Re: ? John MacArthur

Hi, Adam....

I can understand your concerns as I once approved of John MacArthur as well until I dug a little deeper into his theology.  His doctrine is that justification and sanctification are both necessary for salvation, which is not the biblical view.  In fact, that is the Papist view:  faith plus obedience = final justification/vindication.  It's also John Piper's teaching.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, however, teaches that salvation is by justification by faith alone.   Although true faith does produce good works, those good works could never withstand the judgment of God in the final judgment.  Sanctification is a process and that process can never merit salvation whatsoever:

XII. Of Good Works.

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Although true and living faith does produce a "credible profession of faith" and the "fruits of faith", good works cannot now nor will they ever contribute one whit towards our justification, which is the sole basis of salvation in the first place.  If we could add anything to the finished work of Christ (John 19:30) then Christ did not pay for all of our sins but we must pay for part of them.  Since even Christians continue to sin (1 John 1:8-10) then it follows that from beginning to end our salvation is rooted and grounded in the objective work of Christ on the cross, not our level of sanctification or obedience or faithfulness.  While I might agree that sanctification is an essential witness to true and living faith, it is not now nor ever will be necessary for our salvation.  Salvation is either by grace or by works.  It  cannot be both.

Which brings me to the point that MacArthur confuses justification (imputed righteousness which is perfect) with sanctification (infused and subjective and imperfect).  An article at Trinity Foundation makes this clear:

MacArthur begins on a promising note:

”Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God’s sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. I have never taught that some pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation” (xiii).

The reader should keep in mind that the Roman Church also does not teach that pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Canon I of the decrees of the Council of Trent says: “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.”

Nor did the Judaizers teach that pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Paul damned the Judaizers for teaching that post-salvation works of righteousness are necessary for entrance into Heaven. The contention of both the Roman Church and the Judaizers is that one cannot be saved without post-salvation, that is post-regeneration, works of righteousness. The Judaizers taught that one must be circumcised and obey other parts of the Mosaic law; the Roman Church teaches both the necessity and meritoriousness of good works of Christians for salvation. In short, MacArthur’s “clarification” still leaves him among the non-Christians.

By contrast, Biblical teaching, is, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

”Those whom God effectually calls he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, that act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them.... Faith...is the alone instrument of justification....”

The Biblical teaching and the Protestant position is that neither pre- nor post-regeneration works are either meritorious or necessary for justification. It is the only imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith that makes a sinner acceptable to God.

MacArthur rejects the Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many people believe justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, God says, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that God makes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We are not only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification by Faith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusing Christ’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness to our account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. He regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares that we are righteous.... There is a reality--God gives us righteousness, and thus he can declare that we are righteous” (Justification, 121). MacArthur writes: “The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him” (Justification, 122).

MacArthur confuses justification, regeneration, and sanctification:

”The word justification is a technical term that refers to our legal standing before God: We have been declared to be just because of our faith. [This is not the Biblical or Protestant view.] But the word [justification] also embraces a radical and real transformation. Our moral character has been altered eternally through regeneration. Justification by faith means that God has both declared us righteous and made us righteous. We have been regenerated - made new by faith.... Justification is not only a state of being righteous; it is actual regeneration. We are made righteous by faith” (Justification, 132).

This, of course, is the official teaching of the Roman Church. Canon XI of the Council of Trent states: “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.” Canon XII states: “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.”

MacArthur’s view of justification is Rome’s; it is opposed to the Protestant position as expressed by the Westminster Confession of Faith. That Confession quite clearly teaches that sinners are justified “not by infusing righteousness into them...[nor] for anything wrought in them”; that is, the Confession rejects MacArthur’s view.


From:  The Gospel According to John MacArthur.

The ordo salutis is from beginning to end a work of God's grace and begins with unconditional election.  Sanctification is a small part of the ordo and not the whole.  Lest we forget, Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.  (Hebrews 12:2).

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

On 9/20/2012 11:46 AM, Adam Cummings wrote:

I came across your blog regarding the charismatic movement (a post in 2007) and was excited until I saw you profess such a godly man as MacArthur in the "heresy section" because he teaches that Jesus must be your Lord.  Men like Zane Hodges claim, because of the denial of Lordship Salvation, that you can live like the devil and still  be saved.  That, sir, is heresy. MacArthur teaches Lordship Salvation because of his desire that Christians produce fruit and live for Christ as they are commanded by Christ to do. He does not teach a works salvation, nor does he teach perfection (which is not a result of the lordship teaching at all, the logic there definitely failing).

He clearly teaches that works flow from salvation, and he would die on that hill.

You place him in the "heretic" corner because of a characteristic you place on him that he himself does not claim, and thus you discredit--through your words--a great man of God.  I'm sure MacArthur would say he doesn't care, since the gospel is being preached.  But, I find it a little sad.

I wish you the best, and I stand with you with your Calvinist beliefs (our God is sovereign) and, for the most part, your cessationist convictions.

Blessings.

Adam Michael Cummings

--
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. Visit 1662 Book of Common Prayer: Daily Prayer and Reasonable Christian Blog

John Piper's Ambiguous Doctrine of Justification

I found this critique of John Piper's doctrine of justification by faith at the Contrast blog on Wordpress. You might find it interesting. Piper is quoted as saying:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Charismatics and Pentecostals Jump on Board the New Perspectives Bandwagon: A New Wind of False Doctrine

Amos Yong, a charismatic theologian at Regent University, in his book review of Don Garlington's, In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), comments on Assembly of God scholar Frank Macchia's new book:

What I have observed is not that Renewal (by which I mean pentecostal-and-charismatic, broadly speaking) biblical scholarship has engaged the NPP--they might well have, but I am not as up-to-date in this area--but that pentecostal theologians and, especially, systematicians have made some recent proposals at least consistent with, if not presuming of, some of the basic NPP proposals as defended by Garlington. For instance, one of the main points in Frank D. Macchia's Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006) concerns the interconnectedness between the doctrines of justification and sanctification. For Macchia, the pentecostal theological emphasis on the Spirit means that justification can never be merely a forensic imputation of alien righteousness, but must also be a pneumatological impartation of the righteousness of Christ resulting in a transformed life. As an extension of this idea (although actually preceding Macchia's book by two years), pentecostal systematician Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen--although he prefers to call himself an ecumenical theologian--has argued in his One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Liturgical, 2004) that justification is intimately tied in not only with sanctification but also with full salvation understood as glorification. More specifically, drawing from the new Finnish Lutheran scholarship that has unveiled an emphasis in the early Luther on salvation understood as linking justification and what the Eastern Orthodox tradition has called theosis (deification, or union with God), Kärkkäinen claims that such a holistic soteriology is consistent with the pentecostal pneumatological focus on the Spirit's work from conversion through to sanctification and final union with God in Christ. While both Macchia and Kärkkäinen interact with the NPP, they have done so (thus far) only in passing. Yet it is interesting to note that pentecostal systematicians are coming to similar theological conclusions as is Garlington, even if the latter approaches St. Paul from the intersection of an evangelical Reformed perspective and a covenantal monist hermeneutic arguably in the background of apostolic Christianity.

This raises the question of whether or not Renewal biblical scholars might also find in the NPP new approaches to the Pauline corpus that may open up uncharted paths of inquiry. I hazard to guess that engaging the NPP will lead to an expansion of the traditional Renewal focus on Luke-Acts so that Luke will be read together with Paul rather than either against Paul or only after bracketing the Pauline witness. The NPP, at least as interpreted by Garlington, seems congenial to Renewal sensibilities and commitments. Only the ongoing conversation will determine what else the NPP can offer not only to Renewal biblical scholarship, but also to the wider domain of Christian biblical interpretation. [Amos Yong: Book Review: In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews: As appearing in the Fall 2007 issue of the PNEUMA REVIEW]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the pentecostal/charismatic movement will latch on to anyone or any doctrine which will legitimize their "experience" in the eyes of the academic and theological world. First they grab hold of any liberal theologian who will endorse them, i.e. Harvey Cox, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, et. al., and now they are likewise jumping on the Federal Vision/New Perspectives on Paul bandwagon. Peter Althouse, a professor of theology at Southeastern University is an expert on Moltmann's theology, for example.

Amazingly, even John Wesley, the theological father of the wesleyan-holiness movement which gave rise to classical pentecostalism, would not have sold out justification by faith alone as his 52 Standard Sermons demonstrate. Wesley clearly upheld the distinction between justification and sanctification:

1. But what is it to be "justified?" What is "justification?" This was the Second thing which I proposed to show. And it is evident, from what has been already observed, that it is not the being made actually just and righteous. This is "sanctification;" which is, indeed, in some degree, the immediate fruit of justification, but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of God, and of a totally different nature. The one implies what God does for us through his Son; the other, what he works in us by his Spirit. So that, although some rare instances may be found, wherein the term "justified" or "justification" is used in so wide a sense as to include "sanctification" also; yet, in general use, they are sufficiently distinguished from each other, both by St. Paul and the other inspired writers. [John Wesley, Justification by Faith, Sermon 5]

Yet we have Frank Macchia, a leading Assemblies of God scholar, committing the Roman Catholic error of turning justification from an imputed righteousness to an infused righteousness. The wickedness of sinful men never ceases to amaze me. The Wesleyan/Arminian theology of entire sanctification seems to inevitably lead to a denial of the very Gospel itself if this new trend in Pentecostal theology is any indication at all.

As Luther said, the doctrine of justification by faith alone and its forensic and imputed nature is the very essence of the Gospel by which a church stands or falls. By this definition then, Frank Macchia has publicly declared himself as a heretic who promotes the merits of an infused righteousness which is "a pneumatological impartation of the righteousness of Christ resulting in a transformed life." In other words, the new wind of pentecostal heresy is that righteousness and sanctification are no longer distinct, a distinction which even John Wesley acknowledged. Now, according to pentecostal theologians, justification is the righteousness of Christ "imparted" and "resulting in a transformed life." Apparently, Macchia is not the first to confuse sanctification with justification in the pentecostal camp since Yong also refers to Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, who is apparently Finnish. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen conflates justification with sanctification by appealing to the Eastern Orthdox doctrine of deification. If salvation is absolutely holistic, as Yong seems to favorably speak of the Finnish pentecostal theology, then a biblical and pauline emphasis on a forensic and imputed justification on the basis of faith--which is itself a divinely bestowed gift which enables belief, repentance and conversion--is thrown out. Instead we have the Holy Spirit infusing righteousness into the soul and in effect the doctrine of sanctification is lost or confused with justification.

Furthermore, I have to ask, is it any wonder that John Piper, another charismatic, is now endorsing Doug Wilson, who equivocates on justification in another area? That is, Wilson says that justification is "bigger" than the punctiliar imputation of justification of the individual who has faith. Wilson's doctrine is that at the final judgment, our "justification" is bigger than that and includes a "vindication" and an adoption of believers as sons of God, presumably based on how faithful they were to the covenant. This too is just another compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith and faith alone.

Even more alarming, Don Garlington's review of Piper's book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. (Wheaton, Crossway, 2007) reveals that John Piper himself seems to have a tendency in this direction, which might explain why Piper is inviting Doug Wilson to speak at an upcoming Desiring God conference. While Garlington himself is an advocate of the New Perspectives on Paul, he correctly identifies at least two of John Piper's errors in his book against N. T. Wright. First, Piper seems to be saying that justification is completed in the final judgment:

In the Conclusion (184), Piper clarifies that the book’s title is intended to draw attention to where the doctrine of justification may be going, as well to “the critical importance of God’s future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed.” [The Future of Justification: A Response to John Piper's Treatment of the New Perspective on Paul. A Review by Don Garlington].

Why do we need to have our justification "confirmed" in the final judgment if we are completely justified at the moment we are regenerated and effectually called to faith by the Holy Spirit? It is at this point of conversion and faith that we are completely righteous and completely justified by faith and by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. I will give Piper the benefit of the doubt but it seems that his view that justification by faith needs to be confirmed in the last judgment is an equivocation on the view that we are completely justified by faith alone.

Another problem in Piper is his unwillingness to say that N. T. Wright, and by implication Garlington himself, is a heretic:

". . . if Wright’s portrayal of the gospel is what Piper claims, then how could the former not be under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, if his portrayal is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize it as biblically faithful? Is that not, more or less, what Paul thought of the “other gospel” of his opponents in Galatia? Of course, Wright is hardly under the curse, but these are strong terms and, as we will see immediately below, Piper does not carry them through uniformly." [Garlington].

Of course, Wright is under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9 and so is Garlington! I would add to that list of outright heretics, Frank Macchia, who seems quite willing to say that our justification is an imparted and infused righteousness along the lines of the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, who likewise thinks that justification, deification/sanctification, and glorification are all indistinguishable parts of the "whole" soteriological transformation. This is nothing short of justification by works or merits on the part of man. One cannot see how this is different from semi-pelagianism and maybe even outright pelagianism since the New Perspectives on Paul waters down the doctrinal distinctions between Christianity and other religions. Is Jesus the unique Son of God who died for the sins of the elect or is He merely a Spirit-filled man who gives us an example and good advice on how to be saved? What would Jesus do? The real question is not what would Jesus do but what has Jesus done?

The implications of the New Perspectives and Federal Vision errors go beyond just the charismatic movement. How does this relate to the Anglican Communion and Evangelicals within the Anglican churches? It is telling that false bishops like Leonard Riches and Royal Grote of the Reformed Episcopal Church are quite willing to sell their Evangelical heritage down the river for the sake of union with Anglo-Catholics and other high churchmen who deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone and its forensic and legal declaration of an imputed righteousness (see 2 Corinthians 5:21). This is precisely why I think Michael Horton is not nearly so concerned about the doctrine of justification as an imputed righteousness as he pretends. Surely Horton would have mentioned the doctrine of justification by faith alone in The White Horse Inn interview with David Virtue about the formation of the Anglican Church in North America? How can Evangelical Anglicans like J. I. Packer and Gerald Bray ignore the implications of selling out the five solas of the Protestant Reformation to the so-called Anglican (read Lambeth) quadrilateral?

Sadly, with the advent of pentecostalism, the church growth movement, and now the NPP and FV errors we are seeing a mass apostasy into works righteousness before our very eyes. In my rector's sermon from Jonah 1:1ff this morning he said that when we see something wrong we ought to have the courage to speak out. Well, I'm speaking out--no more compromise. The Gospel is all of grace from beginning to end. To compromise with even "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics is to sell out the Gospel to a false gospel of idolatry, merits, and heresy.

John Piper Invites Doug Wilson to Desiring God National Conference

The following news is from The Trinity Foundation:


John Piper Endorses Doug Wilson

June 2009


John Piper has gone from defending Doug Wilson (and N. T. Wright as seen around the 43 minute mark of the video at http://theresurgence.com/driscoll_piper_chandler_2008-02-26_video_tnc_qa) [go to the last quarter of the video to see the relevant discussion of Doug Wilson's theology] to inviting him to come and speak at his Desiring God National Conference titled "With Calvin in the Theater of God" (information at Events



Piper even gives his rationale for why he invited Wilson, which can be seen at http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1878_why_doug_wilson_is_speaking_at_dgs_fall_conference/


As part of his rationale, he quotes Doug Wilson giving an analogy about the difference between "good advice" and "good news." Piper draws the conclusion from this analogy that Doug Wilson has the Gospel right. He even has a video of Wilson's testimony immediately after his rationale.



Further, in the June 2009 edition of Christianity Today, Piper continues his teaching on "future justification:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Notice the last sentence - "Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation." Our "present justification" is not enough to save us; rather it is our works done in union with Christ, which will determine our "future justification" and salvation. Peter Leithart has said the said the same thing. In fact it is one of the teachings of the Federal Vision. Is it any wonder that Piper has invited Wilson, the leading proponent of the Federal Vision, to speak with him at a conference?


Tom Juodaitis, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/


The Third Sunday after Trinity.

The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom though hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

John MacArthur on the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement and Church Growth

[I have taken the liberty to post the following transcript of a Grace to You broadcast from John MacArthur. You can read it on the original website at http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-22-2.htm.  Postscript:  I should add that my opinion of MacArthur has changed significantly since I posted this article.  MacArthur's views on Lordship Salvation confuses sanctification with justification and implies sinless perfection.  (See: The Gospel According to John MacArthur).  Therefore, I have to put MacArthur himself in the heresy corner.  That does not discredit what he has to say below about the errors of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement.  Charlie, 8/14/2011].


"And they have created a fertile ground now for an all out assault on God, which is coming from some pretty heady places--the parade is being led by Christianity Today, a magazine, which finds a very open climate to question God. The new view of God is: God is not sovereign; God not only doesn't determine the future, He doesn't even know what it is; that God is about as clear about the future as you are. He has about as much control over it as you do. This is the redefinition of God!"

John MacArthur


The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-22, titled "Questions and Answers--Part 50." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 2001 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

Question

I read an article in a "big city" newspaper, on the Pentecostal movement and I am still puzzled. These people, true believers, and if they are true believers, what are they doing in this movement: "Heal me right away or maybe I'll walk away from Jesus Christ." Can you shed some light on that?

Answer

You are opening up a huge issue here of the Pentecostal Movement. The Pentecostal Movement, as a movement, defined by its unique characteristics, is not Biblical. Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all the people in it are not Christians, some of them are, but those things that define the Pentecostal Movement are not Biblical. It is not Biblical to say, that speaking in tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, and if you haven't spoken in tongues you haven't received the Holy Spirit--that is not Biblical. It is not even Biblical to encourage people to speak in tongues, as if that in itself, was some spiritual gift that everybody had to have. It is not Biblical to believe that God is going to heal you. It is not Biblical to believe that some people have the power to heal and can go into great places and knock people over, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that they wield this great supernatural power.

So, what I am saying is: the defining characteristics that label Pentecostalism "Pentecostalism" as apart from general Orthodox Christianity, are not Biblical. So the movement is defined by things that aren't Biblical. If you, for example, compared it to the Reformed Movement. What distinguishes Reformed Theology is an accurate theology; it goes back to the Reformation and it's based on an accurate understanding of theology. What distinguishes Pentecostalism is an inaccurate, wrong interpretation of Scripture, and all the distinctives are not accurately interpreted from Scripture. So you have a movement defined unbiblically. At the heart of it, I think, there are masses of people who are unconverted--unconverted--who couldn't explain the gospel, the way you heard it explained tonight. They could say that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, but they have no idea just exactly how God used the death of Christ to satisfy His justice and grant righteousness to those who believe. They do not understand anything more than a very shallow and thin grasp of the gospel.

Many of them (and this has been reiterated to me by people who have come to our church, from other large Pentecostal churches in the area) live under a strange and bizarre doctrine that they never articulate, but it is definitive in the movement, and it is the doctrine of the "Sovereignty of Satan." It is inherent, at least to contemporary "Charismania"...Pentecostalism, by the definition of the current Charismatic Movement, and the Pentecostals and the Charismatics are so blended now, you can't separate them...but, it is inimical to that system to believe that Satan is sovereign--not God. God would like people to be saved but He is not sovereign in salvation. God would like to keep people saved but He can't, so people can get unsaved on their own. God would like to solve the problems in the world but the devil keeps messing things up. People in that movement are taught that when you get sick: it's the devil. When your little baby gets sick: it's the devil. When you lose your job: it's the devil. When it's announced to you that you have heart disease or you have cancer, or you have some other problem; when one of your children goes astray, whatever it is: it's the devil. And so, you are living, literally, under the sovereignty of Satan in a mode of constant fear. That's one very unbiblical element of that, so you're always trying to "bind Satan;" you're always trying to cast out demons. God, in Pentecostalism becomes the victim. It is a strange kind of thing where there is this pervasive fear of Satan. Parents who can't sleep, who live with anxieties and fears that the devil is going to come in and make their baby sick at night. Or the devil is going to get in their house, and they have to pray the devil out, or the demons out of their house, or bind Satan some way. This is utterly unbiblical. We as believers have nothing to fear from Satan, in the ultimate sense. It is God Himself who has made the blind and the lame, it says in the Book of Exodus.

The enemy of God, who is Satan, is God's servant. I don't know if you have ever thought of it that way, but the devil is God's servant: he can only do what God allows him to do, and his borders and boundaries are established by a sovereign God. There are some people who came to our church from out of this kind of background, and they happened to come on a Sunday (I think), and when they heard me preach on the sovereignty of God, they said it was the most liberating thing they had ever heard--to find out the "God" was sovereign, that God was in charge, was totally opposite everything they had ever heard. Now that is an aberrant theology that says that.

Pentecostalism, also because of its belief that people today can have the same gifts that the Apostles have...Benny Hinn and whoever the "healers" are, he's sort of the prototypical healer today, it started out with A. A. Allen, and Oral Roberts, and down to Morris Cerullo, and on and on it goes...Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn, and whoever it is. Benny Hinn is the latest edition of con men in that area. This idea, that they believe that these men can do what the Apostles did: they have the power to heal, the power to cast out disease...I heard Benny Hinn say, with my own ears, I heard it, "that if you have somebody in your family die. Leave their body in the living room, take their body over to the TV, drape their arms over the TV, because God is going use me to raise the dead through the television!" I can't think of a more insensitive thing for a man to do, than to have some poor bereaved person drag the corpse of their family member and drape them over the television, under some bizarre illusion that Benny Hinn is going to heal them through the TV set--it's cruel, is what it is! But that is only the extreme form of cruelty. There is a cruelty that goes along day after day, week after week, with this bizarre expectation of healing, and then this false staging of supposed healings, that continue to raise people's hopes, and all that does is create false hopes that are dashed to pieces. And much of the fallout of that movement is people who reject the gospel, reject Christ, because they didn't get what they were promised they would get.

As I said, the defining elements of the movement itself, what gives it its identity are unbiblical, and yet at the core there are many in the Pentecostal Movement who are Christians who understand the gospel. If you just took all the "Pentecostal stuff," the "Charismatic stuff" out, there would be a core understanding of the gospel there, so I believe that some of them are Christians. The Lord knows how many, but it is my own conviction, that the vast majority are not. And also, that those people who purvey and ply the trade, particularly in the media, know they are deceivers, and they are very effective at it--raising millions of dollars. One such preacher alone, T. D. Jakes, took in, personally, last year, 63 million dollars! They are trading on a certain desperation. That's why Jesus, when He sent out the Seventy, said, "go and heal, but take no money." If you can heal people--you can be instantly rich. People get instantly rich who can't heal, but pretend they can.

But at the heart of it, if you can just strip the trappings, there are some who know the gospel truth. So I guess I would say, somewhere in that movement there is a true body of believers, not to be confused with the Movement, which is full of schemers, and dreamers, and con men, and people with aberrant theology, and false teachers who take advantage of people. And then people in the middle: there's the serious, very serious errors of the Word-Faith Movement: Fred Price, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, etcetera, Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyer, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, who have an aberrant view of the nature of Christ. They are the ones who say, that on the cross Jesus became a sinner, had to go to hell and suffer for His sins for three days, and then the Father let Him come out of hell, and that is when He was raised. They turned Jesus into a sinner who had to be punished for sin. This is a frightening view of Christ. Also, Kenneth Copeland is the one who said, "That Jesus wasn't any more God than he is!"

So you have aberrations all the way down the line. Of course, because the movement is defined by its experiences and its phenomena, they don't ever deal with the aberrations. Nobody polices the movement. You can turn on "Channel 40" [Southern California UHF TV Station], and you can see them...they will literally advocate anything! They would advocate absolutely anything. Anybody can come on there and say anything they want about God, anything they want about Christ, anything they want about the Holy Spirit, anything they want to say about the work of God, any interpretation of the Bible will stand. But what you can't do, is go on "Channel 40" and say somebody is wrong--that's intolerable! And so that's why in some of their books, they call me a "Heresy Hunter." There is one book that has a whole chapter on me as a "Heresy Hunter"--well, I am! And I thank them for the compliment! [Applause]. I don't have any axe to grind with those people, I just am committed to the truth, and I want to bring the truth to those people. It's really one of the wonderful realities that "Grace to You Radio" penetrates into those people, who don't come to this church, but they turn on the radio, and they get the books. The book, The Charismatics, that I wrote back in 1978, I think it was, later on we wrote a new one called Charismatic Chaos . Those books have had a great impact, and continue to have an impact on the hearts of people who are questioning the movement--they're in it, they are questioning the reality of it.

As a final thought, one of the give-a-ways that there is something seriously wrong with the movement is its breadth. It embraces anybody, and anything, and any view of anything that purports to be of God. If you just say, the Lord told you this, or the Lord told you that, or you had a vision, or you saw this, or you heard voices, or the angels told you--if you have the experience, you supposedly experienced some of this supernatural phenomena, it will embrace you. The movement will take you in no matter how bizarre your theology is.

I remember when Benny Hinn first wrote his first book, called Good Morning Holy Spirit (I think it was), and in the book, he had nine members of the Trinity. It's not even good English to have nine members of a Trinity! You can have a double-quartet plus one, but you can't have a Trinity with nine people--it's not a Trinity. But in the book, he had nine members of the Trinity. He had the Father having three parts (three persons), the Son having three persons, and the Holy Spirit having three persons, totaling nine. I said to the publisher, who was having lunch with me, wanting to sign me to a book contract. I said to him, "Why in the world did you publish that book?" "Why would you publish that?" And with a look of incredulity he said to me, "What do you mean? We publish everything!" He didn't even understand the question! It didn't even connect, for "What do you mean? We publish everything!" And I would say, that has been pretty much the reality with the Pentecostal Movement, there is just no borders, at all.

The way the "movement" has perpetuated itself--it's an infection in the Body of Christ that is spreading rapidly. It's a kind of "Spiritual AIDS." AIDS is a deficient immune system, and this kills the Church's immune system! The Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement kills the immune system, because it makes it a sin to question their theology. You see, the only way error can survive is if truth doesn't prevail--right? It's the only way. The only way error can survive is if truth does not prevail. So how do you get the truth out of the way? You have to silence the people who speak the truth. So how do you do that? You have to turn them into "bad guys"--those people with discernment, those people who speak the truth, those people who draw lines that are Biblical. You have to turn them into the "bad guys" the non-spiritual.

I remember a radio program, where a man who was prominent in the Charismatic Movement said, "I don't know much about John MacArthur, but I know one thing, he doesn't possess the Holy Spirit." And that was on a radio talk show, and that created an interesting dialogue. I was being vilified as someone who didn't possess the Holy Spirit, was not therefore of God, simply because I called into question some of their unbiblical teaching. And what has happened is, they have been saying this long enough; they have been working their way into the mainstream of Evangelicalism simply by attacking the critics, and silencing the critics, and most people just rollover.

I can give you an illustration. In, about 1980, after I had written the book, The Charismatics, which was a bomb when it came. It was the first book that was out really definitively taking on that movement, and it just hit with thunder, but it was really an important statement. At the time, Moody Monthly, was a monthly periodical put out by Moody as sort of a standard, fundamental, Evangelical magazine. They said, "This is so important, we want to serialize the book." So the magazine picks up the book, they put the cover of the book on the cover of the magazine, which had a circulation of...I don't know, let's just say for the sake of argument, 150,000. During the time they serialized the book it went up 50%, so maybe to 225,000--tremendous response, and this book was a direct attack on that issue. And Moody, at that time, says, "This needs to be heard, this is discernment." Today, if I say on "Grace to You" anything negative about the Charismatic Movement--the Moody Broadcasting Network will remove it from the broadcast! Because what has happened over a period of time is that Evangelicalism has just rolled over, because we have been vilified so much as being unloving, and heresy hunters, and divisive, and so they literally have shouted, long enough and loud enough to silence people. And they have found their way into the mainstream, and now they dictate what is "Politically Correct" to say within the body of Evangelicalism.

Now that Evangelicalism is so softened up theologically; now that we have this case of AIDS, this immune deficiency that can't fight off error--we can't stop the influx of disease--theological disease. The latest is called the "Openness of God" (I am digressing, but I need to take you there for a minute). Have you been reading about this? This is the last place you can attack. They have attacked the Person of the Holy Spirit. They have attacked the Person of Christ. They have attacked the gospel. They have attacked the authority of Scripture by adding to Scripture revelations, and visions, and Words of Wisdom, and Words of Knowledge, and on and on and on..... And they have created a fertile ground now for an all out assault on God, which is coming from some pretty heady places--the parade is being led by Christianity Today, a magazine, which finds a very open climate to question God. The new view of God is: God is not sovereign; God not only doesn't determine the future, He doesn't even know what it is; that God is about as clear about the future as you are. He has about as much control over it as you do. This is the redefinition of God!

I said to someone the other day, "That is the end! Jesus has to come soon! Where else do you go, when you have attacked the nature of God?" I have a chapter in a new book that came out called, What Ever Happened to the Reformation? I wrote one chapter, R. C. Sproul wrote one, a bunch of us wrote them, and Sproul in his chapter says, "Call yourself a Christian if you want, but if you have the wrong view of God--you're a pagan!" You're a pagan! That's idolatry! That's the last place you can go in heresy, is to reinvent God! That climate to do that, I think is largely aided and abetted by the utter disinterest in doctrine that has been created by this Charismatic pressure--Pentecostal pressure.

So, at the same time I say that, there are people in that movement who are Christians, and most of the Evangelical Church doesn't have the discernment to know how to sort all of that out, and many of these people don't either. They are subject to their leaders--like Hosea says, "Like people, like priests." They can't rise above it, and so they just sort of take it in, but in their hearts they are truly trusting Christ for their salvation. Surely there are true believers in that movement. I have said this before: You can take the Charismatic Movement; you can take the "Seeker-Friendly Church Growth" Movement, and somewhere in those movements there is a true church, not to be confused with the crowd.

But I think when you look at the legacy of the Charismatic or Pentecostal Movement, in history looking back, it is not going to be, "Oh, they were speaking in tongues," that's true, but speaking in tongues, to me, is a minor detail. In fact, I have even gone so far as to say, "If you have the choice between going in your closet and mumbling in tongues, and going out and gossiping--go in your closet and mumble in tongues! So I don't want to overstate the importance of that.

I don't think history is going to look back and define the impact of Pentecostalism in tongues; I don't think it'll look back and define it in terms of healings, since everybody who goes into that movement, with any kind of honest, analytical, and critical approach, and tries to find healings can't find them, and that's documented many, many times over. But what is going to be history's verdict on the effect of the Pentecostal Movement, is that the Pentecostal Movement caused the Church to become disinterested in sound doctrine. And that ultimately, is the greatest impact, and that's Spiritual AIDS--the Church no longer has a functioning immune system to recognize deadly error.

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022

Websites: http://www.biblebb.com/ and http://www.gospelgems.com/
Email: tony@biblebb.com

Online since 1986