Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

The video has now gone viral, providing embarrassment for the charismatic movement and fodder for those who deny that the prophetic gifts are for today.

A self-proclaimed prophet from Scotland disrupted a Sunday morning service on August 16th as Pastor MacArthur stood behind the pulpit, rebuking him for teaching cessationism and for being divisive, announcing that he was a prophet sent by God.

Pastor MacArthur listened quietly before security removed the man, who continued to call for repentance as he was escorted out the door.

Pastor MacArthur then responded like a completely composed, totally unruffled, senior statesman, using humor and assuring the congregants that the security team would handle the intruder with gentleness.

He explained that this uninvited guest claimed that it is heresy to say that spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy have ceased and he added that, according to 1 Corinthians 14, the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets and if this man were a real prophet, he wouldn't have behaved that way.

Of course, if you read about what the prophets did in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (see Acts 21:10-11), a disruptive act like this would be quite minor.

But I do believe in principles of order and honor, and Paul did instruct Timothy never to rebuke an older man (or, elder) but rather to appeal to him (see 1 Timothy 5:1). So, however you view this incident, it did make Charismatics look bad.

As Pastor MacArthur continued to speak, he said "it's a sad situation" and "of all the things you could get upset about" — before he was disrupted by a baby crying, leading to more humor and laughter, after which he called on the congregation to stand with him as he read the Word of God before preaching.

Obviously, I have a real problem with the way things happened, bringing reproach to the gifts of the Spirit in the presence of the entire congregation, not to mention the many thousands who have viewed the video since it was posted.

And I've seen some ridiculous online comments posted to other videos like this one: "I heard online that John MacArthur receive[d] the medical RFID chip/mark of the beast and the Holy Spirit left him."

But there's something else I have a problem with, and I've raised my voice about it for two years now, also reaching out to Pastor MacArthur publicly and privately to discuss or even debate the relevant issues.

I'm speaking about the extreme rhetoric used by my elder brother in his attacks on my colleagues in the Charismatic Movement, including some of the most saintly, Jesus-loving, Word-based, spiritually-minded people I know anywhere in the world.

I'm talking about charges he made loudly and publicly like this: "The Charismatic Movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess that it's in today. In virtually every area where church life is unbiblical, you can attribute it to the Charismatic Movement."

He claimied we have "stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf and they are dancing around the golden calf as if it is the Holy Spirit. . . The charismatic version of the Holy Spirit is that golden calf . . . around which they dance with their dishonoring exercises."

Pastor MacArthur went as far as saying that we attributed "to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan."

In short, he called the Charismatic Movement "a farce and a scam" that "has not changed into something good," claiming that it represents "the explosive growth of a false church, as dangerous as any cult or heresy that has ever assaulted Christianity." Accordingly, he calls for a "collective war" against these alleged "pervasive abuses on the Spirit of God."

He stated that "Satan's false teachers, marching to the beat of their own illicit desires, gladly propagate his errors. They are spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans."

And, he continued, "By inventing a Holy Spirit of idolatrous imaginations, the modern Charismatic Movement offers strange fire that has done incalculable harm to the body of Christ. Claiming to focus on the third member of the Trinity, it has in fact profaned His name and denigrated His true work." (I document every quote, in context, in Authentic Fire.)

Although I do not know the man from Scotland who disrupted Pastor MacArthur's service, I suspect that what upset him was not so much the doctrine of cessationism but rather the aggressive and divisive way in which Pastor MacArthur has taught it, maligning many of God's choice servants and mocking those who worship the Lord in ways that are unfamiliar to him.

And so, once more, I appeal to my esteemed colleague, who has done so much good for the cause of Christ for so many decades and who has stood like a rock in the midst of spiritual compromise: Dear brother, you were gentle and gracious after that incident in your church. Would to God that you would display that same grace in your public differences with those of us in the Charismatic Movement — more than a half a billion strong — and would to God you would display that same grace and agree to sit down privately and discuss the relevant issues as men of God.

Which is taken out of context if meaning an older man as an pastor cannot be rebuked for what he publicly preached.

MacArthur is a very dedicated and mostly sound Bible teacher of holy motive and means who has much challenged and edified me and multitudes, and one i wish i did not warrant any reproof. However, he is wrong on cessationism, plus in his reaction against excess and desire for order, he has mixed truth with false conclusions, and his treatment of it manifests a false balance.

He has written three books in support of his position: The Charismatics (1978), Charismatic Chaos (1993), and Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (2013). In October 2013, MacArthur hosted a conference called "Strange Fire" at his church, to mark the launch of his book of the same name. The event featured a number of speakers who argued for a cessationist theology and strongly critiqued the Charismatic Movement.^[22]

In his opening remarks, MacArthur stated, Watching the behavior of some Hindus who belong to the Kundalini cult. Their body movements are almost identical to that of people in the charismatic movement, the extreme behavior of pagans. This is the work of Satan, it is the work of darkness, and not to be attributed to the Holy Spirit." And that, "The Charismatic movement as such has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine..It detracts and confuses." "It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error." "Have people truly been saved in Charismatic churches? Yes. But nothing coming from that movement has been the reason they were saved." "Evangelicalism has thrown its arms open and has welcomed the Trojan horse of the charismatic movement into the city of God. Its troops have taken over and placed an idol in the city of God."^[23]

He broadly calls modern "visions, revelations, voices from heaven...dreams, speaking in tongues, prophecies, out-of-body experiences, trip to heaven, anointings, miracles – all false, all lies, all deceptions – attributed falsely to the Holy Spirit." And that "The Charismatic movement has stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf, and they’re dancing around the golden calf as if it were the Holy Spirit."^[24]^[25] He has made a list of Gifts of the Spirit, mostly from 1 Cor. 12-14, but holds that "once the New Testament was finished, those sign gifts ceased to have a function", and ended with the conclusion of the Apostolic Age, around 100 AD.^[26]

In a subsequent teaching, "What has happened after the 'Strange Fire' Conference" (2013), MacArthur allowed that within the Charismatic movement there were those who believed in the authority of Scripture, honored the Lord, and pursued Godly living, and that the movement retained enough gospel truth so that souls could be saved within it. However, he saw its interdenominational presence as being "a testimony to the absence of any theology." He further criticized the modern Charismatic movement, stating that in 1967 "a bunch of Jesus freak people.. go to Calvary Chapel...and for the first time...that I know of in history, the church lets the very defined subculture dictate what it will be," citing "the hippie culture, communal living...kids coming out of drugs and free sex, and all that" as displacing "all the normal and formal things," and typifying the charismatic church, with the movement becoming Calvary Chapel.^[27]

In the past (1991) however, MacArthur commended Chuck Smith (1927 – 2013), founder of the Calvary Chapel movement, for writing "a straight forward critique of charismatic extremism," and stated that "there are many like him who have taken their stand and I thank God for their courage and their desire to be Biblical."^[28] In response to MacArthur's “Strange Fire” conference, Calvary Chapel expresses a fundamental disagreement with MacArthur's understanding of spiritual gifts among God's people today, but affirms "charisma, not charismania," and commends Chuck Smith’s book "Charisma versus Charismania" as being one of the best short, popular works on the subject.^[29]

Two books were written in response to the Strange Fire conference, arguing for the continuationist position: Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire by Michael Brown and Holy Fire: A Balanced, Biblical Look at the Holy Spirit's Work in Our Lives by R.T. Kendall. Addressing the “Strange Fire” conference, continuationist Calvinist Baptist John Piper concurs that there are many abuses in the charismatic church, however he adds that "we really need to keep in mind that every charismatic abuse has its mirror image in non-charismatic abuses...In some of these cases, the non-charismatic church is more guilty than the charismatic," such as, "the absence of emotion, which is probably more deadly than the excesses."^{[30] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur#Cessationism}

Verse 10 pretty much eviscerates the argument that the “wine” references in this passage are just speaking of unfermented grape juice. There would be no point talking about people “well drunk” on grape juice, or serving up poor quality grape juice later.

The context pretty much eviscerates your contention that the comment of the "governor of the feast" was talking about this particular event. He was not, if you read the text carefully.

As the governor speaks, "well-drunk" applies not to this event but to other feasts over which he has presided, and not even necessarily only wedding feasts. What he is saying is that so far, at this feast, the best-tasting wine (whether alcoholic or not) was not yet given out.

You cannot, as you desire, build a positive argument that any wine/juice has been offered to the guest before that made by Jesus. Furthermore, not knowing that it was made by Jesus, he doesn't and can't give the reader a clue as to whether the juice is an alcoholic beverage or not. He only says that from some unspecified aspect, it is the best in that quality parameter, whatever it is. Logically, you can guess, but you cannot prove the type of beverage this is. So don't keep on trying.

From my experience, having myself drunk good Burgundies and Beaujolais in Dijon, the Welch's grape juice of New York State Concord grapes, still retaining all the sugars usually consumed in fermentation, and without the acidity or lees, is far tastier and refreshing than any red wine you can find anywhere. So would the freshly created, not-yet-begun-to-ferment blood of the cluster, made from pure holy water, be very delightful to the jaded palate of the feast-master, and a highlight of the banquet.

"Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Is. 65:8 AV).

And even if the celebrants were plastered to the ears (though you cannot make that to be so), giving them fresh new sweet grape juice could not possibly be wrong or harmful, or sinful, whereas giving them about 150 gallons more of intoxicant could not be anything less than worthy of condemnation for anyone, much less the Holy Son Of God deliberately making them wretchedly nauseous and shamefully sodden.

I hope you are grasping this.

I’m sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in light of verse 10.

You can’t get “well drunk” on unfermented beverages, so that would be a nonsensical statement. Unfermented beverages also do not produce the effect that is spoken of, where, as people consume them, they become impaired in detecting the quality of the beverage (which is why people bring out the cheap wine when people are drunk). Only alcoholic beverages produce the effect.

Not only that, but it flies in the face of common sense. People have always, since the beginning of recorded history, served alcoholic beverages at wedding ceremonies. That is why everyone who reads this verse assumes it is speaking of wine, because it is a completely understandable situation we can all relate to. Only people from cultures like the Mohammedans and Puritans (who came much later than the NT) would think that a wedding might NOT serve alcoholic beverages.

So, if we try to read verse 10 as talking about unfermented beverages, it makes no sense at all. Now, God does not write things in the Bible that are nonsense. So if the equation of: your interpretation + the Bible = nonsense, then it is obviously your interpretation that produced the nonsense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.