John MacArthur

Larry, speaking in the same pulpit does not indicate you are one of them. Anyone familiar with Johnny Mac would know that he is a strict cessationalist.

Why would it be wrong to speak in a pulpit on a text that the charismatics pervert when he can ably handle the text?

I think your view of separation lacks any real credibility based on the N.T. If you have an opportunity to deliver the truth to people, why would you not do it?

Besides, given the place he was at, how do you know he didn't consider it an evangelistic outreach? That is what Paul did in the midst of unbelievers.

Now, Hayford would not be welcome in my pulpit and I am sure Johnny feels the same way.

 

Yup! I agree Dr Bob. I recently was asked to speak at a special meeting in a Catholic church and "jumped" at the chance.

 

Anywhere I can preach with no limitations on the message -- count me in. It is your message that distinguishes you from the others not your choice of venue.

 

This is an area I am somewhat fuzzy on as a young, inexperienced guy. If, say, you are aasked, as C4K, to speak at a Catholic church, do you speak as you would to your own Baptist congregation on a Sunday AM? Do you go out of your way to expose the error of Catholic doctrine, thus (risking) alienating your audience? As a separated fundamentalist, do I take an opportunity to speak at a evangelical church about the practice of personal holiness and use specific examples? Do I reference the imminent return of Christ when speaking at my Presbyterian brother's church?

Am I paranoid here? Those of you who have experienced these situations, how do you handle it? Do you burn bridges on principle (as MacArthur seems to do sometimes, keeping it on topic... )?

 

YOu guys, as I suspected, are completely missing the point. As a result of Mac's speaking for Hayford, the charismatic group thought he was one of them. Mac sent a message, unwittingly. If the charismatic group hadn't invited him to lunch, they would still think he agreed with them.

To say "anywhere I can preach with no limitations" is dangerous because it sends a message. And that is what we need to be careful about. God commanded separation for a reason. Contrary to DD's assertion, this is completely with NT merit. Romans 16:17-18 among a host of other passages instructs us about how to deal with these matters. God said "Have nothing to do with them." He did not say "Go preach for them."

When you join hands with disobedient brethren, you are complicit in their disobedience. If you go to confront them about their position (such as Kevin Bauder did at Beeson Divinity School), then I have no problem with that. But, by Mac's own testimony, that is not what he did and by the reaction of the charismatic group, that is not what he accomplished. To his credit, he did confront the charismatic group.

IMO, when you are invited to speak somewhere, it is only ethical not to blindside them with opposing views unless you are asked to do so. You don't go to a Catholic church and preach about biblical salvation unless they know you are going to do that. You don't go to a presbyterian church and preach about the pretribulation rapture unless they know you are going to do that. Mac didn't go to the Church on the Way to preach about the errors of Charismatism. He should have. Then I would be fine with it. But he didn't do that.

Siegfried, As for accreditation, you are comparing apples and oranges. These things are so entirely dissimilar, your topic needs a new thread. School accreditation in a broad group of schools about accomplishing self set objectives is completely different than taking the pulpit of a disobedient brother, or an unbeliever. Dr. Bob III spoke at Furman University recently, a move that I was pleased to see. He was not endorsing them or their position. He was offering a perspective of his school. In other words, he was asked to present "an opposing viewpoint."

I simply think this is an area where MacArthur is inconsistent. He sends a wrong message. Go preach at the church on teh Way but do so in such a way that no one is confused about where you stand.

BTW, I didn't say Mac endorsed Hayford. I said he sent a mixed message. These things need more thought than they are typically given. We send mixed messages way to often and undiscerning people do not pick up on the fine nuacnes we think are making.

 

That's exactly my point. It IS different. It is worse. TRACS is a partnership between a broad coalition of religious educational institutions. By participating in TRACS, BJU is endorsing the fact that institutions that are at best "new evangelical" as a group are accomplishing their missions. If the missions of these schools include discipling believers and teaching biblical truth, then BJU is cooperating with disobedient brothers.

That is different from and worse than what MacArthur has done because he has not actively cooperated with or endorsed Hayford even though he has filled his pulpit. Of course, it is also different because MacArthur has never published a pamphlet on "Biblical Separation" that has made him as open to accusations of hypocrisy as BJU has.

For example,

[emphasis mine] The Bob Jones University Bible faculty, "Biblical Separation," 1980, pages 13-14.

My question is this: Who has lent greater support and Christian recognition to Hayford? MacArthur by filling his pulpit and later repudiating his charismatic doctrine in a subsequent meeting, or BJU in affiliating with his schools in order to provide mutual recognition?

 

I can't see how academic accreditation is anything remotely similar to ecclesiastical separation to even consider them together. To be a member of an accrediting agency is, to me, similar to being a member of a chamber of commerce, a theological society (ETS), or some such group. It is not an ecclesiastical alliance such as we are talking about here. But I certainly can't speak for BJU on this issue. I don't pretend to know what their rationale is beyond what is said on their website. However, I think you are really reaching here. But in any case, that isn't the point of this thread. I am not condoning BJU, nor am I condemning Mac. I am saying that Mac sent a mixed message and does not qualify as a true consistent fundamentalist. As I said earlier, he is an enigma.

BTW, Mac has spoken for Hayford more than once, I believe. And that is only one of many similar instances that could be cited. Remember, the question is not his justification for this, rightness/wrongness, etc. The question is, Is he a fundamentalist? The answer is, No ... for these reasons.

 

Was the apostle Paul endorsing the old Judaism when he preached in the synagogues?

 

Larry,

Perhaps I am not effectively communicating the connection. Here's my line of reasoning:

First, I believe that King's College and Seminary holds alliances and positions that are unscriptural, or at least questionable. Second, I believe that it is likely that KC&S will use its accreditation status to promote itself. In light of those facts, I believe that a partnership in an accreditation agency with KC&S is inconsistent with the doctrine of separation as taught by BJU and other fundamentalists.

Here's another example:

Rolland D. McCune, "An Inside Look at Ecclesiastical Separation." Allen Park: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, n.d.

I'm not trying to get you to condemn BJU. That is outside the point of this thread. I'm simply making the point that if MacArthur is not a fundamentalist because he's inconsistent, then neither is Bob Jones III a fundamentalist. Perhaps consistent fundamentalists are as rare as unicorns and yetis. And by the way, I would not personally condemn BJU for participating in TRACS, but I do think it's an inconsistent application of their stated doctrine of separation--IMO more inconsistent than MacArthur by far.

 

No, he was confronting it, preaching from teh Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, which is what I referred to above when I said If you go to confront them about their position (such as Kevin Bauder did at Beeson Divinity School), then I have no problem with that.

 

Siegfried,

For my final comments (yeah right ... ) I would say that I think accreditation is simply a different animal. It is not promotion of another school any more than being in the chamber of commerce is a promotion of every place that belongs to the chamber of commerce. But hey ... it is hard to be consistent as a fundamentalist ... so far as I know, I am the only one who has achieved it so far. I keep trying to teach others, but some just won't listen ...

BTW, McCune's book on The New Evangelicalism is supposed to be out by October. It should be good. I don't know if he addresses this issue or not.

 

MacArthur should feel no qualms about preaching for Hayford. They both embrace the fundamentals. Obviously they differ on some issues such as the exercise and role of spiritual gifts. However since this issue is not an essential, it should not be a matter of "separation".

If I abstain from every invitation I receive simply b/c I differ from the pastor on a non-essential, then I would not be preaching in any venue other than my own local church.

 

I hardly think the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Bible can be a "non-essential." Nor do I think we can avoid placing charismatism in the category of false teaching. John MacArthur devoted a whole book to the subject (one of his better books). In fact, MacArthur quotes Hayford in his book as an example of the errors of charismatics.

The matter of the charismatic movement is a matter of separation because it touches two essential doctrines (pneumatology and bibliology). Charismatic teachers are false teachers.

I was earlier asked what I think fundamentalists need to focus on. I think these kinds of things--separation issues--are in great need of teaching.

 

Larry,

I just don't grasp what is the grounds for seeing accreditation differently since KC&S will undoubtedly will use its accreditation to promote itself. That seems to me to be what McCune is getting at. But hey, you agreed with me on everything, then there would be two of us who are right all the time. That wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

Who's publishing McCune's book? As usual, I'm sure I will find much both to agree and disagree with, but he will undoubtedly challenge my thinking.

 

Ambassador Herald.

These are really my last comments ... KC&S also uses the Bible to promote themselves. Does that mean that everyone else who does is unbiblical? I see accreditation as a different kind of animal. But hey, I can tolerate disagreement ... I just can't talk to you any more

 

I'm kind of repeating what Dr Bob said. But If I had the opurtunity to preach at a Catholic Budist Liberal Church baby I'm there. I may not be asked back but there going to here the truth.
good for John. I don't think that makes you Neo Evangelical. If it does then there are alot of great men who where Neo Evangelical Thank God Luther didn't just shut up because he was in a Catholic Church.


Bob C

 

I'm joining in late---but here's how I perceive Johnny Mac!!!!

The dude is a Theological "Einstein!" Walking Brilliance!

 

But to preach for what purpose? As I have said, it is one thing to be invited to give an opposing viewpoint. I would certainly take that opportunity. It is another to be asked as to speak in support of the ministry of the church. That is what makes you new evangelical. When you support and fellowship with disobedient brothers or false teachers, you are not a fundamentalist. YOu may be right, but you are not a fundamentalist. For the record, I happen to think you are not right if you do that.

When Luther spoke, it was against the church, and thus fits into exactly what I have said several times. You go preach to confront, not to support.