Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
 photo jesuslamb.jpgA forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
Add Reply
April 24, 2008 I heard MacArthur in Dallas last Friday on Luke 15
Topic Started: Jun 5 2008, 07:19 PM (120 Views)
lightninboy

April 24, 2008
I heard MacArthur in Dallas last Friday on Luke 15

Pastor Bob Vacendak and I went to hear a message on Luke 15 by Dr. John MacArthur. He was in Dallas to show his appreciation for KCBI Radio station and also to promote his new book and his new TV show Grace to You.

In my dissertation I argued that the younger son coming to his senses represented faith in Christ. About 10 years later I became convinced of the view of Zane Hodges, that the younger son was born again before he left home. He was a son before he left. He didn’t become a son by returning. His coming to his senses represented a believer turning from his sinful ways to get back in fellowship with God.

Dr. John MacArthur’s position is hard to explain. There are two main components. First, the younger son’s turning from his sins was what led to him be born again. Thus he was arguing that repentance is a condition of eternal life. Second, the older son represents the unbelieving Pharisees. The Pharisees legalistic attitude toward tax collectors and sinners keeps them from being born again. So, too, the older brother’s legalistic attitude toward his repentant younger brother keeps him from being born again. Only the person who accepts the grace of God is able to have eternal life.

How these two seemingly contradictory points coalesced was not explained. If we must turn from our sins to be born again, is that not what the Pharisees believed? Did not the Pharisees believe that a tax collector could get into the kingdom if he gave restitution to all he wronged and ceased to be a tax collector? Wasn’t their objection that Jesus ate with people who were still active tax collectors who had not given any indication of prior repentance? Didn’t the younger son actually give up his sinful ways?

I was struck by the dogmatic assertions he made on points not at all clear in the text, and some not even crucial to his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the text. Here are some examples of his dogmatic assertions:

1. The Father in the parable is Jesus. He didn’t discuss the possibility that God the Father is in view. Why would Jesus present Himself as the Father in the story? Wouldn’t He be more likely to present Himself as a shepherd (15:3-7)?

2. The key elements in the story are honor and shame. He never explained how he arrived at this conclusion since the text itself never mentions either honor or shame.

3. The older brother hated his father and hated his brother. This assertion was made without the word hate appearing in the text and with only the scantiest of evidence (verses 29-30).

4. The story lacks an explicit ending, but has an implicit one. The implicit ending is that the older brother picked up a plank of wood and repeatedly struck his father, that is, Jesus, on the head until he killed Him. This is clear since the Pharisees later had Jesus crucified on a tree.

5. The younger son is the absolutely worst sinner that Jesus could possibly conceive of. This would seem to mean that he was worse than Judas or Jeroboam or Jezebel. Evidence for this young man being the worst conceivable sinner was not well developed.

6. A first century Pharisee would not eat a meal with anyone other than another Pharisee, according to MacArthur. How this could be so when according to Luke 14 a leading Pharisee had a meal with Jesus and His disciples (Luke 14:1ff.), none of whom were Pharisees, was not explained.

7. Jewish first century tax collectors, according to MacArthur, did not go to the temple, did not go to synagogue, and were totally irreligious. In addition, they hired goons to protect them and to get money out of people. That neither the text nor anywhere else in the NT says anything to this effect was not mentioned. Also not explained was the fact that neither Matthew nor Zacchaeus appear to fit his description. Nor does he explain the fact that tax collectors came to John the Baptist.

I’d estimate there were about 5,000 present to hear MacArthur that night. The audience was very favorable towards him and towards what he had to say. Yet what he said didn’t make sense. I think this shows the danger of being a powerful speaker with a strong following. Whatever a famous gifted communicator says is accepted as true in spite of it not matching up with what the text says.

Of course, we in the grace movement must take care of this same problem. Fortunately for us, no Free Grace speaker has anywhere near the fame or the charisma of John MacArthur. Still, we must be on guard to preach God’s Word only and not our own ideas.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lightninboy

Responses to “I heard MacArthur in Dallas last Friday on Luke 15”

1. dwags4him Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Great points…

I work at Moody and listened to Brother MacArthur speak on this same passage for about an hour at Founder’s Week this past year (or 07?) .

The biggest tip-off that both brothers are regenerate when the story begins is that they are both sons of the same Father. If Christ wanted to make this clear to His audience, He would really have to reach for a simpler way to do it.

One leaves and repents…the other does all the right things, but does so because he is comparing himself to the other brother to ‘out-merit’ him.

Both brothers have problems, and the same is true that both the barkeeper (’tax-collectors and sinners’and the pastor (’Pharisees and Sadducees’) have different temptations and hidden lapses of love…We can all (if we are brutally honest) place ourselves in either brother’s shoes as various points in our lives….

The younger son is a study in godly sorrow, and the older son a study in deceptiveness of bitterness.

The Father is the study of love, tender at times and tough at times.

Neither son lost his last name and then regained it…which really slams the door shut here.

Very good insights…it helps a lot to read sermons and then comment, instead of listening….I mis-listen a lot!.

2. KC Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Bob,
I heard the same sermon while driving across Indiana a few weeks ago. He definitly imposes his theology on the text and not vice-versa.

K.C.

3. Turbo Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Funny how the Lord uses parables to draw out a person’s presuppositions and misunderstandings. The instruction of Jesus to judge the fruit of false teachers in Matthew 7 would seem to apply to MacArthur here.
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · GES Blog · Next Topic »
Add Reply


View My Stats Msn bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit Yahoo bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit