The dustup between Michael Brown and John MacArthur represents a potential split in dispensationalism, although it may be more of a generational thing. MacArthur's an ardent dispensationalist. That makes him a "Zionist." But he's also a hardshell cessationist.
Conversely, Michael Brown is the foremost Messianic Jewish apologist of his generation. And it's my impression that charismatic Messianic Judaism is far and away the dominant form of Messianic Judaism at present.
The question is whether Dispensational cessationists will alienate the Messianic Jewish movement. Drive them away. That would be ironic.
On the other hand, the Strange Fire Conference may be the Alamo of Dispensational cessationism. The last stand in a lost cause.
Even Billy Graham, who has a much bigger footprint than MacArthur, is quickly fading from memory:
If that can happen to Graham during his lifetime, when he's still publishing, the passage of time won't necessarily–or even probably–be any kinder to old lions like MacArthur and Robert Thomas.
A minor correction: the Alamo was not the last stand in a lost cause. The Battle of the Alamo may have been lost, but it wasn't a last stand in the war, and Texas won its independence.
ReplyDeleteHays-
ReplyDeleteDr. Thomas is a personal friend of mine, and John MacArthur has been a stalwart for the cause of Christ for nearly fifty years. You, sir, need to show more respect.
What about MacArthurites showing some respect for Michael Brown? Or D. A. Carson? Or Craig Keener? Or Gordon Fee? Or Graham Twelftree. Your reaction reflects the dynamics of a personality cult.
DeleteMacArthurites don't have a monopoly on defending the cause of Christ.
BTW, I'm not some kid. These are not my elders.
Then stop acting like one.
DeleteThanks for once again exhibiting your cult personality psychology.
DeleteSteve Wilson said:
DeleteDr. Thomas is a personal friend of mine, and John MacArthur has been a stalwart for the cause of Christ for nearly fifty years. You, sir, need to show more respect.
Hm, by your logic, since King David "has been a stalwart" for the Lord for a good many years, then Nathan the prophet should have showed him more respect rather than calling him out over Bathsheba?
Then stop acting like one.
Should we always respect the elderly simply because they're elderly, or fail to respect youth simply because they're youth? Solomon seemed to have gone astray in his old age, while Timothy seemed to have been able to set a godly example for others.
You, sir, need to show more respect.
DeleteNo criticism is allowed of people who are older than you!
Of course, it helps that Graham's message has been muddled for a long time, given his unbiblical methods and his inclusivism. And the high dollars Franklin pulls down.
ReplyDeleteI think the fading is probably God's judgment upon a very flawed ministry.
BTW, Brown isn't a Pre-Trib Dispensationalist like a good number of Messianic Jews. I'm not exactly sure what he holds. But here's a debate between him and Steve Gregg (who last I heard was a Preteristic Amillennialist anti-Calvinist).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theopologetics.com/2012/07/11/episode-94-shalom-jerusalem/
What about MacArthurites showing some respect for Michael Brown? Or D. A. Carson? Or Craig Keener? Or Gordon Fee? Or Graham Twelftree. Your reaction reflects the dynamics of a personality cult.
ReplyDeleteMacArthurites don't have a monopoly on defending the cause of Christ.
1) But “Haysites” are? Your arrogance is truly astounding. Do you have any sense of self-awareness? Do you honestly believe that your postings are the end all to the argument?
2) Show me any writings from Bob Thomas or John MacArthur that have the same level of vitriol against those men that you have shown to them, and then you have a point.
BTW, I'm not some kid. These are not my elders.
Then stop acting like one.
Thanks for once again exhibiting your cult personality psychology.
Thanks for making my point that you are an arrogant prig (Prig: one who offends or irritates by observance of proprieties (as of speech or manners) in a pointed manner or to an obnoxious degree). Since when did you receive a doctorate in psychology? You don’t know me from Adam, and neither do you know Bob Thomas or John MacArthur, but in your arrogant pride you actually believe you can stand in the shadows and take pot shots at people you wouldn’t know if you passed them on the street. So, for me to take a stand for my friends is “exhibiting cult personality” in your world? You are amazing.
I have no problem with your engaging their arguments in a respectful manner, but you resort to name calling (old lions like MacArthur and Robert Thomas) and taunting (the Strange Fire Conference may be the Alamo of Dispensational cessationism. The last stand in a lost cause), and there is no way you can defend that biblically.
You have a gift of high intelligence, and you argue well, I have appreciated much of your work. But this stuff here is disgusting, and I think you know it.
Steve Wilson "1) But “Haysites” are? Your arrogance is truly astounding. Do you have any sense of self-awareness? Do you honestly believe that your postings are the end all to the argument?"
DeleteIf you're going to burn straw men, get a fire permit.
"2) Show me any writings from Bob Thomas or John MacArthur that have the same level of vitriol against those men that you have shown to them, and then you have a point."
I didn't direct any vitriol against them. But since you bring it up, Thomas is "vitriolic" towards progressive dispensationlists while MacArthur is vitriolic towards charismatics.
"Thanks for making my point that you are an arrogant prig (Prig: one who offends or irritates by observance of proprieties (as of speech or manners) in a pointed manner or to an obnoxious degree). Since when did you receive a doctorate in psychology? You don’t know me from Adam, and neither do you know Bob Thomas or John MacArthur, but in your arrogant pride you actually believe you can stand in the shadows and take pot shots at people you wouldn’t know if you passed them on the street."
I don't have to read your mind to judge you by your words. And it's amusing to see you decry "vitriol" when your own comments are replete with vitriol.
"So, for me to take a stand for my friends is 'exhibiting cult personality' in your world? You are amazing."
You are sunk in hero worship up to your neck. And, yes, your friendship has clouded your judgment. You're a team-player. You stick up for your teammates. In-group loyalty.
"I have no problem with your engaging their arguments in a respectful manner, but you resort to name calling (old lions like MacArthur and Robert Thomas)"
They are ordinary fallible mortals whose influence will wane when they die. They aren't irreplaceable. Most of us are pawns on the chessboard. Get use to it.
"and taunting (the Strange Fire Conference may be the Alamo of Dispensational cessationism. The last stand in a lost cause)"
If you prefer, I could use a different metaphor. What about the death rattle of Dispensational cessationism?
"and there is no way you can defend that biblically."
Been there, done that.
"But this stuff here is disgusting, and I think you know it."
I know that you're way too emotional to see straight.
Hm, by your logic, since King David "has been a stalwart" for the Lord for a good many years, then Nathan the prophet should have showed him more respect rather than calling him out over Bathsheba?
ReplyDeleteFirst, John MacArthur and Bob Thomas are not kings.
Second, Steve Hays is not a prophet – although I think he fancies himself as such.
Third, did MacArthur or Thomas engage in sex with a married woman? Their only “sin” is having a different view on the Charismatic Movement than Steve Hays.
Fourth, Nathan did show him respect as the anointed king of God’s people. Did Nathan call him some sort of “dunce”, or “sex addict” who needs to learn to keep his pants zipped? Your statement makes no sense.
Should we always respect the elderly simply because they're elderly, or fail to respect youth simply because they're youth?
Yes, I think we should have respect for the elderly simply because they are elderly.
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity (1 Timothy 5: 1-2). You’re an honest man Philip would you say that Hays “encouraged” them “as you would a father”?
“You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19: 32)
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
Solomon seemed to have gone astray in his old age, while Timothy seemed to have been able to set a godly example for others.
Are you suggesting Bob Thomas and John MacArthur have “gone astray”?
I understand, Steve Hays may be a friend of yours, but if you truly care about him you would not let this pass without trying to reign in his arrogant rhetoric. I believe he may be headed in the same direction as Peter Enns, Michael Sudduth, or even Bart Ehrmann. People with a gift of high intelligence, which I think Hays has, are always going to be tempted to see their intellect as god-like.
Steve Wilson
Delete"Second, Steve Hays is not a prophet – although I think he fancies himself as such."
Ironic accusation coming from a guy who just a few sentences ago said "Since when did you receive a doctorate in psychology?" But I suppose elementary consistency is too much to ask.
"Yes, I think we should have respect for the elderly simply because they are elderly."
Do you apply that to Gordon Fee, who's pushing 80? Do you apply that to David Paul Yonggi Cho, who's 77?
"I understand, Steve Hays may be a friend of yours, but if you truly care about him you would not let this pass without trying to reign in his arrogant rhetoric."
Why assume Alan is defending me? Alan has tangled with MacArthurite elders who like to throw their weight around. I expect that's what he's pushing up against.
"I believe he may be headed in the same direction as Peter Enns, Michael Sudduth, or even Bart Ehrmann."
So you have the gift of prophecy? Funny how you talk just like a Pentecostal when it suits your agenda.
"which I think Hays has, are always going to be tempted to see their intellect as god-like."
You have a knack for projection.
If you're going to burn straw men, get a fire permit.
ReplyDeleteI don’t have to since nothing was burning.
I didn't direct any vitriol against them. But since you bring it up, Thomas is "vitriolic" towards progressive dispensationlists while MacArthur is vitriolic towards charismatics.
Give me the writings then; journals, books, articles, whatever you can find. I haven’t seen, nor read, any “vitriolic” statements from either of those men. Oh, they certainly write with a certain degree of sharpness when they criticize, but it is the arguments they go after, not the person, which is my criticism of you. So, you either put up or shut up.
I don't have to read your mind to judge you by your words. And it's amusing to see you decry "vitriol" when your own comments are replete with vitriol.
No, Hays, it is not “amusing” for you to see something that actually doesn’t exist (“you are replete with vitrol). It’s actually quite pathetic. It’s pathetic for a man to hear the same concerns and criticisms directed his way by fellow believers, and continue to scoff and head in the wrong direction as you obviously are.
You are sunk in hero worship up to your neck. And, yes, your friendship has clouded your judgment. You're a team-player. You stick up for your teammates. In-group loyalty.
I worship the Lord God of Creation, not man. And, yes, you bet I am a team player! I will defend you, or any other believer, who is being attacked by the enemies of our Lord. And I will rebuke any member of my “team” who is eroding the confidence and integrity of the team with incredibly short-sighted attacks against one of our own!
They are ordinary fallible mortals whose influence will wane when they die. They aren't irreplaceable. Most of us are pawns on the chessboard. Get use to it.
You cannot be serious with this response. Did you even think before you typed this? I am not a “pawn on a chessboard”! And if you are truly a believer, I’ve got good news, neither are you (Eph. 1: 3-12).
Steve Wilson :
Delete"I don’t have to since nothing was burning."
You posed a classic "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.
"Give me the writings then; journals, books, articles, whatever you can find. I haven’t seen, nor read, any “vitriolic” statements from either of those men."
Your problem is not lack of evidence but lack of perception.
"it is the arguments they go after, not the person, which is my criticism of you."
But in my case you've been attacking the person, not the arguments. Your lack of moral consistency is glaring.
"So, you either put up or shut up."
Is that how you usually address your parishioners? Is that your concept of pastoral ministry?
"No, Hays, it is not 'amusing' for you to see something that actually doesn’t exist."
The fact that you're blind to your abusive comments is a reflection on your incapacity for self-criticism.
"It’s actually quite pathetic. It’s pathetic for a man to hear the same concerns and criticisms directed his way by fellow believers, and continue to scoff and head in the wrong direction as you obviously are."
You mask your abused under the feigned cloak of "concern."
"And, yes, you bet I am a team player!"
Says it all.
"I am not a 'pawn on a chessboard'!"
Your inflated self-importance goes far to explain your presumptuous conduct.
I'm perfectly content to be a pawn on God's chessboard. In the great scheme of things, most of us are bit players. There's the chess master (God). Kings and queens (Adam and Eve). A few knights, castles, and bishops (e.g. prophets, apostles, archangels), but most of us are pawns.
If you prefer, I could use a different metaphor. What about the death rattle of Dispensational cessationism?
ReplyDeleteThat may be your ardent desire, but since Dispensationalism is thoroughly biblical, and has been shown to be in numerous debates and scholarly journals for over a hundred years, I think you’re in for a long wait. Oh, and if you would like a face-to-face with one of the most capable biblical defenders of Dispensationalism – Dr. Robert L. Saucy, I can arrange that.
Been there, done that.
Taunting, “been there, done that” is not an answer. If you can defend your actions, then defend them biblically. Otherwise, you’re just a bluff.
I know that you're way too emotional to see straight.
And I know your way too full of your own ego to see straight. So, were at a stand-still.
Ironic accusation coming from a guy who just a few sentences ago said "Since when did you receive a doctorate in psychology?" But I suppose elementary consistency is too much to ask.
Did I say anything of a nature that indicated I was performing a psych evaluation on you as you did on me? Nevertheless, yes, absolutely, I think you fancy yourself as a self-styled “prophet”, or “king”, or “priest”, or “guru” to the Christian world. Now, you say, “Why do you think that?” Because your writings overflow with self-importance, arrogance, haughtiness, pride, and smug self-satisfaction, that’s why. Steve Hays, you are not a humble person, and God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Do you apply that to Gordon Fee, who's pushing 80? Do you apply that to David Paul Yonggi Cho, who's 77?
And why wouldn’t I? Do you honestly believe I would pick and choose whom I respect? I cannot stomach Barak Obama, and I pray he gets removed from office, but I respect him as president of our country. When I was in the Air Force, I had a commanding officer that I thought was incompetent, but I still respected his authority. But, that respect does not shelter them from legitimate criticism.
Why assume Alan is defending me?
I wasn’t referring to Alan, I was referring to Patrick Chan.
Alan has tangled with MacArthurite elders who like to throw their weight around. I expect that's what he's pushing up against.
That’s an accusation that can be thrown in your direction as well, and it lacks just as much evidence.
Steve Wilson:
Delete"If you prefer, I could use a different metaphor. What about the death rattle of Dispensational cessationism? That may be your ardent desire, but since Dispensationalism is thoroughly biblical, and has been shown to be in numerous debates and scholarly journals for over a hundred years, I think you’re in for a long wait."
Thomas represents the last gasp of classic Dispensationalism.
"Oh, and if you would like a face-to-face with one of the most capable biblical defenders of Dispensationalism – Dr. Robert L. Saucy, I can arrange that."
Thanks for proving my point, since he's an architect of progressive dispensationalism–in contrast to MacArthur and Thomas.
"Taunting, 'been there, done that' is not an answer. If you can defend your actions, then defend them biblically. Otherwise, you’re just a bluff."
I don't have to repeat myself for your benefit. Consult the archives.
"And I know your way too full of your own ego to see straight."
Another presumptuous and abusive comment.
"Nevertheless, yes, absolutely, I think you fancy yourself as a self-styled 'prophet', or 'king', or 'priest', or 'guru' to the Christian world. Now, you say, 'Why do you think that?' Because your writings overflow with self-importance, arrogance, haughtiness, pride, and smug self-satisfaction, that’s why. Steve Hays, you are not a humble person, and God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
A string of epithets that reveals everything about you and nothing about me.
"Do you honestly believe I would pick and choose whom I respect?"
Show how you respect Gordon Fee?
"but I respect him as president of our country"
That's respecting the office, not the man.
"That’s an accusation that can be thrown in your direction as well, and it lacks just as much evidence."
Abundant evidence has been provided on this very blog.
Steve Wilson
Delete"Oh, and if you would like a face-to-face with one of the most capable biblical defenders of Dispensationalism – Dr. Robert L. Saucy, I can arrange that."
Saucy's the antithesis of the Strange Fire Conference. He represents the "open, but cautious" perspective. That's anathema to MacArthurite cessationists. They regard mediating figures like him as "gutless enablers." So your counterexample backfires badly.
So you have the gift of prophecy?
ReplyDeleteNope, I do not have the gifts, or the calling, to speak the inerrant authoritative words of God. But, I can see spiritual pride and arrogance in your writings (which I have followed the last five years) just fine.
Funny how you talk just like a Pentecostal when it suits your agenda.
If you consider my concern about a highly intelligent, and gifted, brother who is suffering from a grandiose ego an “agenda” than I admit guilt your honor.
You have a knack for projection.
And, once again, you mistake the genuine concerns of another believer with the empty yammering of a pagan. I wonder if you have “ears” to hear and “eyes” to see? It appears you have little to no capacity for self-reflection, and the ability to seriously consider the myriad legitimate criticisms that have come your way from fellow believers down through the years.
And to show you I am serious about my concerns, I am willing to meet you face-to-face whenever it would be possible for you when, and if, you make a trip down to Southern Calif. We could meet at Biola, Masters, or wherever you wished. And, I could arrange a meeting with Dr. Thomas if you are really that concerned about his arguments.
Steve Wilson "
Delete"Nope, I do not have the gifts, or the calling, to speak the inerrant authoritative words of God. But, I can see spiritual pride and arrogance in your writings (which I have followed the last five years) just fine."
More epithets which reveal everything about you and nothing about me. Funny how some speakers unwittingly expose their true character.
"If you consider my concern about a highly intelligent, and gifted, brother who is suffering from a grandiose ego an 'agenda' than I admit guilt your honor."
More abuse under the mock pious guise of feigned "concern."
"And, once again, you mistake the genuine concerns of another believer with the empty yammering of a pagan. I wonder if you have 'ears' to hear and 'eyes' to see? It appears you have little to no capacity for self-reflection, and the ability to seriously consider the myriad legitimate criticisms that have come your way from fellow believers down through the years."
Yet another string of abusive comments that reveal everything about you and nothing about me.
"And to show you I am serious about my concerns…"
You're concerned about me the way Torquemada was concerned about marranos and Dr. Albert Hirsch was concerned about Jason Bourne.