John MacArthur: an appreciation

by Dan Phillips

After a longer time of faithful service than many of you, dear readers, have been alive, our brother John MacArthur has gone to his reward. He now sees the face of Him whom he loved and served with all his might, faithfully and with integrity.

His gain is our great loss, a fact which I think will become more apparent as the days pass. Old heresies and heterodoxies will dust themselves off and don new garb, and we will look for a clear and incisive voice to unmask them...and one such leading voice will remain silent.

Yet in another way and at the same time, we know that voice will be heard from faithful pulpits all around the globe. As surely as it will take years fully to feel the loss of John MacArthur, so it will take years to measure his impact. Men literally across the planet have been formed under God by MacArthur's teaching and example of biblically-faithful pastoral service. We recognize them for certain if they pronounce "brethren" as "brother-en." Even more, they will be known by their unswerving devotion to the exposition and application of the truths of Scripture.

I'll tell you one way in which some of us can measure John's impact. Decades ago, as a young Christian, I wrote a question to the expositor William Hendriksen. Just in passing and by way of introduction, I noted that I was "a Calvinist dispensationalist," then went on to my question.

Hendriksen was little interested in my question, to which he responded almost dismissively. He was much more interested in disabusing me of the thought that I could be Calvinist and dispensationalist. He assured me there was no such thing. I needed to read his commentary on Revelation and lose my dispensationalism, if I wanted to be "100% Calvinist." (Some dispensationalists felt similarly about my Calvinism.) I was not to write him again until I was "100% Calvinist."

Today, were I writing Hendriksen, I'd only need to have said that doctrinally I was "basically in John MacArthur's neck of the woods," and there would have been no turmoil. Though MacArthur and I came to our convictions separately — I was not a MacArthur reader — we landed in the same place by the same path: it is what Scripture taught. (I could never have imagined that one day John MacArthur would graciously endorse my first book.)

But it took John MacArthur to earn acceptance of that blend from people who just recently had been calling dispensationalism a heresy. They saw in John MacArthur a man who stood unwaveringly for the centrality, authority, sufficiency, and inerrancy of all of Scripture. They saw a veritable library of Biblical writing, and a fount of Christ-honoring ministry decisions, investments, and works. MacArthur blazed a trail where none had seemed likely, obvious as it should have been.

I personally became more exposed to John's qualities as a leader by getting to know Phil. Inevitably, I read more books and listened to more sermons and heard more anecdotes.

More than any one book or sermon, I came to respect and admire MacArthur's stance. He was not reflexively "agin'" everything, he just was not immediately "fer" anything. It had to be analyzed Biblically. And often he would see to the heart of The Latest Greatest Thing, with Biblical clarity, long before others did.

And he'd say so, with clarity. That word clarity is another key to understanding MacArthur's impact, I think. He dug into the Bible, and then he was able to bring what he learned to bear in clear, direct, memorable language. This made him useful — and quotable. I myself have quoted him in teaching a number of times, though (defying my own conviction) I can't always source my quotation.

Just last Sunday I quoted a tale of MacArthur. Someone asked him how many people he'd led to Christ. His answer (as I heard it): "Everyone I've ever preached to." That's perfect: profound, yet simple. Or his comment on the faux-Shekinah gold dust in Charismatic meetings: "If that really were the Shekinah, they'd all be dead."

It is that quality of incisive clarity, married to personal integrity, which I think I admire most, and will miss most. John MacArthur was unflappable and beyond intimidation. Talking to a guy at a conference, or talking to Larry King on national cable, or talking to the governor of California, he was the same man.

In fact, that really is a huge thing. You never had to wonder whether MacArthur would wobble, act embarrassed by the Bible, or equivocate, in any setting. He wouldn't be a jerk, but he wouldn't be a quaking aspen. He'd just kindly, firmly lay down the truth of what Scripture said, in any setting. Of how many can you say that — that you'd never worry about what he would say under bright spotlights? Precious few. And now there is one less, and it is a real loss.

I also appreciate MacArthur for his enemies. I'm sure all of us pastors have this or that where we think otherwise than John did. But when you see someone who really hates John MacArthur, or has only bad things to seethe about him — you can be fairly sure that something unhealthy is going on there.

Would I compare MacArthur to Spurgeon? Yes and no. In terms of eloquence and heart-stopping beauty of expression, in terms of speaking to despondent and fearful hearts — no. That's Spurgeon.

But in terms of the breadth, scope, and influence of his Gospel-centered works and impact? Yes, absolutely. What's more, in terms of lasting production of directly Biblical material, I'd say MacArthur excels. Spurgeon left a great library of timeless and priceless sermons and talks and articles. But CHS is not known for leaving a volume of exposition. That's John MacArthur's signature contribution.

The morning after John's passing into Christ's presence, I began the day with tears. I knew the world  — Christian world and world-world — had lost a key unwavering voice for God's truth. That is a hard blow, a gut-punch.

But God loves His church more than we do, He loves His word and truth more than we do, and He knows exactly what He is doing. There was no Spurgeon before Spurgeon, and no MacArthur before MacArthur. God formed and raised up those two faithful servants exactly for His purpose and for their time.

Who is He forming and preparing now? God knows. We can only pray.

And what is more, I can't think of a death of a public figure that had more personal impact on me than John MacArthur's death. His life challenges me to strive to give full value to both elements of the phrase "man of God." His passing makes me mindful of my own little field, and more determined to find a way to fill my remaining years with fruitful devotion to Christ and His Gospel.

As John MacArthur did.

---

Twenty Years Ago Today

by Phil Johnson

arlene and I were in London 20 years ago today. I was preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle's School of Theology when suicide bombers detonated 3 bombs on the London Underground & one on a bus. 52 people died. More than 800 were maimed or injured.

We were not close enough to hear any of the explosions, but somehow word of the attacks spread through the Met Tab congregation, and when I finished my message, there was an eery silence. By the time I came down from the pulpit, the Tabernacle was already more than half empty.

I had never had a reaction like that to to any of my sermons, so I asked Darlene if I had said or done something unintentionally offensive. She told me there was some kind of emergency—explosions in the London Underground, possibly terrorism. The whole city was shutting down.

We didn't immediately understand the scope of it, but all of London quickly ground to a halt. There were no cars or buses moving on the roadways, but London's streets were filled with pedestrians trying to get home.

I had been posting regular updates from that visit to London. Here is what I posted that day.

...and I posted this the following day from the departure lounge in Heathrow as we waited to board our return flight to Los Angeles.

Hard to believe 20 years has come and gone since then.

---

If God is Good, Omnipotent, and Sovereign, Where Does Evil Come From?

by Phil Johnson

When bad things happen, has God lost control?

rminian reasoning: "If God is sovereign, doesn't that make him the author of evil? Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, beneficent God permit evil in the first place?

The only honest way for an Arminian to avoid the difficulty those questions pose would be to answer the same way process theology and open theology deal with the dilemma: "God doesn't actually know the future; he is taking calculated risks."

That opens up greater problems than ever. It nullifies divine omniscience; it erases the doctrine of divine immutability (the truth that God is unchanging; that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever). It is a full-scale attack on classic theism.

Calvinists are often targeted with the charge that they make God the author or the instrumental cause of evil, but the truth is no one has thought more carefully about this issue or written more clarifying material on it than the great Calvinist theologians across reformation history.

Jonathan Edwards, for example, covers it in detail in his book The Freedom of the Will. He has a whole chapter titled "Concerning that objection against the doctrine which has been maintained, that it makes God the Author of Sin." (In modern editions, that title is shortened to the question: "Is God the Author of Sin?")

Edwards says this:

[Those] who object, that [the doctrine of divine sovereignty] makes God the Author of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, "The Author of Sin." I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the Author of Sin, be meant [that God is] the Sinner, the Agent, [the] Actor of Sin, or the Doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In [that] sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin . . . such an imputation on the Most High . . ..is infinitely to be abhorred . . ..But if, by the Author of Sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of Sin; and, at the same time, [He has a holy purpose in all that He does, and he uses even the evil that is done by evil agents for His own] wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that Sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: [and as we know, God deplores evil, and will defeat it and glorify himself in doing so] This is not to be the Actor of Sin, but, on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature.

God is never the instrumental cause of evil. He does not does not advocate sin, sanction it, instigate it, condone it, approve it, or otherwise countenance it.

But the appearance of evil in God's creation did not take Him by surprise or catch Him off guard. It was part of His plan from the beginning. He doesn't delight in it. It is abhorrent to Him. He remains utterly untainted by its existence. And even in His absolute sovereignty, God is never the efficient cause or the agent of evil. James 1:13: "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." He "is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). God is absolutely holy, and high above sin and evil, totally untouched by it.

Nevertheless, don't ever imagine that evil is something foreign to God's plan. The sudden appearance of evil at the dawn of the universe and in the early chapters of Genesis does not mean something went haywire in God's strategy. He planned for evil to enter His universe—indeed, He decreed that it would occur—so that He might use it to bring about an even greater good.

Not only that, but He also remains fully sovereign over every act of evil that is ever committed. The Old Testament book of Job gives us a little window into the workings of the Spirit world. It reveals that even Satan himself cannot act apart from God's permission. And God never allows evil agents to act unless His purpose is to overrule their evil intentions for His own wise and holy purposes.

He will glorify Himself in the defeat of evil, and He will make even the fruits of evil all work together for good, in accord with His good pleasure. He's doing it even now, for those who have spiritual eyes to see.

PS: See also "Does Calvinism Make God the Author of Evil?"

---

About that Missing Blogpost....

A note from Dan Phillips

After about seven years without a post, I posted a copy of a letter I sent to the congregation I serve in Houston, Texas. I wanted to help parents talk with their children about the ubiquitous "Pride Month" intrusions. Then I followed up with a sermon. But someone flagged it to Blogger, where it was ruled that my post was "Hate Speech." Their definition: "content that promotes or condones violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their …sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." This, of a post that literally says "we don't hate people who want bad things…. We love people who don't know Jesus…" But today, to believe in the actual Jesus is to be called a "hater." You will find my letter posted elsewhere, unedited.

Click HERE to read the post Blogger tried to censor.

---

---

Not Today, Devil

by Phil Johnson

any readers will remember a blogpost I wrote in August of 2011 analyzing Mark Driscoll's claim that he had a bizarre spiritual gift: an uncanny psychic ability enabling him to function as a kind of supernatural peeping Tom. He claimed to be able to watch vivid, full-color replays of his counselees' sexual sins on some sort of cosmic big screen. It was a tasteless claim—

No, it was worse. It was a rank blasphemy to claim such a freakishly prurient peculiarity had been given to him by the Holy Spirit.

A few weeks ago he filed a copyright claim to have YouTube remove that video. It was an ironic stance for him to take, given his own reputation as an unbridled plagiarist.

Anyway, I never received any notice of the takedown, and since I rarely look at my own YouTube channel, I didn't notice until YouTube's referees had already judged Driscoll's claim as legitimate. I nevertheless wrote three appeals pointing out that my use of the video clearly falls well within the 1976 Copyright Law's definition of "Fair Use," because I posted it in order to make critical commentary for a purpose that was both newsworthy and (in the proper sense) educational.

YouTube's judges held their ground, however—apparently because my actual criticisms of Driscoll's remarks were posted in the accompanying blogpost, and not in the video itself.

So I have corrected that problem by incorporating the gist of my critical remarks into the video and reposting it, together with a quotation from the relevant legal statute demonstrating why the Fair Use doctrine protects my posting of these excerpts.

If you'd like to see the revised video (unaltered except for the addition of my commentary), you can observe it where it is now imbedded in that 2011 blogpost, or at my Youtube channel. I won't imbed it here, because frankly it gives me nausea every time I see it. But I wanted to keep the matter well documented, because I hear that Driscoll has gained a sizeable new following of naive young people, and frankly, I think he is more dangerous and more unorthodox than he was at the peak of his original popularity.

 

---

Current Status

Still no response from Twitter:

19 December update: People keep writing to tell me they don't think I'm banned from Twitter because if they go to my Twitter account, they can see my Tweets. Here's the deal: Anyone with Twitter access can see my old Tweets, up to the day I was banned (October 14, 2022). But I can't sign on, post, or read any Tweets using my own account. They are holding me hostage, insistent that I must first confess that I committed a crime of "hate speech." What did I say? Well, I linked to a news story about a drag-queen crossing guard hired to work at a public elementary school. Then on that same day I linked to a TikTok video posted by an elementary-school teacher who insists it ought to be a very high priority for all public schools to indoctrinate kindergartners to embrace and celebrate gender fluidity, regardless of their parents' opinions. And then I said this is tantamount to government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded grooming. Twitter demands that I delete the offending Tweet[s], and they say I can have my account back whenever I do that. However, they also add: "By clicking delete you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter [hate speech] rules." I refuse to kowtow to such a worldview. Hence it seems I'm off Twitter permanently or until they acknowledge my right to have moral convictions that are shaped by Scripture rather than the opinions of humanistic elitists. It's not an insignificant fine point, in my judgment.

5 December update: Last week's promised "general amnesty" didn't materialize. Also, Twitter support has not replied to any of my queries. Apparently the old policy is still in place—namely if you want to be reinstated, you must plead guilty to the charge of "hate speech."

Twitter's staff are just as unresponsive as ever to emails and other queries from people they have arbitrarily banned.

Elon Musk needs to assign a cohort of capable employees to answering people's appeals, or (better yet) go ahead and implement the general amnesty he promised.

---

About my Twitter "Hiatus"

by Phil Johnson

witter banned me a month ago today because I said that local school boards' efforts to normalize sexual perversion in the minds of elementary school children is taxpayer-funded, state-driven grooming.

Twitter says I can have my account back if I will delete the Tweet that offended their censors' notion of civil propriety. For the record, I would be happy to do that. I have even written them and offered to to that.

However—

They also expressly stated that by deleting the Tweet I would be formally admitting I broke Twitter's rules against "hate speech," and that is something I cannot conscientiously do.

This is a classic example of how social media moguls are attempting to overrule and reshape the consciences of their users. My Tweet was not an expression of "hate" aimed at anyone—not even the drag-queen crossing guard into whose custody kindergartners have been placed (contrary to many parents' wishes)—not even the teacher who boasted on Instagram how she was inculcating LGBTQRSTU ideology into the minds of her elementary students while keeping her moral agenda secret from parents. My Tweet (like this blog entry) was a simple statement of my own moral convictions, without malice or ill-will.

Several have urged me to go ahead and delete the offending Tweet rather than be silenced. I will be happy to do that if Twitter will state in writing that they understand my compliance with their wishes is not a guilty plea.

I'm not asking for anyone to start a campaign about this. I'm simply explaining (for the sake of many who keep asking) why I'm off Twitter and why I haven't done what Twitter is asking me to in order to get my account restored.

---