Home » Posts tagged 'John MacArthur' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: John MacArthur

John MacArthur: “Men Dressed Like Women”

Not many days ago, well-known evangelical pastor, John MacArthur, went public, perhaps worldwide, by calling on pastors today to stand with Canadian evangelical pastors by preaching for biblical sexual morality.  I noticed that he himself preached “Such Were Some of You but You Have Been Washed” from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 on January 16, 2022, Sunday morning.  I’m sure that they will make that available soon on the Grace To You website.  In late December, Phil Johnson did an interview with John MacArthur and asked him what he thought about various issues in the news, including Covid, Totalitarianism, and the Antichrist.

MacArthur also said this in the interview:

Totalitarianism that is going to come will basically be imposed on us by Godless, Christ-hating, Bible hating, anti-Christian forces.  They may not be overt about that, but if you want to make sure that we are free to murder babies, and you want homosexuality to be acceptable, and you want to appoint people into high positions, who are men dressed like women, and if you want to protect transgenders and all of that, then you have a Godless agenda, you have a God-hating agenda. . . . They’re not even trying to be hypocrites.  They are not trying to cover up.  I mean, how insane are you when you introduce someone called Rachel Levine and turn that guy into a four star general, who’s acting like a woman, who’s actually a man?  . . . How perverse is this culture, it’s so far gone.

And he said more.  I agree with what he said, however, I want to talk about the root cause of such a result that MacArthur describes.

What was the start of the gender identity crisis, gender fluidity, and then transgenderism, what MacArthur describes as “men dressed like women” and “a guy who’s acting like a woman”?  MacArthur assumes that we understand what it means to dress like a woman.  Do we understand?  Where does scripture show this?  What is the verse that tells us how women dress?

For decades, almost his entire time as a pastor, John MacArthur often referred to 1 Corinthians 4:6, “not to think of men above that which is written.”  In a recent question and answer, he said:

I have no authority. I don’t have authority beyond the Scripture. I can never exceed what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6. To do that is to become, Paul says, arrogant, and to regard yourself as superior. I have nothing to say to you that puts any demand on you if it isn’t from the Word of God.

MacArthur’s interviewer, Phil Johnson, wrote the following:

Let me say this plainly: It is a sin to impose on others any “spiritual” standard that has no biblical basis. When God gave the law to Israel, He told them, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). And, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

The same principle is repeated in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their sectarianism, saying “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos,” and so on. His rebuke to them includes these words in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”

That is a good guideline for how we should exercise our Christian liberty: Don’t go beyond what is written in Scripture.

Does the Word of God say what effeminate behavior is?  Does it tell us what is transgender?  In his interview with Johnson, MacArthur says that men dressed like women.  This is where the downfall of the nation is.  This is why totalitarians will rise up to control Christians — in order to protect the practice of men dressing like women.

Do women dress like men?  Men dress like women, when they do what?  Wear dresses.  That is female dress.  What do men wear?  They wear pants.

MacArthur wants a stand for gender distinctions.  That ship sailed a long time ago, when he capitulated on women’s dress.  He’s just now saying anything about it.  Why?  Because men are now wearing dresses.

I guess it’s a strong stand against men in dresses.  I guess.  Does that seem strong to you?  Most men are still against that.  What is a strong stand in actuality is against women dressing like men.  You won’t hear that ever from John MacArthur,  because that very selectively, as the NASV says in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “exceeds what is written.”  Since scripture doesn’t say what female dress is, then women can dress however they want.

Does it say what male dress is?

Evangelicals like MacArthur are way too late on the issue of gender distinction.  They gave up on it long ago.  Transgenderism directly relates to their capitulation and compromise with the world a long time ago.  Judgment begins with the house of God.

Attacking the “Fundamentalists”: Bravo to John MacArthur and David Cloud, Bombarded by C. J. Mahaney and Fred Butler

When an evangelical wants to take a shot at someone, he will call him a “fundamentalist.”  That’s supposed to be an ultimate insult.  I read it coming from two men aimed at two preachers in the last three or four days for the same reason.  In one, I read C. J. Mahaney affronting John MacArthur in a post by Brent Detwiler, and in the other Fred Butler assaulting David Cloud.  These two are very, very similar, and they both illustrate how “fundamentalist” is used as an invective by evangelicals, to discourage men from standing against certain corruption.  I read what Mahaney and Butler did, to be identical to each other.  They are dealing with similar situations and using “fundamentalist” as a means to discourage it.

The first example relates a situation with John MacArthur confronting Mark Driscoll and being opposed then by Mahaney.  This is reported by Brent Detwiler, who was there.  Here’s how Detwiler tells it:

Fundamentalist tendencies cannot ultimately be restrained [This was a slander.  Mahaney was saying MacArthur would not back off or change his view of Driscoll because of “fundamentalist tendencies.”]

Driscoll has a large movement – trying to protect from Driscoll’s worldliness [MacArthur is trying to protect those following Driscoll from his “worldliness” which Mahaney discounts as a fundamentalist concern focused on externals.]

Stumbles over shirt he is wearing [MacArthur stumbles over the shirts Driscoll wears.]

There is finally a small chance Mark Driscoll will be held accountable for his reign of terror.  He should have been disciplined and removed from ministry years ago for multiple traits and actions that violated the clear qualifications of Scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.  Instead he was held up as an example by “all the high-profile Calvinist leaders involved with The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel” except for John MacArthur who was dismissed by Mahaney as a fundamentalist.

Here you can see that Mahaney calls MacArthur a fundamentalist because of what MacArthur says about Driscoll’s worldliness, concern focused on externals, and his shirts.  Fred Butler writes about David Cloud:

Bro. Cloud is one of those screeching fundamentalists who likes to pound his pulpit against the encroachment of modernity in churches. Such modern things like contemporary music in worship or the use of the ESV by parishioners.  So, if he is not railing against the worldliness of CCM artists from 25 years ago, he’s blasting away at modern Bible versions.

I’m focusing on Butler’s calling Cloud a “screeching fundamentalist” for opposing the contemporary music, which the men, including MacArthur, at the Strange Fire Conference, by the way, said is the primary entrance into the Charismatic movement.  Both MacArthur and Cloud are dealing with worldliness, that they see as a problem in Christianity.
Is there irony here?  Very much so.  Fred Butler works for John MacArthur.  For a Driscoll or a Mahaney, this kind of thing has to be confusing or loony.  If you’re not going to be consistent and if you are not going to come at this from a foundational or philosophical basis, then it all comes across as entirely subjective.  If you are open to talk about Driscoll’s shirts, then someone else should be able to talk about music.  The music is directly worship and the shirt is related, but not directly like music is.
The critics want their own way.  They want their music.  They want their dress.   They want their worldliness.  And they use name-calling as an argument.  Notice it.  It really is typical of these evangelicals.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives