John MacArthur Predicts Reversal of the Reformed Revival

[file13]

Interesting:

• Christianity.com: John MacArthur Predicts Reversal of the Reformed Revival-Part 1 - Movies
• Christianity.com: John MacArthur Predicts Reversal of the Reformed Revival-Part 2 - Movies

 

[GQ Chris]

He's really against Mark Driscoll's "Cool Calvinism".

 

[file13]

He's really against Mark Driscoll's "Cool Calvinism".

Yeah, that seems pretty darn clear.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm seeing a definite reversal. I am starting to think that I am the only real Calvinist in my whole church including the pastor.

But I am probably the most unholy sinner in my whole church as well so who knows if that's a good thing or not.

 

[ThatWhichIsnt]

I don't know what all the fuss about Driscoll is about. I happen to like him, and listen to him a lot. He is the person who turned me on to the doctrines of grace, and people such as Calvin and the Puritans. Even if you don't agree with him on every issue you must be happy to the Gospel preached.

I do not see a reversal in this movement. There are a lot of "young, restless, and reformed" guys such as me. The revival is not controlled by man, but by God. We didn't do anything to start it, and we can't do anything to stop it.

 

[JM]

MacArthur is a fundamentalist, try to keep that in mind when reading his works or listening to his sermons. A quote that I believe sums up MacArthur's fundamentalism well:

Carnality is not measured by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out (Matt. 15.11) and piety is not measured by our abstention from temporal pleasures (Col. 2.20-23). The fundamentalist mindset is akin to the gnostic mindset which led to asceticism and monasteries. The Reformed understand that all of life is sacred, that is, temporal things are not evil in themselves, neither is non-ecclesiastical employment to be despised if it is lawful, but rather God is glorified in the right use of the things of this world. True godliness is a matter of the heart. Therefore, spiritual pride or neglect is a much greater concern to the Reformed than whether there is a beer in someone’s refrigerator at home. The Reformed view themselves as pilgrims traveling through this world with our eyes and hearts lifted heavenward to the next, which is to say, using the things of this world rightly but not setting our hearts on them but keeping our treasure above and our eyes on Christ (Heb. 12.2).
​

Osage, your understanding of the grace, your Calvinism gives you a good understanding of yourself. You are an unholy sinner [like the rest of us] and if the folks in your church do not understand that they need a good dose of grace. The most religious pretender is still a sinner saved by grace alone, they just need to stop pretending.

jm

 

[gord44]

good post JM. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[GQ Chris]

Johnny Mac is also against the Drank, even though he won't say its a Sin, but he implies and expresses it in a way that for the less informed Christian, will give them an impression that drinking is something that a good Christian just doesn't do.

 

[GQ Chris]

JM that quote would then give me the impression that moderate drinking is okay with Macarthur, but that is clearly not his stance on booze.

 

[JM]

The quote is from a poster on the Puritan Board, not MacArthur...

 

[AndOne]

Anybody else notice that when Driscol preaches he sometimes has a tendency to overelaborate when discussing passages of scripture. For example - I recently heard him compare Zacheus to a mob boss - sort of like the Godfather. I don't know if I'm "cool" with those kinds of comparisons. It kills me because I really like Driscol but I think he can off the deep end sometimes...

 

[JM]

I it might be too much. Hyperbole can be a useful tool in teaching though.

 

[AMR]

I'm seeing a definite reversal. I am starting to think that I am the only real Calvinist in my whole church including the pastor.

But I am probably the most unholy sinner in my whole church as well so who knows if that's a good thing or not.

We are all unprofitable servants.

 

[file13]

MacArthur is a fundamentalist, try to keep that in mind when reading his works or listening to his sermons.

 

[GQ Chris]

The quote is from a poster on the Puritan Board, not MacArthur...

oh, my bad.

 

[GQ Chris]

MacArthur is a fundamentalist, try to keep that in mind when reading his works or listening to his sermons.

Can't most of us in the Reformed circles be labeled a "Fundy" for what we believe as well?

 

[JM]

Can't most of us in the Reformed circles be labeled a "Fundy" for what we believe as well?

No, I don't think so.

Fundamentalism has turned inward and is putrefying from within, it happened with the Pharisees, personal legalisms were forced on others and codified into extra biblical law. It started out as a good thing by well meaning folks but it was built to run on man's lists of "do's and don'ts" not scripture.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

According to the original defination we are fundamentalists. Guess who some of the major contributors to The Fundamentals of the Faith were? Reformed types, such as Machen, et al. The original fundamentalists were Reformed types. But they quickly changed and most were dispys and Arminian.

 

[GQ Chris]

No, I don't think so.

Fundamentalism has turned inward and is putrefying from within, it happened with the Pharisees, personal legalisms were forced on others and codified into extra biblical law. It started out as a good thing by well meaning folks but it was built to run on man's lists of "do's and don'ts" not scripture.

Good point, you narrowed it down.

I thought that a Reformed Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin was enough to label them as a Fundy.

 

[hedrick]

Good point, you narrowed it down.

I thought that a Reformed Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin was enough to label them as a Fundy.

Fundamentalism has two meanings. Originally it was a list of 5 controversial positions that they considered fundamental to Christianity. As I understand it, the folks involved in that movement were primarily Reformed, although the positions don't seem specific to Reformed theology. Wikipedia's version of the list, which seems right:

• The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin. [However I believe the actual fundamentals also included that penal substitution is the primary model of the atonement.]
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Today, I would say that it also includes a legalistic approach to morals, in the sense that Scripture is taken as law in various controversial sexual issues.

However today, fundamentalism is often used to describe a belligerent and inflexible attitude towards Christianity. This is one of the reasons that most people who are objectively fundamentalists prefer to be called evangelical.

Early in the 20th Cent there was a battle in the Presbyterian Church about whether you could be Reformed without accepting the fundamentals. The Auburn Affirmation says yes. It was signed by a large number of seminary faculty, many of whom themselves believed the 5 things.

The disagreement continues.

I agree with the Auburn Affirmation. I would accept that it is possible to be Reformed and take either position on the 5 "fundamentals." I would hope however that people who accept them aren't fundamentalist in the more negative sense of being inflexible and belligerent. Alas, I fear there that are such people in both the conservative and liberal wings of the Reformed tradition.

Believing that homosexuality is a sin almost certainly does make one a fundamentalist in the more objective sense. That position is based on inerrancy, and those who hold it almost all hold all of the positions, at least if they're Reformed. It doesn't necessarily make one a fundamentalist in the more popular sense, though there's plenty of that going around on both sides.