ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant

[billwald]

Been listening to a John MacArthur rant against evolution. He dishonestly fails to differentiate between Darwin's wish to eliminate the concept of "god" from the study of science and the credibility of Darwin's observations about evolution. He should know better but this is an acceptable technique when preaching to the choir.

Would the 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if every science text was prefaced by "God ordained that:?"

MacArthur makes the standard misrepresentation of statistics and probability. Would 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if all texts stated that "God apparently has apparently introduced a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

No, because they would respond that God "couldn't" introduce a random factor because . . . .

 

[Turbo]

billwald,
Your post is incoherent.

Would 6 Day Creationists be satisfied if all texts stated that "God apparently has apparently introduced a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

I wouldn't. It's redundant.

No, because they would respond that God "couldn't" introduce a random factor...

I wouldn't respond that way.

...because . . . .

Because...? What are you talking about?

 

[billwald]

I have yet to meet a 6 Dayer who accepts that could introduce a random factor. Nothing is random. For example, MacArthur stated that an atom absorbing a photon and an electron jumping to a higher quantum state is an example of God's continuous creating. He can't accept that this function could have been designed to operate automatically in this universe.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by billwald

I have yet to meet a 6 Dayer who accepts that could introduce a random factor.

Well now you have. And I'm certainly not the only one.

Nothing is random. For example, MacArthur stated that an atom absorbing a photon and an electron jumping to a higher quantum state is an example of God's continuous creating.

MacArthur is wrong. God rested from creation on the seventh day. He does not need to perform continuous miracles (intervene supernatually) for His creation to function.

He can't accept that this function could have been designed to operate automatically in this universe.

That's too bad. That's not how the Bible describes things. It certainly isn't a conclusion that necessarily follows from Young-Earth/6-Day Creationism. (It actually runs contrary to the idea that God rested from creating.)

That seems like the kind of conclusion Calvinism might lead to. Do you know, is MacArthur a Calvinist? Or what about the 6-Dayers you know who reject that anything is random? Are they Calvinists?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Turbo

Well now you have. And I'm certainly not the only one.

I too agree that things happen in a random fashion.
See watch....
2k3h -1=1k3rg
esdlkfap89 9u= 09231


And yes, MacArthur is a Calvinist. I'm not sure that he claims to be one although he brobably does. Either way, his theology is full of Clavinistic teaching.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

:chuckle: :thumb:

 

[Clete]

If your interested, there is a realy good open letter written to John MacArthur by Miles J Stanford. It does a good job of showing where MacAuthur stands theologically.

An Open Letter to John F. MacArthur Jr., FAITH WORKS - The Gospel According to the Apostles

Enjoy!

Let me know what you think.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Billwald,

The rantings of John MacArthur aside, does our admission of the existence of randomness help you accept us "6 dayers" as more intellectually consistant/honest?

 

[brother Willi]

"a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

I see it every day when I check the weather.

SNOW IN TEXAS
now thats a random factor !

 

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by brother Willi

"a random factor into the functioning of this universe?"

I see it every day when I check the weather.

SNOW IN TEXAS
now thats a random factor !

No way...God wanted to punish someone for something. :chuckle:

 

[billwald]

Stanford's letter was interesting. He is basically a Plymouth Brethern? I met with the PBs for 10 years and then rejected dispensational thinking after reading Calvin's Institutes.

Personally, I think St Paul's letters have preverted Jesus' intent for the Church. The problem with the Church IS Pauline theology. Sts John, Peter, and James provide sufficient theology.


"does our admission of the existence of randomness help you accept us "6 dayers" as more intellectually consistant/honest?"

Yes, some of you. Thankyou for correcting me.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by billwald

Personally, I think St Paul's letters have preverted Jesus' intent for the Church. The problem with the Church IS Pauline theology. Sts John, Peter, and James provide sufficient theology.

Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?

and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16​

 

[Clete]

Also there is Gal. 2:9

Gal. 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

I know that Galatians was written by Paul, so this verse isn't as strong as the one presented by Turbo but assuming that you take Galatians to be scripture, could you answer the following questions for me?

Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?
How does your answer fit into what your last post said?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

On that note:

billwald,
The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?

 

[billwald]

"Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?"

First, Peter refers to Paul's letters, not their inclusion as scripture. I dont't think either of them knew their writing would be so incorporated.

Second, I don't know why . . . but I suspect it had something to do with denominational politics at that time- Jerusalem Synod v. Paul's followers.

"The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?"

Yes, I do. Considering that Acts was written by Paul's traveling companion, it is most unsympathetic to Paul. With friends like Luke I don't need any enemies.

First, it is apparent from reading Acts that the Church of Jerusalem didn't trust Paul, never trusted Paul, and would agree to almost anything to get him out of town. They never suspected that Paul's followers would gain control over the Church. They only wanted him to go away.

Second, consider Paul's final arrest in Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians had been routinely worshipping in the Temple and offering sacrifices. Any of them could have gone to Paul's first hearing and testified in his behalf. The person who accompanied Paul into the Temple could have pulled down his pants as evidence. I suspect they were pleased to see Paul arrested.

 

[billwald]

"Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?"

Strange wording. I am a medically circumcised gentile member of the Christian Reformed Church but maybe not a 'good' member.

 

[billwald]

Interesting how these threads jump around. From evolution to MIles Stanford to St Paul to circumcism.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

"Are you a Gentile or a member of the circumcised (Nation of Israel)?"

Strange wording. I am a medically circumcised gentile member of the Christian Reformed Church but maybe not a 'good' member.

"I am a gentile." would have sufficed.

Do you base anything that you believe (in regards to this issue) on scripture or are you making all this up as you go?

You know, you do have an advantage over most reformation believers in that you acknowledge that Paul's theology is not the same as the rest of the New Testament authors. If we can succeed in getting you to see why it is different, then you'll be well on your way to understanding the key that unlocks nearly every doctrinal debate that exist in the church today.

Let me ask for clarities sake, do you or do you not except the Pauline epistles as a bona fide part of The Word of God?

If not, what parts of what we call the Bible do you accept as genuine scripture and why? And then could you also explain, based on what you accept as scripture, why Paul and his epistles should be rejected.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Although it would have been impossible to predict the progression of this conversation, I think that it has progressed in a logical manner. It's funny how one never knows which threads will develop into interesting conversations and which ones won't. Personally, I think this is about the most original and interesting topic that has come up in quite a while! :up:

 

[billwald]

"Let me ask for clarities sake, do you or do you not except the Pauline epistles as a bona fide part of The Word of God?"

(Not ignoring you, Been out of state for awhile)
No, I don't. Paul's writings are not logical and seem to misquote the Old Testamant. Galatians being the worst. His references to the Law don't compute.

Anyone else notice that when Paul wants to bad-mouth hs people he refers to them as "Jews" but when he says nice things they are "Israel?"


"If not, what parts of what we call the Bible do you accept as genuine scripture and why?"

The Gospels, The letters of the "real" Apostles, and Acts. Everything but Paul's stuff.



"And then could you also explain, based on what you accept as scripture, why Paul and his epistles should be rejected."

Because it seems to be that Paul had a different theology than the Jerusalem Church. Because the Jerusalem Church disliked and never trusted Paul. They were happy to commission Paul to stay away as far as possible from Jerusalem but they didn't mind taking his money.

It is critical to me that the Gospels were written after Paul's letters. Why didn't the Gospels support Paul's theology if Paul was such a grat theologian?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by billwald

"Then why do you suppose Peter counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures?"

First, Peter refers to Paul's letters, not their inclusion as scripture. I dont't think either of them knew their writing would be so incorporated.

You're wrong. This passage shows that Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scriptures. Please read Peter's passage again.

• and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter is talking about "untaught and unstable people" twisting "Paul's letters" just like they do with "the rest of the Scriptures." The passage also makes reference to "the wisdom given to [Paul]" Given by whom? Paul claims in his letters (which Peter calls Scriptures) that it was given to him by Christ himself:

• Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)...
  But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1, 11-12

Second, I don't know why . . . but I suspect it had something to do with denominational politics at that time- Jerusalem Synod v. Paul's followers.

You say you believe that Peter's epistles are inspired Scriptures, but you believe he included untrue statements? If he were against Paul, why wouldn't he come out and say it? Why would God inspire him to lie, calling Paul "our beloved brother" and endorsing his letters?

Originally posted by Turbo

"The event described in Gal 2:9 is recorded by Luke in Acts 15. Do you consider Acts to be inspired? Do you at least believe that Luke was a reliable and accurate historian?"

Originally posted by billwald

Yes, I do. Considering that Acts was written by Paul's traveling companion, it is most unsympathetic to Paul. With friends like Luke I don't need any enemies.

First, it is apparent from reading Acts that the Church of Jerusalem didn't trust Paul, never trusted Paul, and would agree to almost anything to get him out of town. They never suspected that Paul's followers would gain control over the Church. They only wanted him to go away.

• Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
  They wrote this, letter by them:
  
  The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
  
  To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
  
  Greetings.
  
  Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" --to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
  
  Farewell. Acts 15:22-29

If the apostles didn't trust Paul, why did they write this glowing endorsement of him and his ministry? And why did Luke make a record of it, if he was so unsympathetic to Paul? (Where do you get that idea anyway?)