False prophets or Men of God?

[ORUTerry]

I also listen to MacArthur and Sproul (small doses) as well as Piper. I find MacArthur to be dogmatic and a bit self righteous/smug - though I like his teaching style. He is a strict dispensationalist and both Sproul and he are adamantly against any manifestation of the Spirit. I find their teachings on this - as well as on escatology (MacArthur) - simplistic and dogmatic. They either bend Scripture to say what they want or they ignore what they find uncomfortable. I am not a theologian but I know how to read - and a little thing about logic. They pride themseleves in their intellectual and thoughful approach to Scripture and that is good. But they can't seem to let Scripture speak for itself without explaining why it doesn't mean what it says. They bring an obvious bias and don't seem to be very open to other perspectives.

 

Pentecostals and Charismatics (two different things) have brought a lot of the criticism on themselves by their excesses and shoddy theology/scholarship. But that does not negate the reality of the workings and person of the Holy Spirit.

 

Here is a link to a conference that MacArthur and Sproul are headlining next week that concerns the Holy Spirit:

 

Strange Fire Seminar

[ORUTerry]

I listen to a fair amount of sermon podcasts. The teachers/pastors include: John Piper, Andy Stanley, Ravi Zacharias, Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler, RC Sproul, James McDonald and Robert Morris. Obviously I don't agree with everything that these men teach, but I have learned to bite (listen), chew (consider/think about/compare to Scripture)/spit out (discard anything that is not confirmed by Scripture).

 

I was watching Charles Stanley (old line Baptist preacher located in Atlanta) earlier this year and heard him preaching on healing. Now Charles Stanley is a true blue Baptist (former head of the Southern Baptist convention) and I was interested to hear what he had to say. His sermon basically was a mea culpa saying he had been wrong - that God does bring healing in today's world. I almost fell off my couch. I have always respected Dr. Stanley because he is obviously a man of God. Now I see that he not only hears from God, but is open to change in his thinking and theology.

[ORUalum]

I also listen to MacArthur and Sproul (small doses) as well as Piper. I find MacArthur to be dogmatic and a bit self righteous/smug - though I like his teaching style. He is a strict dispensationalist and both Sproul and he are adamantly against any manifestation of the Spirit. I find their teachings on this - as well as on escatology (MacArthur) - simplistic and dogmatic. They either bend Scripture to say what they want or they ignore what they find uncomfortable. I am not a theologian but I know how to read - and a little thing about logic. They pride themseleves in their intellectual and thoughful approach to Scripture and that is good. But they can't seem to let Scripture speak for itself without explaining why it doesn't mean what it says. They bring an obvious bias and don't seem to be very open to other perspectives.

 

Pentecostals and Charismatics (two different things) have brought a lot of the criticism on themselves by their excesses and shoddy theology/scholarship. But that does not negate the reality of the workings and person of the Holy Spirit.

 

Here is a link to a conference that MacArthur and Sproul are headlining next week that concerns the Holy Spirit:

 

Strange Fire Seminar

great points ORUTerry!!!

 

what i hate about MacArthur on the gifts of the spirit, is that he will use examples of the worst "ministers" in the movement to slander the entire movement.  as if everyone in pentecostal or charismatic churches has the same beliefs these uneducated/poorly trained ministers do.

 

the interesing thing on Sproul is that he once considered himself a charismatic.  i watched a youtube video sometime ago where he discusses why he no longer believes in the gifts of the spirit being for today.  apparently early in his ministry he was facing a big decision on where to go or what to do next.  he said several of his friends gave him different prophesies about where to go.  this seemed to disallusion him and he would go on to decide that the gifts of the sprit ceased.

 

Piper seems to be more open minded and then you have younger calvinist preachers like Mark Driscoll who are completely open to the gifts of the spirit.

[Dr. Cornelius]

great points ORUTerry!!!

 

what i hate about MacArthur on the gifts of the spirit, is that he will use examples of the worst "ministers" in the movement to slander the entire movement.  as if everyone in pentecostal or charismatic churches has the same beliefs these uneducated/poorly trained ministers do.

 

the interesing thing on Sproul is that he once considered himself a charismatic.  i watched a youtube video sometime ago where he discusses why he no longer believes in the gifts of the spirit being for today.  apparently early in his ministry he was facing a big decision on where to go or what to do next.  he said several of his friends gave him different prophesies about where to go.  this seemed to disallusion him and he would go on to decide that the gifts of the sprit ceased.

 

Piper seems to be more open minded and then you have younger calvinist preachers like Mark Driscoll who are completely open to the gifts of the spirit.

 

Here is a fairly long video of Driscoll giving his explaintion of why he isn't a cessationist. It's worth watching.

 

http://vimeo.com/29820825

[oruvoice]

what i hate about MacArthur on the gifts of the spirit, is that he will use examples of the worst "ministers" in the movement to slander the entire movement.  as if everyone in pentecostal or charismatic churches has the same beliefs these uneducated/poorly trained ministers do.

 

I hear you. But, when seemingly no one within the charismatic/pentecostal movement is willing to take on the CLEARLY false teachings/teachers, it is good to hear SOMEONE offer a different perspective.

 

As ORUGRAD stated earlier, we have to be careful to not go too far into the ditch, in either direction.

 

I'd like to thank everyone who has posted on this topic. Very enlightening and thoughtful discussion!

[vcboy2000]

What's interesting to me is that I've listened to "Grace To You" (MacArthur's radio broadcast) for a while, and never picked up on his views of the Charismatic movement. I've just always enjoyed how he teaches.

 

I tuned in to a little of his Strange Fire Conference streaming online, and was floored by his generalization of the Charismatic movement as cult-like similar to Mormonism. At least RC Sproul, in his session, referred to Charismatics as his 'brothers'. MacArthur's statements made it seem as though Charismatics are not even apart of the body of Christ. I appreciate his zeal for truth and sound doctrine. We need more preachers that value it. At the same time, his views seem to be built on the sensationalist acts of the extreme which does not reflect the view of the majority, and can be divisive. It's hard to encourage someone to hear the truth and change the way they think, when they feel like they're being insulted and misunderstood the whole time. Not effective at all. 

[oruvoice]

vcboy...I understand your point. And, while I agree that most 'individuals' within the charismatic movement would distance themselves from the excesses (especially the name it and claim it teachings) and adhere to the sufficiency of God's Word, the fact is that MOST of what is seen on TV as a representation of the power of the Holy Spirit is clearly garbage. And yet, this is what unbelievers see as what Christianity is all about.

 

Meahwhile, the prominent voices within the charismatic movement (seemingly to me), don't/won't speak out against false teachers/false teachings.

[Cletus]

John MacArthur is old news to folks who have studied the Bible for years.  I remember talking about his book Charismatic Chaos on our EMR wing in the early 1980's.  He quoted three ORU professors in the volume and made them look silly, as I recall. One prof he quoted was Charles Farah who would have agreed with some of what MacArthur wrote in the book.

 

When I graduated from ORU I was interested to watch him defend himself publically in court on television. As I recall, a college student attending his church committed suicide and the family blamed MacArthur because he advised the student to see doctors and psychiatrists MacArthur's church prearranged for the man. The family sued the church and it was national news. The father died this past year and that was in our recent news here to remind everyone of us again. They say the lawsuit was dismissed (after 8 years of fighting it and lots of money spent by MacArthur and his team) but the medical community and psychology have not forgotten what the famed preacher did. When I hear him on the radio my mind goes back over 30 years and recalls what he wrote, what happened in his church. It's hard to forget. Even today, as I work at a psychiatric hospital, people know John MacArthur, not as a confident speaking radio preacher but as one who has placed suspicion on us pastors who visit and work at the hospitals (Rick Warren did a similar thing claiming all his housing allowance as salary and now the IRS is suspect of us, too).

 

As far as the charismatics and other Pentecostals go, they have their issues, so when I think of MacArthur, strange fire and others that we know, they have created problems for all of us regular ministers who show up every day and try to do our job for the Lord.

 

One thing I do disagree with MacArthur is that he misinterprets 1 Cor. 13:8-12 in his study Bible, but that is for another discussion. He could do better exegesis on that passage of the Bible.  Most Bible students would agree with me.

[oruvoice]

Cletus...I would be interested to read about the lawsuit you are referring to. Do you have a link?

 

And, I would love to hear your take on 1 Cor. 13:8-12. I assume you are referring to the part that says "tongues will cease"? On that portion of Scripture, do you recommend any charismatic authors that exegete that passage more clearly? 

 

1 Corinthians 12-14 is a portion of Scripture that I have looooong wrestled with. Being raised Church of Christ and then attending ORU, tongues is the subject I have studied the most over the past 25+ years. I really do enjoy a robust/honest discussion on tongues.

 

That said, I fully realize that approaching that subject in this forum probably isn't a good idea.

[ORUalum]

Mark Driscoll crashes the MacArthur conference/book promotion to hand out and promote his own book.  LINK

 

I don't know if they addressed Driscoll in the conference, but MacArthur and his right hand man, Phil Johnson, have been taking shots at Driscoll for awhile.  Rather than sit down and hash out their differences they snipe at one another electronically (and now apparently stage publicity stunts)...not exactly a good witness to non-believers.

[Cletus]

Cletus...I would be interested to read about the lawsuit you are referring to. Do you have a link?

 

And, I would love to hear your take on 1 Cor. 13:8-12. I assume you are referring to the part that says "tongues will cease"? On that portion of Scripture, do you recommend any charismatic authors that exegete that passage more clearly? 

 

1 Corinthians 12-14 is a portion of Scripture that I have looooong wrestled with. Being raised Church of Christ and then attending ORU, tongues is the subject I have studied the most over the past 25+ years. I really do enjoy a robust/honest discussion on tongues.

 

That said, I fully realize that approaching that subject in this forum probably isn't a good idea.

Hello oruvoice,

 

Below on the link is the recent news article I saw about the death of father of the son who committed suicide involved with MacArthur and his church. It reminded me of the public news it became years ago when I watched the show it became on television. The article mentioned that MacArthur discouraged the boy and family from not seeing a psychiatrist. That would get a lot of preachers in trouble today if they said that.

 

http://northhollywood.patch.com/groups/obituaries/p/walter-nally-who-brought-famous-malpractice-lawsuit-aec37f947a3

 

As for the 1 Corinthians 13 passage, fundamentalists claim "the perfect" of verse 10 is the Bible. That couldn't be true because there was no Bible as we hold in our hands in the apostle's day and the book wasn't put together until the third century--with no public access until centuries later. Some fundamentalists say Paul was speaking prophetically of the future. That's interesting that they would say that because they do not believe in future prophecies and such that charismatics promote. The Bible is it they say-right? We don't need all those prophecies and things like that. They break their own rules to promote their own ideas.  Cults do that sort of thing.

 

The plain reading is that when we get to heaven (the perfect-complete, etc) we won't need all these things that we have on earth to help with our connection with God. We will have a perfect connection with God as we are with him face to face! If we take the verses in context--has knowledge vanished away? verse 8. Really? I doubt you would find anyone who would say that.  But tongues have ceased? Logically as one plainly reads the text, you can't have one without the other.

 

Fundamentalists and cessasionists have it wrong and interpret the topic with bad exegesis. It's too bad because they claim to be so Bible-oriented. Makes me wonder what else they've mistaught.

 

I don't appreciate extremists on any topic. Tongues (or the prayer language as the ORU people taught us-it seems people accept that terminology better than tongues--the word tongues scares people for some reason) are helpful when used the right way.

 

Too bad people misinterpret the concept to the extreme in both ways.

[tmh8286]

Unfortunately, to those outside the Christian community all the petty squabbling about theological differences comes across about like the infighting between republicans during the recent government shutdown - and the effect is alienation. 

 

The focus of all Christians needs to be the spreading of the Gospel and the love of Christ to unbelievers, and not bashing our brothers and sisters in the Lord because their views are at variance with our own.

[oruvoice]

Unfortunately, to those outside the Christian community all the petty squabbling about theological differences comes across about like the infighting between republicans during the recent government shutdown - and the effect is alienation. 

 

The focus of all Christians needs to be the spreading of the Gospel and the love of Christ to unbelievers, and not bashing our brothers and sisters in the Lord because their views are at variance with our own.

 

True. But, at some point there is a line and we do need to expose and denounce false doctrines and destructive heresies.

 

Honest discussion about the nature and use of spiritual gifts is one thing. The never ending stream of quacks that get on TV and turn Christianity into 'get rich quick scheme' and spend 99% of their time teaching you how to get stuff from God, is something entirely different...in my opinion.

 

Jesus (and the apostles) called out the false teachers of their day and warned (on many occasions) about false prophets in the end times.

 

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

 

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

 

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

 

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."

 

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

 

[tmh8286]

Good points all, voice, and I was probably threadjacking to an extent.  Those that are promoting false doctrines are just as off-putting as the squabbling. 
 
At the same time, in this time when we are seeing greater and greater pressures being placed on traditional Christian values and our rights to practice them, I think Christians need to be uniting, focusing on the commonalities of our beliefs and not on our differences.  I guess that was the point I was making

[oruvoice]

Your point is valid. And, I agree.

 

However, I watch A LOT of "Christian" television and my belief is that the OVERWHELMING majority of those people ARE NOT preaching the Gospel. There is MUCH entertainment, asking for donations, preaching that tells you how to "write your own ticket with God", and other spiritual garbage.

 

My point is that a superficial "peace among the brethren" is of lesser importance than an adherence to sound biblical teaching on sin, the cross, salvation, grace, etc. My fear is that the 'world' turns on most Christian television and thinks that is what true Christianlty is all about.

 

My Directv has 15 Christian stations. I'm sure you have a similar amount on your cable/satellite TV. My challenge to you (and others) is tune in and see how often you hear a clear/sound explanation of the Gospel. I can tell you....it is very rare. Sadly.

[Dr. Cornelius]

Good points all, voice, and I was probably threadjacking to an extent.  Those that are promoting false doctrines are just as off-putting as the squabbling. 

 

At the same time, in this time when we are seeing greater and greater pressures being placed on traditional Christian values and our rights to practice them, I think Christians need to be uniting, focusing on the commonalities of our beliefs and not on our differences.  I guess that was the point I was making

 

Even though we as Christians may be pressed on all sides by culture truth is still more important than complete unity.

 

Albert Mohler gave a good speech at BYU a few days ago that touched on this. ( I know that this isn't what you were driving at in your post TMH but I though Mohler's speech was worth sharing)

 

 

..This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today. I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. I love and respect you as friends, and as friends we would speak only what we believe to be true, especially on matters of eternal significance. We inhabit separate and irreconcilable theological worlds, made clear with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet here I am, and gladly so. We will speak to one another of what we most sincerely believe to be true, precisely because we love and respect one another.

 

I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together. I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe will have grave and devastating human consequences. Your faith has held high the importance of marriage and family. Your theology requires such an affirmation, and it is lovingly lived out by millions of Mormon families. That is why I and my evangelical brothers and sisters are so glad to have Mormon neighbors. We stand together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of human flourishing...

[ORUalum]

We've drifted some, but I thought this was pretty interesting so I went and read his speech and the Deseret article about it.

 

To what end are Richard Land, George Wood and Mohler speaking at BYU?  I guess they would say to stand together and push back against an ever secularized culture.  Where is that found in the great commission?  It seems to me, if enough hearts are changed and lives transformed the culture will naturally follow. 

 

The Mormons have been seeking wider acceptance among Evangelicals.  Inviting these evangelical leaders on campus seems like an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent.

[oruvoice]

We've drifted some, but I thought this was pretty interesting so I went and read his speech and the Deseret article about it.

 

To what end are Richard Land, George Wood and Mohler speaking at BYU?  I guess they would say to stand together and push back against an ever secularized culture.  Where is that found in the great commission?  It seems to me, if enough hearts are changed and lives transformed the culture will naturally follow. 

 

The Mormons have been seeking wider acceptance among Evangelicals.  Inviting these evangelical leaders on campus seems like an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent.

 

Precisely! This is what I was getting at in the other thread, about Christianity/Politics. It is NOT our job to change laws or attempt to impose our will politically to try and make this world more 'moral'.

 

We have tens of thousands of people in Tulsa and millions of people nationwide that go to church on Sunday and claim to be Christians, yet our culture has completely fallen apart. The reason is not because we have failed to impose our morality on people. In my opinion, it's because churches are more interested in making people feel comfortable and accepted, than confronting them with their sin and the true Gospel.

 

And, in my opinion, one of the main culprits is the 'health & wealth' gospel, that turns Christianity into a religion of self gratification.

 

And, when I see things like the Mormons being accepted by evangelicals, it makes me cringe. It's almost like there is this ecumenical spirit that is working to unite ALL beliefs into one world religion, that is devoid of objective truth and will lead people away from the truth, under the guise of peace and love for all. Seems like I have even read something about this one world false religion, someplace?