------------------------
Dr. MacArthur tries to make the case for understanding Scripture rationally and logically. Ironically, his presentation is not terribly rational.
Dr. MacArthur tries to make the case for understanding Scripture rationally and logically. Ironically, his presentation is not terribly rational.
The Bible isn’t some mystical transmitter of truth. It’s not a coded message with numerological keys. Nor does its text require ethereal insight to unlock its meaning. God has kindly chosen to communicate with man by engaging the mental faculties He has blessed us with—through the clear, objective, and rational expression of His revealed Word. (Dr. MacArthur begins by presenting us with a false choice, that either the Bible is coded, or that it is understood rationally. But in actual fact, we have a third choice, one that he will later acknowledge and then inexplicably take back: The enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.)
The objective revelation of God in Scripture is meant to be understood by normal reasoning. It is logical and noncontradictory. There are no errors, lies, or unsound principles. (All of these are undocumented assertions. This is particularly galling to us, because the thesis is "The Bible Is Rational Truth." That is the assertion Dr. MacArthur should prove [rationally]. It is the purpose of him writing his article, yet he simply presumes its truth without ever documenting it.)
There are, in reality, no logical contradictions, though to us there may appear to be inconsistencies or paradoxes due to our human limitations. (Hmm. If there are limits to our human understanding, then how can Scripture be understood by "normal reasoning?")
But ultimately, there are no contradictions in Scripture, no fantasies, no absurdities, no inconsistencies, and no myths. (We would agree, but this does not demonstrate that every human has access to the meaning of Scripture via the sole avenue of reason and logic.)
The Word of God contains the actual history of real people told in normal language. And Scripture is to be understood in the same way we would seek to understand anything—by the process of reason. (Undocumented assertion.)
We use reason to solve a math problem, read an engineering schematic, or diagnose an illness. In the same way, Scripture is understood according to the normal patterns of human reason. (Undocumented assertion.)
It is understood by the mind, not by mystical intuition or epiphany. (Undocumented assertion.)
That doesn’t mean that there is no spiritual component to understanding the Bible. (Now Dr. MacArthur begins to walk back his claims. He admits there is a part played by non-rational means.)
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” The natural man is unregenerate, and his mind is still darkened by enslavement to sin. It’s the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit that brings saving faith and repentance. So while a true understanding of Scripture in all its fullness is limited to believers, (Dr. MacArthur correctly makes a distinction between believers and non-believers in their capacity to understand the Scriptures. And he acknowledges the necessity of the Holy Spirit to enlighten our understanding.
Since both believers and non-believers are capable of rational thought, we would rightly conclude that the specific difference is the Holy Spirit. Understanding the Word of God requires the Holy Spirit.
Ironically, we obtained this conclusion of the need of a non-rational Holy Spirit by rational means.)
the believer still comes to that true understanding through the normal paths of reasoning. (Wait, what? Dr. MacArthur suddenly and inexplicably abandons the Holy Spirit! He previously established that the Holy Spirit is needed to understand the Bible, but now says that this understanding comes via reasoning. How does this make sense?
Since both believers and non-believers are capable of rational thought, we would rightly conclude that the specific difference is the Holy Spirit. Understanding the Word of God requires the Holy Spirit.
Ironically, we obtained this conclusion of the need of a non-rational Holy Spirit by rational means.)
the believer still comes to that true understanding through the normal paths of reasoning. (Wait, what? Dr. MacArthur suddenly and inexplicably abandons the Holy Spirit! He previously established that the Holy Spirit is needed to understand the Bible, but now says that this understanding comes via reasoning. How does this make sense?
Ironically, the very next verse reads,
1Co. 2:15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things..."Spiritual" is πνευματικός, ή, όν (pneumatikos), which means spiritual; relating to the realm of spirit, i.e. the invisible sphere in which the Holy Spirit imparts faith, reveals Christ, etc.
It takes a man with insight into the "invisible sphere" to understand.)
Then we read:
There is no way to twist and manipulate the account of Ezra reading the law to the people of Israel into an intellectual exercise.)
This is another area in which the church cannot afford to mimic or follow the lead of this perishing world. (And he piles on yet another assertion. How does all the above mean that people are mimicking the world?
Now Dr. MacArthur proceeds to embark on a non-sequitur...)
J. P. Moreland describes in vivid terms the dangers a culture faces when it has surrendered reason and critical thinking: “We are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and we can no longer afford to act like it’s loaded with blanks.” [1] He continues:
Tragically, it has flooded into the church, too. Today, many professing believers have no interest in the carefully reasoned study of God’s Word, preferring to seek illumination and instruction through alternate means. (Another false choice. Some people are not built for intellectual pursuit. They are not deep thinkers. They are not scholars or wanna-be theologians.
And this means they are not like Dr. MacArthur. But as far as Dr. MacArthur is concerned, they are in error. Because they are unable or unwilling to adopt Dr. MacArthur's processes, because they do not adopt an intellectual approach to the Bible, because they do not work out their faith his way, they are heretics.
He will now use the word "pagan...")
Some adopt the rituals of pagan religions, while others simply wait to hear the audible voice of the Lord or receive intuitive mental impressions from the Spirit to interpret the Bible.
That mystical approach to God and His truth is inherently irrational. (That is, they don't do their faith the same way Dr. MacArthur does.)
(He will now pile on more undocumented statements...)
In fact, the pursuit of private, subjective interpretation effectively denies both the objectivity and rationality of God’s truth. It also denies the sufficiency of His inspired Word, presuming that there is more we need to know than what God has placed in Scripture. In the end, this anti-intellectual search for truth often leads to the kind of chaos we see dominating the charismatic movement. For others, it leads to disappointment, despair, and apostasy. (Not a single one of these statements are self evident. Dr. MacArthur gives us no reason at all to accept them.)
God had a purpose when He gave us the capacity for rational thought. If we want to know Him and understand what He has revealed in His Word, we must approach Scripture rationally, following the normal processes of logic and reason with sound hermeneutics to come to a true understanding of its meaning. (Dr. MacArthur now simply repeats his premise.)
The rationality of Scripture is actually a great blessing. It means that instead of a multitude of elusive, scattered, subjective interpretations, there is a fixed, consistent meaning to God’s Word for everyone to know with settled confidence.(Non-sequitur. A "fixed, consistent meaning" is not the same thing as rationality.
Dr. MacArthur seems to be making an idol of rationality.
Dr. MacArthur is revered by many as a powerful Bible teacher. We have examined many of his presentations, and have yet to encounter anything that earns him this distinction. In fact, there are times when we wonder if he's thinking clearly at all.
Certainly today's post offers no help.)
In the same way, the unregenerate person is responsible for not believing in God because he has been given evidence of God’s existence that accords with his normal reasoning powers (Romans 1:18–20). (Hmm. Let's quote the extended passage:
Ro. 1:18-22 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
The sinner has the testimony of creation, but it is not saving knowledge, it is knowledge sufficient to the pronouncement of guilt. Men are without excuse.
Indeed, the sinner has claimed to be wise, that is, they claimed to have logic and reasoning powers. Yet Paul dismisses them as fools.
Indeed, the sinner has claimed to be wise, that is, they claimed to have logic and reasoning powers. Yet Paul dismisses them as fools.
There is nothing in this passage that even hints at the idea that God appealed to the sinner's reasoning powers through the glory of creation. It's just not there. But the author claimed the sinner ...has been given evidence of God’s existence that accords with his normal reasoning powers... No, the sinner has been given the testimony of creation, which condemns the sinner, it doesn't give him the means to get saved.)
Man is subject to God’s wrath because he does not follow the normal path of reason and conscience to recognize God as his Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge. (Dr. MacArthur just keeps building and expanding on his errant premise.
There is no verse anywhere, including this passage in Romans, that says or even implies that "man is subject to God’s wrath because he does not follow the normal path of reason..."
The sinner simply rejects the testimony of creation. Reason plays no part in it. God is neither beguiling the sinner with reason or logic nor condemning him for his lack of logic.
The Bible is very clear about the irrational means of the Holy Spirit:
There is no verse anywhere, including this passage in Romans, that says or even implies that "man is subject to God’s wrath because he does not follow the normal path of reason..."
The sinner simply rejects the testimony of creation. Reason plays no part in it. God is neither beguiling the sinner with reason or logic nor condemning him for his lack of logic.
The Bible is very clear about the irrational means of the Holy Spirit:
Ep. 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Pr. 20:27 The lamp of the LORD searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being.
Ps. 51:6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
1Co. 2:7-10 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” — [Isaiah 64:4] 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
Jn. 14:16-17 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you for ever — 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
It very nearly astounds us that Dr. MacArthur does not understand these Scriptures.)
In spite of what the world claims, it is far more reasonable and rational to believe in creation than evolution. (Non sequitur, and irrelevant.)
Man is culpable before God because he doesn’t follow the path of God-given reason to the most obvious reality in the universe—God. (Undocumented assertion.)
The rationality of Scripture also has implications for believers: We are meant to understand God’s Word through reason. (His assertion restated, and now, finally, he is about to actually attempt to document it...)
The rationality of Scripture also has implications for believers: We are meant to understand God’s Word through reason. (His assertion restated, and now, finally, he is about to actually attempt to document it...)
In Nehemiah 8, Ezra stood up and read the Scripture in front of the people for half the day, explaining to them its meaning. In chapter 7, we learn that Ezra read the Scriptures, studied them, lived them, and then preached them (Ezra 7:10). He came to understand Scripture’s meaning before explaining it to the people. (...but neither this Scripture nor Nehemiah 8 tell us that Ezra employed reason and logic. In fact, in Ne. 7:5 we find this:
So my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration by families.
Nehemiah did not use reason to decide to do a census, he responded to what God placed in his heart.
We read what Ezra prayed in Ne. 9:20:
We read what Ezra prayed in Ne. 9:20:
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them.
In Ne. 8:2 we read,
So on the first day of the seventh month, Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand."Understand is בִּין (bin), which means to discern. Beyond logic and reason, the Word of God requires discernment. It's even a spiritual gift [1 Cor. 12:10.]
Then we read:
Ne. 8:12 Then all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great joy, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them.They now understood [ בִּין (bin)], discerned. At first they began to weep and mourn, but now they discerned and were joyful.
There is no way to twist and manipulate the account of Ezra reading the law to the people of Israel into an intellectual exercise.)
This is an important point, because so many Christians believe that the true meaning of Scripture falls on an individual through some intuition or experience. (Red herring. It's by means of the Holy Spirit.)
They’re looking to unlock the rational truth of God’s Word through irrational means. (Dr. MacArthur just keeps going on and on. He hasn't proved any of this, he's simply built upon a false premise, and then makes further statements that also need to be demonstrated.
He hasn't even demonstrated that God's truth is rational, yet uses this as a basis to condemn unnamed people for using "irrational means" to unlock rational truth.
And what does Dr. MacArthur mean, "irrational means?" Does he mean the Holy Spirit, or some other thing? What other thing? How does using some other unnamed thing come to bear on biblical truth? How does he know that people are using these irrational means to unlock God's word? Why is this bad or wrong?
Dr. MacArthur's thinking is muddled.)
They’re looking to unlock the rational truth of God’s Word through irrational means. (Dr. MacArthur just keeps going on and on. He hasn't proved any of this, he's simply built upon a false premise, and then makes further statements that also need to be demonstrated.
He hasn't even demonstrated that God's truth is rational, yet uses this as a basis to condemn unnamed people for using "irrational means" to unlock rational truth.
And what does Dr. MacArthur mean, "irrational means?" Does he mean the Holy Spirit, or some other thing? What other thing? How does using some other unnamed thing come to bear on biblical truth? How does he know that people are using these irrational means to unlock God's word? Why is this bad or wrong?
Dr. MacArthur's thinking is muddled.)
This is another area in which the church cannot afford to mimic or follow the lead of this perishing world. (And he piles on yet another assertion. How does all the above mean that people are mimicking the world?
Now Dr. MacArthur proceeds to embark on a non-sequitur...)
J. P. Moreland describes in vivid terms the dangers a culture faces when it has surrendered reason and critical thinking: “We are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and we can no longer afford to act like it’s loaded with blanks.” [1] He continues:
Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites. The mind-numbing, irrational tripe that fills TV talk shows is digested by millions of bored, lonely Americans hungry for that sort of stuff. [2]What Moreland is describing is the massive tidal wave of anti-intellectualism that has overwhelmed much of society today. (True, but this does not necessarily come to bear on using "irrational means" to discern Bible truth.)
Tragically, it has flooded into the church, too. Today, many professing believers have no interest in the carefully reasoned study of God’s Word, preferring to seek illumination and instruction through alternate means. (Another false choice. Some people are not built for intellectual pursuit. They are not deep thinkers. They are not scholars or wanna-be theologians.
And this means they are not like Dr. MacArthur. But as far as Dr. MacArthur is concerned, they are in error. Because they are unable or unwilling to adopt Dr. MacArthur's processes, because they do not adopt an intellectual approach to the Bible, because they do not work out their faith his way, they are heretics.
He will now use the word "pagan...")
Some adopt the rituals of pagan religions, while others simply wait to hear the audible voice of the Lord or receive intuitive mental impressions from the Spirit to interpret the Bible.
That mystical approach to God and His truth is inherently irrational. (That is, they don't do their faith the same way Dr. MacArthur does.)
(He will now pile on more undocumented statements...)
In fact, the pursuit of private, subjective interpretation effectively denies both the objectivity and rationality of God’s truth. It also denies the sufficiency of His inspired Word, presuming that there is more we need to know than what God has placed in Scripture. In the end, this anti-intellectual search for truth often leads to the kind of chaos we see dominating the charismatic movement. For others, it leads to disappointment, despair, and apostasy. (Not a single one of these statements are self evident. Dr. MacArthur gives us no reason at all to accept them.)
God had a purpose when He gave us the capacity for rational thought. If we want to know Him and understand what He has revealed in His Word, we must approach Scripture rationally, following the normal processes of logic and reason with sound hermeneutics to come to a true understanding of its meaning. (Dr. MacArthur now simply repeats his premise.)
The rationality of Scripture is actually a great blessing. It means that instead of a multitude of elusive, scattered, subjective interpretations, there is a fixed, consistent meaning to God’s Word for everyone to know with settled confidence.(Non-sequitur. A "fixed, consistent meaning" is not the same thing as rationality.
Dr. MacArthur seems to be making an idol of rationality.
Dr. MacArthur is revered by many as a powerful Bible teacher. We have examined many of his presentations, and have yet to encounter anything that earns him this distinction. In fact, there are times when we wonder if he's thinking clearly at all.
Certainly today's post offers no help.)
No comments:
Post a Comment