Featured Wanna help out John MacArthur?

No, said that he appears to be such, but that his teaching is isually pretty spot on!

And Charasmatics, at least those in the WoF, claim it get it, little gods, divine healers etc have a distorted view on both nature of God and man!

 

think that he views MOST of the current/new charasmatic teaching as unbiblical , from those such as a hagin/Copeland/Hinn/price etc, don;t you?

 

Hagin, Copeland, Hinn et al don't represent the bulk of Charimatic and Pentecostal teaching. Don't use red herrings, stay focused. MacArthur condemns all who are charismatic or pentecostal.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Good post.

By completely dismissing these sorts of miracles MacArthur is yet ANOTHER example of a Calvinist that limits the sovereignty of God.

 

Leave "calvin" out of it.

For YEARS, I did battle with SBC pastors over the very issue that preachinjesus makes. They were far from any "calvin" thinking - most didn't even know their own minds unless it was given to them by seminary teachers and community lodges. Used to enjoy watching preachers run around in their little white aprons at funerals - participating in the "rites."

It was somewhat amusing when a missionary would quietly tell me of encounters, yet would never speak of them openly for fear of the backlash by the SBC leadership.

 

I am aware that Calvinists are not the only ones that would not believe the things preachinjesus mentioned but it is Calvinists in this thread and here on BB that are the skeptics.

 

Currently I am reading another book (by a "reformed" author). I am only able to read one at time. I have listened to and read some things by Mr. McArthur, enough to know that he is not my "cup of tea". David Jerermiah, Charles Stanley, of course Andy......Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig are my "favorites". Take note....I do not denigrate Mr. McArthur . I simply do not agree with him and would not support him. I would, if called upon, defend him in the arena of skepticism and "new atheism".

 

Classic pentacostal doctrines such as held by AoG would be within Orthodoxy, but the vast majority of modern Charasmatic teachings are indeed form the Olsteen/Hagin/Copeland/capp etc branch, and thatteaching regardless if wof, name it claim it, faith, tongues etc are pretty much heretical!

So while i would agree with you he tend to broad brush all, MUCH of the modern dioctrines/practices are heretical!

 

Not true! We calvinists, majority of us here, would NOT say that God is unable to do a miracle, to heal divenly, its justthat NONE living have been gifted to di such as the Apsotles were, and that God can still respond and choose to do such as He sovereignly Wills!

 

Well, before responding, it might be best to point out, again, that I'm not a charismatic nor pentecostal. So my perspective on these questions will be from my frame of reference theologically and not the others. However, I continue to press my point that Dr MacArthur's text and conference is a condemning proposition based on a poorly articulated understanding of these camps. He routinely condemns those who disagree with him on this for, frankly, poor reasons.

Now, my responses:

It's a parable, so I'm sure how to make it a real story. The rich man in Hell wasn't granted the "miracle" for reason found in the biblical text.

I am aware that some fringe elements in the Charimatic and Pentecostal camps believe in raising people from the dead but I've never heard a reasonable proposition that this could even be granted. Most Charismatic and Pentecostal believers and leaders don't accept the ability of anyone to raise people from the dead.

I believe Scripture is sufficient for explaining itself, its theological propositions, and the nature of God and His revealed character but it is not an exhaustive reference tool. For instance, Scripture is not sufficient to inform us on any number of medical topics, it isn't sufficient to show me how to repair my car, it isn't sufficient to teach us how to speak French. Scripture has limitations, practical and obvious limitations. Are you saying Scripture is exhaustively sufficient?

I also reject the notion that Psalm 19 is a good text for Scriptural sufficiency since, when it was written, the NT hadn't even been composed. But this is an ancillary point.

I don't insist on miracles, healings (I don't know know why hearing is a big thing), or prophecies for the proclamation of the Gospel any more than the NT evidences them as demonstrations of them as partners (or results) of the proclamation of the Gospel.

Where I have seen and experienced (and even heard of) instances I mentioned above they have followed a pattern of being unanticipated, for a specific reason (often someone's salvation), and in the midst of a place where the Gospel is not well known. We have never planned for a miracle.

Of course, this is where some of my charismatic and pentecostal brothers and sisters in Christ and I disagree. Some of them make a good case that ecstatic utterances (something I don't personally practice) are legitimate in light of the testimony of early Christian experience in the NT. Though I disagree with some of their points here, I cannot reject them as heterodox as Dr MacArthur does.

Perhaps the biggest issue for cessationists to explain is how you fit John 14:12 into your matrix.

Scripture is an accurate and inspired account of the revelation of God that is sufficient for the proclamation of the Gospel and understanding the character, nature, and will of God. It does have limitations in its application beyond these points.

The biggest frauds being perpetrated against the Gospel are the "healing" services of some fringe leaders who only go into stadiums to do this before crowds while demanding money. I will not defend it. My friends who are Charistmatic and Pentecostal do not defend it.

So we go into hospital wards and go into villages where the sick and hurting live. We pray for miracles and ask for healing. How God moves beyond that is not up to us.

Now, that said I'm going to point out something that needs to be addressed. Since I'm not a Charismatic and Pentecostal I have a limited response as to my own position and cannot state for them what they might believe.

In your posts and in Dr MacArthur's works there is an unncessary dualism of thought that believes one either accepts et al the fringe views of radicals who stand outside fellowship and accountability (ala Haggin, Copeland, Hinn, etc) of other Charismatics and Pentecostals or you are a full fledged cessationist.

This is foolishness and anti-intelllectual.

One can embrace a modified continuationist position (like mine) that embraces the truth that God continues to work in the world without having to go full tilt to the position of fringe radicals. Just because I've seen miracles occur doesn't mean I buy wholesale the radical views of a slender few that get most of the attention. It is erroneous to say it does. This is where Dr MacArthur goes off the rails too. He seems to believe that all Charismatics and Pentecostals believe x,y,z and details this out. He offers no accomodation to respective disagreement. He maligns and chastizes unnecessarily and condemns automatically.

My own position is that, though I'm not a Charismatic or Pentecostal, that God uses miraculous gifts and occurences to advance His Gospel in rare but important ways. If you want more evidence of this go read Keener's two volume work on Miracles. Then come back and explain how these things haven't happened.

What else?

 

The amount of self-refuting contradiction between your posts makes it incredibly difficult to respond to you.

In one post you condemn all Charismatics and Pentecostals, then when confronted with another perspective, you modify your position. This is insanity.

Besides, Osteen isn't a charismatic or pentecostal, he's just a blithering idiot.

If we're going to accurately respond to the fringe elements of radical groups and people (Copeland, Haggin, Hinn, etc) engage them. However, if we acknowledge there is a modicum of orthodoxy within more traditional groups (AoG, Foursquare, etc) then make that point obvious.

 

Inaccurate. He had a description attached to his lot in life -- a rich man -- and that was juxtaposed against a named man -- Lazarus -- who lay by his gates each day. Parables were never specific at all, much less that specific. This is a real event.

But he was granted the miracle. That's the point of the story, as Abraham didn't refuse to "send" someone.

Luke 16, NASB
29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "​

It was a prophecy by the very One who would rise from the dead, Jesus, who told this true event. No more than they would have listened to Moses, Abraham himself, or any other Old Testament saint than they would acknowledge and listen to the risen Christ.

It's not an issue at all. The "greater works than these" are the fact that our testimonies, our own changed lives -- our personal miracles in being delivered from death to life -- are not illustrated by the confirming "signs and wonders" Jesus did to convince those who heard Him and witnessed His works. Our testimonies, our lives, are the "sign and wonder" of Christ's action, Christ's love, within us. Those among Jesus' contemporaries needed the "signs and wonders" for the very fact they didn't have all the Scriptures (and by the way, the lack of the complete canon does not negate the truth of Psalm 19 as showing the sufficiency of Scripture).

One could, if one is willing to define the fine line between heresy and Scriptural doctrine. I don't believe God leaves us to figure that out for ourselves. I don't believe He continued the signs and wonders gifts once the canon was complete, because those gifts don't fit into Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, without leaving marked room for error, which again is something I don't believe God leaves to the human mind. The signs and wonders gifts, as stated in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, ended within 30 years of Paul writing the epistle.

 

I have NEVER condemned all within pentacostal circles as being heretics, nor not saved, but have always stated that those within classic pentacostal are preaching/teaching the real gospel, just wrong on the work of the Holy spirit for today!

i have ALWAYS stated here that Oneness, WoF, Postive confession, 5 fold ministries, etc are ALL wrong and not of/from God!

Isn't brother macArthur saying same thing?

 

Couched in the midist of a lengthy section where Jesus is using parables to teach makes it difficult to acccept this as you are framing it. The vast majority of scholarship and commentators agree that it is a parable...including Dr MacArthur's own Study Bible.

I simply disagree with your entire intrepretation of this parable.

I don't buy the "our lives are the 'sign and wonder'" interpretation here. Clearly the point Jesus is making is about giftings and works that are to come. The language employed by John is rather specific. The disciples are witness to Jesus' testfying works include His healings, exorcisms, and other miracles. When Philip asks for a testifying work, part of Jesus response is to note His past, current, and future miracles and other works.

Well to say that all signs and wonders ended within 30 years of Paul's writing 1 Corinthians is a pretty odd and subjective. Given that Revelation hadn't even been written until 5 years after your 30 year mark, that is a difficult case to make. In addition, there seems to be a continued mark of testimony within the early Church (specifically here the post-apostolic period) of ongoign signs and wonders.

The nature of miracles and miraculous gifts are final testimony in and of themselves but evidences of ongoing proclamation. Simply saying any use of miraculous gifts and miracles is too close a "heresy" (I don't believe they are all heretical) to be able to accurately define seems a unnecessary sidestep.

Additionally, I'm not enitrely certain why the "canon being complete" is such a hard and fast rule for the cessation of gifts. Just because John or Peter or somebody penned the last letter of the final book historically didn't mean the Holy Spirit retreated from the post-Pentecost work. The tranmission issue aside (that is the vast majority of Christians between AD 35 - 350 never saw or held the complete canon of Scripture) this seems needlessly subjective. Given the ongoing testimony of sustained signs and wonders of Gospel confirmation I don't see how it can be reasonably asserted or affirmed.

The cessationist viewpoint relies on a very western notion of linearity that I don't believe was adopted within the Church until the Enlightenment. It also seems to require the Holy Spirit to cease operating at a specific point in history that is highly subjective. Again, though I am not Charismatic or Pentecostal, these points don't appear to produce a defined point of cessation in light of the additional evidences in history.

 

If you go and listen to Dr MacArthur's latest sermon (as of last week) "An Appeal to Charismatic Pretenders" (Matthew 7:13-27) he makes the statement several times that the majority of people in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are lost just like the majority of people in the Roman Catholic Church. This is his common anology, Charismatic & Pentecostal to Roman Catholic. Though he believes a handful of Catholics might be saved, he states clearly he believes the substantive majority are lost. This is his position on the matter.

I, for what its worth, cannot condemn that vast majority of any branch of orthodox Christianity to Hell after they make the basic Christian confession "Jesus Christ is Lord." I guess Dr MacArthur can. I disagree with him.

 

I read Mac's "Charismatic Confusion" when it was first published. Loved it. I can hardly wait to get a copy of this most recent book!