
All of the words that form the ideas of any teacher you are listening to are framed according to his/her interpretation of reality. In the English language, the alternative use of words to put forth an idea are literally innumerable. No pun intended. Anybody’s best guess is that the English language has about 470,000 primary words. Generic words can be used to put forth an idea that would normally be dismissed out of hand in a certain venue by avoiding the specific word etc.
A classic example in Christian venues is the use of the word “gospel” to put forth certain ideas about justification that would be dismissed out of hand if the word, “justification” was used. Initially, that is. Once the idea is assimilated into the group’s minds, “justification” can then be freely used which seals the deal. If a teacher doesn’t believe in a particular biblical truth, he/she can simply never teach on it while assimilating nuanced antithetical ideas into the general curriculum. Hence: “One man’s account seems convincing until another comes forward.” Well, the other guy never comes forward, and you are therefore convinced.
The idea that we can glean helpful truth from any message is naïveté on steroids. Every word is an accomplice to that teacher’s interpretation of reality and the goal’s thereof. That is what “teaching” is. It is purpose-driven. 900 people liked what the words of Jim Jones seemed to say, but didn’t understand that his interpretation of realty would leave them dead and rotting in the hot sun of Guyana.
This also speaks to the scandalous reality of systematic theology not being taught in the churches. Congregants are left to accept whatever caveats are dished out from the pulpit.
Which can lead to anywhere.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment