So I'm checking out some of latest sermon by John MacArthur and he has one called 4 marks of a hellbound man. In it he lists the 4 characteristics that he believes lead to damnation:- Self righteous
- Worldliness
- Unbelieving
- Willfully ignorance
Tell me that Mr. "Truth War", "Lordship salvation", "Charismatic Chaos"... didn't just preach a sermon against self righteousness and willful ignorance. John, please turn your bible to Matthew 24... "Woe to you, hypocrites"...
See Also:
6 comments:
Well, as a woman, I guess it doesn't apply to me, CD :p
Interestingly, his 1st prayer at the bottom has some real echoes of repentance prayer used by John Knox in his 'Order of Excommunication' - psychological/ emotional manipulation and a sort of 'bludgeon you with the message'...so your man here is almost straight out of 1569 Scotland, in his approach. But I think Knox has possibly more integrity!!
Hey glad you're posting!
That's on my to do list. Go through a book of the bible in the ESV and just assume all the reference to man don't apply to women, all references to slaves don't apply to freemen... and start to create a theology. I'm thinking Titus or 1Timothy or something. Its gotta be short because this will get boring fast but....
Oh yes, it's so wrong to take a definite stance in opposition to something like the Emergent/Emerging Church or the Charismatic Movement. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah...
You've got one pastor calling out another, in public, over their method of bringing people to Christ. There's definitely something wrong with that. Unless someone is committing heresy or sin in order to do it, who cares? Bringing people to Christ is the Prime Directive. If I play rock 'n' roll music, let people through the front door of the warehouse in t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops, sell them a piece of pizza and a soda at a loss, on Saturday evening, and then teach (not preach at) them about Christ, I'm doing something wrong?
JM's biggest problem is that he believes God sprinkled election dust on a limited number of folks so, even if they have to wear a suit and tie, be subjected to 100 year old hymns, and find a real church with a steeple and stained glass, they will do it and come to Christ.
There's a whole bunch of Christians that believe God has presented us with the choice of salvation and we don't need to be in a church to make the choice. Driscoll isn't watering down the message, he's just trying to get it to people who would never hear it if some stuffed shirt keeps it locked up inside a Sunday Worship Service.
Icy --
I agree (for lurkers this is probably driven by the controversy between them I discuss at MacArthur vs Driscoll. Discoll's results have been outstanding, he's inspiring for a reason. The more I discuss the issue the move convinced I've become that Driscoll is right about the "chickified God" problem. Driscoll has found a way to get important constituencies enrolled in the gospel.
____
Doug --
I don't think it is wrong for MacArthur to take a stand against another movement. I think it is wrong for him to willfully represent those movements. I think when you are "taking a stand" against something you have an obligation to make sure you are taking a stand against their actual views and practices and not constructing a straw man. Doing that is called willful ignorance and I think John MacArthur can be fairly charged with that and hypocrisy for listing it as one of his 4 marks when he himself engages in it so frequently. As for self righteousness, you didn't even attempt to defend him on that front.
I hope you meant "willfully MISrepresent those movements" above.
I attended a "Love and Respect" weekend a few months ago. The original author, Emerson Eggerichs, spoke about the necessity to let men be men and women be women. If you set up an effeminate church so that the majority of men are marginalized and have no way to contribute a useful function, then the majority of men will find someplace else to connect to God. God calls us to suffer for our faith but we only need to suffer for God, not because some knucklehead generates extra-biblical paradigms.
As for the Driscoll/MacArthur "controversy", it would not surprise me if it is motivated by book sales/attention getting publicity. I would never have heard of Mars Hill or MD without JM taking potshots at MD. Likewise without the public potshots at an obviously popular MD, I would have never heard of JM.
C,mon, people, it's called contextualization. There are plenty of people in this world who won't give you the time of day, let alone listen to a Gospel Message, if you come at them in a way that makes it impossible for them to relate to you.
Post a Comment