Matt,
I don't think Phil was denying what you are asserting here. I think, at least I believe, that Phil was trying to dispel a great deal of nonsense that surrounds a mentality many hold about spiritual warfare that is akin to to a Frank Parreti novel. The book of Acts backs you up in several places Matt as well as several scriptural references such as the end of Eph. 6.
Brad
Like you (I think) I have an appreciation for much of the content of MacArthur's ministry (as well as those of his angry little clones). But if you're looking for grace, you're looking in the wrong direction. I've long thought it to be tragically and embarrassingly ironic that his ministry is called "Grace to You." Well, maybe there is grace to someone but it's not likely coming from that ministry.
Phil Johnson, in his typically caustic, Calvinistic way, does little to change my opinion. He is quite entertaining and usually on the right side of the argument. But he is proudly abrasive and lacking in sensitivity and humility - at least if his blog is representative. Ever see him take a step backward? Admit to possible error? Do anything other than trumpet his own arrogant dogmatism or ridicule those who don't know the "truth according to MacArthur"?
If being right - and only real Calvinists are right: just ask them! - means being like MacArthur or Johnson, and if Calvin was anything like either of them, then I never want to be thought of as a Calvinist and Calvin was truly one of the the ugly sneers on the face of Christianity.
I'm no charismatic, but if I were looking for a loving church, I'd look at your church long before I'd set foot in Johnson's. In fact, being unchurched would be better than being in his church. I read his Charismatic Chaos and agreed almost 100%. But I was stunned by his vicious attacks and hateful disposition that was present on almost every page.
And now we have an angry man as one of the talking heads of Christianity? Wonderful.
That's my 30+ years of perspective on John Mac and his malignant style of Christianity. Anyone who wants to shoot the messenger - a favorite and primitive defense mechanism of most small-minded Calvinists - is welcome to do so. I've come to realize that most of them are shooting blanks anyway.
Brad, I guess I'm polititely saying I agree with what PJ had to say, but skeptical of his tone on the subject considering his employer. There's more argumentation under the surface, a motivation based on his own leader's comments, that makes me think twice (and thrice) whether I should even enter a discussion with him on the subject.
Mike, perhaps I'm just not as exposed to all of that ministry's work to have developed such strong opinions. What I've heard on the radio I consider mostly helpful and beneficial.
Matt, when it comes down to where the rubber hits the road, there are some good things that can be taken from Johnson and MacArthur's ministry, but neither of them have the full revelation of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movements, so it seems a waste of time trying to argue the point.
As a Pentecostal my emphasis has always been on the teachings and practices of the Lord Jesus, and if this is strong in one's life, then that is all the evidence required to answer our critic's.
GBYAY
Matt, et.al.:
This isn't really germane to the subject, but I get confused sometimes with the interchangeable usage of charismatic and Pentacostal. It used to be that charismatics believed in the perpetuity of certain gifts - especially tongues - as well as the basic fundamentals of the faith.
Pentacostals, however, (back when the UPC was denied entry into some evangelical group) denied the Trinity - being essentially modalists - and thus were declared unorthodox.
If that distinction is no longer maintained - i.e., if the precision of the language is lost - then how are we to know if a self-proclaimed Pentacostal is Trinitarian or if they are unitarian (as many - if not most - Christian musicians seem to be)?
Matt,
I actually responded to Phil and was surprised at the ferocity of his response, particularly since he attacked much of what I said out of context. Oh well. I guess my first mistake was opening my post by admitting I was a charismatic!
Mike,
Pentecostals are a subset of charismatics. Even then, the term "charismatic" is usually used today by many people who don't know the history of that movement to refer to groups that came out of the 1960s charismatic resurgence rather than those that came from the Welsh and Azusa Street revivals in the early 1900s. Pentecostals are an Azusa offshoot. The Vineyard and Calvary Chapel are directly descended from the 1960s resurgence and are part of the charismatic "Third Wave" that C. Peter Wagner wrote about.
As for Pentecostals, they ARE trinitarian. However, there is a lone sect called "Oneness Pentecostals" (the United Pentecostal Church you mentioned) that are not. T.D. Jakes is the most noted of those folks.
As for your comment about Pentecostal musicians being non-trinitarians, I have no idea where you're getting that idea from unless you are referring to the group Phillips, Craig, and Dean--I believe they are Oneness Pentecostals. I'm a musician and attend a Pentecostal church, and I can say that I'm in NO way anti-trinitarian!
Thanks, Dan. I knew a lot of the history from a paper I did in seminary but the imprecision of the language is what throws me. I consistently found in my research a careful use of the two terms which I found to be quite helpful. Those lines are being blurred, however, and I doubt that it is by accident by those who want to sneak in the back door of orthodoxy.
I assume (being the wonderfully gracious sort of fellow that I am - but you knew that already, didn't you?) that all charismatics are trinitarian (or 'triunitarians,' to be technically correct) until I find out otherwise. I figured that about you, Adrian, Matt, and everyone else that describes themselves as charismatic.
Personally, if I were charismatic - well, technically all Christians are since we believe in the gifts of the Spirit: so that makes me what? a modified charismatic?- at any rate, if I were charismatic, I would not label myself as or want to be grouped with pentacostals. In my mind, it's like me (or is it 'my'?) saying that I'm a Christian and having someone else say, "Oh, so you're a Mormon!" or (to be historical) "Oh, a Socinian, eh?"
I don't agree with some charismatic understandings of pneumatika, but I don't condemn them anymore than I condemn Calvinists for twisting the Scriptures for theological purposes. I've actually less tolerance for some of my own dispensational kinsmen who make stupid predictions. But I would encourage those of you - the majority, as you say - who are trinitarians to distinguish yourself from the UPC.
FWIW, I think I read about many/most popular Christian composers being 'oneness' pentecostals in Christianity Today a few years back. I think it was an editorial or column having to do with correct theology in modern hymnology. Or maybe I was just hallucinating: who can say for sure?
Dan writes,
"I actually responded to Phil and was surprised at the ferocity of his response."
Fool you once...
Mike, I would encourage you to read "Empowered Evangelicals," which I believe is a strong introduction into basic modern charismatic theology. I think it's something most of us self-identified charismatics with blogs would agree on.
There are plenty of Pentecostal organizations who affirm the Trinity, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) being one of the larger ones. I honestly believe the primary difference between a charismatic and a Pentecostal is the packaging. A charismatic is probably going to behave more like a mainstream Evangelical -- and in fact may be a member of a mainstream church.
Ever see him take a step backward? Admit to possible error? Do anything other than trumpet his own arrogant dogmatism or ridicule those who don't know the "truth according to MacArthur"?
Wow. Did I miss the ensuing fireworks here or what?
Mike: Yes, I have seen Phil blink and concede a point. I once had the same concerns as you, Mike. Now, not so much.
Brad
Wow Mike,
If I combined the complete works of Pastor MacArthur and Phil Johnson together I could not find one tenth the spite, malice and vitriol that you have heaped upon them with one post.
1Ti 5:19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
1Ti 5:21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality
How refreshing. To actually be able to sharpen iron against iron in relative peacefulness. I grew up in the Vineyard movement, and have seen some abuse of the Spirit, but have also seen far too much to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". As for John MacArthur, he doesn't have a problem speaking truth, but the thing I have noticed with Calvinists (with whom I share many beliefs) is the spiritual affinity to their founder. Many of his character traits that were not scriptural such as anger, pride, and an absolute disgust for anyone who did not share all of his beliefs, seem
to be handed down like a spiritual mantle. Saying this, some of my closest friends and family are Calvinists. The sad thing is though, we cannot really speak in depth about the same God that each of us love so much.
Commenting by HaloScan
