|
|
Post by robin on Dec 29, 2008 13:10:17 GMT -8
Glad I could help.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 26, 2009 9:24:09 GMT -8
Some more thoughts: The rant in the video intro against personal relationships isn't very balanced. As the above passage in John indicates, Jesus wants an intimate friendship with us. That's what we should mean by "personal relationship". Once MacArthur gets started, he plays fast and loose with a variety of terms. Quoted from MacArthur's transcript: By mixing words like "freedom" with "health and wealth" and "personal satisfaction", MacArthur makes it sounds like all of these concepts are equally off the mark. He's throwing baby out with bathwater. But surely, freedom is at the core of what it means to be a follower of Christ, even though at the same time in some key aspects it is also like slavery. Hey everyone, I don't think that John MacArthur is saying that a personal relationship with God is bad, or is opposed to it. Rather, I think what he is trying to point out is what does that phrase REALLY mean. I think he's saying that we throw around the term too loosely, and that SOME have corrupted what the concept is. Some have turned it into something that is very selfish -- turned it into a concept of it being all about us and what we want instead of our focus being on God. I think this is an honest critique of how we sometimes all view our relationship with God. I think John MacArthur's intention here was to challenge us in this area and to convict us. Does that make sense? This would seem to fit with his actual sermon in talking about surrendering to Christ. John MacArthur is NOT opposing a personal relationship with Christ. See this video that was on his website: What he is doing here is challenging what has been going on in some evangelical circles, and their use of the term "personal relationship." For some, it has become a selfish thing. What he is specifically opposing is the Word of Faith/Prosperity gospel teaching. The prosperity gospel is all about us, and tends to view God as a vending machine. I have several books written by him. I have not read them all. One of them that I own that I have not yet read is called Alone With God. If John MacArthur were opposed to the idea of having a personal relationship with God, I don't think he would write a book on being alone with Him. This is what the back of the book reads: " A great champion of prayer once compared the praying Christian to a blacksmith stoking his fire. It's in the intimacy of prayer--when we're alone with God--that we keep the iron hot and God skillfully refines and shapes us. And like the blacksmith trade, prayer is not for those timid of work. Intercession is a difficult, perplexing, and solitary battle that is won or lost from on moment to the next. But the battle to pray is worth fighting. prayer anchors the soul while lifiting us to the very throne of God. It's the language of heaven and the key to unleashing God's power in our lives. In Alone With God, John MacArthur explores the anatomy of effective prayer and presents a refreshing, biblical model you can begin following today. A powerful tool for greater fervency and frequency in your communion with the Lord, Alone with God is the primer on prayer you'll turn to again and again!" From the book's description, there is no way that John MacArthur is opposed to a personal relationship with Christ. As believers we've got to be careful of falling into the same trap that John MacArthur himself sometimes falls into -- and that error occurs when we fail to investigate the full perspective of a particular follower of Christ. I agree with the critique of John MacArthur being unbalanced on certain topics (one of them being charismatic and Pentecostal churches), but we all need to be careful that we are not unbalanced in regard to others. Anyone can take any word or phrase or sentence and pull it from any book, sermon, or teaching, and take it out of context, saying that someone teaches something that they don't teach. When you look at all of John MacArthur's stuff, and take it together, he does not oppose a personal relationship with God. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I'm willing to defend John MacArthur on this subject. At the same time, I realize that John MacArthur is a mere human, and like all of us, he can sometimes hold to opinions that are biased. This does not change the fact that I do highly respect him as a Christian leader and author. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 26, 2009 18:31:38 GMT -8
I'm sure he doesn't. I just wished he had presented a more balanced assessment, that's all. He actually made some good points. It just left me wanting a reminder that in the final analysis God is our Father and we are friends of Christ and not just slaves. As far as MacArthur is concerned, I haven't really read much of his stuff. I have read "Charismatic Chaos" and I agreed with much of his critique of extremist foolishness in pentencostal/ charismatic circles but felt that he really threw the baby out with the bathwater. I've listened to a few of his sermons and for the most part liked them. I know lots of folks who love him. I don't, however, like his assessment of apologists such as Hugh Ross and others who hold to an old earth progressive creationist standpoint. From what I've gathered, MacArthur doesn't seem to tolerate a diversity of opinions on secondary doctrines such as the age of the universe, etc.. But, hey, he's a brother in Christ and he has been and is pointing lots of people to a deeper pursuit of what they say they believe. God can use all our divergent voices to build his kingdom, if we're submitted to the Holy Spirit. Cheers. Sorry to dog on one of your favs a bit. Feel free and bash on Chesterton or Yancey or one of my other favorites sometime |
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 26, 2009 18:53:12 GMT -8
I'm sure he doesn't. I just wished he had presented a more balanced assessment, that's all. He actually made some good points. It just left me wanting a reminder that in the final analysis God is our Father and we are friends of Christ and not just slaves. As far as MacArthur is concerned, I haven't really read much of his stuff. I have read "Charismatic Chaos" and I agreed with much of his critique of extremist foolishness in pentencostal/ charismatic circles but felt that he really threw the baby out with the bathwater. I've listened to a few of his sermons and for the most part liked them. I know lots of folks who love him. I don't, however, like his assessment of apologists such as Hugh Ross and others who hold to an old earth progressive creationist standpoint. From what I've gathered, MacArthur doesn't seem to tolerate a diversity of opinions on secondary doctrines such as the age of the universe, etc.. Cheers. Sorry to dog on one of your favs a bit. Feel free and bash on Chesterton or Yancey or one of my other favorites sometime It is fine. I'm just saying that all of us need to be very careful how we evaluate other Christian's words  If we're not careful, we can tear other Christians down, such as a Christian author, when really they're not saying what we think they are saying. John MacArthur himself is guilty of this, as we each are. It is hard not to be like that. Sometimes it just takes reading something a second time to realize that that's not really what they mean. Sometimes it also takes another person to state their opinion. And yes, it would have been nice if he would have clarified what he meant regarding the personal relationship with God comment. There are many things that various pastors say that can be taken wrongly, and are going to be taken wrongly by some people. I think pastors try their best to clarify what they mean, but still, they still will say things that could have been better clarified. As far as Charismatic Chaos is concerned, I have heard of the book. I've never read it, but I would like to. I would like to hear what he has to say. I have read Rich Nathan's response to Charismatic Chaos, though. His opinion seemed to be about the same as yours. I know very well that there are some churches and people in the charismatic and Pentecostal movement that have gone to excesses. Unfortunately, as with any other movement, it is the worst example that serves as people's stereotype of that movement. I don't know anything about his views of creation. As I said before, he is a human pastor, and he does have faults. That is why I said that I do not agree with everything that my favorite authors have to say. They are human, and because of that they are going to be wrong sometimes. They are also going to do things that other humans do, such as be intolerable to people who have differences of opinion on secondary issues. No pastor or speaker is perfect. And as such, all pastors are open to being critiqued. I think we just need to make sure that we are balanced about it. After all, as you said, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Exactly. Which is what this pro board seems to be about, right? Now, I do think there is a line between what is Christian and what is not Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 26, 2009 19:06:01 GMT -8
That's definitely something I know first hand For sure (on both points) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2009 14:04:33 GMT -8
Just stumbled across this verse which I think must be inserted into this topic:
Hosea 2:16
"In that day," declares the LORD, "you will call me 'my husband'; you will no longer call me 'my master. '
I believe that Hosea is decisively speaking about the age of the church in this passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 27, 2009 14:12:50 GMT -8
I am a son not a slave and my wife is daughter not a maid servant. ROMANS 8:15 "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2009 14:58:05 GMT -8
But wouldn't you have to say that we are both slaves in one sense and sons in another, if you take the New Testament as a whole?
It's clear to me, however, that our sonship is primary, and our "slavehood" is a limited metaphor.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 27, 2009 15:52:27 GMT -8
"limited metaphor" = . . .?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2009 22:25:26 GMT -8
As I've heard someone say before, it (the slave metaphor) is not a metaphor that's meant to "walk on all fours"- that is, it only applies to one aspect (or certain aspects) of our relationship with Christ, and decidedly doesn't apply to others.
On the other hand, our relationship to the Father and Christ as described as sons and daughters, is a much fuller metaphor that can be applied consistently in almost every sense.
See what I'm saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 27, 2009 22:42:55 GMT -8
not really. . . saddened... Ponders rendering Ted Kennedy into Oil and natural gas for the purposes of heating the and cooling the houses of the poor in Mass because he is so confused!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2009 9:04:47 GMT -8
Okay, how about this:
We are to consider ourselves slaves to Christ in that we don't get to call the shots, we work on his timetable, we don't own anything- He owns everything, we're ready to work without temporal reward, etc...
But we aren't slaves when it comes to the intimacy we have with the Father and the kinship we have with the Son.
We aren't slaves in that we've been adopted into his family and are inheritors of his promises.
We aren't slaves in that we aren't motivated by fear but, as children, by love.
So the slave metaphor only applies in limited senses, but the child metaphor applies much more fully across the board*
*In fact so much so that I don't even really consider it just a "metaphor".
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 28, 2009 19:13:30 GMT -8
Josh, I am confused "We are to consider ourselves slaves to Christ in that we don't get to call the shots, we work on his timetable, we don't own anything- He owns everything, we're ready to work without temporal reward, etc..." In what ways is that materially different than a scriptural relationship between a Godly parent who is in charge and who assigns chores without material reward and a Godly Child. . . I still do not find the need for the slave analogy whatsoever. That is just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 29, 2009 20:01:00 GMT -8
Okay, but if you/ve read this whole thread you know that Scripture itself uses the "slave" metaphor. If one holds to the inspiration and authority of scripture, then one can't just pick and choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 29, 2009 23:08:20 GMT -8
Josh sure we can. The scripture talks about sun rises and sun sets on the days of creation and magically transform what does not even seem to be a metaphor but more a mythological tail of creation into a multi billion year times pan with days being metaphors for cosmic epochs. I would call that picking the choose. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 14:14:11 GMT -8
well, you might think it an outlandish take on the text of Genesis (I disagree, but I'll let me comments on that thread stand for my perspective), but I think this is different.
In that case, I am saying what I think the text means. That's different than just completely rejecting the text, which it seems like you're implying we should do when we read the New Testament in some instances likening us to slaves.
Am I missing something here?
I do get the sense that you have a different view than I do on the inspiration and authority of Scripture than I do. Is that true?
I'd be interested in discussing that on the Inspiration sub-forum if you would.
|
|
If we're not careful, we can tear other Christians down, such as a Christian author, when really they're not saying what we think they are saying. John MacArthur himself is guilty of this, as we each are. It is hard not to be like that. Sometimes it just takes reading something a second time to realize that that's not really what they mean. Sometimes it also takes another person to state their opinion.