Good interview. Pastor MacArthur did a pretty good job. But as he says, he's a preacher. He's not an apologist.
I can't wait till William Lane Craig is interviewed in January. I suspect it'll go down like Lawrence Kuhn's interview of Craig here: https://youtu.be/Y4RY_Xhc5m0
But with Ben interviewing him, it'll given Craig an even wider audience.
I see in the above comment the implied notion that an apologist would have been better than a preacher. Mmmmm. A preacher doesn't do apologetics when preaching?
If you've watched the interview, then you know there were like 2 or 3 times when MacArthur said he doesn't defend the Bible because he thinks the Bible is powerful enough to defend itself. In one sense that's true, but in another sense that's falling short of what Scripture itself requires. A defense of the faith. Apologetics is required by God from us, even if it's not necessary for people to believe the gospel or for the authentication of Scripture (which is self-authenticating, and self-authorizing).
I didn't say that I'd rather have Craig than MacArthur. Since both will be interviewed, I didn't make that comment. Though, if only one of them could interviewed, I would definitely rather have Craig than MacArthur in such a platform. Since many non-Christians would be watching.
Overall, it was very exciting to watch and listen to and I was very encouraged by Ben Shapiro and him listening to John MacArthur. Conservative Jews like Shapiro, Dennis Pager, and Michael Medved are some of the best political and cultural commentators we have today.
2 or 3 times when MacArthur said he doesn't defend the Bible because he thinks the Bible is powerful enough to defend itself. one sense that's true, but in another sense that's falling short of what Scripture itself requires.
Agreed.
I was surprised that he says things like it is wrong to say that "the NT interprets the OT" and his downplaying of understanding a lot of the OT Christologically. Some forms of that are over-board, where the OT text is not about the future Messiah, but It seems Jesus asserted much truth of that in Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-48. And the apostle Paul puts the promises to Abraham about Christ Himself - Galatians 3:16.
It seems like a wrong label to accuse non Pre-Millennialists as "the church replacing Israel" rather than some other kind of description, such as "the expansion of true believing Israel to the Gentiles" (and the doing away of the Theocratic political kingdom of God on this earth - Jesus did take the kingdom of God away from Israel - Matthew 21:33-45
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36 His dogmatism of Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennialism is always discouraging; and seemingly calling Amillennialism and Postmillennialism forms of "latent Anti-semitism" is very disappointing.
Otherwise he did a great job and he shared the gospel really clearly to Ben Shapiro in a great way. I love the way MacArthur emphasized Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10; great!
Ken Hamrick's comment below is also a needed balance on that issue.
That's true that there is a need for apologetic... But I doubt that a truly Biblical apologetic will defend the Scripture cut off from the Scripture. I think that was John Macarthur meant. He just elevated the glory and the intrinsic authority and persuasiveness of the Bible rather than himself.
I agree with Ken Temple's other criticisms. I felt the same way regarding those issues as I watched the video, but out of respect for pastor MacArthur I chose only one objection to highlight. The one I thought the most problematic.
to Unknown: That's what MacArthur might have meant, but that wasn't the only (or even likely) possible impression he gave. If I didn't know that he's associated with The Master's Seminary, and therefore understand the usefulness of apologetics, I would have gotten the impression that he's almost against apologetics. If I were Ben or any other non-Christian watching the video that's the impression I would have gotten. Which would confirm the impression of most non-Christians that Christianity is an anti-intellectual religion.
I greatly admire John MacArthur and much of his theology, but I disagree with his statements in this interview to the effect that Christians ought never to be involved in revolutions, but ought always to submit to whatever governmental authorities exist. It seems that he and many other Evangelicals have forgotten the theology behind such ideas as God-given civil rights, God-given responsibilities of government, and the God-given responsibility of any people to establish a legitimate government when one does not or no longer exists. (Not looking for an argument here.. just stating my opinion).
I believe JMac has a fairly Anabaptist or pietist view. I think that's in large part because he came of age before the culture wars, so he's in a timewarp in the regard.
I've posted an article on this instead of trying to write lengthy comments: https://kenhamrick.com/2018/12/04/the-forgotten-theology-of-rights-revolution/
Good interview. Pastor MacArthur did a pretty good job. But as he says, he's a preacher. He's not an apologist.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait till William Lane Craig is interviewed in January. I suspect it'll go down like Lawrence Kuhn's interview of Craig here: https://youtu.be/Y4RY_Xhc5m0
But with Ben interviewing him, it'll given Craig an even wider audience.
I see in the above comment the implied notion that an apologist would have been better than a preacher. Mmmmm. A preacher doesn't do apologetics when preaching?
ReplyDeleteIf you've watched the interview, then you know there were like 2 or 3 times when MacArthur said he doesn't defend the Bible because he thinks the Bible is powerful enough to defend itself. In one sense that's true, but in another sense that's falling short of what Scripture itself requires. A defense of the faith. Apologetics is required by God from us, even if it's not necessary for people to believe the gospel or for the authentication of Scripture (which is self-authenticating, and self-authorizing).
DeleteI didn't say that I'd rather have Craig than MacArthur. Since both will be interviewed, I didn't make that comment. Though, if only one of them could interviewed, I would definitely rather have Craig than MacArthur in such a platform. Since many non-Christians would be watching.
Overall, it was very exciting to watch and listen to and I was very encouraged by Ben Shapiro and him listening to John MacArthur. Conservative Jews like Shapiro, Dennis Pager, and Michael Medved are some of the best political and cultural commentators we have today.
Delete2 or 3 times when MacArthur said he doesn't defend the Bible because he thinks the Bible is powerful enough to defend itself. one sense that's true, but in another sense that's falling short of what Scripture itself requires.
Agreed.
I was surprised that he says things like it is wrong to say that "the NT interprets the OT" and his downplaying of understanding a lot of the OT Christologically. Some forms of that are over-board, where the OT text is not about the future Messiah, but It seems Jesus asserted much truth of that in Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-48. And the apostle Paul puts the promises to Abraham about Christ Himself - Galatians 3:16.
It seems like a wrong label to accuse non Pre-Millennialists as "the church replacing Israel" rather than some other kind of description, such as "the expansion of true believing Israel to the Gentiles" (and the doing away of the Theocratic political kingdom of God on this earth - Jesus did take the kingdom of God away from Israel - Matthew 21:33-45
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36
His dogmatism of Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennialism is always discouraging; and seemingly calling Amillennialism and Postmillennialism forms of "latent Anti-semitism" is very disappointing.
Otherwise he did a great job and he shared the gospel really clearly to Ben Shapiro in a great way. I love the way MacArthur emphasized Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10; great!
Ken Hamrick's comment below is also a needed balance on that issue.
To Annoyed Pinoy,
DeleteThat's true that there is a need for apologetic... But I doubt that a truly Biblical apologetic will defend the Scripture cut off from the Scripture. I think that was John Macarthur meant. He just elevated the glory and the intrinsic authority and persuasiveness of the Bible rather than himself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Ken Temple's other criticisms. I felt the same way regarding those issues as I watched the video, but out of respect for pastor MacArthur I chose only one objection to highlight. The one I thought the most problematic.
Deleteto Unknown: That's what MacArthur might have meant, but that wasn't the only (or even likely) possible impression he gave. If I didn't know that he's associated with The Master's Seminary, and therefore understand the usefulness of apologetics, I would have gotten the impression that he's almost against apologetics. If I were Ben or any other non-Christian watching the video that's the impression I would have gotten. Which would confirm the impression of most non-Christians that Christianity is an anti-intellectual religion.
I greatly admire John MacArthur and much of his theology, but I disagree with his statements in this interview to the effect that Christians ought never to be involved in revolutions, but ought always to submit to whatever governmental authorities exist. It seems that he and many other Evangelicals have forgotten the theology behind such ideas as God-given civil rights, God-given responsibilities of government, and the God-given responsibility of any people to establish a legitimate government when one does not or no longer exists. (Not looking for an argument here.. just stating my opinion).
ReplyDeleteI believe JMac has a fairly Anabaptist or pietist view. I think that's in large part because he came of age before the culture wars, so he's in a timewarp in the regard.
DeleteI've posted an article on this instead of trying to write lengthy comments:
Deletehttps://kenhamrick.com/2018/12/04/the-forgotten-theology-of-rights-revolution/