Why Everybody, Hates John MacArthur

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did I write that he should be followed? If I remember correctly I wrote that his love for the Word should be recognized. I will add that it should even be commended.

Why should he be allowed to have a pulpit? I suppose a Dispensationalist could ask the same question of a pastor who is a Covenant Theologian.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or for that matter believing that you have some litmus test for doctrinal purity.

As a Baptist, my Presbyterian brethren and I have real differences. In spite of those differences, there is much that we agree on. There are times when it is right and necessary to debate our differences, but it is also right and necessary to recognize those things that we do agree on.
I can commend John for loving the Word of God. But I'm careful not to adopt the ecumenical spirit that permeates Christianity in our day. The mutual quest for the truth as it is in Jesus is rapidly being replaced by an all-inclusive attitude of a false sort of love that is already leading many evangelical leaders back to Rome to shake hands with the pope. Not saying that this is part of the current discussion, but it seems to be related in a way.

None of us is the standard for doctrine, but if we ask God for ears to hear what the Spirit says to the church through His Word, He will grant it to us.
 
I'm careful not to adopt the ecumenical spirit that permeates Christianity in our day. The mutual quest for the truth as it is in Jesus is rapidly being replaced by an all-inclusive attitude of a false sort of love that is already leading many evangelical leaders back to Rome to shake hands with the pope. Not saying that this is part of the current discussion, but it seems to be related in a way.
If you really think this is what’s going on in a mere commendation of John MacArthur, even only in a “related way”—all I can say is that is outrageously extreme.
 
I haven't watched the video, but this is a very strange time to be posting a video like this.

Hi Jake,

I meant to ask you why you thought it was such a "strange time to be posting a video like this." Well, it's had over 3,000 views and this is post #63 and counting.

I guess somebody thought it was worth commented on.:)

Ed
 
A thing may be strange and worth at the same time. Like a smoking pot passing between slain halves of an animal carcass.
 
Last edited:
If you really think this is what’s going on in a mere commendation of John MacArthur, even only in a “related way”—all I can say is that is outrageously extreme.
It's always an appropriate time to speak much needed truth. Especially about celebrity pastors who are idolized to their followers' destruction.
 
It's always an appropriate time to speak much needed truth. Especially about celebrity pastors who are idolized to their followers' destruction.
Who here idolizes John MacArthur? That anyone “idolizes” MacArthur is hardly MacArthur’s fault. Blaming him for some whacko’s supposed self-destruction is, again, outrageously extreme. Literally everyone here recognizes his theological issues, but the things you are saying are astronomically out of proportion.
 
Who here idolizes John MacArthur? That anyone “idolizes” MacArthur is hardly MacArthur’s fault. Blaming him for some whacko’s supposed self-destruction is, again, outrageously extreme.
It's always an appropriate time to speak much needed truth. Especially about celebrity pastors who are idolized to their followers' destruction.
MacArthur a celebrity pastor?
 
Who here idolizes John MacArthur? That anyone “idolizes” MacArthur is hardly MacArthur’s fault. Blaming him for some whacko’s supposed self-destruction is, again, outrageously extreme. Literally everyone here recognizes his theological issues, but the things you are saying are astronomically out of proportion.
Just saying that many young pastors idolize him and just believe whatever he teaches. I'm not saying anyone on the Puritanboard does that, and I'm not saying it's his fault, nor am I trying to judge the man personally. I simply took a reference I saw to him on this site and thought I would submit my thoughts about him. His calvinistic theology and popularity around the world has gained him an audience among semi-reformed Christians. But what he teaches concerning dispensationalism is dangerous even though he means well. I know people who have graduated from his seminary who openly teach that non-dispensational Christians are severely mislead and practically heretics. Please don't tell me the whole John MacArthur thing is not a problem for orthodox Christianity.
 
But what he teaches concerning dispensationalism is dangerous even though he means well.

Just out of curiosity, can you explicate what exactly is so "dangerous" about dispensationalism? That kind of language suggests (to me at least) that the salvation of those who do uphold dispensationalism is imperiled somehow.

I am not a dispensationalist myself, or at least not in the classical and revised versions, and up until recently I tended to think dispensationalism was just non-sensical and couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe in it.

However, I have been reading through the following work....


After reading this, I can at least understand where dispensationalists are coming from, and it is not as far-fetched as I once thought it was. I also used to be firmly in the covenant theology camp, but after reading this and other works, I see some serious weaknesses in it as well. I am coming to see that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of extreme discontinuity (classic dispensationalism) and extreme continuity (covenant theology) between the OT and the NT, For what it's worth. Probably a hybrid such as "Progressive dispensationalism" or "Progressive covenantalism."
 
Just out of curiosity, can you explicate what exactly is so "dangerous" about dispensationalism? That kind of language suggests (to me at least) that the salvation of those who do uphold dispensationalism is imperiled somehow.

I am not a dispensationalist myself, or at least not in the classical and revised versions, and up until recently I tended to think dispensationalism was just non-sensical and couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe in it.

However, I have been reading through the following work....


After reading this, I can at least understand where dispensationalists are coming from, and it is not as far-fetched as I once thought it was. I also used to be firmly in the covenant theology camp, but after reading this and other works, I see some serious weaknesses in it as well. I am coming to see that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of extreme discontinuity (classic dispensationalism) and extreme continuity (covenant theology) between the OT and the NT, For what it's worth. Probably a hybrid such as "Progressive dispensationalism" or "Progressive covenantalism."
I'm talking about the kind of dispensationalism that makes the nation of Israel and the church of Christ to be in two different redemptive programs. The kind that teaches we are to expect Christ to come again and deal with the Jews within a similar system as the old covenant. Many in that camp actually believe that He will reinstutute and oversee animal sacrifices at that time.

Also, within the dispensational camp there are many who either minimize or fail entirely to teach the 10 commandments as the rule of life for the believer, since they supposedly belonged to a prior dispensation.

The dangers of these teachings should be obvious to any Spirit led Christian.
 
I am coming to see that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of extreme discontinuity (classic dispensationalism) and extreme continuity (covenant theology) between the OT and the NT, For what it's worth.
This is an odd thing to say; covenant theology is opposed to “extreme continuity.” Have you read WCF 7?

(Also, keep in mind that a change in view as you describe would require you to inform the administrators.)
 
This is an odd thing to say; covenant theology is opposed to “extreme continuity.” Have you read WCF 7?

(Also, keep in mind that a change in view as you describe would require you to inform the administrators.)

I don't think I said that "covenant theology is opposed to 'extreme continuity.'"

And I have no idea what you mean by your statement in the parentheses. I simply think that pure covenant theology has its own problems, and that the truth probably lies closer to that vertical line below. Does that require notifying the admins?!?

The book I mentioned sets up a continuum of continuity-discontinuity between the OT and the NT, and places classic dispensationalism at the extreme end of "discontinuity" and covenant theology towards the other end (though not the extreme end) of the "continuity" spectrum:

DISCONTINUITY <------------------------------|----------------------------------------------> CONTINUITY

Classic Disp / Revised Disp / Progressive Disp | Progressive Cov / Cov Theology / Christian Reconstruction
 
Last edited:
I don't think I said that "covenant theology is opposed to 'extreme continuity.'"

And I have no idea what you mean by your statement in the parentheses.

The book I mentioned sets up a continuum of continuity-discontinuity between the OT and the NT, and places classic dispensationalism at the extreme end of "discontinuity" and covenant theology towards the other end (though not the extreme end) of the "continuity" spectrum:

DISCONTINUITY <------------------------------|----------------------------------------------> CONTINUITY

Classic Disp / Revised Disp / Progressive Disp | Progressive Cov / Cov Theology / Christian Reconstruction
You labeled covenant theology as “extreme continuity,” and then revealed that you are leaning yourself toward Progressive Dispensationalism. You said: “I am coming to see that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of extreme discontinuity (classic dispensationalism) and extreme continuity (covenant theology) between the OT and the NT, For [sic] what it's worth. Probably a hybrid such as ‘Progressive dispensationalism’ or ‘Progressive covenantalism.’”

To the former, I would argue that you are wrong; to the latter, if you do change your position, you must inform the administrators of such, because it violates the terms of membership on Puritan Board, both being contra-confessional.
 
You labeled covenant theology as “extreme continuity,” and then revealed that you are leaning yourself toward Progressive Dispensationalism. You said: “I am coming to see that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of extreme discontinuity (classic dispensationalism) and extreme continuity (covenant theology) between the OT and the NT, For [sic] what it's worth. Probably a hybrid such as ‘Progressive dispensationalism’ or ‘Progressive covenantalism.’”

To the former, I would argue that you are wrong; to the latter, if you do change your position, you must inform the administrators of such, because it violates the terms of membership on Puritan Board, both being contra-confessional.

Can you tell me the differences between progressive dispensationalism (as proposed by Saucy, Blaising, and Darrell Bock) and progressive covenantalism (as proposed by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum)?
 
Can you tell me the differences between progressive dispensationalism (as proposed by Saucy, Blaising, and Darrell Bock) and progressive covenantalism (as proposed by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum)?
Sure, I could. I studied biblical theology at the seminary level under both progressive dispensationalists and progressive covenantalists. I was required to read Darrell Bock on hermeneutics, for example, where he discusses this distinction. Moreover, it's not difficult to research or to understand. But that's not the topic of this thread. The point of my comment to you was to alert you of the implications of a shift in theology in this particular area.
 
Sure, I could. I studied biblical theology at the seminary level under both progressive dispensationalists and progressive covenantalists. I was required to read Darrell Bock on hermeneutics, for example, where he discusses this distinction. Moreover, it's not difficult to research or to understand. But that's not the topic of this thread. The point of my comment to you was to alert you of the implications of a shift in theology in this particular area.

So, if I wake up Wednesday and say, "I am a progressive dispensationalist!!" I'd better run and inform the admins because this is "contra-confessional" and constitutes some violation of the PB terms of membership??

Really??

I am just a layman, who never went to seminary and doesn't have a bunch of time to read a bunch of books by the likes of Vos, Gaffin, Tipton, Wellum, Gentry, Blaising, etc. so I doubt I will ever know EXACTLY with 100% PRECISION where I fall on that spectrum I outlined above. All I know is that I generally agree with the contours of covenant theology, but I can see and understand (based, again, on a limited acquaintance and being forced, due to time-constraints, to reading books like the Merkle book I mentioned above, which give you a 30,000 ft. overview of the six positions outlined above) how each of these all have their own strengths and weaknesses and that perhaps there are some elements of dispensationalism that cannot be ignored and need to be incorporated into covenant theology...and vice-versa, which is precisely why "progressive dispensationalism" and "progressive covenantalism" are a thing now. And this is generally the meaning of my statement that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two positions.

And, as I said earlier, up until a few weeks ago, I thought dispensationalism really was off-the-wall bonkers and could not understand why anyone would uphold it. Having read the Merkle book (and a couple of others) to get an idea of where they are coming from, all I can say is that, even though I still disagree with classic and revised dispensationalism, I can now at least understand where they are coming from, why they think the way they do, and won't be casting aspersions on them or questioning their faith (as some, apparently, are wont to do).

BTW, in the reading I've done on all this in the past few weeks, I definitely find myself landing in the premillennial camp rather than the amillennial as I leaned toward previously.

So, there's that....
 
Last edited:
So, if I wake up Wednesday and say, "I am a progressive dispensationalist!!" I'd better run and inform the admins because this is "contra-confessional" and constitutes some violation of the PB terms of membership??

Really??
Yes. From the Board Terms and Rules (Requirements for Membership, 3.b):

"The Puritan Board forbids the membership of proponents of New Covenant Theology (NCT) and unconfessional views of the Law of God. The Reformed Confessions governing the board affirm a functional distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law and deny any view that would claim 'Christians are only under the law of Jesus Christ.' Those who are proponents of this doctrine should refrain from registering and any members who embrace this doctrine should have the integrity to forfeit their membership privileges. Members who violate this rule will be suspended or banned" (emphasis added).​

This would most certainly include Progressive Dispensationalism.
 
There may be a 12 steps to recovery program, however. Surely the admins would offer corrective guidance or even a preventive salve. I think there are still under 40 of them. I know MacArthur has a book.
 
Last edited:
Who here idolizes John MacArthur? That anyone “idolizes” MacArthur is hardly MacArthur’s fault. Blaming him for some whacko’s supposed self-destruction is, again, outrageously extreme. Literally everyone here recognizes his theological issues, but the things you are saying are astronomically out of proportion.
Just so you know, For what it's worth, maybe not here at PB......in Calvinist Baptist D.i.s,p.y circles I think it crosses into idolatry. I've seen it and it's creepy. I've seen it just the past year in several. And in a vague intuitive sort of way that's hard to explain, it tends to not be just the fault of lowly lay people when big name speakers or celebrities ( Christian or of the world) end up with devoted fans who idolize them and won't hear a word of their human failings but need to have somebody on a pedestal. Its not normal respect and discipleship and having mentors, it is "sick" for lack of a better word. There are things at work in the guys at the top, and they like the adoration. Green Baggins did a good piece a while back on avoiding the trap of narcissism as a pastor, I'll try to find it later.
 
Please don't tell me the whole John MacArthur thing is not a problem for orthodox Christianity.
Jeremy, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. John MacArthur is no more a problem for orthodox Christianity than Charles Spurgeon was. I just do not see this insidious threat to our faith that you seem to notice. OK. So John MacArthur is a Dispensationalist. Most folks on this board already know that. You are not informing us of anything new. Many of us can discard MacArthur's eschatology without calling for him to be run out of the country on a rail. If some people turn MacArthur into a cult personality, that is on them.
 
Dispensationalists have MacArthur, Presbyterians had, and have Sproul (he sure has not disappeared from my Facebook feed). Preachers becoming famous happens; some handle it, some not as well. Christ is preached out of envy by some says Paul yet he rejoices. Philippians 1:15-18. Neither was/is doing that so I think more the reason we follow Paul here. Let's move on. Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top