Aw... shucks...
Posted on 08/26/2015 2:25:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The video has now gone viral, providing embarrassment for the charismatic movement and fodder for those who deny that the prophetic gifts are for today.
A self-proclaimed prophet from Scotland disrupted a Sunday morning service on August 16th as Pastor MacArthur stood behind the pulpit, rebuking him for teaching cessationism and for being divisive, announcing that he was a prophet sent by God.
Pastor MacArthur listened quietly before security removed the man, who continued to call for repentance as he was escorted out the door.
Pastor MacArthur then responded like a completely composed, totally unruffled, senior statesman, using humor and assuring the congregants that the security team would handle the intruder with gentleness.
He explained that this uninvited guest claimed that it is heresy to say that spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy have ceased and he added that, according to 1 Corinthians 14, the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets and if this man were a real prophet, he wouldn't have behaved that way.
Of course, if you read about what the prophets did in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (see Acts 21:10-11), a disruptive act like this would be quite minor.
But I do believe in principles of order and honor, and Paul did instruct Timothy never to rebuke an older man (or, elder) but rather to appeal to him (see 1 Timothy 5:1). So, however you view this incident, it did make Charismatics look bad.
As Pastor MacArthur continued to speak, he said "it's a sad situation" and "of all the things you could get upset about" — before he was disrupted by a baby crying, leading to more humor and laughter, after which he called on the congregation to stand with him as he read the Word of God before preaching.
Obviously, I have a real problem with the way things happened, bringing reproach to the gifts of the Spirit in the presence of the entire congregation, not to mention the many thousands who have viewed the video since it was posted.
And I've seen some ridiculous online comments posted to other videos like this one: "I heard online that John MacArthur receive[d] the medical RFID chip/mark of the beast and the Holy Spirit left him."
We're supposed to take this stuff seriously?
But there's something else I have a problem with, and I've raised my voice about it for two years now, also reaching out to Pastor MacArthur publicly and privately to discuss or even debate the relevant issues.
I'm speaking about the extreme rhetoric used by my elder brother in his attacks on my colleagues in the Charismatic Movement, including some of the most saintly, Jesus-loving, Word-based, spiritually-minded people I know anywhere in the world.
I'm talking about charges he made loudly and publicly like this: "The Charismatic Movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess that it's in today. In virtually every area where church life is unbiblical, you can attribute it to the Charismatic Movement."
He claimied we have "stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf and they are dancing around the golden calf as if it is the Holy Spirit. . . The charismatic version of the Holy Spirit is that golden calf . . . around which they dance with their dishonoring exercises."
Pastor MacArthur went as far as saying that we attributed "to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan."
In short, he called the Charismatic Movement "a farce and a scam" that "has not changed into something good," claiming that it represents "the explosive growth of a false church, as dangerous as any cult or heresy that has ever assaulted Christianity." Accordingly, he calls for a "collective war" against these alleged "pervasive abuses on the Spirit of God."
He stated that "Satan's false teachers, marching to the beat of their own illicit desires, gladly propagate his errors. They are spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans."
And, he continued, "By inventing a Holy Spirit of idolatrous imaginations, the modern Charismatic Movement offers strange fire that has done incalculable harm to the body of Christ. Claiming to focus on the third member of the Trinity, it has in fact profaned His name and denigrated His true work." (I document every quote, in context, in Authentic Fire.)
Although I do not know the man from Scotland who disrupted Pastor MacArthur's service, I suspect that what upset him was not so much the doctrine of cessationism but rather the aggressive and divisive way in which Pastor MacArthur has taught it, maligning many of God's choice servants and mocking those who worship the Lord in ways that are unfamiliar to him.
And so, once more, I appeal to my esteemed colleague, who has done so much good for the cause of Christ for so many decades and who has stood like a rock in the midst of spiritual compromise: Dear brother, you were gentle and gracious after that incident in your church. Would to God that you would display that same grace in your public differences with those of us in the Charismatic Movement — more than a half a billion strong — and would to God you would display that same grace and agree to sit down privately and discuss the relevant issues as men of God.
How can that not be to the glory of Jesus' name and to the good of His people?
Yeah... There's the problem with verse slingin'...
Why don't you go back and read it without being so overwhelmed by your own viewpoint that you cannot see that the phrase containing "well-drunk" does not refer to this event(the interpretation of μεθυσθωσιν means "they being intoxicated"). The phrase is just the governor's general observation of how the sponsors of typical feasts usually organize their programs. Clearly, it does not refer to how this wedding was conducted. His introductory phrase says NOTHING about the prior schedule of this particular event, nor does he say whether or not he had been provided liquid refreshments of any kind to serve so far.
The reason you don't think my argument makes sense is because you do not grasp what the text says. So read it very carefully, and don't read it from a biased English translation or from a biased mindset.
“you cannot see that the phrase containing “well-drunk” does not refer to this event”
That’s irrelevant, because the context is dealing with what is happening at the event. There is no other context available for you to use try to paint the comment as referring to anything else.
“The phrase is just the governor’s general observation of how the sponsors of typical feasts usually organize their programs.”
Why would he mention it if he wasn’t making a point relevant to THAT particular event? It would be nonsensical. Why comment on the normal order of wine serving at weddings when you are attending a wedding that isn’t serving any wine?
“His introductory phrase says NOTHING about the prior schedule of this particular event, nor does he say whether or not he had been provided liquid refreshments of any kind to serve so far.”
Doesn’t need to. The context doesn’t allow us to read the statement in any other way, or it wouldn’t make sense, and as I’ve already pointed out, God didn’t write nonsense in the Bible.
And in a warm climate like that, grape juice would remain grape juice for about a day and a half before it began to ferment.
So it is you who do not know how to interpret the Bible, not me.
In this context, how can the grape juice that Jesus just made have had enough time to undergo fermentation? And why would He serve more booze to people if they were already blasted? Explain that, and explain how such behavior would glorify Him. Please.
Well; if there were only 50m people there; but what if there were 2,000?
Everyone knows that Jesus SHOULD have served strong coffee!
Then don't insist that this interpretation is not valid if you haven't done the work to see if the translators were correct and that you understand what the translators are saying and what they are not.
WOW, d00d... Your provided translation is so very bent...
Of course he made wine... and drank wine. The only time that there could be grape juice is for a wee time in the fall... A matter of a couple weeks when grape juice was even possible... There was no means to preserve grape juice other than to make it into wine. Would it bother you to find out that YHWH commands bringing out the hard liquor (brandy) on the Great Eighth Day (the day after the week of the Feast of Tabernacles)? Not to spare it (liberal use)... specifically to PARTAY?
There ain't nothing wrong with having a beer or two once in a while and getting a little buzz on. There's nothing wrong with hauling out the champagne on special occasions. It's being a drunkard that is commanded against.
It did, to the governor. Perhaps he took his definition of what is good to the gtave with him. Anybody insisting that it is not new, freshly-made tasty blood of the cluster is just forcing his contrary view on you, and it does not give very high credit to the quality of beverage that Jesus made for the celebrants.
He specifically fouled the washing jugs with fine wine to poke the Pharisees in the eye... Had the ruler known where the wine had come from, he'd have spat it out. Yeshua did exactly the same thing with nearly every miracle.
He made Starbucks.
Oh?
I thought I typed 'maybe'.
MAYBE you should do less work double and triple checking teams of translators and pay a bit more attention to what I actually type.
I’m not dead wrong. The Bible says wine. It says what it says. I didn’t write it. I’m just telling you what it says. If you think the Bible is wrong, that is your issue.
There is no mention of unfermented wine in the New Testament.
Luk 5:39 And you don’t want new wine after drinking old wine. ‘The old is better,’ you say.”
Others mocking said, These men are full of **new wine**. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not **drunken, as ye suppose**, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
(Act 2:13-15)
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Good tagline!
” Explain that, and explain how such behavior would glorify Him.”
Maybe He didn’t have a 20th century view of wine. The wine of that time was less alcoholic than wine today. It contained enough alcohol to kill germs (see Good Samaritan).
The “strong drink” of the day was more like barleywine beer.
Jesus not only made wine, He drank it(Upper Room).
God doesn’t get to live in our box. Whether we like it or not, He did things we oppose today. He ordered Saul to kill children, even the unborn. We don’t get a vote. We are called to obedience, not supervision.
Excellent! You've finally got the point that the text says there wasn't any "cheaper" forerunner, and that the caterer never said there was. The text says that it (the wedding banquet) lacked wine, and that Jesus' mother said, "They are not having wine."
(By the way, I've run this translation past a highly qualified expert in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and he agreed that my interpretation of this passage is correct.)
This is consistent with the feast-master not complaining about having to serve crappy refreshments before the best was brought out.
BTW, I have a PhD in solid state chemistry, and used to pick grapes in the vineyard of a Swiss-born wine-maker and brewmaster-consultant to a company making beverage storage vessels. Appeal to authority, heh? Truth.
God doesn’t burn coffee.
True.
That’s proof enough to me that Dunkin Donuts is heaven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.