John MacArthur

[Scott J]

Pastor Larry, Doesn't that seem to be exactly what MacArthur did? Was Paul compromised when he preached to the philosophers? Were John and Peter compromised when the preached in the synagogues?

I like to read and listen to MacArthur. In fact, I like his personality and everything I have seen to date about his taking a stand. The original fundamentalists seemed to have compromised a great deal more than MacArthur has.

 

[Bob Colgan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But If I had the opurtunity to preach at a Catholic Budist Liberal Church baby I'm there.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry,
I agree 100% with what you said. You know the danger I think is if you associate with these people on a continuing bases. I would imagine it would be very easy for any of us to slowly to start to comprimise ever so slightly. So I believe it is best to stay away as far as possible.

Bob C

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, Doesn't that seem to be exactly what MacArthur did?

He did that at the charismatic business men's luncheon. From his own testimony of the occasion, and his on going relationship with Hayford, he does not appear to have done that at the COTW.

When Paul, Peter, and John did their thing, they were boldly confronting the false teachers. I fully agree with that.

I don't want you guys to think I am beating up on MacArthur or questioning his commitment or impact. I too like MacArthur very much. I listen to him on occasion. I have a fairly large number of his books and am on his mailing list. I like his stand he has taken on Larry King and other places. As I said, my point is his consistency. I think he is inconsistent to take some of the speaking engagements he does and I think it underscores a softness in certain areas that needs to be strengthened.

 

[All about Grace]

I hardly think the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Bible can be a "non-essential."

It is according to what aspect you are talking about. We are not talking about denying the deity of the Spirit or the validity of Scripture. Not all Spirit & Book issues are considered essentials.

Nor do I think we can avoid placing charismatism in the category of false teaching.

Hayford does not fall into the category of extreme charismatic. His interpretation of some of the spiritual gifts issues differs from ours, but neither is he a "borderline heretic" as some of the 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.

You are not known to speak in such broad, sweeping terms as you display here.

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.

Focusing on these type of things is what got "fundamentalism" in the boat it is in now. I simply believe evangelicals should focus upon what unites us and not what divides us.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Focusing on these type of things is what got "fundamentalism" in the boat it is in now. I simply believe evangelicals should focus upon what unites us and not what divides us.

When I say "focus on things that separate us," I mean we need to make biblical, exegetical arguments for why we separate over certain things. I think charismatic issues fit in that category. I cannot imagine a justification for such an alliance.

We as believers need to know who to separate from and why to separate from them. We need biblical arguments.

So I don't mean an unhealthy obsession with it. I mean "focus" in the sense of studying who from and why.

I don't think we can simply pay attention to what unites us without also paying attention to what divides us. Paul very clearly focuses on what divides us. We should not do less.

 

[Daniel David]

Larry, I am not against separation. I never said anything negative about separation. It is just that I think that Detroit Baptist Seminary determines what is and what isn't biblical separation.

How do you know Johnny Mac didn't go there for evangelistic purposes? You don't. You simply see a false teacher and Johnny's name together and have assumed that it was an unbiblical gathering.

Sorry, secondary separation was not only not the fundamentalist position, but it is more in line with the psuedos like the KJVOs who have tried to hijack the name of fundamentalists.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is just that I think that Detroit Baptist Seminary determines what is and what isn't biblical separation.

Well, I don't think they do. I don't know of anyone who does think that they speak for anyone else. I can't speak for them though.

How do you know Johnny Mac didn't go there for evangelistic purposes?

Because I heard his own personal account of it.

Sorry, secondary separation was not only not the fundamentalist position, but it is more in line with the psuedos like the KJVOs who have tried to hijack the name of fundamentalists.

I have already said that I don't believe in secondary separation. We should not separate from others because of who they hand around with. We separate from them when they are disobedient to God. That was discussed a few days ago, I believe. You can probably find my comments on it by searching.

 

[All about Grace]

I mean we need to make biblical, exegetical arguments for why we separate over certain things. I think charismatic issues fit in that category. I cannot imagine a justification for such an alliance.

When you argue with such sweeping generalizations there can be no room for harmony. Surely you do not put a Jack Hayford in the same category as a Benny Hinn. Also there are many Baptists who embrace a more "charismatic" view of the gifts. Are you going to separate from everyone who does not hold a strict cessasionist view???

We as believers need to know who to separate from and why to separate from them. We need biblical arguments.

I guess we differ on the why.
Outside of the fundamentals, I find little reason to "separate" on non-essentials (not the way you employ "separation" at least).

I have not invited the local AofG pastor to preach in my church, but I would not hesitate to preach for him if he asked nor would I hesitate to join him in some type of community rally.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "separation." There are many different levels of fellowship and separation. At various levels, I would have varying responses. It seems that you think I have an "all or nothing" attitude. That is not true. There are different levels of fellowship ... Which I dont' have time to get into this morning.

As to Hayford, there is no doubt that he is beyond the Scriptural teaching on the gifts. Even MacArthur talks about Hayford's errors in his book. Hayford has spoken with Hinn at conferences and been involved in the same organizations. I think that speaks volumes about where Hayford is. They are cut from the same cloth. It is interesting to me, that out of all the discussions about false teaching and separation that I might have suspected, I would never have thought Hayford would have been defended in here.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Let's get the separation issue down:

Hayford has spoken with Hinn.
Mac has spoken (and refuted the error) of Hayford.
I have a MacArthur Study Bible and all of his commentaries.
You are posting on a BB I administrate.

Therefore . .

(How absurd is 3rd and 4th degree separation?)

 

[aefting]

You're right, that is absurd. I also don't know anyone who argues for separation on those terms.

Andy

 

[Dr. Bob]

Ever been to Bob Jones?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob, you know Bob Jones doesn't argue for that. At least you should. You talk about absurdity and then demonstrate it. MacArthur, in speaking for Hayford, is disobedient to Rom 16:17-18. Our obedience requires a response on our part to that. How much more simple is it? As I have said, we are not to separate because MacArthur failed to separate from Hayford. We are to separate because MacArthur has been disobedient to God's word.

How much simpler does it get? Charismatism is not really that disputed. The whole reason I used the Hayford incident is because it is so clear-cut. There are other things MacArthur has done with which I would be uncomfortable. But I would find it hard to put those people in the same category as Hayford.

The longer this goes, the more interesting it gets ...

 

[Siegfried]

It is true that both the BJU and DBTS publications on separation specifically deny the terminology of 2nd, 3rd etc. degree separation. Instead, they say that when someone does not properly apply the "doctrine of separation," they become a "disobedient brother." It only stands to reason that anyone who is not applying the doctrine by not separating from a disobedient brother himself becomes a disobedient brother.

So even though they may insist on calling it primary separation, it is no different from the scenario Dr. Bob is describing. It's just a semantic issue. Obviously, this whole system breaks down practically because all of our churches can probably play "Seven Degrees of John MacArthur/Rod Bell/Pensacola/Mark Rizzo" and wind up having to separate from one another, so we're all disobedient brethren sooner or later.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
..... How much more simple is it? As I have said, we are not to separate because MacArthur failed to separate from Hayford. We are to separate because MacArthur has been disobedient to God's word.
.......

I guess you don't make it simple enough that I can understand it. Putting your two statements together, we are to separate from MacArthur because he has been disobedient in failing to separate from Hayford.
You simultaneously identify something as the same and not the same.

Karen

 

[Pastor Larry]

Putting your two statements together, we are to separate from MacArthur because he has been disobedient in failing to separate from Hayford.
You simultaneously identify something as the same and not the same.

Maybe I am dense (insert your own punchline here) ... but I am not sure what you are saying. I am not following you here.

What I am saying is this: Romans 16::17-18 commands believers to separate from false teachers. When MacArthur fails to expose and separate from Hayford, he is violating that biblical command.

2 Thess 3:6-15 tells us how to respond to a brother who is not following the authority of the word: Do not associate with him so that he will be ashamed, but do not regard him as an enemy but rather admonish him as a brother. The problem with too many is that they have no shame in cavorting with false teachers.

The principle is one of condoning (as Pickering aptly put it). When we associate by teaching/preaching or unified work, we are condoning what they do. When that involves a major area of doctrine, it is problemmatic. We can participate in their false doctrine (1 Tim 5; 2 John).

Let's face it: Most of us judge a church or group by who or what they associate with or have in to preach. That is why many conferences try to get big name speakers ... because it lends credibility. If you can get John MacArthur or John Piper or Rick Warren or any one of a host of others on your docket, your image is directly affected. Do we want to lend credibility to people like Jack Hayford? I can't see how ...

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Karen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
..... How much more simple is it? As I have said, we are not to separate because MacArthur failed to separate from Hayford. We are to separate because MacArthur has been disobedient to God's word.
.......

I guess you don't make it simple enough that I can understand it. Putting your two statements together, we are to separate from MacArthur because he has been disobedient in failing to separate from Hayford.
You simultaneously identify something as the same and not the same.

Karen </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I'll ask it this way. You say that we are NOT to separate from MacArthur because he failed to separate from Hayford. Then you say we ARE to separate from MacArthur because he has been disobedient [by not separating from Hayford].

So we should NOT do A because MacArthur failed to do A1. But we SHOULD do A because MacArthur failed to do A1.

Karen

 

[Daniel David]

Karen, that is what Seigfried basically has said.

Larry, I suppose you have rebuked and/or denied any fellowship to Rod Bell for his bizarre "blood of Christ" issues. I further suppose that you separate from all arminians, amillenialists (I do), non-plurality of elder polity, remarriage acceptable after divorce, etc.

You see, you are disobedient from my perspective because of some of the positions on which you hold.

Would you separate from me?

 

[bjonson]

This is funny. If John MacArthur is to be shunned because he doesn't "separate" enough, then I'd like to know who in the world some of you respect as a model in this regard.

MacArthur is one of the most "separated" ministers I've heard of. He did write a best-selling book against the charismatic movement, didn't he?

Gosh, I though I was conservative...

 

[Bob Colgan]

Johny Mac,

IS GGGGREAT !!! Lets lift him up in prayer daily there ant many like him. Im sure satan would love to take down a man of God like him.


Bob