https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8H4OG0ZGWI
In this day and age, it's a relief that everybody was OK.
In this day and age, it's a relief that everybody was OK.
-
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!
Scary moment as craxy man storms the pulpit at John MacArthur's church
- Thread starter JohnDeereFan
- Start date
Wow, people that speak in tongues are sure enthusiastic about it!
I remember when I was thirteen years old, I'd been saved for less than 6 months or so, and I got scared out of my wits one time in church. Our pastor was preaching on speaking in tongues and how they had ceased in this day and age. He started to make a point about how it might be possible that Satan is using tongues and the confusion over their status as a means of dividing churches. Suddenly a woman sitting in the pew directly behind me stood up and yelled, quite loudly, "NO! I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BLAME THIS ON SATAN!!" I was dumbstruck, shocked and shaking, almost started crying.
She went on for about 30 seconds until ushers came and hustled her out of there. Our pastor silently stood there patiently waiting for her to be escorted out. After she had been shown the way out the pastor simply said, "see what I mean?"
Interesting that MacArthur had the same sort of reaction. Didn't interrupt that fellow at all, just calmly waited for ushers to take the guy out of there.
Pastors, are you instructed in seminary how to react to interruptions like this? If so, what are you taught?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think he was speaking in tongues. He just had a very strong Scottish accent.
Used to attend Come Alive New Testament Church in Medford, NJ. We had this blonde headed women who would get up every Sunday morning and "prophecy". "This is what the Lord says", she would always start. And then, she would put on this fake, affected, airy, falsetto voice like Glenda the Good Witch (have no idea why) and she would proceed to tell us, speaking on God's behalf, of course, how everything was just great and how happy God was with us.
Just one wee little problem: The church was a trainwreck. The youth leader had been caught in a homosexual night club (oddly, nobody ever bothered to ask what the guy who caught him there was doing there), a couple of singles in the singles group were having sex, I was hungover half the time from the marathon sessions at various local bars, the pastor wouldn't know sound doctrine if he tripped over it, and one of the families was starving their foster children to death (you can google that one. True story.)
I knew it wasn't true, but I was a false convert and so ignorant in the Word of God that it never occurred to me to stand up and tell her to shut up.
I don't think he didn't interrupt, as much as the two ushers just hustled the guy out of there before he could say anything.
I was never taught anything.
Yes, I know. But he was saying MacArthur's theology about cessationism was wrong. I usually take that to mean that adherents of cessationism believe that speaking in tongues is still valid today.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Creepy, I wonder when the resident BB Bapticostals will be along to defend this man's actions.
You would have thought they would've had a quicker way to remove him than escorting the entire way through the congregation.
Outside of that observation...it was good to see security move so quickly and that no one was harmed. The man is passionate about confronting Dr MacArthur. He got his point across. I'm sure John had a quip afterwards.
I'll add this: Dr MacArthur's doctrine of cessation is an extreme one and one which I do not adhere to. He also doesn't care to address those challenging him in a charitable way so I can understand the frustration.
BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtjqIAiYOfo&feature=youtu.be (Dr MacArthur's response)
That's a fine way to handle the situation in my opinion.
Outside of that observation...it was good to see security move so quickly and that no one was harmed. The man is passionate about confronting Dr MacArthur. He got his point across. I'm sure John had a quip afterwards.
I'll add this: Dr MacArthur's doctrine of cessation is an extreme one and one which I do not adhere to. He also doesn't care to address those challenging him in a charitable way so I can understand the frustration.
BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtjqIAiYOfo&feature=youtu.be (Dr MacArthur's response)
That's a fine way to handle the situation in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Possibly trap doors on either side of the podium, and all Mac has to do is hit a big red button :wavey:
Thanks for finding that, Mac seems very gracious and like you say I'm sure that there are other ways this particular "prophet" could have interacted with him about the issue at hand, his actions were totally unnecessary.
Dr. McArthur was correct that is not an issue with which to put that level of emotion into.
How is his view though an extreme one?
THAT man was the poster boy for many of the modern Charasmatics, and they need to own him!
preachinjesus said:
Thanks for posting that. I didn't see that until after I posted the OP. It's good to see how MaCarthur handled it.
Personally, I think the "doctrine" (on this issue by JM) is wrong thinking. Certainly, the typical modern charismatic situation is not acceptable, however, the single phrase "shall cease," or "shall pass away" used once in Scriptures doesn't mean that such took place when the last apostle died.
I view that such as Paul illustrated so beautifully in Cor. 13 will truly cease when in the King of Kings rules on this earth from the Jerusalem throne. For then we (believers) shall see as He sees, know fully as He knows, and not needing the heart helps that the Holy Spirit currently gives.
"That which is perfect" is NOT the word of God that the typical person (Baptist) holds. There isn't a version or translation that is "perfect" or even "complete" when one knows the historical canonization process. Folks still argue the place and authority of certain scriptures being included in the typical KJV or any other translation. (Does Mark end or not after 16:8)
So, what is the "that which is perfect?" Unfortunate translation - it is better "when the perfect comes" (NASB) or even "when perfection comes" (Aramaic) keeps the "that" as the focus. The "that" (in my opinion) is not necessary and a hindrance to the proper understanding.
Better it is to focus upon the completed saint, the one who has matured in the things of Christ, who can wrap the unloved in love as Christ, and the believer's goal of grasping the fullness of God in plan and outcome. That is the reasoning of Paul.
JM is not wise to use this issue to divide or even separate from others who do not agree with him. Frankly, rather than laughable, it is a matter the church should have taken immediately to prayer.
It was never humorous and the person who was bold enough to confront JM may just have been right to publicly warn and rebuke. Rather than laugh, the church should have been awoken to the need of prayer!
I view that such as Paul illustrated so beautifully in Cor. 13 will truly cease when in the King of Kings rules on this earth from the Jerusalem throne. For then we (believers) shall see as He sees, know fully as He knows, and not needing the heart helps that the Holy Spirit currently gives.
"That which is perfect" is NOT the word of God that the typical person (Baptist) holds. There isn't a version or translation that is "perfect" or even "complete" when one knows the historical canonization process. Folks still argue the place and authority of certain scriptures being included in the typical KJV or any other translation. (Does Mark end or not after 16:8)
So, what is the "that which is perfect?" Unfortunate translation - it is better "when the perfect comes" (NASB) or even "when perfection comes" (Aramaic) keeps the "that" as the focus. The "that" (in my opinion) is not necessary and a hindrance to the proper understanding.
Better it is to focus upon the completed saint, the one who has matured in the things of Christ, who can wrap the unloved in love as Christ, and the believer's goal of grasping the fullness of God in plan and outcome. That is the reasoning of Paul.
JM is not wise to use this issue to divide or even separate from others who do not agree with him. Frankly, rather than laughable, it is a matter the church should have taken immediately to prayer.
It was never humorous and the person who was bold enough to confront JM may just have been right to publicly warn and rebuke. Rather than laugh, the church should have been awoken to the need of prayer!
Think that most of us here though would see God has still able to heal someway directly, If Hhe desires that to come to pass, or to use circumstances to lead and guide us, just have a hard time accepting modern day Apostles/Prophets, and all sigh gifts still going full tilt still!
Apostles no - I don't think any on the board would hold that there are modern day apostles.
Prophets, though is another matter. I recall a discussion in which the word prophet was interchanged with what the typical Baptist preacher did when they delivered the message "from the Lord" while preaching.
If that is true, then "prophecy" has not nor can it cease until Jesus comes.
Has "knowledge" of God and from God ceased? Have medical helps of oil, prayer and hands become unavailable? Is it true that God doesn't give the seeking believer insight and impulses to direct their and those under their influence perspectives and living?
Yet, if one is to listen to the typical JM approach and extrapolate the end result, that is exactly the terms that a person must conclude: All these wise folks on the BB are actually merely self intellectually puffed up, The anointment of oil for the sick is useless, The burdened heart that cannot express in words the anguish of the soul and can only groan and mutter as one who is intoxicated has no part in the work of the Spirit of God.
Either the three that Paul mentioned have stopped, or they have not.
In my view of Corinthian passage, they have not.
JM would seem to take a different view.
Laughing or making light of the proclamation of another believer such as the church on the video does do, is truly sad.
Reminded me of the people of Israel laughing at the prophets of the ancients, discarding their words as silly, and physically assaulting them as disturbing the peace.
Laughing or making light of the proclamation of another believer such as the church on the video does do, is truly sad.
Reminded me of the people of Israel laughing at the prophets of the ancients, discarding their words as silly, and physically assaulting them as disturbing the peace.
Just looked at the link in the OP, and on my computer the video ended a few seconds after the man had been escorted out. Therefore, I've no idea what was said or done afterwards. However, in the segment I saw there did not seem to be any laughing from people in the pews, only the low rumble of quiet speech. I thought that having two men gently but firmly escort the man out, while making no attempt to muzzle his speech while doing so, was quite appropriate.
As one who believes that the sign gifts have ceased, I also believe that there are God-loving believers on both sides of this issue, and that shouted rebukes by those in either camp are not honoring to God. I've also never seen the sign gifts, yea or nay, listed among the fundamentals of the faith (except by a small segment within the broad group of pentecostalism which holds that speaking in tongues is a requisite for salvation.)
Reminded me of the people of Israel laughing at the prophets of the ancients, discarding their words as silly, and physically assaulting them as disturbing the peace.
Just looked at the link in the OP, and on my computer the video ended a few seconds after the man had been escorted out. Therefore, I've no idea what was said or done afterwards. However, in the segment I saw there did not seem to be any laughing from people in the pews, only the low rumble of quiet speech. I thought that having two men gently but firmly escort the man out, while making no attempt to muzzle his speech while doing so, was quite appropriate.
As one who believes that the sign gifts have ceased, I also believe that there are God-loving believers on both sides of this issue, and that shouted rebukes by those in either camp are not honoring to God. I've also never seen the sign gifts, yea or nay, listed among the fundamentals of the faith (except by a small segment within the broad group of pentecostalism which holds that speaking in tongues is a requisite for salvation.)
Here is the link preachinjesus posted about the immediate aftermath of the incident:
https://youtu.be/XtjqIAiYOfo
Unscriptural too!
l Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Case in point I have a deaf 34 year old son... His language is sign language and when him and I are out together I am his interpreter. You cannot understand all his signing unless you also sign. No matter what language if it is foreign to the one who is hearing or observing you need an interpreter. If I go to a Spanish church and the preacher gives the sermon in Spanish I need an interpreter because I do not speak or understand Spanish. If this type of action portrayed in the video cause confusion in the house of God, it is not from God as the scriptures state God is not the author of confusion... Brother Glen
Tried for years to learn both and was not successful in either. I have a son and daughters who are multilingual - they didn't get it from me.
Here is where I think we might disagree. The person confronting JM was not hysterical or breeding confusion, rather he was proclaiming what he considered was a message from God.
Here I might also mention that JM is in direct violation of the Scriptures which clearly state, "Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner." (1 Cor. 14:39-40)
If JM speaks against the gifts in favor of the ceasing side, he is wrong and against the Scriptures as the young man was pointing out.
JM speaks publicly about the issue, and the young man had authority to bring the message of God publicly before the very people that JM was supposed to teach without error, just as Peter was rebuked by Paul openly and in front of the same people (church) in which he did wrong.
I don't believe he had standing to do what he did. It seems like he is not a member of that church and just showed up to cause a ruckus. Imo, he should have waited until after the service and asked for a private appointment with JM to discuss his concerns first.
Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk
Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk