John MacArthur Requested to, and Resigns from the IFCA

I know a guy who used to believe the lies about MacArthur and “the blood.” I explained that the man was believing a lie, and referred him to an old article Phil Johnson wrote explaining the issue. Here was the response:

• Him: You were right. MacArthur isn’t wrong, after all.
• Me: Yeah. I told you he was being misrepresented.
• Him: Yeah. But, I’m still going to separate from him.
• Me: Separate from him? He doesn’t know you exist! There was no fellowship to begin with!

People can be funny, sometimes.

I’m inclined to think that much of the separation rhetoric I heard during my education and a few years beyond was really about maintaining fundamentalist (a particular version thereof) identity and distinctives. Sometimes it was even almost framed that way. There was talk about loyalty to fundamentalism sometimes. That didn’t resonate with me, but at least it was more on the mark as far as what all the passionate diatribes were really about… But a good bit of the time the conflicts between who had perceived and real ties to “neo evangelicals” etc. was couched in terms of biblical holiness, and the assertion was that if you didn’t “separate” (i.e., verbally criticize on a regular basis, with the expected amount of vehemence) you were violating biblical principles of holiness.

I have a lot of respect for some of the guys who looked at the situation this way, but it really didn’t fit the real-world choices we were facing at the time very well. Nor does it now.

In cases of groups/leaders that are claiming to be Christian and are flagrantly denying what the Bible unmistakably teaches (by any reasonable standard), you have a holiness principle. It may call for a kind of preemptive “separation”… But among believers with whom you have interpretive differences and differences about application of principle, but also have no contact… there is no holiness issue involved and no separation dynamic. It’s about maintaining your distinctives.

[Aaron Blumer]

But among believers with whom you have interpretive differences and differences about application of principle, but also have no contact… there is no holiness issue involved and no separation dynamic. It’s about maintaining your distinctives.

I gave the example above of Central Seminary, at which faculty members disagree on the extent of the Atonement. (See the quote & link in my post above.) Yet these same men, despite their individual “interpretive differences and differences about application of principle” regarding the extent of the Atonement, still manage to teach together at the same fundamentalist seminary. They obviously do not believe their lack of consensus on this question requires them to disassociate from one another.

MacArthur believed, promoted, and vigorously defended unlimited atonement for many years. But he kept studying, and…

I find this sad. I am not a member of the IFCA but I respect their posision. I am a fan of MacArthur, have hundreds of his sermons, almost all of the books he wrote, his study Bible, and have listened to him for years. I do not however agree with him on limited atonement. I believe he is putting much more emphases on Calvinism than he used to. Over the years his position might not have changed but I believe his emphases has. I am pleased the way both the IFCA and Mac have handled it but I wish it didn’t have to come to this.

I understand what you’re saying. But, to quote a famous almost world leader, “what difference does it make?”

It is meaningless that IFCA asked MacArthur to resign. It is meaningless that he accepted. It’s a meaningless gesture from both sides, even though it was handled with dignity and grace by both parties. What real difference does this make, in practical terms? None. The IFCA didn’t need MacArthur, and he didn’t need them. It’s a pointless gesture - about as noteworthy as my friend announcing he would continue to “separate” from MacArthur. It is about as meaningful as me posting an “open letter” on my blog. That is to say, its meaningless …

That is why I’m more amused about this announcement than anything else. I’m certain MacArthur broke out the sackcloth and ashes when he received the notice from the IFCA. Likewise, I’m certain IFCA brethren across this fair land are grieving, even now, as they contemplate the future of their fellowship without MacArthur’s active involvement …

Tyler, I can see your point. What I am sad about is that Dr. MacArthur now feels so strongly about his position on limited atonement that he can no longer sign the doctrinal statement of the IFCA. Apparently at one point he felt he could.

Got it. I understand now.

Whenever this debate comes up, I (as a 4.25-ish person…meaning leaning unlimited atonement) love to quote Wayne Grudem, who is a 5 pointer:

Wayne Grudem:

“Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important at all. Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion. Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters. In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact that should cause us to be cautious. A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ’s love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God’s people—all of which are negative pastoral considerations. Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all. And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example” (Systematic Theology, 603).

You’ve got it all wrong. We must all be on exactly the same page, even down to natural vs. federal headship, or else the other is a heretic schismatic. There can be no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, right … :)

I’m inclined to think that much of the separation rhetoric I heard during my education and a few years beyond was really about maintaining fundamentalist (a particular version thereof) identity and distinctives. Sometimes it was even almost framed that way. There was talk about loyalty to fundamentalism sometimes. That didn’t resonate with me, but at least it was more on the mark as far as what all the passionate diatribes were really about… But a good bit of the time the conflicts between who had perceived and real ties to “neo evangelicals” etc. was couched in terms of biblical holiness, and the assertion was that if you didn’t “separate” (i.e., verbally criticize on a regular basis, with the expected amount of vehemence) you were violating biblical principles of holiness. -Aaron, yesterday

Yeah, that’s why the Convergence articles in the FrontLine magazine were so fascinating. But if your identity is based in your relationship with Christ, then the importance of identifying as a “Fundamentalist” drops correspondingly.

Interesting to me that this had to be made public at all. Why not just file away the resignation correspondence and let the matter rest internally? I’d be surprised if IFCA publicizes every resignation.

….is that the publicity is simply due to the fact that MacArthur’s membership had been noted by many members who also knew of his defense of limited atonement, so that doesn’t bother me at all. What makes me uneasy is what a lot of others (Greg, Jay, Larry, among others) have noted; is this really a place for separation?

Now granted, there are all kinds of other silly separation we fundamentalists practice, so I guess I should get used to it, but …seriously?