On the Passing of John MacArthur, Part II
An Anti-Calvinist Celebration
Now onto the fun part.
With John MacArthur out of the picture, there tends to be relentless reminders of how 'terrible' this man truly was; how dare he promote his Calvinism, how dare he speak against Charismatic Gifts, how dare he affirm Lordship Salvation, and <gasp!> how dare he affirm Biblical Marriage! The last one was based on resolving a marital dispute with a couple whose husband had been involved with devious sins leading to serving some jail time. Do I believe the woman should have gone forward with a divorce? Absolutely. The husband was well known to illicit poor behavior, including child abuse and marital infidelity. The push back from MacArthur has more to do with the presumed belief that divorce is off the table no matter what. This is the predominant reason as to why they were acting the way they were; however, Christ does allow divorce to be granted on the grounds of sexual fornication--for which this was--and to force a Christian to face excommunication for standing on her grounds is the reason why there should never have been any serious means to turn this into a scandalous circus.
The wife should have written a fine letter of membership resignation and move on.
I did that.
Many years ago, when I was a member of a baptist congregation, I got into a disagreement with a minister. He felt I was under sin, and I didn't agree. He was well convinced of this being true despite the lack of evidence; I had no reason to acquiesce into this demand precisely because baseless accusations, unanswered questions, and an unwillingness to listen to any explanation had been the reason I decided to leave.
Yes, I get it: ministers go on power trips.
This is not the time of mourning for a mishandled case.
The problem with evangelicalism--as I said previously here--is that it has now become a rudderless movement, which now includes a relentless push to embrace all things Provisionist, Arminian, Pelagian, and Socinian. Wait...what? Yes, I did put a word in there most Christians do not know--Socinian. While I am not inclined to discuss what the last idea entails, I can best summarize this with one word: progressivism. With anti-Calvinist evangelicalism now seeking to banish any form of Reformed Theology from the public spaces, they seek this to supplant this with any form of doctrine that distorts scripture, most often accomplished by providing convoluted theories to the Bible's plainer meaning of scripture. And no, I am not talking about Calvinism's five points; I am talking about a serious departure from average theological doctrines like original sin and the atonement. When these groups seek to maintain a godly facade with evangelical slogans and feel-good bible verses, but then use them to induce the notion that all men are not born under the curse of sin, what are we to make of these instances? Add to things like open theism, continuing revelation, a denial of biblical perspicuity, and what do we get? An array of 'evangelical doctrines' that vary from one church to another, with Christians professing a belief in one view or all views.
Why?
In short, they subordinate all things--including scriptural revelation--under God's character of love. Rather than coming to terms with scripture by accepting that God's qualitative traits do not fall on a priority list, the push to determine which doctrines are valid revolves around asking the question: Is this something God would do out of love? When a doctrine's test of validity is determined on this notion, it does not matter how challenging the scriptures become over the course of study because proponents who reject such notion will look for ways to undermine the general meaning of the passage. Total depravity is a case in point; this doctrine is despised by most of the non-Reformed, especially anti-Calvinist evangelicals because they believe man's standing with God allows room for him to have the ability to do good things. And while some groups insist man has some form of depravity, I believe they have not gone the length to define the extent that his nature is depraved. How depraved is man, really? According to Arminians or Provisionists, man is depraved but not too much depending on the circumstances. According to Pelagians, Socinians, and others, man is not depraved, but could be if he so chooses. This differentiates from the first because this notion allows room for man to be born in a state of grace free of sin.
Well, which is it?
To these groups, no such consensus exists to determine the extent of man's depravity; the best position offered to anyone considering joining their ranks is that they are against anything Reformed--that's it. Asking a basic question such as this also relates to the other positions, such as defining grace. Such anti-Calvinists do not wish to explain what they mean precisely by grace other than saying if God is to be gracious to man, he must be gracious to all, regardless. There is truth to this in the sense that God exercises benevolence upon mankind for philanthropic purposes; evidence for this does exist throughout the scriptures and is relatively demonstrable in our daily lives. The problem most anti-Calvinists do not want to address is that grace is not necessarily acts of philanthropy; just because that one guy happens to win the lottery at a staggering $2 Billion dollars does not mean he is entitled to receive acquittal for his offenses against God and man. There is a reason why grace carries a different meaning in Reformed circles, and that is because of this: sin is a legal liability. Lying, Murder, Theft, Idolatry, Sexual Fornication, False Worship, etc., these offenses are not remedied with avoiding accountability; these acts happen in time and history, generally affecting everyone else.
People are misled for these acts; yet according to the anti-Calvinist, atonement are not necessary for any misdeeds, no matter how grave these behaviors are. In other words, even if someone orchestrated the deaths well even into the millions (e.g., an abortion 'doctor'), these actions should be overlooked, and not be considered a crime. The question most anti-Calvinists avoid would be this: so, how are these acts of humanity accounted for? How just would this be for anyone to overlook man's nature and his wicked acts not only against his fellow man, but also against God? These are heavily avoided by anti-Calvinists, and are deflected with convoluted theories as justifiable alternatives. God, by nature, is not someone who takes a laissez faire approach to humanity; he makes a lot of clear cut declarations that do not require an explanation (unless, of course, you happen to disagree with God). When God tells Moses that he is someone who does not by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7) after telling something about his forgiving nature, there should be no argument against the notion forgiveness is not a sentimental act. Forgiveness can only be done by the proper means of executing what is right, fair, and just, which is not done without implementing some form of recompense.
Yet this is disputed, even when God is not talking in code.
Why?
Anti-Calvinism entails a rejection of plainer truths; the phrase "who by no means clear the guilty" has to mean something other than what the translators intend. While the popular approach for these individuals is to nit-pick at the wording, the translation, and its usage, these are the same ones who ignore the entirety of the biblical canon in order to eisegete a meaning apart from its plainness. While anti-Calvinism seeks to rear the general direction of evangelicalism toward its direction (and will eventually have their way), I believe the void Dr. MacArthur has left behind is the one where Evangelicalism will be heavily swayed into embracing the heretical doctrines it once rejected in times past. Even while celebrating the death of anyone because Reformed teaching may lose its ground of influence, I'm afraid the anti-Calvinists are asking for evangelicalism to embrace all other things in place of traditional protestant orthodoxy. When we look at the direction where such movements like Arminianism, Provisionism, and Socinianism, want to lead everyone, we wind up finding that God does not have a real place behind the pulpit, where his Gospel only amounts to obtuse narration, and emotional sentiment.
Even though MacArthur had passed on, and has left a void evangelicals need to fill, I believe the solution is the continuation of pressing for Reformed doctrine and more of it. Granted, this article did not get into the discussion of dispensationalism, I do want to point out that this will be featured in the next article titled, On the Passing of John MacArthur, Part III: So, Where Do We Go From Here? where I will discuss why the end of dispensational doctrine is on the horizon and will no longer remain an influence by the turn of the next century. Before I move into preparing for the final installment, I want to say this: without any doctrinal rubric from the Reformed position, especially within a partial preterist framework, the anti-dispensationalism, anti-Israel sentiment will be nothing more than a political one with leftist sympathies. As evangelicalism moves away from this hermeneutic, they are filling the void with trendy sentiments in hopes of explaining the ongoing crisis in the middle east.
While I agree that Israel is an entity with political ties and motivations, I still recognize its existence as fair and legitimate, serving a good purpose.