Don Johnson: An open letter to John MacArthur

Don,

It is clear to me from his own statements that John Piper believes in new revelation today. As much as I have appreciated many of his books, this is an error than cannot be simply overlooked. It has first order implications.

This is a well written letter that asks legitimate questions.

While Piper is a continuationist (and has some discernment issues) I don’t think John Piper prays every day to prophesy in the sense of receiving revelation. John MacArthur himself has often taught that prophecy is preaching, and the forth-teller is a non-revelatory “prophet” as the fore-teller is a revelatory prophet. I don’t agree with MacArthur on this point, and I’m not sure if he still says that, but that was his position. I suspect Piper means the same thing.

Wayne,

You may be correct about John’s view of prophesy as simply preaching, though I think both John’s are wrong as to the meaning of prophecy in the NT being non-revelatory. Nevertheless, it is nigh impossible not to view “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” as something non-revelatory. Wouldn’t you agree?

As I understand it that is indeed John MacArthur’s position however it is most certainly not what Piper is referencing.

[Mike Harding]

Wayne,

You may be correct about John’s view of prophesy as simply preaching, though I think both John’s are wrong as to the meaning of prophecy in the NT being non-revelatory. Nevertheless, it is nigh impossible not to view “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” as something non-revelatory. Wouldn’t you agree?

I do agree, most certainly. I believe Piper has said he sought the gift of tongues at one time, and doesn’t have the gift. At least he’s not the type to “fake it.” But I’m pretty sure his view of prophecy in the quote in the article is simply preaching.

May I ask Don the purpose behind this open letter?

[Ron Bean]

May I ask Don the purpose behind this open letter?

My take is that Don doesn’t have an issue with John MacArthur, he has a problem with John Piper. And he is bothered that John MacArthur does not share his militancy about Piper. I think he should write an open letter to John Piper instead. But John MacArthur has been in the cross-hairs of the BJU crowd for years and they want to keep in in their sights. My caustic take on this!

Please read more carefully, there are a host of charismatics with whom MacArthur is willing to cooperate, Piper isn’t the only one. I use Piper as the example because he is the most accessible and has the most documented evidence of an openness and commitment to the pursuit and use of charismatic gifts.

The reason MacArthur is questioned on this point is that he recently came out strongly against Charismatism. He spent a whole week attacking it, published a book attacking it. I applaud the attack. Yet, when questioned at his conference about Piper specifically, he gives Piper a pass, it’s just an anomaly, a weird way of thinking Piper has (he implies). So he just blows the question away.

Yet it is THE question. If you think Charismatism is so heretical, how can you work with a guy who is so committed to it? How can you have Bob Kauflin or C. J. Mahaney so close to you, ministering in your church (in the case of Mahaney at least)? The question is, does MacArthur really believe Charismatism is as evil as he says he does? His practice seems inconsistent here.

As I said in the letter and in my review of MacArthur’s book, I don’t have a problem with what MacArthur said in the book, I am recommending it to our church people. I’m all for it. I do have a problem with the confusing cooperation with charismatics. It does seem a tad hypocritical.

[Wayne Wilson]

I do agree, most certainly. I believe Piper has said he sought the gift of tongues at one time, and doesn’t have the gift. At least he’s not the type to “fake it.” But I’m pretty sure his view of prophecy in the quote in the article is simply preaching.

Piper is on record as regularly praying for the gift of tongues. This is quoted in MacArthur’s book and a clip is played at least once, maybe twice, during the Strange Fire Conference. You may be right on his view of prophecy, but he includes tongues as “a type of prophecy.”

I found this blog on the Grace To You site: Calling Out the Wolves. In light of my questions regarding what Dr. MacArthur’s associations with Charismatics means, isn’t it ironic to read a GTY blog making a big deal about associations?

It is necessary for FBF people to maintain their credibility by continually taking swipes at MacArthur. Backhanded compliments are legitimate means of attack.

I am too young to have a stake in the anti-MacArthur rhetoric. I’ve never read one of his books or even listened to one of his sermons. I’ve never read anything by Piper, either.

I am well aware MacArthur has been a frequent target of some fundamentalists (I won’t weigh into the “blood controversy,” or the legitimacy of the protests either way) for quite some time. However, I see little evidence the FBFI is motivated by some dark, nefarious need to criticize MacArthur on this point. On the contrary, MacArthur does seem to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. How can he issue such sweeping charges against charismatics on the one hand, while continuing to embrace a well-known pastor who holds these very views on the other?

There is no need to see Don’s piece as a gleeful attack upon MacArthur, and every need to consider the substance of the article.

Will Don address the matter of FBFI members who attend the Shepherd’s Conference?

Does John MacArthur know who Don or the FBFI is?

Is Don seeking to “gain a brother” in his outreach to JM?

Tyler, I don’t understand why MacArthur chooses to fellowship at the levels he does with charismatics. I don’t understand why he chooses to fellowship at the levels he does with presbyterians. Charismatics and presbyterians are both guilty of speculative-driven theology. The irony of presbyterians arguing that one should hold to scripture as the final authority was aparently lost of them. The thing that apparently unites them is the reformed view of salvation. I can only guess that they see that as first importance. While I agree the gospel is of first importance, I disagree that the reformed view is of first importance.

As for the FBF, there is too much vested interest in being anti-MacArthur to backtrack now. Too many are still kissing rings to move up within the group.

[James K] As for the FBF, there is too much vested interest in being anti-MacArthur to backtrack now. Too many are still kissing rings to move up within the group.

Yup!

I’d be impressed if Proclaim and Defend proclaimed and defended the blood issue and buried that. Until then … ho hum!