I wonder if Driscoll only gave them copies of his books that contained some printer errors or binding faults; he probably wondered what colour the books would be if they decided to quickly send his books into the heavens, would it be white smoke or grey smoke."Don't let anyone ever say Driscoll isn't an opportunist"
Then him and Mac should understand each other pretty well.
I was describing emotional psychology and bodily movements together."Head-banging" is the term that I used to describe whatever it was you were describing in your post. That doesn't happen in my church bro.
About a week ago I received an interesting email from pneumareview.com with two articles on MacArthurs odd Strange fire Conference by Jon Ruthven and William De Arteaga and others. For those who would like some good material to help counter any concerns by their cessationist friends, links to the original articles have been provided.
John MacArthurs Strange Fire as Parody of Jonathan Edwards Theology, by William De Arteaga
In the public launch to Strange Fire, MacArthur made clear his utter disdain for the Charismatic Movement in particular:
Quoting MacArthur:Nothing coming from the Charismatic movement has provided recovery or strengthening of the biblical Gospel. Nothing has preserved truth and sound doctrine. It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error. Yes, there are people in the movement who know and love the truth, have an orthodox Gospel, but are heterodox on the Holy Spirit. Not all of them are heretics. But I say again the contribution of truth from the people in the movement doesnt come from the movement, but in spite of it.
John MacArthurs Strange Fire, A Brief Biblical Response by Jon RuthvenAs we shall see, John MacArthurs abhorrence of further revelation via prophecy and related spiritual gifts derives, not from scripture, but from the frustration of Calvinists under Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) of watching so many of their members defect to the Quakers, the crazy charismatics of the time. People were falling down, making a lot of noise and encountering Jesus in visions, prophecies, and healings. Sound familiar? Calvinist scholastics responded to this outrage with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)often now regarded as the gold standard of Calvinist theology.
John MacArthurs Strange Fire, Reviewed by Eddie L. HyattThat being said, MacArthurs latest book does not represent an honest search for truth. It is obvious that his mind was already made up when he began his research for Strange Fire, and he found what he was looking for. He presents a circular argument, beginning with a faulty premise and proceeding with selective anecdotal evidence that determines the outcome. He begins with a commitment to cessationism, the belief that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were withdrawn from the church after the death of the twelve apostles and the completion of the writings of the New Testament. Since that is the case for him, that means modern expressions of Spiritual gifts must be false. He then utilizes the selective anecdotal evidence to buttress his presupposition, which leads him back to his starting point of cessation.
Yes. I read through most of the material by Ruthven and Arteaga though I only glanced through Hyatt's post.Have you bothered to listen to any of it for yourself?
Yes. I read through most of the material by Ruthven and Arteaga though I only glanced through Hyatt's post.
There are probably a number of other scholars and academics who have also posted on the same subject within Pneuma Review but for those who have a need for more information then I will leave it up to them to do so.
As for MacArthur, considering that his arguments are either based on a humanist world view or that they heavily rely on "guilt by association" then any Full Gospel believer who has been around for a while should be able to easily counter his objections without even going to Pneuma Review or elsewhere.
Oops! No, as MacArthur has been spreading his worldly views for a number of decades then I'm sure that there will be nothing new to hear and his cessationist worldview is about as invigorating as watching grass grow, which reminds me, I need to finish mowing a part of backyard.I meant have you listened to any of the conference for yourself yet?
I haven't listened to the conference. I have also never attended a lecture by Bishop Spong, or Richard Dawkins. I have never participated in a human sacrifice. I have never gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca or Salt Lake City.I meant have you listened to any of the conference for yourself yet?
I haven't listened to the conference. I have also never attended a lecture by Bishop Spong, or Richard Dawkins. I have never participated in a human sacrifice. I have never gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca or Salt Lake City.
I'm sure the meaning isn't lost on you.
I meant have you listened to any of the conference for yourself yet?
Hey SP when are you going to correct your signature?
It seems that I was being a bit slow on the takeup with your question. I was simply working from the premis that as MacArthur has been pedalling the same old material for decades then why should I have to go and spend hours listening to his videos when he will have nothing new to say.I know what you were trying to say, I just didn't see the point.
He was commenting on what other people were saying about something that he had in his power to review for himself, and it obviously interested him to know because he was researching about it.
Just didn't understand why if he's so concerned about it he hasn't actually reviewed it himself. As for me, I've listened to three of the lectures so far, because I'm capable of formulating my own opinion about something without relying on someone else's opinion to skew it first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?