Tuesday, September 25, 2007

an emerging Bible according to Peter, Paul and John MacArthur

I came across John MacArthur waxing erudite about the emerging church on youtube here

Hermeneutics … to interpret .. It’s really not that hard. It’s not brain surgery … We are talking simply about how we discern what it means by what it says.

Which I couldn’t help contrasting with the apostle Peter: Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand. 2 Peter 3:16

Or am I simply misusing proof texts and quoting people out of context?

Posted by steve at 02:16 PM


  1. I don’t think so – this is the exact technique MacArthur Jr would use.

    I have to admit it bugs me a lot when people talk about the Bible like it is (in exclusivity) a book of answers and not a book of questions

    “We are talking simply about how we discern what it means by what it says.” I haven’t watched the vid but I both like and dislike John MacArthur Jr. He has done some excellent exposition (IMHO – the Sermon on the mount for example) but he can also fall into what I now regard the classic conservative evangelical trap (I fall into it too)

    By having one voice interpret what Scripture says you miss the opportunity to have other voices in other contexts open your eyes to other interpretations (read: discernments)

    I can’t speak for JMA here but he would probably tell you that you were overemphasising that one passage when you should be considering the context (yadda yadda yadda) which after years of listening to these kinds of speakers almost in exclusivity I now realise is a totally subjective interpretation… one that should be considered with a collection of other thought out interpretations….

    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Comment by Randall — September 25, 2007 @ 7:12 pm

  2. Oh man… I started listening to it and I wasted minutes of my life and all those minutes earned were highblood pressure! Remind me never to do it again!

    Comment by Andrew — September 25, 2007 @ 8:04 pm

  3. His comments remind of those made by D.A. Carson and Chuck Colson. Why is it so hard to get along even when we disagree?

    Every four to six weeks a group of “young-ish” ministers gather at a coffee shop somewhere around Adelaide. We are all Church of Christ ministers who are doing our best to serve our faith communities and our wider communities. We sit, talk, reflect and enjoy coffee (well most of us enjoy the coffee). Sometimes we lament and other times we allow ourselves to dream about the future. The amazing thing about our group is that we are all from diverse theological backgrounds yet we allow the things that we are for to draw us together instead of polarising the relationships based on what we disagree on. The most important part of our gathering is not what we believe but our relationship with each other.

    People like Macarthur and Colson seem to only be interested in finger pointing and telling us how we hav fallen into error. Carson is negative towards the EC but atleast he engages in dialogue!

    Comment by mark — September 26, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

  4. Anyone who reads Jesus’ parable of the king going to battle as an apologetic for state warfare needs to be pitied more than anything.

    However Steve, his agitation at the subjectivity of emerging church raises one question for me;

    “How does emerging church differ from either liberal or progressive explorations of christianity? I’m not an expert but much of what I read and hear from EC isn’t so different from what Anglican liberals were discussing in the forties and fifties, or from the ‘secular city’ theologies of the sixties and seventies.”

    Any thoughts?

    Comment by Andrew — September 27, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

  5. Hi Andrew. Just back from holiday. Your question is an excellent one and I am thinking about how to respond to it.


    Comment by steve — October 2, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.