|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:46 pm
 |
|
|
|
There's a lot to ponder there.
I can't say I am very familiar with John MacArthur—I've only seen him a handful of times, on TV and on the internet, so some of those references were lost on me (insinuated: he publishes too many books, unnecessarily so? his zeal for minor beliefs? I wouldn't know)—but from what was described in the satire, I see a person genuinely interested in boldly defending the faith, but misguidedly re-reading his own writings instead of re-reading the Scriptures to find the evidence (assuming that is an accurate depiction of what he does?).
That (re-reading his own writings) could lead to problems if the latter (re-reading Scripture) isn't being done—thoroughly—in prayer and meditation with the Holy Spirit, asking Him to show us things we haven't seen before, that are there (in Scripture), but that our own preconceived notions / theology don't allow us to see. If we don't do that, then we will be puffed up by the leaven of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and the teachers of the law (the people in charge of teaching Scripture to us—ourselves if we are one), instead of receiving the leaven from heaven (every word that comes out of the mouth of God, the insight that is from God, not the mere "reasoning words out" that man does).
Depending on your definition of "opinionated", being opinionated could be a good thing or a bad thing:
But, of course, the world's way of defining things isn't the final authority on the matter.
On the one hand, we are suppose to be bold in the faith, in God's dogma, in our convictions that His Word is true, and freely express that...
Romans 14:23 (NIV)
23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[a]
Footnotes:
a. Romans 14:23 Some manuscripts place 16:25-27 here; others after 15:33.
[note from cristobela: Romans 14, as verse 1 clearly contextualizes, is about disputable matters, not things that are clearly condemned or allowed outright by YHWH's Commands or Biblical examples]
1 Thessalonians 1:5 (NIV)
5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.
Acts 19:8 (NIV)
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Romans 15:15 (NIV)
15 Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me
Perhaps—and again, I don't know MacArthur's work that well, but unless a person is there present with him when he writes another book / another letter, we don't know his process, but perhaps—they are assuming that he's just re-reading his own work, and is not perusing Scripture, and not merely doing as Paul did as well (reminding people of some points again that the grace of God revealed to him). Why is that wrong (and thus worth ridiculing)?
But, on the other hand, that's just it: bold in what God says. His every word, His every way, and the nature of His every way, His every revelation (which will conform to the truth He already revealed and will conform to reality which He created), and the nature/essence/lifestyle of His kingdom on earth and what that looks like. If Scripture gives no strong indication, by the Commands or the Biblical examples (“against” or “for” a matter that is being considered—to be done, spoken, or thought), then what is there to be dogmatic about? But if there is strong indication, Biblical examples, and a Command, then believers have every right to be dogmatic about it. Not ignoring what Scripture says. Not paraphrasing a verse erroneously, so that your paraphrase misleads about what a passage actually supports and describes (neither overly-vague to allow for things it doesn't, nor overly-limiting that your paraphrase denies details actually present in the verse) to validate your own feelings on a matter, your family's feelings on a matter, or excuse modern-day deviancy that hurts the well-being of yourself, others, the animals, and the land, sea, and skies—thus disrupting the systems God set in place, and the very reason God gave us Commands in the first place.
If self's opinion over the details of Scripture is what you meant by "opinionated", then yes, that is a problem. That is exactly the leaven of the Pharisees—which Jesus, Isaiah and Paul warned us of ("merely human commands and teachings" that originate with man, that sound pious, but were not read from Moses' seat, thus do not come from God, deviate from the Commands of YHWH, from what is actually written in the Scriptures, in Spirit and in Truth—and we have to expose that).
Matthew 15:3-9 (NIV)
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16
b. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9
c. Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13
Colossians 2:22 (NIV)
22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
It didn't come from YHWH's mouth, at any point in time, it's not Commanded in Scripture, but came from men. So such teachings have no authority of their own, let alone to override God's Commands, God's Words.
Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV)
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Isaiah 40:8 (NIV)
8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”
Psalm 111:7-8 (NIV)
7 The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts are trustworthy.
8 They are established for ever and ever,
enacted in faithfulness and uprightness.
So whatever of John MacArthur's teachings are self-derived, not compatible with the whole counsel of the Word of God, expose them if you detect it. But the act of simply reminding the people, yet again, of something the grace of God revealed to him, that is not wrong. Speaking of an issue as if it were fact, as faith would lead one to do, isn't sin/wrong. If we receive revelation from God over a “minor belief issue” that the word of God touches upon, and He wants to be shared, then share it.
Every thought should be taken captive and submitted to the Word of God.
2 Corinthians 10:5 (NIV)
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
---
About this notion of "minor beliefs":
If they're going to speak about anything at all, and assert anything as true, then, again, it should be done out of faith (or else it is sin). Regardless of whether it is a major belief issue or a minor belief issue, it should be spoken of dogmatically—again, if it will be spoken about at all (there's always the option of silence if you think this would do more harm than good to somebody else's conscience [assuming this is not a matter that God's Commands nor Biblical examples clearly demonstrate, “yes” or “no”, otherwise it should be corrected, not remain in silence]), but if it will be spoken, yes, it should be dogmatic..
Dogmatic:
characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts [Merriam Webster]
(of a person or a group) strongly expressing your beliefs as if they were facts: [Cambridge Dictionary]
Inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true: [Oxford Dictionary]
We cannot hold to beliefs we don't think are true. Having beliefs that we are unsure of is sinful because whatever is not of faith is sin. They will be spoken of dogmatically or not be spoken/communicated/thought at all.
---
On the issue of satire and using real people:
Satire, in the style of a News Report, is irresponsible because news articles are known for being pieces of writing that inform people of events that are actually happening in the world around them. Thus, reality. It could mislead simple minds when the reader doesn't scroll past the tags, and the advertisements, etc, to the end of the page that says, "The Babylon Bee is Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire". What if a person just went onto the webpage via a link and had no one to warn them that it was satire? no indication that the article, in the body of writing itself, is merely speculating, commentating? It can cause damage. And they could ruin their own reputations as truthful witnesses of anything. If no indication in the article itself will be given, then it's better to write in plain speech assuming you do want people to understand your point.
But I can't knock satire, in and of itself, nor for using real people in satire, because there are examples of satire present in Scripture, even using real people:
GotQuestions.org WROTE:
Question: "What does the Bible say about satire and/or sarcasm?"
Answer: Sarcasm is the use of irony (saying one thing while meaning another) or other rhetorical devices in a biting, hurtful way. There is a difference between sarcasm and satire, although they are related. Satire is the use of irony or ridicule to expose foolishness, but without the “bite” of sarcasm. Satire is gentler; sarcasm is more derisive and sneering.
The question is, is satire or sarcasm ever appropriate? This would be easy enough to resolve if not for the fact that God uses satire in several places in Scripture. For example, Paul's words in this passage:
You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13
Is Paul's language ironic here? Absolutely. Was it hurtful? Intentionally so. Yet, because his intent was to lead the stubborn Corinthians to the truth, it can still be considered loving. In fact, Paul followed this passage with, "I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children."
The Corinthians would not have considered Paul’s language intentionally cruel. Instead, they would have recognized Paul was using rhetoric to make a point. The Corinthians felt superior to Paul, casting judgment on him. So he calls them spiritual kings and says, ironically, that God considers His apostles “scum” and “dregs.”
The passage sounds sarcastic. It says one thing while meaning another in a way that makes the hearers look foolish. But Paul’s method was not meant as a personal insult. The goal was to grab the readers’ attention and correct a false way of thinking. In other words, Paul’s words are satirical, but not sarcastic. They are spoken in love to “beloved children.”
Other passages in the Bible that use satire include Isaiah’s ridicule of idol-makers (Isaiah 40:19-20), God’s taunting of Egypt (Jeremiah 46:11), and Elijah’s gibes directed at the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Jesus Himself used satire in the form of hyperbole when He told His hearers to “take the plank out of your own eye” (Matthew 7:5).
Therefore, we can say that irony is fine; irony is a figure of speech that can bring attention and clarity to a situation. Sometimes, irony can be painful because the truth it reveals is convicting. Satire, which uses irony to gently deride and prompt needful change, can be appropriate on occasion; we have examples of satire in Scripture.
Sarcasm, on the other hand, is not appropriate. Sarcasm has at its core the intent to insult or to be hurtful with no corresponding love or wish for well-being. Instead, the goal of sarcasm is to belittle the victim and elevate the speaker. Jesus warned against such harsh, unloving words in Matthew 5:22. Our words should be helpful and edifying, even if they are uncomfortable to the hearer.
We should speak the truth with loving intent (Ephesians 4:15), avoiding “foolish talk or coarse joking” (Ephesians 5:4). We should speak in such a way that the hearer will understand our motivation. And we should never be malicious or cruel. Carefully worded irony may be fitting, but malicious sarcasm is not.
Source: https://gotquestions.org/Bible-sarcasm.html
And in light of that, what were their motives for writing this article? because it is unclear to me. Some of the traits they described in the article—seemingly being ridiculed or mocked (not sure?)—are actually godly when Biblical verses are kept in mind: reminding believers yet again of points the grace of God has revealed to you; being dogmatic on your beliefs (because anything not done or said out of faith [surety] is sin [doing things or saying things as true when you're doubtful that it is true or good is sin]); wanting to be a good student of the Word even on the minutiae of the Bible and original languages (not a bad thing either)...
1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Your hope (expectation) in God? the truth of His Word? the resurrection? Christ's return? judgment from God? recompense for suffering for doing good? the establishment of God's kingdom on this earth?
Bible teachers better know their Bible. If they're going to speak on it, then they should be able to explain themselves with gentleness and respect.
On top of that, teach accurately as the Word of God says to do, and what it actually says...
2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
James 3:1 (NIV)
3 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
I know it was satire, but if in real life MacArthur were to have received such a dream, it could have been warning from God, warning him to study up beforehand. He does warn us of things to come so that we prepare for it and/or watch out and avoid it:
Matthew 2:12 (NIV)
12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
Acts 20:23 (NIV)
23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.
So if God warns you in a dream to check up on the Hebrew or the Greek before the question ever gets asked, you better, especially if you're a Bible teacher (assuming the dream is not in relation to something that already happened). And in light of that, this article almost seems to be ridiculing the higher standard Bible teachers are held to. It's no laughing matter. Teachers will be judged more strictly because they're leading the minds of God's children in a certain direction—who cannot fend for themselves and are relying on the Bible teacher—and they better do so accurately. If we mislead/lead astray out of carelessness or careless speech, then we're in trouble.
Unless MacArthur explicitly said or demonstrated, “I solely re-read my old material and don't re-read the Bible in the process, with the guide of the Holy Spirit to open my eyes to new things, and I do this just to reaffirm myself in my own beliefs/my own words, not the words of Scripture, and thus not to help people understand the Bible, just to understand me/our sect”, then the writers of this article are speaking falsely / committing slander against MacArthur under the guise of satire. Again, however, I am unfamiliar with John MacArthur's work (and process while he works) to be able to say he does this or does not do this. If he does do this, then it's fair game for them to ridicule that behavior because he is being puffed up by the leaven of the Pharisees (or his own leaven) and not the leaven from heaven.
That said, there is merit in saying that people stress out about being asked questions they don't have the answer to. But if you don't know, then you don't know. It's no reason to lose sleep over it in anxiety (however, fasting from sleep on purpose in order to able to meet a need in another person—say, to compose a response lol—is not done in anxiety/worry, it's not the same).
Matthew 8:20 (NIV)
20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
---
So, in a nutshell:
Q: Satire, but is it cool to use real people as examples? What do you think?
When satire is used in the form of a news article, and it's not very clear on the onset that this is satire, I think the people / writers are being irresponsible (because people are expecting a factual, true-to-real-life-events, news report, not a joke); it could tarnish their own reputations as truthful witnesses, especially with the simple minded, or could lead to unnecessary misunderstandings to use it in that way.
But satire, in and of itself, using real life people, is not sinful because those two elements together (satire + real life people) are used in certain cases in the Bible to communicate a point more clearly.
Q: Are some people too certain about every little detail?
Whatever belief you articulate, not as a question seeking clarification, but as a declaration, be it “major belief issue” or “minor belief issue”, it better be done in faith (surety), thus dogmatically stated as true fact, VERY CERTAIN, otherwise stay silent. Don't say anything out of doubt because that is sin. And if what you're saying will NOT lead to benefit/betterment/edification of another's faith, conscience, body, etc, then it's better to keep it to yourself.
I'm not the other person to be saying, “you're too certain about little details”. What if, like Paul, the grace of God has revealed certain insights about the little details to a certain person and said person has at their disposal information/time/vocabulary/diction to be able to convey that insight and benefit the body? Then that person should go ahead, obey God, rather than listen to the unfounded / baseless ridicule of man.
Of course, this is on the assumption that those men are not merely telling you—not baselessly, but with actual merit—that, "you're violating such-and-such in the Word; stop". Then take pause and reconsider what you're doing. But it will not be God telling you to do something or say something if it has you literally nullifying anything He Commanded in Scripture.
Q:Are some Christians too opinionated?
If the person is giving their own opinions, not something revealed by the Holy Spirit in agreement with what YHWH already said (that's the ultimate measure of truth—the Commands of God and the details of His Word), then yes, they're too opinionated in the negative sense of the word. But no, if they're just freely expressing the truth in boldness, as they should be if they're certain, and it's relevant to the need of another believer(s) for their betterment.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
