“The Truth War” by John MacArthur - a critique
Having read John Macarthur’s “The Truth War – Fighting for certainty in an age of deception†I came away with mixed thoughts. I was mostly disappointed – quite honestly I expected to dislike it more. What he said regarding truth is true; it certainly is based in God and revealed in the Bible. His warnings against apostates and heresies are timely – particularly in a time when these terms have fallen out of favor under the pressure of political correctness and inclusiveness. No one can come away wondering where Dr. MacArthur stands.
Unfortunately much of his polemic is vague and nearly pointless. Not pointless in the sense that his warnings need not be heralded, but pointless in any substantive application. His accusations are often so generic, vague, and broad brushed they become irrelevant. Throughout the book I kept wondering, who is he talking about, what churches and what movements does he oppose… or is it all of them? For example, though he varies the nomenclature, MacArthur routinely starts phrases with “In some circles…â€, “The typical evangelical leader…â€, and “…well-known evangelical leaders…†- followed by the particular accusation. Sometimes these accusations rang true, other times they rang rather hyperbolic- but there was no place to hang them except on the hooks your own mind created. If you already don’t like someone – all you need do is insert them.
Dr. MacArthur did interact with the writings of Brian Mclaren. When doing so MacArthur’s arguments became much clearer, specific and therefore relevant. He pointed our some significant flaws in McClaren’s teaching. He brought to light some teachings of McClaren’s that are downright unbiblical. In this MacArthur created some very specific hooks on which to hang his arguments. As well, Dr. MacArthur reviewed some ancient heresies such as Sabellianism and Arianism. Here again he got specific and made a very good case that modern day Oneness Pentecostals are basically contemporary Sabbellianists.
These are the exceptions to the “The Truth War†norm. He makes veiled and passing references to Emergent Churches, but fails to define or describe who they are or what makes them “Emergent.â€Â MacArthur quotes Rob Bell in his Introduction, but fails to deliver on the anticipated interaction with Bell’s beliefs. Mark Driscoll is also referenced in “The Truth War†but only in passing and even then it’s a third-party description of Driscoll. MacArthur never quotes Driscoll directly nor makes any definitive comments himself.Â
Topically, MacArthur takes on homosexuality, women in the ministry, and other such issues. But like his dealing with the emerging church (I should say “Emergents†since The Truth War is void of any distinctive between Emergents and the emerging church) he speaks out against each, but never adequately deals with just who is promoting what heresy… or even what makes it a heresy in the first place.
Bottom line; this book is neither good nor bad… it’s neither hot nor cold. If you think anything created after 1956 is probably heretical – this book will back that up. If you think the evangelical church in America is soft and too focused on doctrinal minutia – nothing in this book will challenge you. In the Introduction Dr. MacArthur says that he has already written a complete commentary of Jude and that the work in chapters 3 – 4 prompted him to write this book. I came away feeling that he wanted to get into the mix of addressing modern day heretics and end-times false prophets – so he dusted off his commentary, hastily inserted some generic accusations – and went to press. This would have been a much better book had Dr. MacArthur taken out half of the repetitive arguments in defense of truth, and inserted more original work dealing with the nuances and actualities of various evangelicals and the emerging church.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Neil - you should write a book, your post ws well written. MacArthur’s book was general in nature, perhaps a more focused book on i. e. the Emergent Church. That will not change anyone’s mind, though, for every MacArthur convert there are ten seeker/emergent converts.
All one needs to draw away people to themselves is an education, enthusiasm, writing and/or speaking skills, and an audience. I am convinced that gathering ears is the key. You get one thousand average, uncommitted Christians in one room, and a well spoken, reasoned man with glossy brochures can preach Popeye and you might see fifty of them interested in hearing more.
You must gather ears, not minds, and you can deceive crowds. That equation is happening every day by the thousands in many different genres, religious and not.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Good on you for reading the book and writing your opinion of it. I haven’t read the book and am not sure if I am going to make the time to do so.
I like reading heretics more.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Rick, you are very right about that. A church I was a part of (seeker sensitive/not that it’s all bad) the pastor would basically preach the same sermons over the years. He would preach and I would think…wait a minute…he would just ‘freshen’ them up a bit.
Sad thing is…it has become formulaic and not authentic…so it has ceassed to be relevant.
Peace!
June 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
This is what a believer said on this topic which I think is spot on:
…part of the problem most Christians have, even Reformed ones, is ecumenticalism. IMO, at the risk of sounding bombastic, just about everyone these days have wrongly interpret what it means to really love one another. We have interpret this as simply getting along. I don’t believe that is what the scriptures tells us at all. I think we are to sharpen one another so that we’re approved of God.
Pro 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the face of his friend.
When we sharpen each other there is bound to be friction, but we both come our improved. People try to make religion into what they would like it to be, rather than humbling ourselves to God to conform us to what He says it should be. Regrettably, there is no finer example of this that liberalism in the church today.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Neil,
Practically speaking , if Macarthur dealt with every name, heresy, in great detail then the book would have needed to be a set, instead of sets. However if one is to make a claim that someone is a false teacher then at least a couple of examples of why one thinks so should be included.
As for defining Emergent, is there a definition that would please everyone? Maybe he left it fuzzy because it is indeed hard to define.
“This would have been a much better book had Dr. MacArthur taken out half of the repetitive arguments in defense of truth, and inserted more original work dealing with the nuances and actualities of various evangelicals and the emerging church.”
Like I said, I haven’t read it, so don’t know exactly what you’re saying here - but if his statements in defense of truth were Biblically true, surely many Christians today could benefit from hearing those statements, even repeatedly, and having them as part of their belief system. It’s impossible to discern what is wrong or right in church philosophies today without having an understanding of just what truth is and is not.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“I like reading heretics more.”
no bias there at all
June 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Amy,
in the archives here, I wrote an article on the definition of “emergent” and “emerging” churches (there is a huge difference). The article was taken from Christianity today. I am too lazy to look it up right now
Maybe later.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
The problem with MacArthur and others is that they think if you have and believe the truth, that is enough. Defend it. But where are the books that point out their/our sin? Where are the articles that castigate us for our powerlessness? How about our obvious pride about having the truth? Where are the calls for fasting and seasons of elongated prayer?
It is not enough to have the truth inside the castle walls, on display for all the inhabitants to see and show their children. We must take the truth, draped in power and grace simultaneously to the world. The orthodox crowd (me) are just as guilty of seeking bigger cars, bigger houses, Christian cruises, expensive clothing, and displaying our Christianity in a tearless portrait of western culture, not a broken and disturbed love that disregards our own needs and desires in favor of His.
If we have the truth and the emergents don’t, where is the demonstration of the Spirit and power? Do not hide behind the “results oriented” excuse, we will never see the glorious gospel of the Lord Christ without seeking His face as if we were a hungry deer. I am orthodox, but I refuse to be smug about the fortress we’ve built around our pitiful camp. We quote the reformation but where are those same reformation fires burning today. Spurgeon, Edwards, and Wesley would be offended if they saw who quoted them as if we were on the same page.
Books, books, books, words, words, words, tapes, tapes, tapes, and all things remain the same since the fathers slept. The orthodox crowd does not recieve correction, we are too busy correcting everyone else. And if you say we have no sin, you make God a liar. And not just a benign “everyone sins” attitude that soothes our flesh, I mean that says “If I believe there are brothers and sisters in Christ who are being deceived, I need God to empower me with such a loving and urgent anointing that I can reach out to those who I love with God’s love”.
Where is our pathos, our concern. I can cleaverly articulate the errors of Warren and MacLaren and Bell, but how many tears have I shed. You would only need one hand to count them. That is what I find objectionable about scholarly books about the emergents or seekers or purpose driven theologies and their adherants. These antiseptic treatises are useless as they make the choir sing and pounce doctrinally on those not in the choir, but without any tears or urgency.
You can read these books and nod your head in agreement or shake your head in disgust, but until we all get sacrificially serious about Christ and His gospel which rises light years above just having the truth, we will continue to fail our Wonderful Savior. Forgive all of us Lord, we are in love with our own words and call them Yours.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
This is what truly bothers me in all of this…
Truth is a Person… Jesus Christ…
Yet, to Jonny Mac and others… truth is an unchanging “object”.
If I was to treat a woman as an object that would be rude and I would be being very disrespectful to her…. yet… here we have a group of people fighting to objectionalize God Himself as some distant unchanging object called Truth…
I see we have created a Totem in our image and called it truth then deified it… instead of believing the bible as it teaches from Jesus own mouth… “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
We lower Jesus to an object which then makes Him equal with creation… by using a man made definition of truth… thanks to Plato and Gottlob Frege and Hegel… we have accepted Gnosticism in place of Jesus teachings…
So for one to “defend truth” or declare truth and then defend these men’s version of that truth seems rather sinister as it is not defending anything but the lie God is equal to man and man can rationalize and conceive and objectively understand God who is a disembodied object called “TRUTH”…
So I will continue to worship Jesus…
Blessings,
iggy
June 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
BTW that is why i am emergent/emerging and why i refuse to bow at the feet of modernism and postmodernism….
I choose to read and believe the Bible… for what it says and teaches.
Blessings,
iggy
June 28th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Rick,
Maybe because I am involved with many Christians from many different backgrounds, I don’t have far to look to find someone being deceived by some current error. I do shed tears- literal, and in my soul - over people who have been led into error. I am not the choir singing. I can’t be looking at some false teaching and rejoice pridefully that I haven’t fallen for it because there are too many individuals that I know personally that I see falling. Surely there are others who are in the same position.
There are many folks out there who are busy doing what they’re supposed to be doing, yet who are totally unaware of much that is going on in Christianity. So when their own kids, friends, family, people they serve, fall into some kind of teaching that is called Christian but isn’t of God, they aren’t even aware of it, at least not at first. And they aren’t ready to help their brothers and sisters. Surely there is a place for scriptural warning.
I don’t know much about Macarthur, but just wonder, isn’t there a possibility that he does confront his church (and himself) with their lack of love for God, passion, sin, and so forth. A pastor who spends all his time warning about the dangers of “the other guys” is surely unbalanced. Is that true of Macarthur?
June 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“i refuse to bow at the feet of modernism and postmodernism…. I choose to read and believe the Bible… for what it says and teaches.”
iggy agrees with Dr. MacArthur - wow!
He says the same thing in his CD on the emerging church. Now what are you going to do?
June 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Amy - 19 men full of demons brought America to its knees.
How is it possible that we who claim to be full of the Creator of the Universe cannot even bring the church to her knees? The answer is we cannot legitamtely make that claim.
And if MacArthur feels that so many are being deceived, where is our power to bring them back. We seem to have only words, and sometimes words of utter destruction.
You are a sincere Godly woman, Amy, and you add much to the dialogue. Do not be deceived, the church is a broken cistern with only words to hold on to. I am not attacking MacArthur, I am saying where are the books that are written to confront US, the ones who see the deception? And when I write like this I am attacked by many in the orthodox pavilion because they do not believe they need correction.
Go to your favorite sites and see if any posts are about their sin. As a matter of fact go to those same sites and search for Jesus posts. Oh yea we’re seeking Him. He rarely makes a blog appearance. Somewhere I heard about a mote in our eyes. We continue to wander in the hall of mirrors while pretending to lead.
Argue more than pray - correct more than love - search more for sin than for sinners - consumed with people more than the Master
Revival must come or He must.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Rick,
Thank you for your eloquent yet searing words.
Peace!
June 28th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“I am saying where are the books that are written to confront US, the ones who see the deception?”
I can’t answer that. It’s a good question to think about.
I do know that the preachers/teachers/camp workers, etc I know who are concerned about deception are not hesitant to confront the sins of their own “choir,” as well as publically share their own shortcomings, (with a sorrowful attitude of “how could I do this to my Savior”) Many families I know also have devotional times that focus on learning to obey God, worshipping, praying, fasting, and talking about ways to minister to others (and most carry those ideas of ministry out.) And yes, they spend time talking about deception as well. It’s part of knowing the Prowling Lion when you meet him.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Rick,
MacArthur doesn’t believe that there should be any demonstration of the Spirit’s power beyond people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
MacArthur actually goes to the extreme to say that God has no plan or call or specific “will” for a believer’s life outside of obeying what (MacArthur thinks) Scripture commands. At least he’s consistent, although his approach sounds almost like a functional deism.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
robbymac,
“MacArthur doesn’t believe that there should be any demonstration of the Spirit’s power beyond people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior.”
Would you mind telling me what all you’re basing that on? Are you talking about his belief in cessationism, or something more? For example, a person could teach cessationism but still believe that the Spirit gives one power to live a godly life, to pray, to endure, etc.
The only book I’ve read of Macarthur’s was his book on Charismatics. I think it’s simply called The Charismatics. As someone wrote on the inside flap, “judgement of a movement by its extremes.” Some of the things he said were true, but many were generalizations. I didn’t follow his reasoning for believing certain gifts have absolutely ceased. I absolutely could not believe his exegesis of I Corinthians 14.
That book bothers me because I think that book may be where many people’s cessationist (am I spelling that right?) position comes from, rather than from a study of scripture. If cessationism is wrong, then people are basically saying “No” to something the Holy Spirit could want to do in their life - and that’s serious.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Amy, it’s called Charismatic Chaos.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Actually Ken,
That is a lot of what the conversation is about in emerging/emergent… but you can’t hear because you won’t… you just want to label and judge… thus you have not ears to hear…
Also, even a broken clock is right twice a day! : )
JM is a bit schizophrenic about his modernism… though he denounces it he still uses the very tools of it… he judges it and still works with it.
I have no problem with using the “tools” of modernism and postmodernism… but I do not bow to them and deny I do it.
JM creates a Totem of Worship in his image… It looks real, but is wooden and still man-based in its creation. So you miss on a very basic level on where we agree and then part ways.
Be Blessed,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Amy,
You must have the original 1978 edition, if it’s simply called “The Charismatics”. MacArthur published a second work on the same topic, as David C points out, entitled “Charismatic Chaos”; I’ve read both, and your older edition is a lot nicer than the most recent one.
I’ve also read through the transcripts of some of his sermons online, and his church used to (not sure if they still do) publish his answers to questions from his congregation — that’s where I discovered that he believes God has no specific will for an individual Christian’s life. He was pretty clear on that one, although when I read his online sermons which served as the basis for Charismatic Chaos, I also noted many distortions, exaggerations, and blatant errors in his “research”.
I’m sure MacArthur would agree with the power of the Spirit to enable a believer to live the Christian life, but words like “demonstration” don’t really fit, as his view seems to be that the Spirit works only internally, and not in demonstrative outward ways.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Neil,
I skimmed through this book at my church library a few weeks ago, and your commments pretty much sum up the ideas I left with. It seemed to me like it was pretty rehashing stuff that’s been covered over and over again.
I wonder sometimes who the actually audience for books like these are. It seems like the “Emergents” who came from this type of background didn’t listen to the types of arguments previously, so why would they listen to them now. It seems to me that people write these types of books just to assure the “faithful” that they are correct.
I agree with Iggy, in that we have presented Christianity in terms of “objective” or “absolute” truth for so long, that we have done so at the expense of presenting Christ as the Truth. People can argue forever about propositional truth statement, but when someone has actual experience with Christ, the other arguments become secondary.
I would also say that there is a portion of Evangelicalism that thrives on having an enemy, and largely the enemy or enemies are caricatures of reality. As I read through some of the passages of the book, I thought, “who in the world is he talking about.” He paints in such generalities a lot of the time, that in essence he is talking about nobody but the mythologized enemy that exists in his mind. I guess there is always this same danger on the other side as well. I wonder how much of this controversy could be avoided if both sides actually took some time to get too know an actual living person who they thought were the “enemy”.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Regarding the Charismatic book, I don’t know which book it was - I got it from a library so don’t have it now. I was thinking though that it was published in the 90’s. Is that when Charismatic Chaos was published? I have a hard time remembering specific names of things.
Certainly there is a lot that is unbiblical going on in charismatic circles. I see people in all kinds of churches that are open to gifts not using discernment about what is coming from God and whether it is being used in a way that is scriptural. But I believe one of Satan’s tactics is to counterfeit what God wants to do and make people “afraid.” In any case, it’s easy to be extreme instead of biblical and put God in a box of “He does whatever I say he can do if I just have faith” and “Anything that feels miraculous and mysterious and good is the Holy Spirit;” or a box of “He can’t possibly work “that way” today.”
One thing that can happen in a church that that is not cessationist is that people may not really comprehend the person of the Holy Spirit and what His working can mean in their lives - the focus can be too much on tongues, the least of the gifts. Especially sad because (God knows) but in my opinion even many “tongues” do not seem to be a genuine gift from God.
I know many many people who are cessationists and strong on knowing and obeying God’s Word who are definitely living godly lives in the power of the Holy Spirit, and many people who aren’t cessationists who have a strong dependence and respect and obedience for the authority of God’s Word. It’s easy for both “sides” to blame the other for things that just aren’t true.
As far as “The Truth War” book, I was part of a group that was using it for a few weeks, and I thought it addressed issues of which people need to be aware. There are many people who don’t know what is going on in Christianity outside their own circles, and many people who are being taught that there is no absolute truth. We probably only covered a few pages in those few weeks but my impression was that it was a book I would have like to read.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hey I have a question for you .info types.
I’ve been reading and researching Brian McClaren, Rob Bell and Erwin McManus. I’ve immersed myself in post-modernity to the point where my head hurts.
As a Lutheran I have a far different take on this whole debate between Modernity and Post-Modernity.
I think the debate between the two is the wrong battle. I see Christianity and the Christian Worldview as neither Modern or Post-Modern.
I’m not sure how to label it. For the sake of discussion I’ll call it pre-modern.
Christianity does believe and proclaim propositional truth claims but these claims are not grounded, for the most part, in the material world around us. Our concepts of spiritual truth are based on revealed truth. But even more important than that they are anchored and completely hinged in Jesus Christ who is Truth Incarnate.
If were to ask me how I know there is a God I will tell you that I know there is a God because He became a man in Jesus Christ and proved his claim by raising himself from the dead. I would not tell you about philosophical arguments for the existence of ‘god’. I’m not trying to convert people to theism. I want to deal with Jesus Christ the God-man. This way of thinking and arguing is NOT modern because it relys on revealed truth.
So here is my question. What do you guys think about this? Is Christianity Modern, Post-Modern, neither, or both? I would really like your thoughts on this.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Amy, you made some astute observations
June 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Amy, you made some astute observations
To use a cliche, many Charismatics have forgotten the Giver of the gifts, and instead are focusing on the gifts.
Likewise, many cessationists have forgotten the Author of the Word, and instead are focusing on the Bible instead.
They are both extremely dangerous, IMO.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Chris R.,
I would agree with you assertion, “I see Christianity and the Christian Worldview as neither Modern or Post-Modern.” I think if we try to hang our hats on any paradigm originating from the world, we will be left wanting. The thing that becomes difficult is that it seems when you start talking about epistemology, you are entering the world of philososphy more than theology.
There are some things in post-modern thought which actually take us closer to the way Scriptures were intended to be read, but some things that are just wrong. There were things in the Modern era that were obviously good, and some that weren’t.
In my mind the ultimate question of Christianity is not one of worldviews. It is “who is Jesus of Nazareth?”. How one answers this question will ultimately determine their worldview.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Chris,
Great points and I think I agree. I would certainly agree that Christianity is not more at home in modernism than it is in postmodernism.
Neither are “Christian.” Both are arenas in which Christianity lives.
I think one of the tendencies of the watch-bloggers is to assume that since those in the emerging church want to reach postmoderns they have become postmodern themselves. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, for all its other dangers, postmodernism has “corrected” some of the errors of modernism.
Another tendency is to fall into the “Good Old Days” trap - as if modernism was an ally of Christianity. MacArthur does tip his hat to the fact that modernism was no friend of the Gospel either.
Neil
June 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Dr. MacArthur has literally said: “Modernism is a bad philosophy and postmodernism is another bad philosophy.” He would also see Christianity as transcending philosophical world-views. Just thought I’d set that out. He’s thinks both are wrong.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Chris R,
To your basic question, I would actually give you Rob Bell’s recent stated opinion (which I agree with) on the subject.
We have become too married and enamored with humanly defined dualities: conservative vs. liberal; modern vs. postmodern; emergent vs. non-emergent - and on and on.
Christianiaty, as taught by Jesus, transcends any box we would create to shove it into. All truth belongs to God. Period. Caring for the poor is not a liberal issue - it is a God issue. Opposing abortion is not a conservative issue - it is a God issue.
The modern vs. post-modern ‘boxing’ is not helpful, becuase Jesus is so much bigger than that…
June 29th, 2007 at 10:53 am
“We have become too married and enamored with humanly defined dualities: conservative vs. liberal; modern vs. postmodern; emergent vs. non-emergent - and on and on.”
Don’t get me started all you compromised Republicans.
And the poor issue, the abortion issue, the kindness issue, and all the other earthly issues are or should be tributaries that empty into the Messiah and His redemption. He came to seek and to save that which was lost.
If you look close enough at that last verse you will see me and I hope you also. And I fully believe that verse claims the open invitation for every person born of woman. (except for MacDuff who was untimely ripped from his mother’s womb)
3 points for indentifying the MacDuff reference
June 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Yet another thing on which we all agree.
Neil
June 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Chris L.
What’s the source on that Bell quote?
Neil
June 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Rick,
Macbeth?
Neil
June 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Five men sit on lawn chairs on the edge of a deep retention area. They look downward and see people somehow being stuck in the quicksand at the bottom. They observe the different paths around the perimeter that are leading people down to that quicksand. So waht to do?
They agree to get a legal pad and watch the different specifics about this phenomenon. After doing this research they all return home and write books on waht they had seen. Good and substantive books on what they see.
Aren’t we glad that Jesus didn’t just write a book about what He saw? And the question remains, was the Holy Spirit sent just to draw men to Christ and then seal them, or does He offer God’s power? Why didn’t the men get a crane and rescue those trapped in the quicksand?
Because the crane had no fuel so it was useless. So without any real power for the rescue their books would have to suffice. And I hope they would offer a free copy to everyone trapped at the bottom, it wouldn’t help them get out but at least they might understand their predicament.
By the way, these men made quite a nice, tidy sum from their books. Thank God for the emergents and the seekers, and the purpose people, they have provided the goose that lays the golden eggs! Keep it up all you poor deceived people, we are taking costly notes!
June 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Rick,
I think your parable sets up a false dichotomy. It assumes those writing the books are not helping those in the quicksand. Could they not be doing both?
Neil
June 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I alluded to the fact that they had a crane (truth), but had no fuel (Spirit). And if you go to the average orthodox church, you will find that their prayer meetings are as often and long as the purpose driven church down the street.
If we really believed that God’s power would descend upon a company of sacrificially praying and fasting people we would…uh…do it. Maybe start with fasting from The Outback one month and see what God does. You know what Iam saying about all of us Neil, just possessing the truth does not automatically assume power. My isllustartaion about 9/11 stands.
We have the truth, even the Person of Christ, even the Holy Spirit, where is the demonstartion of the Spirit and of power.
In books and tapes and conferences and…well…you know. Vibrating air.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Neil,
It was a (non-verbatim) quote from Rob Bell’s Q&A session with Joe Hays in May from the Mars Hill website. I’m working up a partial transcript over on Fishing.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Chris R.
“Christianity does believe and proclaim propositional truth claims but these claims are not grounded, for the most part, in the material world around us. Our concepts of spiritual truth are based on revealed truth. But even more important than that they are anchored and completely hinged in Jesus Christ who is Truth Incarnate.”
I stated this very thing and two people started hate blogs against me… both seemed very influenced by John MacArthur… which seems to be from where most this attacks are from…
As far as some “label” that is somewhere between modern and postmodern… premodern still does not make it as we have medieval and such that are within that category which much stuff from that I think we do not want to add to this debate…
I agree though that there is a place between both world views and that is a Biblical world view… or a Christ centered world view… both of these are a bit different… but I accept both in their attempt to be outside of beyond the “world’s view”.
Most emergents/emerging folks have dropped the “postmodern Christian” view other than to use the tools such as deconstructionism… which if one read carefully Jesus did a lot of in his responses to people.
Personally all this is rather sad and silly…
In the world there is “us and them”… a separatist world view point… it has lead to imperialism and wars and on and on… it is this worlds power structure which seems to be what so many “Christians” are falling into.. it is Dualism…
The other view is “us and Him”… meaning we are all sinners and thank God He is merciful and Gracious to love us in spite of who and what we have become. And someday as the Bible teaches it will be “God.. All in all.” (1 Cor 15:28) We where once “us against Him” but now being reconciled can be “Him in us and us in Him” being one in Christ with each other and with God.
(now remember I am the unsaved heretic here… as labeled by Ken Silva Himself so if you agree with this beware!)
Be blessed,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Iggy,
Some of your comments do tend to sound like a veiled universalism. But this is more of a gut feeling I have than something I could objectively prove.
As I have been reading McClaren and the gang. It seems to me that he is in the deconstruction business. He’s reacting against something and what he is reacting against sounds to me a flawed Biblically as some of the post-modern constructs he is trying to inject into the conversation.
By saying their flawed, I am not saying they don’t fit modernism I’m saying they don’t square with revealed truth.
This is a thought in progress so I apologize if I am not being very clear.
I think we’ve all experienced and have an severe aversion to Legalistic Holier than thou Bible Thumpers. These are pharisaical people who think they are made holy BY their good works. They don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t go to movies don’t own a T.V. etc. You know the type.
The problem with these people has nothing to do with the fact that they believe in absolute truth and propositional truth claims. Or that they are modern in their thinking. The Amish/Mennonites could hardly be accused of being ‘modern’.
Yet we all know there is something seriously flawed with this type of religion.
When we react against an error it is very common for us to jump to the exact opposite error.
In this case the exact opposite error ends up being ‘cheap grace’, universalism and an almost pluralistic relativism and a denial that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
When the Methodist church began they were a bunch of Wesleyan holy rollers where were trying to attain ‘christian perfection’. They were VERY legalistic. They were at the fore-front of the temperance movement. Today Methodists are the biggest bunch of theological liberals on the planet.
I would argue that both forms of Methodism the original and the contemporary miss the mark.
As I am reading McClaren I feel like I’m reading the thought of a man who will become the bridge between an evangelicalism that is legalistic and right-wing to an evangelicalism that is pluralistic and left-wing.
Again I think both miss the mark. Many of us here have been burned by Right-Wing legalism.
Iggy - aside from some comments you’ve made that sound universal I HAVE ALSO heard you advocating a Christ-Centered Christianity.
This has also been my big issue. I’d love to compare notes to flesh out what we each mean by that.
I just posted a sermon on my web-site at ExtremeTheology.com. This was the most amazing sermon that I have EVER heard. The whole point of the sermon is preaching Christ and Him Crucified.
I’d really like to know what you think about it. Here is the link
http://www.extremetheology.com/2007/06/the-most-amazin.html
June 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Ken Silva wrote:
“Dr. MacArthur has literally said: “Modernism is a bad philosophy and postmodernism is another bad philosophy.†He would also see Christianity as transcending philosophical world-views. Just thought I’d set that out. He’s thinks both are wrong.”
What? John MacArthur, Ken Silva, and Robbymac all agree? Surely, the End must be even closer than we thought!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Chris R.
I hold we are saved by Grace through faith… Christ died once for all… He does not need to go back over and over to die again… once was sufficient for all mankind to be reconciled… in that I do lean to universal atonement… yet where I differ is that not all who are forgiven are saved… and not all that are “son’s of God” will enter His Kingdom… some will be cast out into outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I am though sympathetic to many who are Universalist that holds to Christ for salvation… (unlike the Universalist who say every one is saved… as there are a few different types of universalism’s out there is one researches a bit so one should be careful not to label and jump to conclusions if they meet one who claims that… Spencer Burke’s view is much different from my relatives who run the Universalist Church in town and my view is very different from both of theirs… but can you imagine in my family me, mainstream Christians, atheists, universalists and fulfilled Jews all meeting at our family reunions… it is a bit fun at times! Yet, somehow i am respected by all and often told I have made them have to go a rethink some things.)
Blessings,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Robbymac…
Its worse than you think… as I agree also with that statement… which intrigues me as how much we all do agree on and how some focus only on what we do not agree on…
Just a though out loud,
iggy
June 29th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Rick,
To be fair, MacArthur has also made a tidy profit writing books denouncing Dallas Seminary, anything remotely Charismatic, the Seeker-Sensitive movement, Christian counseling, ecumenism, and most recently, the emerging church.
Sovereign Cruises offers hugely expensive Carribean cruises for Christians to come and hear people like Phil Johnson and Steve Camp attack other churches. Lots of mammon to be made from attacking all things emerging/emergent.
It cuts both ways.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Iggy,
1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world not just the elect.
Does this make me a universalist in your view? (I’ve certainly excluded myself from the calvinists with this belief)
June 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Iggy,
BUT I don’t believe everyone will enter into His Kingdom also. Sadly there will be far too many in hell.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
(This is one of the best threads I’ve lurked and read on this site…ever.)
Lot’s of good stuff here. Thanks, everyone.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Neil - MacBeth is correct. Beware the Ides of March. Thank you for reading my comment and responding. I knew that Chris L. would never get the quote, literary ingnorance and all that. Oh well, the weaker brother, we love him.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am
i feel like macarthur wrote this book in his spare time in the bathroom. it was really weak and he didn’t seem to do any homework. i agree with much of what you said in your post.
i’ve retitled the book:
Jude:Why Brian McLaren is Wrong.
REVOLUTION
September 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Chris R.
I missed those last comments…. which when I believe as you do on that though Ken Silva told me I believed in false doctrine….
Keep up in the truth and beware of people who deny truth for self promotion.
Be Blessed,
iggy