Home » Posts tagged 'Masters Seminary'
Tag Archives: Masters Seminary
The Capitulation on the Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
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
Baptists and Presbyterians, False Worship, and Separation
Some of what I write here relates to something I got on my phone from a notification. It was Derek Thomas, the Presbyterian, representing the Master’s Seminary on a podcast. He did about fifteen minutes on preaching and the problem of evil, focusing on sermons through Job. I don’t know that an evangelical Presbyterian might differ with a Baptist interpretation of Job. Thomas said he disagreed with Calvin, whom he said took the Elihu position, essentially seeing Elihu arriving at the end of Job and mopping up the whole discussion.
The appearance of Thomas for Master’s Seminary drew my attention to the doctrine of Presbyterians and fellowship with them. Presbyterians sprinkle infants, which they consider baptizing babies. Should this bring separation from Presbyterians?
Presbyterians in the ordinance of baptism sprinkle infants. A Book of Public Prayer for the Presbyterian Church of America, 1857, reads (p. 147):
Baptism is an holy Sacrament instituted by Christ: in which a person professing the Christian Faith, or the infant of such, is baptized with water into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: in signification and solemnization of the holy covenant in which as a believer, or the seed of believers, he giveth up himself, or is by the parent given up, to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost: to believe in, love, and fear this blessed Trinity, against the flesh, the devil, and the world. Thus he is solemnly entered a visible member of Christ and His Church, a child of God, and an heir of heaven.
This is considered and called “a prescribed form of worship” (p. xv), so under the category of worship. Is baptism worship of God? The thought here is that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, these two rites, are acts of worship in the New Testament temple of God. To worship God, God must accept the baptism.
Through the Bible, a primary criterion for worship is that God accepts it. For God to accept it, it must accord with scripture. God accepts worship in truth. In the Old Testament, God punishes false worship by death, such as the case of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire to the Lord. Infant sprinkling is not truth.
C. H. Spurgeon preached and the transcript reads:
When we reflect that it is rendered into some thing worse than superstition by being accompanied with falsehood, when children are taught that in their baptism they are made the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, which is as base a lie as ever was forged in hell, or uttered beneath the copes of heaven, our spirit sinks at the fearful errors which have crept into the Church, through the one little door of infant sprinkling.
Preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1861, Hugh Brown said:
We cannot but regard infant baptism as the main root of the superstitious and destructive dogma of baptismal regeneration, to which as Protestants we are opposed; we cannot but regard infant baptism as the chief corner-stone of State Churchism, to which as Dissenters we are opposed; we cannot but regard infant baptism as unscriptural, and to everything that is unscriptural we, as disciples of Jesus Christ, must be opposed; and we do trust that all who differ from us, and however widely they may differ, will still admit that we are only doing what is right in maintaining what we believe to be the truth of God with reference to this matter.
I’ve read many who say that infant sprinkling has sent more people to hell than any other false doctrine. I can’t disagree. Recently someone compared this to 1-2-3-pray-with-me or easy prayerism. They both send many people to Hell, the latter catching up today with infant sprinkling in its damnatory qualities.
I’m happy when I hear any Presbyterian believes right, preaches scripturally, about anything. Love rejoices in the truth. Infant sprinkling is false worship and as a doctrine sends people to Hell. God killed Nadab and Abihu for changing the recipe at the altar of incense. How much more serious is the false worship and perverting message of infant sprinkling? Baptists should separate from Presbyterians, not remain in unity with them. They should not yoke together in common ministry. They should do what God does with false worship.
How Even Apparently Conservative Evangelicals Justify Disobedience to Scripture as a Deconstruction
Today churches have gone “woke.” Many accept critical race theory and same sex relations. Before contemplating those extremes, we might consider something short of that and what leads to it.
A man I know well pastors in the same city as a conservative evangelical does, and the two discussed separation. The conservative evangelical church accepts membership of many and widely varied doctrinal and practical positions. Everyone is worldly also to sundry degrees, many very much so.
The conservative evangelical graduated from Masters Seminary and in general follows its way of thinking and operation. In a conversation, the man who I know well mentioned to the conservative evangelical 1 Timothy 1:3:
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.
Paul besought Timothy to charge the pastors at Ephesus that they “teach no other doctrine.” That’s very clear. “Teach no other doctrine” is one Greek word, heterodidaskaleo. This matches up with what Paul also said in 1 Timothy 6:3-5:
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.
Here’s what the conservative evangelical, who went to Masters Seminary, said: “We teach that “doctrine” there [in 1 Timothy 1:3] is [or means] ‘the gospel.'”
This is the kind of dealing with scripture or teaching that justifies disobedience to scripture. Is “doctrine” “the gospel” in 1 Timothy 1:3 and in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 among other verses of scripture? Of course not. Still, that’s how conservative evangelicals will go ahead and understand “doctrine.” “Doctrine” refers only to “the gospel” in that passage.
Calling “doctrine” “the gospel” is a type of deconstruction. Rather than a verse asserting absolute truth, a person assigns a meaning that he conceives at that moment in time. In Is There Meaning in this Text? Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes (pp. 21-22) about the deconstruction of the postmodernist Derrida, the one most associated with it:
The belief that one has reached the single correct Meaning (or God, or “Truth”) provides a wonderful excuse for damning those with whom one disagrees as either “fools” or “heretics.” . . . Neither Priests, who supposedly speak for God, nor Philosophers, who supposedly speak for Reason, should be trusted; this “logocentric” claim to speak from a privileged perspective (e.g., Reason, the Word of God) is a bluff that must be called, or better, “deconstructed.”
A teacher or preacher may dismantle Christianity by deconstructing the language. Christianity is based upon language, the language of the Bible. Rather than say you don’t believe the Bible, you can just deny a “single correct meaning.”
Deconstructing the biblical text allows and even instructs men not to believe and obey the Bible. They not only disobey, but they disobey while thinking they’re obeying, because of the deconstruction of the language of scripture. A church can grow in numbers from the welcome of plenteous and diverse disobedience, while still labeling it obedience. It doesn’t fool God now or ever.
Recent Comments