Don Johnson: An open letter to John MacArthur

It’s a matter of reputation and timing, Don, for the FBF collectively and the “messenger” specifically. The fact is that MacArthur himself, by acknowledging the consternation he has with Piper’s position on this, has already in some way conceded that there is some substance to concerns that your letter echoes, at least. But again, he’d already addressed that before your letter was published.

If you look at the past history of interaction with JMc and the FBF and BJU, it seems to me at least somewhat understandable why he wouldn’t be eager to get embroiled in a situation, especially one he has already addressed to some degree. Whether we are talking Lordship Salvation, Blood of Christ, or what have you, there has never been much officially in the way of complements and friendship, and much in the way of criticism (at least publicly). In this case, one of the strongest public statements made in recent days, something that should be commended and recommended to anyone who wishes to explore the concerns with continuationism and Charismaticism, is effectively overshadowed by yet more criticism, and not really even new criticism.

It is possible to be right (or theoretically so, anyway), and yet be wrong because of one’s attitude and lack of tact, not to mention the lack of likelihood that there would be for meaningful relationship if the matter was formally addressed in some way. Why would addressing this be worth their time? What have you left that would lead them to draw a conclusion on this one way or another? Something to consider.

If you look at the past history of interaction with JMc and the FBF and BJU, it seems to me at least somewhat understandable why he wouldn’t be eager to get embroiled in a situation, especially one he has already addressed to some degree.

From what I understand - coming from the IFCA side of things - the relationship between FBF/BJU and MacArthur has always been strained, going as far back as MacArthur’s time at BJU as a student (he transferred out to attend a different school, I believe). The Lordship controversy blew what was a small rift into a full grown chasm.

[Greg Linscott]

The fact is that MacArthur himself, by acknowledging the consternation he has with Piper’s position on this, has already in some way conceded that there is some substance to concerns that your letter echoes, at least. But again, he’d already addressed that before your letter was published.

Where is the consternation? Please point to it? My hearing of his answer to the question is “dismissive” not “consternation” - but perhaps you have another source?

[Greg Linscott] If you look at the past history of interaction with JMc and the FBF and BJU, it seems to me at least somewhat understandable why he wouldn’t be eager to get embroiled in a situation, especially one he has already addressed to some degree.

The offer to them was an opportunity to see the letter ahead of time and to respond if they so chose. They had no information in the offer that would tip them to the contents. They didn’t even acknowledge receipt of the request. Whatever. Their choice.

But you still aren’t dealing in substance.

MacArthur addresses things somewhat specifically regarding Piper here:

http://www.challies.com/interviews/john-macarthur-answers-his-critics

…and here:

http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/70-37

I have not “dealt in substance” with your article because I don’t have a major objection to what you said, but the lack of graciousness that accompanied it. I have tried to make that pretty clear in everything I have posted in this thread.

The FBF has a reputation of zealously attacking brothers in Christ for their sins (most of which seem to consist of not being as separated as the FBF thinks they should be). I don’t recall as much zeal being applied by the FBF to confronting Open Theism, the Prosperity Gospel, or pastoral malfeasance although they certainly oppose such things. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of the Conservative Evangelicals don’t know that the FBF exists, the intent of getting JM to read this open letter seems to fail. It’s been evident for 30 years that there is no desire to establish any kind of relationship with these Christian brothers, even though “gaining a brother” is one of the Biblical reasons for practicing secondary separation.

You wrote:

I don’t recall as much zeal being applied by the FBF to confronting Open Theism, the Prosperity Gospel, or pastoral malfeasance although they certainly oppose such things. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of the Conservative Evangelicals don’t know that the FBF exists, the intent of getting JM to read this open letter seems to fail.

Well said.

Don’s posts continually reinforce my point that this open letter is little more than posturing against MacArthur. John has been the one in the crosshairs of the FBF because he dared to not kiss the ring and bow down to BJU on the blood issue. Figuratively speaking, if he didn’t repent of questioning the Don of Dons, he would get his knees capped. I wonder if this was Don’s idea or someone else’s to write this open letter. I know it builds street cred with some people, but seriously, if you want to knee cap someone, you need to bring more than this wiffle bat.

Time and again, the FBF has to “praise” him with backhanded compliments. We like John, but…

The FBF postures as though they are above controversial positions and characters amongst its highest ranks (see their president and advisory board). Dan Sweatt can rant and rave about which he doesn’t understand, but John MacArthur better not fail at practicing the same practices that the FBF is seeing crumble.

With the rapid manner in which information is spreading, fundamentalism is losing ground in a hurry. The seminaries are repositioning and the old guys, er guard, have to come up with means of patching the walls that are being torn down by younger fundies. This open letter is like chicken wire where a brick wall used to be.

Guys, I just want to point out that it is entirely possible to disagree with Don, the FBF, or his position without resorting to the personal attacks on him or his character. 1 Timothy 5:1 should apply to us here, no matter how badly or poorly Don is or is not handling this matter. It also doesn’t help your arguments to be going after him.

I’m not immune to criticism of this kind, but it does seem like you are being a little harsher than Scripture permits.

Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. - 1 Tim. 5:1-2

[Jay]

Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. - 1 Tim. 5:1-2

Does this apply to JM, JP,and me since we’re all older than Don? : )

For the record, I have purposely tried to express that my concern is with actions and attitudes.

An earlier generation fought the good fight against Neo-Evangelicals. This pre-occupation is still with us, even as the term “evangelical” has morphed far beyond what the original battle was fought over. This open letter to MacArthur is indicative of different priorities from a different generation of leaders.

I believe theological liberalism is a far more worthy opponent today than fighting conservative evangelicals.

• Was Adam a real person?
• Was the canon invented by men?
• Is homosexuality really a sin?
• Is God really a God of wrath?
• Can we trust the Scriptures?

These, and other questions, deserve far more attention from fundamentalists than an open letter to MacArthur. I said all this before, above, so I won’t belabor the point. I will say, however, that is it indicative of a completely different mindset - a generational shift in emphasis. I’m not worried about John MacArthur too much. I am worried about modern, secular and liberal assaults upon the faith, and I’m concerned about having answers to these questions. That is a battle worth fighting. Arguing over MacArthur’s implementation of secondary separation (or lack thereof?) - no thanks.

If my frustration with Don’s letter has caused anybody to think me uncharitable, I do sincerely apologize. I just think fundamentalism, as a movement, can have a much healthier impact in areas other than MacArthur’s stand on secondary separation.

[Greg Linscott]

MacArthur addresses things somewhat specifically regarding Piper here:

http://www.challies.com/interviews/john-macarthur-answers-his-critics

…and here:

http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/70-37

I have not “dealt in substance” with your article because I don’t have a major objection to what you said, but the lack of graciousness that accompanied it. I have tried to make that pretty clear in everything I have posted in this thread.

I guess your definition of consternation and mine are two different things.

In both interviews, MacArthur repeatedly dismisses any seriousness to Piper’s dabbling with Charismatism - he says Piper is “on the fringe”, “its an anomaly” etc. Piper is not a problem, its no big deal. That’s not consternation.

But that is not what Piper says about himself in his own words.

~~~

Now, to those who say that we should be more concerned about liberalism than evangelicalism, in one sense I agree. However as I have pointed out, either in this thread or in my article, the charismatic issue is a first level doctrinal issue. MacArthur himself makes that point in his book. We are dealing with a heretical view of inspiration. Some charismatics recognize this and try to redefine the gifts to avoid that error (Grudem, et al), but they still buy all the essential arguments of charismatism and even endorse some of the worst of the charismatics.

I think people like MacArthur should put more pressure on these “moderates” than simply dismissing any concerns as “anomalies”.

If the charismatic issue is a first level doctrinal issue, as it very probably is, might not energies be better directed in addressing that issue than addressing someone who’s connected to someone who, while not being a charismatic, doesn’t see the issue as problematic?

Don’s understanding of Piper’s position on prophesies seems to be incorrect, and the more I seek out to read of Piper on this subject, the more I wonder if it’s fair to Piper to call him a “Charismatic” in the sense that we call someone who is a heretic an “Charismatic”. I think this is a pretty clear case of two men using one term to reference two different things.

I spent some time yesterday and today re-reading and re-listening to Piper’s position on prophesies, and I was struck by how carefully Piper sets apart the ‘gift of prophesy’ from Scripture level revelation and authority. As a matter of fact, in at least three different occasions on one podcast (at 1:00, 2:36, and 7:30), he specifically says this or something similar to it:

“This is NOT infallible, Scriptural level, authoritative speaking - which I think is the way that MacArthur would define it…I define this as something God supernaturally and spontaneously brings to mind, in the moment, and because we are fallible…it does not reach the level of infallible authority”.

Furthermore, Don was kind enough to link to one of Piper’s sermons from 1990, where he said this:

Last week I tried to show that 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 teaches that the gift of prophecy will pass away when Jesus comes back—the way a dim mirror image will give way to the living face. And I argued that therefore the gift of prophecy is still valid in the church today. I promised that today we would take up the questions: What is the gift of prophecy, and how is it to be exercised?

The Finality and Sufficiency of Scripture

Let me begin by affirming the finality and sufficiency of Scripture, the 66 books of the Bible. Nothing I say about today’s prophecies means that they have authority over our lives like Scripture does. Whatever prophecies are given today do not add to Scripture. They are tested by Scripture. Scripture is closed and final; it is a foundation, not a building in process.

The best way to see this is to see how the teaching of the apostles was the final authority in the early church and how other prophecies did not have this final authority. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:37–38, “If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” The implication is plain: the teaching of the apostle has final authority. The claims to prophecy in the church, then and now, do not have this authority.

You can see the same thing in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3. Paul says here that even if someone claims to give you information about the second coming by a “spirit,” don’t believe them if it differs from my teaching: “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first … ” In other words, prophecies must be tested by the word of the apostle.

Now the point is this: Today the New Testament stands where the apostles stood. Their authority is exercised today through their writings and the writings of their close associates like Luke and Mark and James (the Lord’s brother). So, in the same way Paul made apostolic teaching the final authority in those days, so we make the apostolic teaching the final authority in our day. That means the New Testament is our authority. And since the New Testament endorses the Old Testament as God’s inspired word, we take the whole Bible as our rule and measuring rod of all teachings and all prophecies about what we should believe and how we should live.

What Happened on Pentecost

Now let’s turn to Acts 2:16ff. to see what we can learn about the New Testament gift of prophecy. The situation: it is the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus. There are 120 Christian men and women waiting in Jerusalem to be “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). According to Acts 2:2 the Holy Spirit comes with the sound of a rushing wind. In verse 4 Luke says, “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues.” Verse 11 is more specific about what they were saying. Some of the foreigners who heard them say, “We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” Note the content of their words very carefully. That will be important for understanding the nature of the gift of prophecy.

…

Now ask yourself this question: Did Joel and Peter and Luke think that all the men and women—old and young, menservants and maidservants—would become prophets in the same sense that Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets, that is, people who spoke with verbal inspiration and with the very authority of God and who could write infallible Scripture? Is the prophesying of Acts 2:17 that sort of prophecy? Or is there a difference?

I believe there is a difference. I don’t think the gift of prophecy today has the authority of the Old Testament prophets or the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Or, to put it more positively, this sort of prophecy is prompted and sustained by the Spirit and yet does not carry intrinsic, divine authority.

One of the reasons that this kind of prophecy is so hard to get a handle on today is that most of us do not have categories in our thinking for a Spirit-prompted statement that doesn’t have intrinsic, divine authority. That sounds like a contradiction. We stumble over a kind of speech that is prompted and sustained by the Holy Spirit and yet is fallible. But I am going to try to show this morning and this evening that this is what the gift of prophecy is in the New Testament and today. It is a Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained utterance that does not carry intrinsic, divine authority and may be mixed with error.

On the tongues, he said this in 1984:

Pentecostals argue that since baptism in the Spirit happened these four times with speaking in tongues, we should regard this as normative. First, the word of the gospel is received by faith. Christ comes into your life by the Spirit. Then, you are baptized in water. And, generally, following water-baptism at some later point, you pray for the baptism in the Spirit and are overwhelmed with a new fullness and freedom and power accompanied by speaking in tongues.

Tongues Not Necessary to Being Baptized in the Spirit

There are five reasons why I am not as confident as the Pentecostals or Charismatics are that speaking in tongues is a necessary part of being baptized in the Spirit.

• It is not taught anywhere in the New Testament. It seems risky to me to say, since it happened this way four times it must happen this way all the time.
• What Jesus does teach in Acts 1:5 and 8 is that the experience of baptism in the Spirit will bring power to witness into the Christian life. In the terminology of Acts we could say, what a powerless Christian needs is a baptism in the Holy Spirit. And that’s a lot of us!
• Acts records at least nine other conversion stories, but never again mentions a two-step sequence with tongues (8:36; 9:17–19; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 34). This shows how difficult it is to establish a norm from the way things happened back then.
• It could be that there were special circumstances in Jerusalem, Samaria, Cornelius’ house, and Ephesus that made speaking in tongues especially helpful in communicating the truth that the Holy Spirit was creating a new unified body of Jew and Samaritan and Gentile.
• Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:30 that “not all speak in tongues” and the words he uses are for general tongues speaking, not merely for a special “gift of tongues” used in church. He seems to have in view the person who feels ostracized without tongues and says (v. 16), “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body.” Paul responds, “Not everybody speaks in tongues!”

For these five reasons I cannot say with the Pentecostals that no Christian has been baptized in the Holy Spirit unless he has spoken in tongues. It seems to me that Luke leaves wide open the possibility that the Holy Spirit might fall upon a person with revolutionizing power over sin and power for witnessing and power in worship and yet not with tongues. To say this person is not the beneficiary of Jesus’ promise to baptize us in the Holy Spirit goes beyond Scripture. “You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit … and you shall receive power” (Acts 1:5, 8). That is the biblical sign.

I’m going to continue to look into this, but I think that I can argue confidently that Piper’s position on ‘charismaticism’ seems to be more of one who allows that the possibility of tongues exists, that he is interested to see how tongues ‘work’ - even to the point of asking for it himself, and that (and this seems to be the big issue) he unwisely associates with other heretical charismatics. That might explain why I’ve never actually heard or seen him address this issue until I went searching for his teaching on the matter.

I doubt that this post will change anyone’s mind, but I do think that we ought to, as much as possible, try to understand where Piper is coming from before we assert that he is in sin and therefore should be separated from by another (MacArthur).

So if anyone has more input or sources, I’d be welcome to reading it, especially if they’re more recent than the sources I’ve found.

Thanks Jay for the research. It sounds like he believes the baptism of the Holy Spirit is something subsequent to salvation but not in the way many charismatics would.

[Ron Bean]

If the charismatic issue is a first level doctrinal issue, as it very probably is, might not energies be better directed in addressing that issue than addressing someone who’s connected to someone who, while not being a charismatic, doesn’t see the issue as problematic?

Should be able to respond more on Thursday if my schedule continues as planned.

Ron, you have earlier in the thread made somewhat snide remarks about separation, repeating the old tired caricatures where you supposedly end up separating from everyone if you believe in separation.

I wish you would look at my article again and point to where I am calling for separation from John MacArthur. As far as it goes, if my article were to reach him, my hope would be for him to be stronger with Piper et al than he has been. I think that Piper is far more involved in charismatism than MacArthur has let on. There is more evidence in the audio of the Strange Fire conference, but I just don’t have time to go through that right now and point to the clips I am thinking of. In any case, John MacArthur is probably the one person with enough access to Piper and “clout” in that world who could influence Piper one way or the other. So my letter to him is an appeal to reconsider his dismissive stance when Piper is brought up. I am NOT calling for separation from John MacArthur, so please don’t suggest that I am doing so.

~~~

I appreciate the effort Jay is taking on this. I think that Pipers view of prophecy isn’t the primary issue with him, I think he is not exactly the same on prophecy as some of the more extreme charismatics, but there is a whole gamut of issues, not just prophecy, when it comes to Piper. He was at least open to if not supportive of the Toronto Vineyard laughing revival. He has endorsed some pretty extreme charismatic prophets, and continues to do so. There is much more than just his personal view of prophecy that is objectionable.