It may be too fine a distinction for some, and that is fine. It doesn't really bother me either way. My point is that the basis for separation is the Bible, not some human relationship.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John MacArthur
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
I would have never had any fellowship with Rod Bell over that issue plus others. This is the only actual rank heresy you list in this list. It, along with charismatism, are both separational issues. The others you list are not necessarily.
Yes, I don't invite them to preach here. BUt arminianism is not nearly on the same level as charimatism. I can have good fellowship with arminians. Open theism on the other hand is. But I would have a hyperCalvinist or a primitive baptist to preach either. I could have good fellowship on a personal level with any of them.
I don't have them to preach, but again, not on the same level as charismatism. I think amills are dead wrong. I think they fly in the face of Scripture. I would not have them to preach. But I could have a good cup of coffee with them, and even go to conferences where they are preaching.
Plurality of elders is an interpretational issue way down the line far removed from clear teaching in Scripture. There is no clear biblical teaching demanding plurality of elders, in spite of the often heated words that are thrown about here. I can tolerate a plurality of elders with no problem at all. I would have someone who believed that here to preach (provided everything else was fine).
Remarriage after divorce is an issue about which many have legitimate disagreements. I do not separate from someone over this issue. If I invited someone who denied that remarriage was ever possible to preach, I would expect them not to preach on that subject. Of course, visiting speakers shouldn't speak on that anyway, unless asked.
But you would have to actually use rightly interpreted Scripture to prove me wrong. I can do that with Hayford and charismatism. You cannot do that with me on the issues about which we disagree. But having said all that, as I have said, separational issues are to some degree a personal matter. We don't all have to see eye to eye on everything. I could certainly sit down with MacArthur and enjoy a good conversation with him. That doesn't mean I am going to have him to preach.
Yes, but for reasons other than what you have stated here.
One of the things I previously said is that we have not done nearly enough work about what are "separational issues." We need to make better cases for what we should separate about. I don't claim to have all teh answers about it. I try, as these things actually come up, to make wise decisions. Let's face it ... most of us aren't facing these kinds of decisions so it is really a strictly theoretical issue.
And remember too, there is a big difference in levels of fellowship:
</font>
- Someone I would eat lunch with</font>
- Someone I would preach with at third party conference</font>
- Someone I would preach for</font>
- Someone I would have preach for me.</font>
- Someone I would participate with in a community effort.</font>
- Someone I would say nothing about</font>
- Someone I would openly expose and rebuke.</font>
- null</font>
[ August 20, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Yes, in which he identifies Hayford as a proponent of something he rightly rails on. Which makes his speaking for Hayford all the more obviously wrong, IMO, and very hard to figure out why. Why would you go and preach in support of someone you have railed on in a book you wrote? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I would probably avoid the first word, but agree with the rest. HE is a conservative. No one here is denying that. The question was, Is he a fundamentalist?
Unless we are making a NEW fundamental (separation), there is no question that Mac is fundamental.
And there are many men whose books are on my shelf and I appreciate their scholarship and insights whom I would NOT have preach in my church. Lenski (great NT commentaries from the Greek); Swindoll; Max Lucado; Chuck Colson etc etc
John MacArthur could speak any time. While I may not agree with everything he has done (and he would not agree with what I've done) he is a historic fundamentalist in belief and practice.
And there are many men whose books are on my shelf and I appreciate their scholarship and insights whom I would NOT have preach in my church. Lenski (great NT commentaries from the Greek); Swindoll; Max Lucado; Chuck Colson etc etc
John MacArthur could speak any time. While I may not agree with everything he has done (and he would not agree with what I've done) he is a historic fundamentalist in belief and practice.
Bob, with all due respect, it seems that you are the one making the new fundamentalist category (not to be confused with the new fundamentalism identified with the KJVO). I can't think of any definition of fundamentalism (given by a fundamentalist) in which MacArthur could be included. Again, that is not to say that he is right or wrong; it is just to say that he isn't a fundamentalist by the traditional definition of it, it seems to me.
Is John supportive of the stated fundamentals of the faith? Yes. Is he opposed to theological liberalism? Yes. His words, writings and sermons all resound with this stance.
That makes him a "separated" fundamentalist in the classical definition.
Remember, please, that there are three categories of "fundamentalism" (ala George Dollar, the guru of historical fundamentalism). John would NOT be a "militant" fundamentalist because of some of his associations. But he IS a fundamentalist.
Now, if you have a new definition, let me know!!
That makes him a "separated" fundamentalist in the classical definition.
Remember, please, that there are three categories of "fundamentalism" (ala George Dollar, the guru of historical fundamentalism). John would NOT be a "militant" fundamentalist because of some of his associations. But he IS a fundamentalist.
Now, if you have a new definition, let me know!!
Here is the problem that I have with this statement. First, it seems that you have not actually heard what Mac said when he spoke at Hayford's church. Not to hear what he said, yet jump to the conclusion that he compromised is unfair to Mac. You seem to be arguing that the other charismatics must not have been offended by what he said and they invited him, so he must have compromised. But perhaps they just jumped to a conclusion without hearing what he said...like you are doing! You see what I mean? It's just unfair to assume that Mac compromised unless we know what he said.
Two things lead me to believe that Mac is not compromising in this matter: First, as far as I know he has not invited Hayford to speak in his church. Second, the charasmatics, as I understand it, forcibly removed him from the pulpit. That DOES NOT sound like compromise to me.
Some of the decisions about whom to associate with and whom to avoid come down, not to rules of separation, but to making judgement calls. We all disagree with each other at some level. We all have different opinions as to what deviations we can tolerate and what we cannot. While there are commands to separate, there is an over-arching command to love the brethren. There is also a pattern of separation that appears in the NT which we should seek to avoid: Paul and Barnabas separated from each other over a personal disagreement. Unfortunately, that kind of separation is the kind most often practiced!
As for what Mac said at Hayford's church, he wasn't removed from it. I heard Mac's own account of it, so I don't think I am misjudging anything. He told specifically how he confronted the charismatic businessmen's luncheon about their doctrine. In teh very same story, he said nothing about confronting Hayford.
Doesn't the very fact that Hayford invited him say something here? To me, we are overlooking some very common sense issues. Why would Hayford invite someone to his church to contradict his own position? It would be unethical to go to someone's church and rebuke them without their prior knowledge of what you are going to say.
As for Paul and Barnabas's separation, I don't think it was a wrong separation. There are times when two people disagree about an issue to the point that they cannot work together. Often, philosophy of ministry ideals play into this, or personal relationships. If you don't get along with someone, it would not be wise to go on a long term missions/ministry project with them. If you have differences about how things ought to be done, it would not be wise to do them together unless an accord can be reached. Many separation issues are that simple. I have held that there are some people who would not be comfortable in our church. They should seek another church. I have no problem with that ... but that is a different issue.
I can grant Mac liberty to do what he thinks is right. But the issue of being a fundamentalist is still a different issue.
Doesn't the very fact that Hayford invited him say something here? To me, we are overlooking some very common sense issues. Why would Hayford invite someone to his church to contradict his own position? It would be unethical to go to someone's church and rebuke them without their prior knowledge of what you are going to say.
As for Paul and Barnabas's separation, I don't think it was a wrong separation. There are times when two people disagree about an issue to the point that they cannot work together. Often, philosophy of ministry ideals play into this, or personal relationships. If you don't get along with someone, it would not be wise to go on a long term missions/ministry project with them. If you have differences about how things ought to be done, it would not be wise to do them together unless an accord can be reached. Many separation issues are that simple. I have held that there are some people who would not be comfortable in our church. They should seek another church. I have no problem with that ... but that is a different issue.
I can grant Mac liberty to do what he thinks is right. But the issue of being a fundamentalist is still a different issue.
But Hayford may have agreed ahead of time that he would hear Mac out. He may have told his church to act with grace even if they disagreeed with him. Without knowing the facts Pastor Larry, you are being unfair in passing judgement.
I don't know. That's why I'm withholding judgement. You should too!
BornBaptist
<img src =/9147.jpg>
Just a little bit of humor, I respect the guy and all, But his VOICE makes my skin crawl!!
BornBaptist
Sojourn(f)orTruth
New Member
Ok......I know this is off subject here, but its you all are getting a bit testy! I think Barnabas was still a little chapped at Paul for being taken to task along with Peter for his dissimulatiion at Jeruselem....and that's really why they seperated!
BTW, Larry, there are times when ya gotta know when to give it up!
BTW, Larry, there are times when ya gotta know when to give it up!
Um ... that has nothing to do with it ... Paul and Barnabas separated over the issue with Timothy.
Well, sure ... but I think there is valid discussion here. I think these are the kinds of things that need more thought than are typically given to them. Oftentimes, we grant slack to certain people because of who they are, or what kind of ministry they have without really wrestling with their stands. It happens when some fundamentalists will tolerate relationships with their friends, even though they have faulty doctrines of Christ, or the Bible, or soteriology. It will happen on the other side as well because someone is a good speaker or has good content. We need to strive for consistency ... as hard as that may be to come to. Out of all the discussions on this board, these are the ones that are most profitable.
Daniel David
New Member
Mac would have been considered a radical fundamentalists during the time of the modernist controversy.
Larry, despite your attempts to prove otherwise, Mac is a fundy. All you can really say is that his understanding of separation is different from yours and you have concluded he must be in disobedience.
Preaching is not a sin. Somehow, you have made his preaching in the presense of charismatics (while at the same time not being one) a sin to divide over.
Your view is secondary separation regardless of how hard you try to mask it in primary separation.
Larry, despite your attempts to prove otherwise, Mac is a fundy. All you can really say is that his understanding of separation is different from yours and you have concluded he must be in disobedience.
Preaching is not a sin. Somehow, you have made his preaching in the presense of charismatics (while at the same time not being one) a sin to divide over.
Your view is secondary separation regardless of how hard you try to mask it in primary separation.
WallyGator
New Member
I've always classified myself as a fundie. Went to seminary with MacArthur, was there at the beginning with Patterson & Pressler; but, don't know if its getting older or what, but, I'm mellowing, becoming more moderate. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22 "....I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
WallyGator
WallyGator
I would urge you to study fundamentalism a little more in depth, from the fundamentalist perspective. I don't think you will get it clearly where you are currently at (which is fine). I would just encourage you to become a little more informed about what the old time and current fundamentalists are really saying.
[/qb]Glad to know
... Although I never said it was. I actually enjoy Mac's preaching most of the time.It wasn't preaching "in the presence of charismatics" that was the issue. It was preaching "in support of" that was and is the issue. There are many similar situations that Mac has involved himself in of the same nature (e.g. Luis Palau, Chuck Smith, JI Packer, Billy Graham, Bill Hybels). These are clear cut issues of obedience it seems to me. And we can appreciate a man's ministry for what it is without redefining fundamentalism to include him in it. He has made it pretty clear that he is not a historic fundamentalist.
No, it's not.
Again, I would encourage you to study fundamentalism from the perspective of the historic fundamentalists who are still around. Over the last 50 years, much has changed. The landscape is completely different. We are fighting new and different enemies. But fundamentalism remains in essence the same: belief in the truth and authority of Scripture and separation from apostates and disobedient brothers.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
I know there is a perspective that does not distinguish between "levels" of separation. However, I personally have no problem with calling Pastor Larry's practice regarding MacArthur "secondary" separation- nor would I have any problem joining him in its practice.
Dr. Myron Houghton, one of my profs at Faith, wrote an article defining secondary ecclesiastical separation and evaluating how it is to be practiced:
http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit/2003/november2003.htm
Dr. Myron Houghton, one of my profs at Faith, wrote an article defining secondary ecclesiastical separation and evaluating how it is to be practiced:
http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit/2003/november2003.htm
Daniel David
New Member
Larry, I am more aware of the situation that you probably believe or care to know.
Secondary separation - when you separate from a brother because he refused to practice separation.
Larry attitude toward MacArthur - separation from him because of his refusal to practice separation.
Again, you are ASSUMING Mac was "in support of".
Secondary separation - when you separate from a brother because he refused to practice separation.
Larry attitude toward MacArthur - separation from him because of his refusal to practice separation.
Again, you are ASSUMING Mac was "in support of".
It doesn't sound like it, DD. If you were, then I can't imagine you making the charges you are making. But I do hope that you will continue to think through it and study it, as will I.
My attitude towards MacArthur is that I would separate from him because he is disobedient to God's command. Separation is a biblical command which we are not at liberty to ignore. When someon disobeys, they are a disobedient brother. I am really not sure how much more simple that gets.
As to your last statement, do you really think Jack Hayford invited Mac to come and critique his theology in his church? Really, do you?? And what about all the others I listed? I am really curious as to how anyone here can justify this.
My attitude towards MacArthur is that I would separate from him because he is disobedient to God's command. Separation is a biblical command which we are not at liberty to ignore. When someon disobeys, they are a disobedient brother. I am really not sure how much more simple that gets.
As to your last statement, do you really think Jack Hayford invited Mac to come and critique his theology in his church? Really, do you?? And what about all the others I listed? I am really curious as to how anyone here can justify this.