John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation, pt. 3
Answering the Question of Separation
In a Q and A at Master’s Seminary, John MacArthur answered a student’s question in chapel about the practice of separation. I included the transcript of the question and answer in part one and made some overall analysis. In part two I compared MacArthur’s answer to one about separation shortly thereafter by Rick Warren. The Master’s Seminary student asked about “partnership in ministry,” having it with those who agree on the essentials without agreement on non-essentials.
MacArthur started his answer by saying that he should try to work with whoever the Lord allowed in the Kingdom. His argument is that people working together in the kingdom under Christ should figure out how to work together now. Scripture says nothing like that about working together in the kingdom. Several passages speak to this issue.
Separation from Believers in the Bible
The doctrine of separation requires separation from professing believers. Several places in the New Testament teach this and especially in what John MacArthur addresses to the question. In 1 Timothy 6:3-5 the Apostle Paul writes under inspiration of God:
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. . . . from such withdraw thyself.
This is a command for regenerated, immersed church members to withdraw themselves from those who teach different than what your church believes and practices, assuming this is orthodox doctrine.
Speaking of separating from brothers in Christ, the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15:
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him,, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
Paul says that if a brother walks disorderly and not after the tradition received from the apostle, withdraw yourself from him. If he is not obeying whatever is in 2 Thessalonians, which includes eschatology and other doctrines, note that man and have no company with him.
Wrong Answers
Alienation from People in the Kingdom?
The above are verses that deal directly with the question asked of MacArthur. The young man even asks for scripture to answer the question. MacArthur does not do that. Instead, he goes anecdotal and alludes to a passage out of context. Why doesn’t MacArthur give him a scriptural answer? I think there could be many different reasons, but in the end, it’s just that he gave an unscriptural answer. “Do not separate” is in essence his answer.
The Apostle Paul doesn’t say, “I don’t want to alienate people who are in the kingdom.” Separation is a means of restoration. Shame is a tool toward repentance. Separation also practices holiness, such as “be holy as I am holy” (1 Pet 1:15-16). Does the truth alienate people in the kingdom? Separation is a biblical means for preserving the truth, guarding or keeping the truth. It’s not the first option, but when someone doesn’t teach the words of Jesus Christ, consent to His words, scripture says, withdraw thyself.
Not separating will only bring more false doctrine and practice. Scripture doesn’t say, “If you want to get rid of false doctrine and practice, write another book about it.” Writing a book might help, but scripture doesn’t teach that as a method. Separation is not easy to do. I never found child discipline easy. It’s easier to let people get away with what they say and do.
You Wouldn’t Send Someone to Another Church?
MacArthur makes the following argument:
I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?
It is true that someone can have a bad theology and stay in the church. Even Jezebel was given “space to repent” in Revelation 2:21 at the church at Thyatira. Paul gives instruction in Romans 16:17:
Now I beseech you, brethren,, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Churches shouldn’t just allow false doctrine. At some point separation also must occur. Paul explains. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul wrote:
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Church members are required to speak the same thing, be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. That isn’t happening when church members believe a different doctrine. When “a Bible teacher or a pastor” teaches bad theology, should John MacArthur consider that the same as a particular church member believing something different?
Separation Must Occur to Obey God’s Word
If a church member starts spreading false doctrine, the Romans 16:17 applies to that. According to 1 Corinthians 1:10, everyone in a church must have the same mind and judgment. Unity is not based on toleration of bad doctrine and bad behavior. This, however, is the way evangelicalism rolls. Is there any wonder so much false doctrine and practice exists?
I’m not going to go further with the MacArthur answer. His answer is bad. It should not be followed by anyone.
I could say there are a number of reasons why MacArthur takes the wrong position about separation. Maybe he thinks it’s right. That’s hard to believe. In the end, he missed. The young man wanted to hear what scripture taught. He didn’t hear it.
Essentials and Non Essentials?
The young man brought up essentials and non-essentials. His idea was, separate over essentials. Don’t separate over non-essentials. He was looking for the way to judge between these two categories. He wasn’t given it. Scripture doesn’t teach this arbitrary, subjective criteria for judging.
Sure, certain doctrines and practices are more consequential than others. Certain doctrines relate more closely to the gospel than others. I almost always think of two examples. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, which was a wrong recipe at the altar of incense. Ananias and Sapphira kept back part of an offering, and said they gave it all. Are those essentials or non-essentials? God wants respected everything that He said.
Separation isn’t easy. It still must be done. It will be done, because God will do it. He will separate. It’s an attribute of His nature.
X1 Credit Card Review: 3%-10% Back on Everything-Great Value
The X1 Credit Card: Great Value for Many
The X1 credit card is a great value for many people, offering what may be the highest rate of rewards back available.
The X1 Credit Card offers 3% back on all purchases if one spends at least $1,000 a month on the card. Their app also offers useful “boosts” that provide 4% or 5% back on purchases in a variety of categories, such as gas or restaurants. There is no annual fee for the X1 card. Thus, the X1 card offers a very attractive rate for a card with no annual fee. For many people the X1 card could be an attractive option and a definite keeper, the default, go-to credit card for years.
Are there Downsides to the X1 Card?
While the X1 card is very attractive, there are some downsides to be aware of:
1.) You cannot call customer service. You have to use the app to contact them. What if you can’t get anywhere with the app? This is not my favorite. However, it is also possible that one calls an agent and can’t get anywhere either if a company has agents who are not competent, so being able to use the phone does not necessarily solve anything anyway.
2.) You cannot get paper statements. Your credit card statements are all received in their app. They do email you to remind you when a statement is generated, but I like paper statements.
3.) You cannot redeem the points at full value for cold, hard cash, only to cancel out transactions at selected merchants (kind of like buying a gift card for these merchants). Now the range of options here is quite attractive—there are over 50 options, including everything from Apple to American Airlines to Airbnb to REI to Hotels.com, so for many people this kind of redemption is almost as good as cash. But the fact that you cannot redeem your points for actual dollars at full value (although you can redeem them at a reduced rate for cash; instead of $0.01 per point value towards a merchant, while you get 70% of that for cash, so 10,000 points is $100 back at REI but only $70 in actual cash back) is a negative. Even if you never shop at any of the merchants where you can get the full 3% back (unlikely for most people) at a 70% back rate for cash, however, 3 points per dollar becomes 2.1% back for cash, which is still superior to a flat-rate 2% cash back card.
4.) If you spend less than $1,000 a month on your X1 card you do not get 3% back, but a (still decent) 2%.
Why Does the X1 Card Operate the Way it Does?
I can understand why the X1 card does these things-the fees merchants pay to take credit cards is less than 3%, in most instances, so a card that gave you 3% of actual cash back on everything would have an extremely difficult time breaking even, let alone turning a profit. It would be losing money every time you made a purchase. By the combination of extremely low overhead (no paper statements; no human beings who take calls with customer support; everything in their app; deals cut with companies that allow X1 to offer point redemption at face value while they get a discounted deal; some customers spending less than $1,000 a month and so not getting 3% back) X1 appears to be able to offer customers 3% back on all their purchases so long as they spend at least $1,000 every month with the card. In other words, they may be able to continue in the long-term as a successful business, like Chase or Citibank or American Express, instead of going bankrupt for offering people too high a rate of cash back.
For many people, the X1 credit card is a logical and reasonable choice for their default card for purchases outside of bonus categories. Someone who spends $50,000 a year on a credit card will get $1,500 back with the X1 card instead of only $500 back if he is using a credit card that offers 1% back or only $1,000 back with a 2% back card. With the bonus categories or “boosts” the X1 card offers, one can get even more back–4%, 5%, or more on selected categories that are often quite useful.
The X1 card is also made out of metal, not plastic. It feels nice in your hand. I really don’t care about how the card feels in comparison to what monetary value it offers me, but some people are into that kind of thing.
If you open an X1 card using the link here, you will also receive 4-10% back for a period of time on all purchases (a very, very attractive rate, which I will also get for a period of time if you open a card with this link). X1 has a system where they do not do a hard pull on your credit unless they are very likely to approve you. They tell you ahead of time before they access your credit file for this. Their application process first gets your approval to do a soft pull that does not negatively impact your credit score in any way and tell you if you are going to be approved or not. That is an attractive feature for those interested in the card; if you are not going to be approved, they don’t touch your credit score at all; they only do it if they are very likely to approve you.
Is This Credit Card For Me?
If you can live with the bare-bones features described above, I believe the X1 card is an attractive option that could be a financially reasonable default credit card for many people.
Click here to apply for the X1 Credit Card.
If you do not pay off your credit cards in full every month but instead pay high rates of interest, DO NOT SPEND MONEY ON CREDIT CARDS. Read the article here on the dangers of credit cards. Any rewards you get will be far outweighed by the horrible interest you will pay. Pay off the cards as soon as possible and stick to debit cards. The review above is only for people who avoid paying high interest rates on credit cards, which the large majority of the time can only be done by paying them in full every month.
–TDR
Rick Warren and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation, pt. 2
Rick Warren and Saddleback Church
Expelled by the SBC
February 21 of this year (2023) the Southern Baptist Convention expelled Saddleback Church. Saddleback was the church Rick Warren started and pastored in Southern California. The SBC ejected Saddleback for having a woman pastor. Rick Warren decided he was wrong about woman pastors. The Bible actually did allow it.
Ejection from the SBC is a kind of separation. No doubt. Rick Warren, it seems, wants to fight it. I read an article this week that chronicled a bit of an account in an interview of Warren.
The author of the article learned much from SBC training for a state contracted prison chaplaincy, and he thinks Warren will be back. Part of the reason, it seems, is that he’s already seen that the SBC has many women pastors. Warren maybe thinks the SBC will take back Saddleback because of the 6,000 Purpose-Driven churches in the Convention. He says these churches don’t need the SBC, but he wants to influence the SBC.
Rick Warren in Christianity Today
Former SBC leader and chief editor of Christianity Today, Russell Moore, interviewed Warren March 8, 2023. Even though I don’t like Warren’s belief and practice, his answers to Moore reveal inconsistencies for the SBC. Apparently, the SBC avoided dealing with some abuse of women with a reference to autonomy in churches. Warren claims the SBC didn’t give Saddleback autonomy in their decision for female pastors. I too have seen autonomy as a regular tool for disobedience. It becomes a convenient excuse for pastors doing what they like the most.
I read Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church book right when he published it. I knew nothing of him and started the read with a positive outlook. That assessment became negative when I started reading his rank pragmatism. I think Rick Warren has done as much damage to churches as anyone in the history of the church. Still, his treatment of the SBC brings out a good learning moment about the biblical doctrine of separation.
Ecclesiastical Separation
Assessment of Separation
Ecclesiastical separation means a church separates from another church or even other non-church institutions. The SBC has no biblical authority to separate. If many churches in the SBC continue with many varied types of unscriptural belief and behavior, separation from Saddleback looks political in some way. It also exposes the corruption of an unbiblical Convention system.
I’m taking my analysis mainly from the article by C. D. Cauthorne, Jr. at SharperIron. Warren as reported by Cauthorne supports some kind of separation without addressing ecclesiastical separation. He quotes not one of a multitude of separation verses from scripture and yet says this:
We should be able to expel people over sin, racism, sexual abuse, other sexual sins, things like that.
Who is We?
Rightly practiced, I don’t disagree with Warren. I would start, however, by asking, “Who is “we”?” We expel. Who can expel people. We seems to be members of the SBC. Warren thinks the SBC should expel other members and other churches over certain wrong behavior. I would call what Warren says next, a “riff.” He’s talking from the seat of his pants and making aggressive, false statements. He is inventing material right on the spot really in a typical manner a postmodern world might do that.
This is the same old battle that’s been going on for 100 years in the SBC between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptists… . Today, a fundamentalist means you’ve stopped listening… . That’s the number one mark of it… . We have to approach Scripture humbly saying I could be wrong. You’ll never hear a Fundamentalist say, “I could be wrong.” A conservative Baptist believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, a fundamentalist Baptist believes in the inerrancy of their interpretation.
Conservative Baptists and Fundamental Baptists?
Has there been a battle for a 100 years between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptists? Who are conservative Baptists? Warren seems to include himself with conservative Baptists. Who are fundamental Baptists, and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention? Warren seems to think he will get some traction with an audience by weaponizing the term “fundamentalist.” He says it means, “You’ve stopped listening.”
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
Warren and Fundamentalism
People who actually will call themselves fundamentalists would not use Rick Warren’s ad hominem definition. Maybe you’re laughing as you read his definition. It is funny what someone can say and get away with it in a mainstream interview. Fundamentalists, Warren says, never say, “I could be wrong.” “A fundamental Baptist believes in the inerrancy of their (sic) interpretation.” The latter is just a rhetorical turn of phrase meant as combative. He’s unhappy, but the female role or female pastor issue isn’t just an interpretational one. In addition, all doctrinal issues relate to interpretation of scripture.
As coarse as Warren is in his take, he manifests a problem with separation in evangelicalism. They have almost no established, systematic or biblical doctrine of separation upon which to operate. Scripture says a lot on separation, but since they never include anything about separation in anything they write, no one knows what to do.
Sounding like a Fundamentalist
Warren himself sounds like a fundamentalist. I understand fundamentalism. I was a fundamentalist for at least the first 35 years of my life. Warren advocates for separation, but like all fundamentalists, he argues over the standard used. The Bible is not the standard. With some kind of social norm as the standard, the arguments about what standard to use will never cease, like they never did in fundamentalism. These debates occur and occurred until the now gradual disappearance of fundamentalism as a movement.
A good question might also be, what makes someone conservative? That isn’t established either, as much as Warren floats the term. He uses “inerrancy” as an ambiguous standard as well as other terms used in an equally ambiguous way. Warren is working at excluding the belief in male only in the office of pastor. He says scripture convinced him. He thinks the SBC should, as it has done in other areas, allow this diversity of “interpretation.” It’s just a different interpretation, perhaps like the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 and the like. Who separates over interpretations?
Biblical Separation
Like a Fundamentalist
Maybe a more preliminary question is, “Who separates?” Or furthermore, “What is biblical separation?” Evangelicals can’t give a good answer on separation because they do not preach separation. They do not teach separation. They are not separatists. Separation, when they practice it, is not about God. It is not about obedience to scripture.
Warren uses all sorts of strategies against the SBC in his interview that sound just like what a fundamentalist might do. He wants to change the criteria for separation and he applies pressure in political ways. Warren pulls the race card and says that “black churches” ordain women. He concludes, “The SBC is holding up a sign saying: All Black churches, look elsewhere. You’re not wanted here.” I wonder what black pastors think about Warren’s statement, who don’t endorse female pastors. Is the idea of “Black churches” itself a kind of racism? All “Black churches”? Warren lumps all into one category of groupthink. Not one church peels off the lockstep, uniform whole according to the Warren assessment.
A tell-tale moment, very fundamentalist of him, Warren says, “This issue, the women’s role, it’s not a primary issue because it doesn’t have to do with salvation. It is a secondary issue.” This way of talking is inherently fundamentalist. Warren is saying that someone separates on “primary issues.” These are what? Fundamentals.
John MacArthur
John MacArthur, when he attempted to answer in the Q and A in the matter of separation, talks the same way as Warren here. He’s attempted to categorize what is primary and what is secondary. MacArthur says, the woman’s role is a primary issue. He says, infant sprinkling, that isn’t a primary issue. That’s secondary, and you don’t separate over that.
MacArthur also echoes Warren or Warren echoes MacArthur with the statement, “It doesn’t have to do with salvation.” MacArthur called this someone who is in the kingdom of God. You’ve got to work with people who are in the kingdom of God. Are these women pastors in the kingdom of God? Are they saved? I think you can see how that this kind of arbitrary, unscriptural standard will not settle issues of separation.
First, do we separate? Second, what is the basis of separation? In part three I want to go through MacArthur’s Q and A answer to show how he falls short. We know that Rick Warren falls short, but he’s talking the same way as MacArthur about separation.
More to Come
Baptismal Regeneration: Acts 22:16
Requiring Baptism for Salvation
Definition and Denominations
“Baptismal Regeneration” in its definition at Wikipedia says:
Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it. Etymologically, the term means “being born again” (regeneration, or rebirth) “through baptism” (baptismal).
It’s more than that. You will find the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, LDS, and Charismatics such as Apostolics who also require water baptism for salvation. Where I live, the biggest denomination is the “Christian Church,” which believe this.
Hermeneutic
A certain wrong hermeneutic undergirds or produces baptismal regeneration, using a few proof texts. Instead of looking at all of the New Testament and understanding each verse within the whole, it conforms the whole to a few select verses. I will examine those verses. Those few verses don’t overturn what the New Testament teaches about salvation. They don’t include baptism as a requirement for justification. I will analyze what they do say, since men use them to buttress their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Versus Belief Alone by Grace Alone
Many times the Bible says something like John the Baptist said in John 3:36.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
You don’t read any baptism in there. Forty times the Bible says, “believeth/believed in/on him/Jesus/the Son/me/thee,” as the sole condition for salvation.
Scripture expresses many other faith alone statements. The Ethiopian in Acts 8:37 said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Mark 1:15 says, “believe the gospel.” John 20:31 says, “Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name.” John 13:19 says, “ye may believe that I am he.” This is what the Bible teaches for salvation. Those verses mirror Ephesians 2:8-9:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As much as verses teach faith alone for salvation, there are also many many that teach salvation not by works.
Adding a Work or Works
Baptism is not an incidental, non-affecting addition to grace or faith. It is akin to the addition of the one work or ritual of circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians 5. By adding this single work or ritual, “Christ shall profit you nothing” (v. 2). You become “a debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3). And, “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (v. 4). Those adding baptism almost always add other works and then depend on their works to stay saved. This is perverting the gospel.
Proof Texts
What I’m saying again here is that baptismal regeneration does not depend on what the New Testament teaches about salvation, but on proof texts that adherents use to force this doctrine on the Bible. I will deal with five verses, not necessarily in any order: Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38,1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5. In the end, I will give more evidence against baptismal regeneration [Read the book by Thomas Ross against baptismal regeneration, see his debate on the subject at these links]. My prime goal here was to examine these proof texts.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Post Conversion Baptism
At face value alone, it seems possible that Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins or at least precedes the washing away of sins. The verse itself rests within the conversion testimony of Paul to a hostile audience in Jerusalem, many years after his salvation. In the first telling of Paul’s salvation, his conversion and then reception of the Holy Spirit far preceded the command and occurrence of baptism (Acts 9:1-17). Every time he recounts his conversion, Paul places his baptism as a later result of his conversion, not a cause (Acts 9, 22, 26).
Grammar and Syntax of Acts 22:16
The grammar and syntax of Acts 22:16 does not teach baptism preceding salvation or washing away sins. Luther B. McIntyre, Jr. explains well in his article, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (Bib Sac, Jan-March, 1996, pp. 61-62):
The Greek sentence has two participles and two imperatives: “Arising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.” Many English translations include two conjunctive “ands,” but the Greek text has only one kai (“and”). The construction is participle-verb-kai-verb-participle.
William MacDonald in his Bible Believer’s Commentary (NT, p. 469) suggests that best approach to this verse is to associate each participle with its nearest verb. This is entirely consistent with what A. T. Robertson (Greek Grammar, p. 1109) calls the adverbial use of the participle.
Based on the Greek construction, the washing away of sins is connected with ‘calling upon his name,’ not with being baptized. That agrees with Peter’s own appeal to the prophet Joel in Acts 2:21 that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” As Polhill says in his Acts commentary (p. 461), “The overarching term, however, is “calling upon the name of the Lord,” the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.
Some might not like the use of grammar and syntax getting in the way of their proof text. However, the grammar and syntax also agree with the vast and overall scriptural teaching of faith alone for salvation.
Context
In Acts 9:13, Ananias referred to Paul (then Saul) as “this man,” yet later, he calls Paul his “brother.” Paul was already converted before his baptism in verse 18. Brother was a term adopted by the early disciples. They used the term to express their familial love for each other in Christ. The shift from man to brother in the words of Ananias indicate Paul’s conversion preceded baptism.
[I suggest everyone to read, again, Thomas Ross’s book, Heaven Only For the Baptized? This book does a far more thorough job than above in debunking Acts 22:16 as a baptismal regeneration proof text.]
More to Come
Sanctification: Bible, Keswick, Wesleyan, Pentecostal Views
Confusion on the nature of progressive sanctification is widespread today. What are the basic differences between the views on sanctification taught in the Bible and the views of sanctification promoted by the Wesleyan (Methodist, Holiness), Keswick (Higher Life), Pentecostal (Assemblies of God), and what I call the Weak on Repentance (“free grace,” anti-Lordship) movements?
As part of the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study (the studies themselves are here), I provide an overview of these five different positions (one true, four false) in the video below, which can also be watched and commented on YouTube here.
–TDR
John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation
I write on ecclesiastical separation here because the Bible teaches separation in every book and in some, much more than others. Since separation is inherent in God’s attribute of holiness, I see it as a major doctrine. I also believe it is one of the marks of a true church. For this reason, several years ago now Pillarandground Publishing produced A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Perfect Preservation, which exegetes key passages on the doctrine. I have found that evangelicals ignore the doctrine of separation despite its prevalence in God’s Word.
Agnosticism about separation is more than not knowing about it. It is staying ignorant on the scriptural teaching of separation. Evangelicals in general do not talk about separation at all. They act like it doesn’t exist as a doctrine of scripture.
John MacArthur Talks About Separation
Seminary Student Asks about Unity and Separation
In a recent Q and A in a Master’s Seminary chapel, John MacArthur answered a question about separation. Here is the question (at 32:18 in the video, goes to 39:07):
My question specifically is on church unity. I’m interested in partnership in ministry. I was wondering from your example specifically with pastors who would agree on the essentials but not necessarily on important doctrines that aren’t essential. What are some biblical passages or references or biblical principles that have helped you navigate that issue in your ministry well?
Alienating People in the Kingdom?
MacArthur answered:
Well, I think the simple one — that’s a good question — the simple one, is, is the person a true believer? And if the person is a true believer, then the Lord allowed him into the kingdom. And if you’re in the Kingdom, I have to figure out a way to work with you. I mean that’s, that is the simple answer.
I don’t want to alienate people who are in the Kingdom, so if they’re, if you’re a heretic, you deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ or you have some heresy of some kind, or your life is, ya know, got some stains of sin and all that, I don’t want to cooperate with somebody like that.
But I basically am bound. I am already one in Christ with everybody else who’s in the Kingdom. He that is joined to the Lord as one Spirit. We’re all one, so we have to figure out how can I minister with, how can I minister to the people of God. It’s, um, I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?
Yoking Together
MacArthur continued:
Years ago I decided I wasn’t going to preach only to the people who already believe everything I believe. What’s the point? So, um, I was criticized, because you know I would be at a conference with someone who believed differently about certain things. I mean, they gave me trouble when I started going to Ligonier conferences over baby baptism and covenant theology and all that. Um, but but again, if they’re going to give me a platform, I’ll take it.
And you know RC actually allowed me to have a debate with him on infant baptism, and it’s available. You can listen to it, and I told him: “You shouldn’t do that RC. You have no chance. There’s not, you can’t find a verse in the Bible about infant baptism. So he said, ‘No I think it’ll be great.’ I said, ‘okay I’m gonna go first because I don’t, I don’t want to have to use the Bible to answer a non-biblical argument.”
So I think what is most important is that you establish your own fidelity to the degree that people don’t question your associations. I mean if I if I’m at Ligonier nobody thinks I abandoned what I believe. If I went over to Jack Hayford’s church and did a pastor’s Conference of Foursquare and Charismatics, nobody felt that I had abandoned my non-charismatic view I’ve got too much in print on that. Um, so if there’s not, and he wanted me to speak on the authority of scripture because he thought that was the weakest part of the ministry of these hundreds of pastors.
Lines He Can’t Cross
Furthermore, MacArthur said,
So again I just think you have to make judgments, but you always want to be gracious and loving and unifying and helpful to others who are in the Kingdom. Now there’s a line at which you can’t cross because someone is blatantly disobedient to scripture that would be, you won’t see me on a panoply of speakers that includes women because that is a total violation of scripture when you have men and women preachers. I can’t do that because I, uh, you know your reputation at that point becomes very muddy. So, um, you know that would be, there would be, other aspects of that too.
Um, somebody who’s so tapped into the culture, that, um, they’re viewed as, um, a problem outside tolerable convictions, I wouldn’t be a part of that. I wouldn’t speak on the same place as Bill Hybels or Joel Osteen. I don’t know about him. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but even if I did, nobody would think I had compromised, because they would know by reputation that I’m going to be faithful to the truth, and they would say, “Why did he have MacArthur?”
An Example
MacArthur finished:
So if you establish your fidelity to scripture it puts you in a position where you can be in a lot of places. If you compromise along the way then, and people are questioning you. I had that conversation with James McDonald one day. It was not a happy one, but I said you just betrayed all the people who have been listening to you for years, but what you did you basically, said to them, “I’m not who you think I am.”
You don’t live long enough to fix that. You don’t get to go back to square one. You don’t hit a reset button. You didn’t like that but it was true so you you get one life at and one shot at this and you don’t want to try to hit a reset button down the road, so it, you have to be very diligent in maintaining your integrity.
Analysis of the Answer
Incoherence
That was pretty much verbatim what MacArthur answered to that question. It was a question about unity and really about separation. Every question about separation or unity is also about the other, unity or separation. The young male seminary student wanted MacArthur to give scriptural support. He did allude to scripture, but he in no way gave a scriptural answer. The answer really sounded like MacArthur had no clue on what the Bible taught about separation.
The only guidance from scripture I heard was the allusion to, a loose paraphrase of, the short sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:17, which says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I don’t think that’s a good verse to use. It’s in the context of sexual sin, and Paul is saying that fornicators are bringing God into the activity. Since they are one with God, joined unto Him, their sin associates Him with whatever the sin is or worse. Should John MacArthur bring God to the Charismatic strange fire location? This is a separation passage that shows that we should keep God out of situations. We bring Him when we go.
When MacArthur was done answering, I can’t think that the young man knew what he said. It was incoherent and contradictory as an answer. If I was to interpret it, it was something like, play it by ear with little to no objective standard. Evangelicals cannot, will not, and do not answer questions on separation. The instinct is, don’t separate. Stay together. Look to keep working together, even with doctrinal differences. If MacArthur’s answer was an answer, I don’t think it could stand as legitimate because it was so meandering.
Excuses
I know what MacArthur believes. He’s public on it. That doesn’t give him a pass to associate with and work with whoever He wants. By doing so, He is accommodating someone else’s false teaching. Even if it doesn’t have anything to do with MacArthur, it does have something to do with the one with whom he fellowships. That’s the message of 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” That is a command to separate from a professing believer. MacArthur doesn’t mention it.
MacArthur excuses not separating by saying there is no point to preaching to people who believe just like you do. Where he preaches the most, his church, believes just like he does. Everyone should preach to people who don’t believe like them. They should do it in evangelism and in doing spiritual warfare with professing Christians. Discipleship requires this. This is entirely different than fellowship with a disobedient brother or yoking together with unbelievers for a common work, like Billy Graham did in his crusades.
Strange Fire
Not long ago, MacArthur said that Charismatics offered strange fire to the Lord. That means they are false worshipers, who imagine a false god. In this answer, MacArthur says, you can go and work with Jack Hayford, the Charismatic, as long as people know who you are. You can speak on a specific topic that Hayford wants and give Hayford authentication while you’re at it. God seeks for true worshipers. That offense to God isn’t enough for MacArthur.
Why is infant sprinkling a lesser deal than women preachers? How much less obvious is infant sprinkling than women preachers? MacArthur says, women preachers, that’s “blatantly disobedient.” He can’t cross that line. Yet, he can cross the line of infant sprinkling. Is it because that’s not blatantly disobedient? Where did infant sprinkling come from? I’m using that as an example. I would be scratching my head if I were a woman preacher.
Not About You
From his answer, John MacArthur sounds like separating is about you, about how well you’ll do in life. In his case, it’s about him. If he associates with someone, will it taint him in some way, so that he will lose effectiveness or opportunity as a servant of God? Separation is not mainly about you. It is first and foremost about God.
Does what God says about separation apply to John MacArthur? God teaches on it. In part two, I’m going to come back and take scripture and apply it to John MacArthur’s terrible answer about unity and separation.
More to Come
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)
Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant
Differences
Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show. Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship. I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.
Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism. Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these. These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.
I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism. Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God. Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today. Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.
Perversions in True Worship
Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship. She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective. Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship. It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship. She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals. Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere. This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.
God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9). Beauty is objective. It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes. Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God. This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God. This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.
The Gospel
John 3:5
Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is. He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5. Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation. It reads:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation. He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing. At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace. He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it. Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved. He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2
Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV. She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it. Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation. She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.
Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works. He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace. The child can’t resist. He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven. Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace. He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.
Stuckey makes two arguments. She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world. Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again. When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2. It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer. He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved. He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol. This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant. He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.
Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics. She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her. She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works. Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer. I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs. However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder. They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.
Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements. He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing. He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic. It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity. False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.
Final Comments
John 3:5
I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5. Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it. Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it. Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid. In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit. He explains the new birth or being born again. A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.
James 2 and Romans 4
Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2. Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20. Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5. In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.” A man shows his faith by his works. James explains this.
Galatians and Hebrews
I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10. A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10: 9:27-28, 10:10, 14. Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified. These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.
I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace. Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace. Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
Preparation
This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism. Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness. She might not be able to be friends with the other two. And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has. I don’t know.
Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion. It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice. Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.
Addenda
I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon. Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace. He said this was scriptural. Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling. It’s not in the Bible anywhere. She could have gone to a number of places on this.
Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition. When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything. Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places. I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized. Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.
Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump in 2024 as a Republican
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics below.
I have Always Voted Republican as a Conservative
In 2016, I voted for Donald Trump. In 2020, I voted for Donald Trump. In every presidential election since I have been able to vote, and in every other election, I have consistently voted for Republican candidates. Before the 2020 election, I wrote a blog post about why Christians should vote for Donald Trump because of religious liberty, abortion, and free speech.
In 2016 Donald Trump won 46% of the vote to squeak by in the electoral college a few days after Hillary Clinton was hit with criminal charges. Although I found his personality and character abhorrent, I voted for him in 2016 because of the Supreme Court. In 2020, I also voted for him because of the Supreme Court. I also though that, despite the many self-inflicted wounds he gave himself, with good conservative advisors he did a better job governing than I thought he would do. I was very thankful that, with the help of Mitch McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court–appointments that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was very, very, very good.
Many of the media attacks on Trump were baseless. He never colluded with Russia, for example. Many other attacks were based on taking seriously what he said when, very often, even Trump himself does not pay attention to what he says (not a good idea when you are the most powerful elected figure on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military).
My political views are extremely conservative. Based on Scripture, they support a very limited government and are very socially conservative. I believe the US Constitution is a very good document for running a government in this fallen world and wish that it were followed much more closely than it is.
Donald Trump Will Not Peacefully Cede Power
So why am I not going to vote for Donald Trump again-certainly not in the Republican primary, and also not in the general election, if he wins the primary? It is not because of his horrible character. It is not because there are good reasons to wonder if what is good for Trump is more important to him than what is good for the United States. It is not because he constantly attacks everyone and alienates larger and larger and larger groups of people and even people as loyal as his own vice president. It is not because he has now been convicted of battery and sexual crimes. These are very big problems-definitely far more than enough to make me vote for someone else in the Republican primary, but in the general election I am willing to overlook them. It is not because of some secret sympathy for the socialistic, big-government policies of the Democrat party. I am very concerned about the judges Democrats put on the Supreme Court and other courts and I see “vote for Trump because of the judges” as the single strongest argument to vote for him, if he prevails in the Republican primary (which I fervently hope he does not). I am very concerned about the way the Democrat party is willing to persecute churches, Christian business owners, and Christians in general who stand for what Scripture teaches on morality.
So what was the final straw for me? I think there is a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will not cede power peacefully if he loses an election. I believe in the American republic, not in a dictatorship by a Republican.
I did not think that Donald Trump would do what he did after losing the 2020 election. Pursuing all legal avenues to try to get the most votes you can? Fine. But his refusal-for hours-to call off the rioters on January 6 was despicable, even when it was obvious that things had turned violent. It is also perfectly obvious that the Vice President never has had the power to unilaterally overturn election results. If the Vice President of the party in power can unilaterally reject election results, we do not have a republic, but a dictatorship. It does not even need to be stated that the idea that the VP can do this is absolutely indefensible constitutionally.
Let’s say that it is far more likely that the reason Donald Trump was unwilling to admit that he lost the election by over 7,000,000 votes is that Trump can never admit he was wrong than that the theories he was spouting off in public, but which even his own lawyers would not defend in court, were true. That would be a huge problem, but maybe if he had just made stuff up to support his ego and left it at that, perhaps I would still vote for him again.
However, it is now years later, and Trump is still making the same Constitutionally fatal claims. He still claims that Mike Pence could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election results. That means the end of the republic and the start of a tyranny. What did Trump do in his very first campaign rally? He put up a video and a song made by criminals who were justly put in prison for their crimes on January 6. He showed them violently fighting the police. He tried to put them in a good light as they were breaking and smashing and beating police officers and trying to get in to violently place him in power. He did not put up a video of the (imaginary) people who (in an alternate universe) just happened to wander into the Capitol as tourists or something and then were arrested and imprisoned unjustly. No, his video showed the rioters fighting with the police, and was glorifying the rioters as if they were righteous. Note that the video from the January 6 committee here:
And Trump’s campaign video here, where the singers are imprisoned January 6 criminals:
have some of the same footage of rioters fighting police (see 1:14-1:30 in), although Trump puts the violent criminals up for a shorter period of time. Trump embraces people who wanted Mike Pence executed for treason although he does not (at this point, at least, but you never know what he will do next) himself call for the execution of his own former Vice President for treason.
Trump said that he would accept the 2016 results–if he won. He lost in 2020 and did not accept the results. If he loses in 2024, there could be a lot of bloodshed. If he wins in 2024-something that is very, very unlikely-there is no reason to think that he would voluntarily cede power at the end of his term. He could come up with some reason-any reason-to retain power. The Vice President being able to unilaterally overturn results; the election allegedly having fraud that is worse than any third-world country; Dominion voting machines changing millions of votes; you name it. If Donald Trump can claim (even before results are in!) that the long shot conservative Republican Larry Elder lost in California to the sitting Democrat governer, Gavin Newsom, by fraud, then he can claim any election he wants was lost by fraud.
I have little confidence Trump would voluntarily cede power if he lost an election. Furthermore, anyone that was part of his cabinet in a second Trump term would have to be an almost cultic “yes” man. He would have to be a bobble head agreeing with any Trump claims. Trump claimed (in his January 6 speech) that in 2020 he “won in a landslide” but is not now in office because of “the most corrupt election in … history, maybe of the world,” far worse than “third-world countries,” and “everybody knows it.” The 2020 US election was not worse than elections such as the 1927 Liberian election where the winner gained 243,000 votes from the 15,000 registered voters, the 1964 election in Haiti where the president won 99.9% of the vote, there were no opponents, and all the ballots were pre-marked “yes,” or the elections in Equitorial Guinea between 1990-2020 where the president got 98% of the vote at a minimum, with some areas giving him over 103%. Everyone knows that the 2020 election was worse than such corrupt elections, according to Trump. Instead of having advisors like his courageous and moral Vice President, Mike Pence, Trump would have a cabinet of Kool-Aid drinkers who would actually help him to retain power after an election loss and would parrot whatever nutty claims he made.
I am not going to vote for Trump again because I do not have confidence he would cede power. Do you have confidence he would cede power if he lost?
Why It Does Not Matter That I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
Despite the great danger that Trump would not cede power peacefully if he were reelected, it does not matter very much that I will not vote for him. Why is that?
1.) I am in California, so my vote does not matter in a presidential election. California is almost certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, and if a Republican won the electoral votes of California, he would not need them, for he would already have won other closer states in a landslide. Were I in a swing state, I would have to think harder about not voting for Trump.
2.) However, although it would be a harder call, even if I were in a swing state I would not vote for Trump because of the threat he is to the Constitution. Even in this case, though, my vote would not matter. Why? Because Trump is unelectable. He lost a winnable election in 2020 through self-inflicted wounds, and after January 6 he was no longer a viable candidate for president. He is never going to get the 46% of the vote that he got in 2016 again-much less the higher percentage he would need to win against someone less repulsive than Hillary Clinton a few days after she was indited. Joe Biden, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media will work very hard to make Trump the Republican candidate in 2024 because they know he is not electable. Donald Trump turned what should have been a red wave in 2022 into a red trickle, even though he was not on the ballot. People do not want someone who supports violent riots, injuries to hundreds of Capitol police officers, and the end of the republic for a dictatorship where the Vice President can unilaterally overturn results. Running on a pro-January 6 riot platform is bonkers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if the Democrats were secretly paying off Trump to run on something like that. The electorate does not want a candidate who justifies violent attempts at revolution and whom a jury has found guilty of sexual assault. If Republicans nominate someone creepy enough, they can even lose Senate races in Alabama. (Note that Roy Moore was only credibly accused of sexual crimes–Trump has not only been accused, but been found guilty by a jury of them. Roy Moore lost deep, deep, deep Red Alabama. How badly will Trump lose?) Trump has alienated a large portion of the Republican electorate but he unites the Democrats. He alienates moderates and far, far more than half the voting population. A vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for a united Democrat government that controls the House and Senate–probably with large majorities–and the presidency in 2024. It is a vote for a Democrat president who will do everything he can to get Roe v. Wade back. The question is not whether Trump can get the 46% he got in 2016. The question is whether he would be able to get 40%, or 35%, or a number even lower than that. The question is whether the Democrats would win in a huge landslide that can introduce constitutional amendments or just a big landslide that can abolish the filibuster and appoint radical leftist tyrants to the Supreme Court.
So the fact that I would not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election will not matter–if he is at the top of the Republican ticket, the election will not even be close.
However, in the Republican primary my vote definitely WILL matter. I will be voting to keep Trump away from the Republican nomination, so that limited, Constitutional government, religious liberty, and other incredible blessings here in the United States may continue, by God’s grace. While I think Mike Pence would be even better than Ron DeSantis, I will plan to vote for whoever appears to have the best chance at keeping Donald Trump away from winning the nomination, at least if it is still in play when I have a chance to vote in the primary, Lord willing.
As a postscript, let me say again that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics in this post.
–TDR
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part two)
Why criticize in particular a debate between George Farmer, Candace Owens’ (Farmer’s?) husband, and Allie Beth Stuckey? On the other hand, why not find better representatives for a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? I say, George and Allie bring a teaching moment in this controversy. They deal with the issues on more a popular level, something the Daily Wire might appreciate.
Overall Part Two and a Little More Sola Scriptura
I decided this morning to write on part two of the debate because Stuckey’s inadequacy at unmasking false doctrine espoused by George for his Roman Catholicism. By George! Trigger alert. Women should not debate men, but Allie’s unwillingness to fight, to do necessary warfare, hurt the cause. I’m glad for her feminine instinct not to push in an authoritative way over a man. It explains a poor job with a commendable reason.
Overall, Allie Stuckey in the end parked on the two verses: Ephesians 2:8-9. This rescued her contribution with this brief, rare reference to scripture. Someone believing sola scriptura, however, should have reeled off incessant verses, pounding with the hammer of God’s Word. From watching her, one might think her positions don’t have much biblical support. Yet, they do. She just didn’t or couldn’t recall verses to use with Farmer. I saw Owens growing more Roman Catholic by the moment.
Owens started part two of the debate by informing that she got over sola scriptura easily because she couldn’t find it in the Bible. This might relieve her husband and their future relationship. Stuckey then compared the biblical support for sola scriptura to that of the Trinity, that it’s not explicit. This is utterly false. Scripture is explicit that the Bible is the only infallible authority or the ultimate authority for faith and practice. When Stuckey loses on this point, she really does lose the debate, because all the extra-scriptural writing comes into play for Farmer. He then uses this source material for the rest of his defense of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Mary, Mother of God?
Danger with Historical Theology
On the first subject after ending the sola scriptura conversation, Farmer shows the danger of perversion in one’s use of historical theology. He is crafty. He asks Stuckey if she believes Mary is the mother of God? It’s a tricky question. I’m sure the wheels were turning in her head: “Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary Jesus’ mother? Yes. So is Mary God’s mother?” It seems like, Yes, might be the right answer. It is a gotcha question.
Farmer said that the Protestants do not reject the Council of Ephesus. Why would Stuckey then do that if she is Protestant? The Council of Ephesus concluded Mary the mother of God. Yes, Reformers have supported the language, “mother of God.” That does not then mean that they receive Catholic teaching on Mary. They go as far as the reception of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus, the view rejected by Nestorius. The Council then excommunicated Nestorius for heresy.
Excommunication?
As an aside, what gives a council authority to excommunicate someone? Jesus taught that an individual assembly only practiced church discipline, removing someone from that church (Matthew 18:15-17). The council of Ephesus isn’t a church. It was an unbiblical institution with no authority, not following the teaching of Jesus in church discipline.
Nestorianism and Two Natures?
Mr. Farmer teaches error when he says that Christ was one nature. Furthermore, he said, “You don’t want to split the natures of Christ.” Stuckey sat and nodded, yes, to this error. The error of Nestorius was that of “two persons,” that Christ was two persons sharing one body (prosopon), not two natures (hypostasis). Christ had two natures: divine and human. This is not Nestorianism. Christ was one Person with two natures. The hypostatic union is the mysterious joining of two natures in one Person.
Jesus was a Divine Person. When He died on the cross, He was not a finite Person but an infinite One Who could pay for infinite sins for all eternity. He needed to be God to die for all of mankind. By calling Mary the mother of Jesus, they thought they would be undermining the true incarnational teaching of Jesus, so they called her the “mother of God.”
Mother of God Ideas
“Mother of God” emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but it did nothing to extrapolate a divine nature to Mary, an immaculate conception of her, or veneration of her. Even if Reformers and some Protestants today agree with “mother of God” terminology in refutation of Nestorianism, they reject the pendulum swing away from scripture by Roman Catholicism about Mary.
A good book that traces the source of the Catholic version of Mary teaching is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Much Roman Catholic teaching is neo-Platonic and proto-Babylonian. Worship of Mary takes a trajectory from Venus and Astarte, goddesses of Babylonianism.
John Owen and Scripture
The post-Reformation reformed John Owen, no relation to Candace Owens, did not approve of the terminology, “mother of God.” He wished the Council of Ephesus had “forborne it.” He spoke of the miraculous creation of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was a “fit habitation for His holy soul.” Owen called the Holy Spirit the “active, efficient cause” and Mary the “passive, material cause.” The “material cause” aspect of Jesus’ physical body traces to verses such as Galatians 4:4, “made of a woman,” and “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Mary calls Jesus, “God my Savior” (Luke 1:46), and described herself as “the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). This contradicts “mother of God.” True Baptists and New Testament Christianity reject both Catholic and Protestant teaching. Baptists may quote church councils for their history of doctrine, but they reject the notion of church councils. Pope Pius IX took mother of God to a further corrupt extreme when he called Mary sinless in his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.
Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Saints
Farmer uses the term “saints” in an unscriptural manner. In Ephesians 1:1, Paul writes to the “saints at Ephesus” and he defines “saints” there as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” literally “believing in Christ Jesus.” Anyone with saving faith in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is the famous Granville Sharp rule. “Holy” (adjective, “holy ones”) and “faithful” (adjective) are connected by one definite article (tois). That means “saints” and “believing” (faithful) are the same people. All those in Christ are saints, not some special caste of characters designated such by a state church.
Praying to Saints or Mary
Next, Farmer moves to praying to saints and Mary as a kind of intercessory prayer. These “saints’ and Mary have been given a kind of veneration below that for God, but veneration high enough that Christians should pray to them. I won’t deal with the scripture he adduces in the debate to support this. Scripture does not evince this.
Farmer’s argument is praying to saints equals intercessory prayer. Nowhere in the Bible do we see praying to dead people. The best argument might be the faithless, perverse intercession of King Saul in a seance with the witch of Endor. I’m glad he didn’t use that one though.
I’ve never heard Stuckey’s view of intercession. She spoke of intercession as interceding with a fellow believer for prayer. Intercessory prayer is another believer praying to God on our behalf, not for himself. The intercession is not the asking for prayer. I understand the intercession of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in prayer. Scripture teaches both of those. On the other hand, the veneration of dead saints and Mary, I see this as blasphemous.
Stuckey does right to quote 1 Timothy 2:5, that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. Not only is scripture silent on the mediation of Mary and “saints,” but the Timothy verse repudiates it. Believers, true saints, can pray for one another, but there is no doctrine of earthly ones praying to heavenly ones for them in turn to pray for the earthly ones. I’m sure there is a long explanation for this false doctrine somewhere, but I’ve never read it. I don’t find Roman Catholics usually who can name their seven sacraments, let alone break down why they pray to saints. They stray from scripture a lot, because it isn’t their only authority.
Evangelicals and Modernity Versus Roman Catholics
Candace Owens takes the conversation to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals in their modernity and trendiness. This took off of a little riff by her husband, when he used timelessness as an argument for praying to saints. Owens does not like the direction of the style (what I would call aesthetics) of Protestant evangelicals.
I don’t think Stuckey does great in dealing with the loss of beauty in evangelicalism and why. She doesn’t seem to get it. In my next post, I will come back to this. For awhile, I’ve seen this as one legitimate allure of Roman Catholicism. With all the faults of Roman Catholicism, they emphasize the transcendence of God more than evangelicals. Evangelicals feel proud of their worldliness. The nature of Roman Catholicism keeps a serious nature in line with scriptural worship. Catholics do not worship in truth, a requirement, but they come closer very often in beauty than evangelicals. I know some people who went back to Catholicism for this exact reason.
More to Come
Church Perpetuity, Sola Scriptura, and Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show
Many political conservatives and conservative Christians appreciate Candace Owens and Allie Beth Stuckey. Until one recent show, the subject of this post, I had never seen a whole Candace Owens program, just clips here and there. I had seen whole interviews by Allie Beth Stuckey on her podcast. She deals with some unique subject matter. Both are very popular, the former on Daily Wire and the latter with Blaze.
For a show episode included on youtube, Candace Owens invited her husband, George Farmer, a Roman Catholic, to debate Allie Beth Stuckey, a Protestant. I watched all of part one and thought it would be helpful and informative to provide an analysis of their interaction. Farmer grew up in England and attended Oxford. He tells this story in the episode. His dad converted to Christ from atheism, became an evangelical, and raised George this way.
Under the influence of a Roman Catholic scholar, George doubted the veracity of evangelicalism for Roman Catholicism. Before he married Owens, he became a Roman Catholic. Owens claims still to be a Protestant evangelical, leaning now Roman Catholic, attending Catholic church with her husband and children.
Allie Beth Stuckey grew up Southern Baptist, told the story that her family traces back Baptist in America for 300 years. She remains Southern Baptist, but now claims to be a Reformed Baptist. She considers herself a Protestant, Reformed, Baptist evangelical.
Perpetuity of Christ’s True Church
The Question
Farmer communicates his greatest conflict for staying Protestant and evangelical, a historical matter. To remain Protestant, he would say that Christianity was lost before 1500, essentially no one was converted or a true Christian when the Reformation began. In part one, Stuckey never addresses this seminal concern of Farmer. Farmer never explains this conflict. To start the debate, Candace Owens directed the debate by asking Stuckey what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism, so they never doubled back to deal with the perpetuity of the church.
Before I move to what bothered Stuckey the most and Farmer’s answer to that concern, let me address perpetuity. I would like to know how Stuckey would answer Farmer’s perpetuity conundrum. I would join him in finding a problem with Protestantism or for Baptists, an English Separatist view. Is Protestantism a restorationist movement, like the Church of Christ, Latter Day Saints, Apostolics, and Charismatics assert?
The perpetuity question also becomes one of authority. How does the authority of God get passed to state church Protestants with their rejection of Roman Catholicism? If Roman Catholicism represents an apostate body, how do they call themselves Reformed or Protestant? Shouldn’t they make a clean break and repudiate Roman Catholicism as a true church?
The Answer
Protestants receive their authority from Roman Catholicism. They must see Roman Catholicism as a true church through which God passed His truth. By doing so, Protestants, including professing Baptist ones, also affirm a state church. I couldn’t be a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. Farmer exposes a major flaw in Protestantism. There is a better way, really a biblical, right way — the only way. Stuckey either doesn’t know it or doesn’t believe it.
The biblical, right way says true churches always existed since Christ, separate from the state church and known by different names. The true church is not a catholic church. It is a local, autonomous one. Those churches did exist and passed down the truth. They became known as Baptist churches. By not taking that position, professing Baptists and Protestants play right into Roman Catholic hands.
Baptist perpetuity is mainly a presuppositional position. Scripture teaches it. The gates of hell would not prevail against Christ’s ekklesia, His assemblies (Matthew 16:18). No one should expect a total apostasy until the saints of this age are off the scene, snatched up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 & 2 Thessalonians). Until then, only some depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). True believers should just believe this happened. They did until modernism crept into the Southern Baptist Convention and invented a different view of history for Baptists.
Sola Scriptura
What Verse?
Stuckey says her biggest bother with Roman Catholicism is the pope and the authority issue. She asserts sola scriptura, the Bible as the only or final authority. How does Farmer answer her? He asks her for a verse or passage to prove sola scriptura. She can’t do it. She gives Farmer zero scriptural evidence.
I sat chagrined watching Stuckey’s non-scriptural support for her biggest bother. Ironic. Roman Catholicism doesn’t rely on scripture for its only authority and Stuckey has no scripture saying that’s wrong. She said she recognized the circular reasoning with providing scripture for sola scriptura. No way.
Farmer put Stuckey on the defensive and she tried to weave together some poor argument for sola scriptura from history. Was Stuckey right? Was there no answer to Farmer’s challenge?
Biblical Arguments for Sola Scriptura
What verse would you use? I thought of four arguments instantly. First, I thought 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture (1) throughly furnished unto all good works and (2) is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Every good work comes from scripture, no more or no less. It is sufficient, that is, profitable for all of what verses 16-17 mention. Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness should come only from the Bible.
Second, nothing should be added to scripture. It is the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Revelation 22:18-19 commands to add nothing to God’s Word. Adding to scripture brings severe warnings of terrible judgment from God.
Three, only faith pleases God and faith comes only by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10:17).
Four, man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). The converse is true. Man will not live from something not the Word of God. That includes the pope, tradition, what someone might call the wisdom of men.
I don’t know why Stuckey could not give this as evidence to Farmer. She says she grew up in church and that the Bible is her authority, yet she couldn’t produce one scriptural argument about what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism.
The Canon
As part of his argument against sola scriptura, Farmer used canonicity. He said the canon came from Roman Catholic Church authority in a late fourth century council. Stuckey sat there nodding, like she agreed. Conservative evangelicals are not today agreeing with that assessment of canonicity. I can say, however, that it was a typical Bible college and seminary presentation of canonicity thirty or forty years ago, maybe still today.
Farmer includes a separate church authority, making room to add the Pope and tradition as authorities with the Bible. He uses this view of canonicity, an unscriptural presentation of canonicity. Stuckey though sits and accepts this, by doing so encouraging viewers to turn Roman Catholic. Owens should have recruited a better representative for evangelicalism than Stuckey. She fails at her task, leaving viewers in greater confusion than when they started.
God used true churches, biblical assemblies after the model of His first church in Jerusalem and the early churches that one spawned, for recognition of the canon. They immediately recognized the true, authoritative New Testament books, even as seen in Peter’s endorsement of Paul’s epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-17. They hand copied those manuscripts and only those as a plain indication of their faith in them. Councils were not necessary. Today evangelicals often give too much credence to the Catholic councils as a perversion of biblical ecclesiology.
The Roman Catholic canon includes the apocrypha. When someone sits silent to these additional books, that helps undermine true scriptural sufficiency and authority. Accepting that Roman Catholic position of canonicity hurts sola scriptura.
Recent Comments