Why I Like John MacArthur

Okay...so I have had some real issues with John MacArthur, et al lately on certain things, but this is a good reminder of why I do like the man and believe that he is truly a defender of the faith. This is interesting, not because of what he says, we are used to that, but where he is saying it at. He is on the set of TBN and the audience is enjoying what he is saying. I am hoping that this got around to the whackos around TBN so that they can learn what the Gospel actually is. It is funny to watch Kirk Cameron lob some easy ones over the net for MacArthur to smash, and his corny Mike Seaver smile when he does it reveals them clearly.

I do believe that there is some over correction within the two videos, but probably needed to be said considering the audience and venue. Thanks to Steve Brown for pointing me over to Reformed Baptist.

Read More......

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross

This book comes out well before Easter to make sure that you are able to buy it, study it and then teach its truths to others as Easter comes about. The book is laid out to have 25 short teachings and thoughts on the cross of Christ. It has most theologians that you can think of in the Reformed and Calvinistic circles and then also includes at least one I know that wasn't a Calvinist (Adrian Rogers). Most of the chapters are about 3 to 4 pages which include many different angles to look at the cross. The topics range from Christ's humility in Gethsemane, silence among his accusers, our sin putting him on the cross, propitiation, forsaken by God, etc. I am not going to list every theologian and every topic, but I will say that this book is a very good one to help someone as they study further on the cross of Christ. This book is a book of quotable thoughts for any pastor.

Some of my favorites were Martin Luther, C.J. Mahaney, Tim Keller, Adrian Rogers and Augustine. Martin Luther is first up in the book, and in my opinion, it didn't get any better than Luther. I really enjoyed his chapter and found myself continually reading because of his start of the understanding of the "True Contemplation of the Cross." Here is an excerpt from Luther's chapter:

Take this to heart and doubt not that you are the one who killed Christ. Your sins certainly did, and when you see the nails driven through his hands, be sure that you are pounding, and when the thorns pierce his brow, know that they are your evil thoughts. Consider that if one thorn pierced Christ you deserve one hundred thousand.

The whole value of the meditation of the suffering of Christ lies in this, that man should come to the knowledge of himself and sink and tremble. If you are so hardened that you do not tremble, then you have reason to tremble. Pray to God that he may soften your heart and make fruitful your meditation upon the suffering of Christ, for we ourselves are incapable of proper reflection unless God instills it.

But if one does meditate rightly on the suffering of Christ for a day, an hour, or even a quarter of an hour, this we may confidently say is better than a whole year of fasting, days of psalm singing, yes, than even one hundred masses, because this reflection changes the whole man and makes him new…

Martin Luther, p. 12 (taken from Martin Luther's Easter Book)

Although there were some that stood out, there were also some where I couldn't wait to read and they seemed to fall a little flat. Not only tha, there were some that were just plain bizarre where I will either need to study further or just glaze over for the sake of the other chapters. The odd ones were John MacArthur's take on Christ's forgiveness on the cross. He believes that Christ was only asking for the forgiveness of those who would end up believing in Him and not everyone that was at the cross crucifying him. I believe he ends up making his theology read into this part of Scripture a little too much. The other two that I will have to study a little further were J.I. Packer's on Christ descending to hell and also Joseph "Skip" Ryan's chapter on Christ being thirsty. He takes this to mean that Christ was spiritually thirsty and not physically. My first take is that he is trying to stretch this text further than it allows.

Even with these three, the other 22 chapters far outweigh them to keep me from recommending this book. I would recommend this to any who would like a good understanding of the cross from a wide set of generations, convictions and theologians. Just know, that it doesn't get better than Luther's chapter, but that doesn't mean the rest of the book gets "worse." Highly Recommended
Buy the book:

Crossway

Westminster Books

Read More......

What is Contextualization?

I was reading erik's notes from the Shepherd's Conference and was caught by this quote by John MacArthur:

“contextualization is a curse.” The sermons we preach and the messages we proclaim should transcend “zip-codes.” MacArthur said, referring to Peter in Acts 2, “Not only did he not identify with the generation, but he said you have to be saved from it.”

So, what is contexualization? Because I believe that John MacArthur is either throwing out the baby with the bath water, or has no clue what he means by it.

First, let me say that if MacArthur is simply meaning that we don't try and change the word of God to make it easier for people to follow by taking truths out of the gospel to do so, then I agree with him. Such as. We shouldn't stop using words like sin and hell or speaking about the cross just because the current culture doesn't like to talk about certain things. That would be wrong and is downright blasphemy of the Gospel.

But, for Dr. MacArthur to simply say that "contextualization is a curse" I find to be way off...and I believe that his thoughts on Acts 2 are way off...because I believe that Peter actually contextualizes the Gospel in this very passage!

What is contextualization? First, good biblical contextualization is not what was previously mentioned, but good biblical contextualization is to know the audience and culture you are speaking to and bringing it to them in ways that they would easily understand.

I not only believe that it is okay to contextualize, but I believe that it is biblical and what Christ would have us do and what Christ actually did when he was here on the earth.

If I can give you an example:

Read John 10. The whole of the chapter is a passage on the good Shepherd, which is Christ. Why would Christ use this kind of explanation to give eternal truths? Because those in that region were very familiar with the shepherd and sheep relationship. It was very easy to see the truths that were being offered because Christ used the context, the culture that he was in, to explain the unexplainable. And Christ did this through his whole tenure as lead pastor while he was on this earth. Think seed and sower, the vine dresser, etc. All culturally relevent to those in that time.

You might be saying, "Well that was Jesus, he can do what he wants, He is God." Well...first, I don't like that reasoning for the mere fact that we are called to imitate Christ (1 John 2:6) and he is our perfect example (1 Tim 1:16) to follow in all things. But, I will play along.

First Example: Paul

Everyone knew that I would go here, but look to Acts 17. Paul is in Athens to preach the Gospel and notices a bunch of gods being represented and especially one that is called, "The unknown God." What I like here is the use of correct biblical contextualizaion. Notice that Paul uses the culture around him to illustrate eternal truths. The truths are not changed, nor are they watered down. The reason we know this is because the Stoics didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, and yet what does Paul preach?

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Acts 17:31

Paul, although in a different culture than a Jewish one, didn't ignore the truth but proclaimed it. But notice that he didn't ignore who he was speaking to either, but contextualized the gospel so that it would be more clear for the hearers, just as Christ did the entire time he was on this earth.

Second Example: John

I am not sure how many people know this but John contextualized actual God-breathed Scripture, and he did it with one of our favorite verses that prove the Deity of our Lord Jesus. It is found in John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

The term here, as most know, for the term Word is the Greek word logos. What most don't know is the usage of this word in it's historical context. The term logos was known to most Greeks as that "thing," whatever it was, that held the earth together.

Look at what the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says about this word logos:

Although little used in epic,32 λόγος; achieved a comprehensive and varied significance with the process of rationalisation which characterised the Greek spirit. Indeed, in its manifold historical application one might almost call it symbolic of the Greek understanding of the world and existence.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament.
1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:77). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

John contextualized the very pages of Scripture so that those whom he was writing to would have a greater understanding of what, and who, he was speaking of. John did his own form of speaking of the "unknown logos" by showing that they could know the actual Logos, that became flesh.

Last Example: Peter

The last example is actually going to be shown from the very passage Dr. MacArthur tries to argue his point, Acts 2. Do you think that Peter knew who he was talking to? If Paul uses the unknown god to show who God was to the Stoics in Athens and John uses the term "logos" to show the Logos for the Greeks to understand, then what should we expect Peter to use when he speaks to those in Jerusalem? Wouldn't Peter be smart to use their very patriarchs? It is hard to see what he is doing, but if you look closely, Peter is speaking to those in Judea (Acts 2:14) and then he uses what they would know, namely the Jewish Scriptures and patriarchs. He quotes Joel in Acts 2:16-21, then quotes David and the Psalms in Acts 2:25-28, then again quotes Psalm 132:11; 2 Samuel 7:12; and Psalm 89:3 in Acts 2:30; and finally ends with a quote from Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34,35. Notice that the message that he preaches is the exact message that Paul preaches in Acts 17 but with some tweaks because he is preaching to Jews and not Gentiles. In Acts 17 Paul does not quote one single Old Testament verse because he is speaking to the Gentiles so he contextualizes it to their unknown god so that they would understand.

I believe that Dr. MacArthur is making a huge mistake by saying that "contextualization is a curse," and continues to show that he is ignoring what emerging folks mean when we say we are contextualizing for the sake of Christ and His fame.

May we continue to love those who we are evangelizing and ALWAYS look for ways to contextualize the Gospel in a way that the will understand.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......