Monday, July 27, 2020
AD Robles responds to 9Marks's Jonathan Leeman about John MacArthur
The only thing I would add that is not in the video is just how flimsy I found Leeman's article to be. By that, I mean that Leeman seemed to be trying to please every side while simultaneously trying to take a position against MacArthur, so it ends up being a real mash of chaos in the end. The basic gist of Leeman's point appears to be, "MacArthur shouldn't have done that, but, I mean, I guess it's private judgment if you want to do it--but you shouldn't want to--but if you do it's okay, except that it's not."
Also, while Robles did mention this, I want to echo one of the more problematic arenas of Leeman's post. Leeman said: "I personally wonder if defying government orders for the sake of a pandemic is the most judicious opportunity to exercise those muscles. The politics of LGBT tells me our churches may have more occasions to defy government requirements in years to come. Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?" Robles spent a good deal of time critiquing the aspect of "capital" that Leeman references, so I won't belabor that point here. I would merely add: "The politics of evangelical churches tells me that most of our churches won't bother to defy government requirements regarding LGBT issues, should they arise, given how many churches are more than happy to capitulate to them now."
So to conclude, while I did disagree with MacArthur's views in March, his current position should be defended, even against the rather weak and mostly incoherent attack Leeman gave.
Friday, July 24, 2020
Is it too little, too late?
Having taken this long to stand up to the overbearing, unconstitional, and immoral commands of California, it's going to be that much harder to argue in court that now it's an undue burden when four months ago it wasn't. Having capitulated to the state before, it will be that much more difficult to take back the ground you previously surrendered, and the state most certainly will use your previous capitulation against you now.
It's almost like there's a reason one should always resist tyranny, even over so-called "trivial" issues.
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
What if Grace Community Church defied the state?
Grace Community Church recently said the following on their church website:
We were looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship. But we have been ordered by the state authorities to limit gatherings to 250 people or less, which means we are unable to meet together.
Steve Hays has already discussed this at length in his post "MacArthur bows down to Caesar" and in his post "Regulating the size of church services".
However, I just wanted to offer a "what if" scenario. What if Grace Community Church had said something like the following instead:
We were looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship. But we have been ordered by the state authorities to limit gatherings to 250 people or less, which means we are unable to meet together in a normal way for Sunday fellowship and worship.So, instead of our normal Sunday fellowship and worship, we will do something a little bit different. We will admit the first 251 people to our Sunday fellowship and worship, but we will close our doors after this number has been reached.
One extra person on top of the state mandate is not going to significantly increase the risk of coronavirus transmission. However, what it will do is demonstrate that "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
This is not a new position. This is what we have maintained over the years. This is in keeping in line with what our pastor John MacArthur has preached over his long and faithful ministry. As Pastor John said in a past sermon:
At the seminary, we put an article up on the seminary website about homosexuality. Within a matter of hours, we received a letter ordering us to cease and desist immediately or face a very severe lawsuit. Could we be sued for taking this position? Absolutely. Insurance companies that provide liability insurances for churches so that we’re protected against lawsuits are beginning to say, “We will not accept responsibility for lawsuits on homosexual or same-sex marriage issues.” The church is out there all on its own.Now, just to make it clear: We don’t bow down to Caesar. We bow to our king. But the faithful people didn’t bow down. The unfaithful people bowed down to idols. They bowed down to monarchs. They bowed down to godless kings. Faithful people didn’t bow down. Mordecai didn’t bow down. Daniel didn’t bow down; his friends didn’t bow down. Jesus didn’t bow down. Paul didn’t bow down.
And today, brothers and sisters in Christ, we will not bow down.
Monday, March 16, 2020
Regulating the size of church services
@Phil_Johnson_The GCC elders discussed whether the California ban on large gatherings is an Acts 5:29 issue or a Romans 13:1 situation.Our consensus was that since this is a health emergency and applies to everyone (as opposed to a decree targeting the church for persecution) we’re going to act in accord with Romans 13.
We were looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship. But we have been ordered by the state authorities to limit gatherings to 250 people or less, which means we are unable to meet together.
@Fred_ButlerGiven the current health crisis, no one is currently concerned about constitutional rights.
Finishes w/ some odd comment about live streaming and bending the outbreak curve or something.
complains this is the state disrupting worship. Well, other than GCC's 4K plus members told to stay home, we held the standard worship service today. No disruption. Back to normal in a couple of Sundays.
Sunday, March 15, 2020
MacArthur bows down to Caesar
At the seminary, we put an article up on the seminary website about homosexuality. Within a matter of hours, we received a letter ordering us to cease and desist immediately or face a very severe lawsuit. Could we be sued for taking this position? Absolutely. Insurance companies that provide liability insurances for churches so that we’re protected against lawsuits are beginning to say, “We will not accept responsibility for lawsuits on homosexual or same-sex marriage issues.” The church is out there all on its own.Now, just to make it clear: We don’t bow down to Caesar. We bow to our king. But the faithful people didn’t bow down. The unfaithful people bowed down to idols. They bowed down to monarchs. They bowed down to godless kings. Faithful people didn’t bow down. Mordecai didn’t bow down. Daniel didn’t bow down; his friends didn’t bow down. Jesus didn’t bow down. Paul didn’t bow down.
We were looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship. But we have been ordered by the state authorities to limit gatherings to 250 people or less, which means we are unable to meet together.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Credulous Christians and knee-jerk skeptics
The miracles of Jesus and the apostles were routinely public, undeniable, & well-attested by multiple eyewitnesses. Even Jesus’ most determined adversaries couldn’t argue that the miracles were faked. They therefore raised doubts about the source of his power (Mt. 12:24).Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today. Simple honesty SHOULD compel even the most doctrinaire continuationists to admit that no one today is doing what the apostles did in Acts 5:12; 9:33-42; 19:11-12; etc.Yet unverified and unverifiable claims are routinely made by charismatics. Tales are regularly told that, when investigated, turn out to be false.That’s why spiritually sane people don’t automatically swallow stories like the one Francis Chan told last week at Moody.When someone tells a fantastic tale like “Everyone I touched was healed!”—asking for evidence is NOT sinful unbelief. (Especially when the person telling the tale is a theological drifter.)Jesus commanded us to have that flavor of skepticism. Mt 24:24; Lk 21:8.Yes, I saw it: Francis Chan going full faith healer at Moody Bible Institute’s Founder’s Week—on the platform of Moody Church.I used to live in that part of Chicago. There’s a hospital close by with a full ward of terminally ill children. Do you think he’ll pay them a visit?
“Believe truth!” “Shun error!”—these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may color differently our whole intellectual life. We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and the avoidance of error as secondary; or we may, on the other hand, treat the avoidance of error as more imperative, and let truth take its chance. Clifford, in the instructive passage which I have quoted, exhorts us to the latter course. Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense for ever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. You, on the other hand, may think that the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessings of real knowledge, and be ready to be duped many times in your investigation rather than postpone indefinitely the chance of guessing true...For my own part, I have also a horror of being duped. But I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a man in this world...
Indeed, well-documented modern miracles lend credibility to biblical miracles. They don't only happen in old stories.
Wednesday, December 04, 2019
Wednesday, December 05, 2018
"Anti-Catholic myths"
On Sunday, Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro interviewed Protestant pastor John MacArthur for his radio show and podcast. A little while into the conversation, Shapiro asked MacArthur, “Do you think the Enlightenment was a good thing or a bad thing?”In response, MacArthur gave a rambling answer that focused instead on the Reformation and the Catholic Church, in the process repeating numerous anti-Catholic myths.
Sunday, December 02, 2018
John MacArthur and Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
"God didn't say it!"
If it’s not in the 66 books of the Bible, God didn’t say it.– John MacArthur
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Is politics the kingdom of darkness?
Saturday, November 05, 2016
JMac on Trump
Monday, August 04, 2014
Bad blood
Friday, July 18, 2014
Correcting Fred's falsehoods
- Fred Butler I know Phil has interacted with Steve via personal email on this. Steve is getting his info filtered through the ramblings of a notorious JMac critic/troll.
- But let's say JMac does make 2 million a year. Ummm. So what, exactly? How is his salary have any bearing on the reputation of his ministry? How exactly would his salary of such an amount keep him from honestly criticizing the emperor decadence of the charismatic tv preachers? I happen to know someone who is extremely close to Benny Hinn, and he doesn't live modestly at all and the criticism about the money he fleeces from his followers is spot on.
- BTW, do all of us who actually work for the guy, who have been watching him pastor for now 20 years (as for me) Phil who has been working for the guy 30 plus year have any credibility when we say the nonsense that Steve raises is grossly exaggerated? Or are we part of the money machine covering our treasure box? That of course would then cast dispersion on our own Christian reputation,
- Fred Butler You're not reading the documents accurately. Phil explained this all to Steve when they corresponded.
- Fred Butler He doesn't make 2 million a year. Stop embarrassing yourself. Steve has been told this stop parroting his nonsense. I thought you all didn't believe in vows of poverty.
- Fred Butler John doesn't make 2 million a year.
- Brian Wagnon Ok. What does he make? If there is nothing wrong with it then it shouldn't be a problem disclosing it, right?
- Fred Butler I have no idea. His salary is set by the board of directors of the various ministries in which he serves. I just know the man gives away a lot of it. My family has been blessed by his generosity.
ii) I'm not getting my info "filtered through the ramblings of a notorious JMac critic/troll." My primary source of info. is Phil Johnson. Phil contacted me, and I asked him some questions. I then posted my correspondence.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Is Heaven is for Real a hoax?
These books are coming out with such frequency that it is virtually impossible to read and review them all. But that shouldn't even be necessary.
“I’m convinced that the entire book and movie is a hoax from start to finish,” said John MacArthur, the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, Calif. “It has nothing to do with Christianity. It has nothing to do with the Bible.”
Colton’s descriptions of heaven are full of fanciful features and peculiar details that bear all the earmarks of a child’s vivid imagination.
There is simply no reason to believe anyone who claims to have gone to heaven and returned. John 3:13 says, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” [NLT: “No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.”] And John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time.”
Four biblical authors had visions of heaven—not near-death experiences. Isaiah and Ezekiel (Old Testament prophets) and Paul and John (New Testament apostles) all had such visions. Two other biblical figures—Micaiah and Stephen—got glimpses of heaven, but what they saw is merely mentioned, not described (2 Chronicles 18:18; Acts 7:55).
In this podcast, John Piper argues against such books from Isaiah 8:19 (And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?)
God’s beef with necromancy is that it belittles the sufficiency of his communication. Why would you inquire of the dead to find out what you want to know instead of inquiring of me? And if they say: Well, I have inquired of you and you didn’t tell me what I want to know. He would say: Well, that is your problem. I have told you what you need to know. You don’t need to know about such and such if I haven’t told you. And, in fact, if you go trying to inquire about such and such that I haven’t told you, you are dishonoring me. So that is the nature of the argument. And, therefore, I think the prohibition of séances and necromancy applies to this kind of thing and people ought to stop writing those books.
- Impossible like “people having near death experiences?”Probably not. That happens all the time. Even I had a near death experience once when I woke up in a bed soaked in my own blood from head to toe…well, it was mostly my blood…and 2 liters of saline…- Impossible like “people having surgery and being on the ropes?”Again, no. That happens all the time. I know of a guy that swallowed a rope and had to have surgery to get it out…well, it was more like floss…and the surgery was non-invasive…
- Impossible like getting to go to Heaven outside of Christ, based on the “hope” that…uh…somehow that God will just toss aside his own holiness and the entire person and work of Christ and let everyone in?Well, not everyone everyone.I mean, God can’t let Hitler in…and Stalin…and really bad guys like kidnappers, and child molesters, and pyramid scam artists, and homophobes, and people who deny global warming, and people who eat gluten…and people who are bigots according to your standards of what’s “open minded”…so in the end nobody but yourself and your relatively small circle of friends…Is that the kind of impossible we’re talking about?Well, that must be it. That’s gotta be the “possibility” that the film is portraying.No sin.No repentance.No gospel whatsoever.