John MacArthur Requested to, and Resigns from the IFCA

You officially care more than I do!

But seriously, IFCA’s doctrinal position is very clearly stated. They do not make public their membership roster. I would have never known MacArthur was on their membership, and would probably never have known had it not been made public now.

I would never care if I found out that someone on their membership roll did not fully ascribe to the positions on their doctrinal statement. I would have never assumed that IFCA’s position was changing just because someone on their membership did not hold to the same confessional beliefs.

I just don’t see what’s to be gained from an external perspective from making the announcement public.

It’s been well known in the IFCA for a long time, I’m pretty sure. Not sure how I came to know he was a member, but I can’t remember any time I didn’t know that. Perhaps the membership is not published, but it’s also not at all secret.

On another point. I want to clarify that my observations earlier in the thread about the verbal distancing from Christian brothers we disagree with being couched as a matter of holiness and “separation.”… I don’t mean to say that the men trying to make that case were being dishonest. I don’t think that’s the case. When I say the calls for loyalty were more honest… would have been better to say more accurate. I suppose in some cases, a few probably sensed at some level that they were overstating the situation and not being forthright about the distinctives/loyalties matter. But for the most part, I believe the confusion to have been (and still be) honest confusion.

The problem is a mixing and matching of categories. When we disagree with a brother’s interpretation and/or application, and have no verified to reason to believe he is acting in knowing disobedience, this is not a situation in the same category as either (a) a sinning brother who has been brought through the discipline process in the NT, or (b) an apostate who claims the faith but has denied it.

So on the whole, it’s just not helpful to call all of these things “separation” when they are so dissimilar.

In the case at hand, IFCA has a distinctive on the matter of particular/limited atonement. It’s not a distinctive I would choose, personally, but as a group that values that distinctive, they’re acting quite reasonably to maintain it as a boundary for being part of the group. There are only two alternatives: revise and eliminate the distinctive or keep it in writing but ignore it in practice. The latter could lead to a similar posture on other distinctives and that sort of thing always undermines a group’s integrity.

Don’t have to agree with the distinctive to see the value in maintaining it.

I think the reason why this became public is because:

1. MacArthur is probably their highest profile ‘member’ (or at least he was…)
2. Lou Martuneac noted the discrepancy and pushed for clarification on it, which was probably a good thing since there was confusion.

As for the exchange I had with Aaron yesterday - let me go back to that for the last time and then I’ll move on.

What I meant is that if your Christian identity is wrapped up in being “A Fundamental Baptist”, you will behave and act in ways that are different from someone whose identity is tied up in who we are in and because of Jesus Christ.

While I know IFCA members who quietly hold to particular redemption and are content to enjoy the benefits of the fellowship, I agree that JM’s gracious departure is for the best. Yet I too fail to see the benefit of making this action public. Does it strengthen the IFCA? Are people rejoicing that a stand has been taken? Are they now in some way purer having established the difference between themselves and JM? Will they pass a resolution against particular redemption and require members who hold that position to do the right thing and follow JM’s example?

Will they pass a resolution against particular redemption and require members who hold that position to do the right thing and follow JM’s example?

You shouldn’t go asking practical questions like that …

Integrity is important. I think both MacArthur and the IFCA are demonstrating it and it is worth making it known so that the nattering nabobs of negativity can be silenced. Although that doesn’t stop folks around here, apparently.

did make a big deal of it. Lou Martuneac is the one who pointed it out. If you google “Macarthur IFCA resign”, the only hits are SI and Martuneac’s In Defense of the Gospel. I don’t even think the IFCA put out a press release on it.

So, stop blaming the IFCA. If anything, blame Lou Martuneac! He is why you know MacArthur was kicked out.

It’s a bit like the P and B parting in Acts in some important ways, but imagine if the P & B disagreement went like this: Somebody noticed P & B weren’t working together anymore. They contacted Barnabas and Barnabas says “We disagreed over an issue and decided to split and form separate teams.” Somebody then told the Jerusalem Gazette, “Paul and Barnabas aren’t on the same team anymore.” Ensuing buzz.

Maybe “somebody” shouldn’t have bothered, but it’s not a secret either. And readers of the Gazette are certainly capable of forming their own opinions about whether it matters or how or why etc.

Methinks that some spectators are enjoying this more than the participants. I believe that we’re safe in assuming that this will have no impact on neither JM nor the IFCA.