Why it’s legit to really love John MacArthur (and all the other big guys)

I have heard, multiple times that it is not cool to be such a JMac fan.  Or, it’s so lame to be a Piper head.  Sound familiar? “Dude, I mean I know he’s a great theologian but you act like he’s Jesus!”  Really? If people saw MacArthur as a Jesus figure, I doubt they’d ever listened to JMac’s teaching.  Well, if you love John MacArthur, chances are you love how he handles the word so carefully or you admire and want to imitate the stability of his faith or if you go to his church, you appreciate greatly his shepherd-like heart to the congregation.  One thing is for sure, you don’t love him because he has saved your soul. (if that’s why you love him, stop reading, you need to repent and give the glory to God.)

I used to snore to MacArthur.  Well I was also a piper head too and the dichotomy between the two is vast in their presentation.  Piper speaks with volume and visual charisma.  MacArthur is dry, and his voice is relatively monotone and soothing.  To put it simply, I could not understand why people loved MacArthur so much.  Maybe because I spent most of my first year bobbing for apples in the front row.

It took me about three years until I began to truly love MacArthur.  I used to think people were crazy to hold him in such high regard but I realized as time went by that it was because he taught with incredible clarity.  He took difficult concepts and made them incredibly simple.  And on top of that, he was faithful.  For decades he has remained the same, his hermeneutic has not changed.  His theological positions over controversial issues have not changed.  And when you begin to feel the stability of such a man and know that he is the one leading you and guarding you as well as your friends and your church, you begin to grow a deep affection for him.  People don’t really realize it but MacArthur is something of a modern reformer, he is one of the main reasons for the returning popularity of reformed theology in the states.  Sproul once alluded to this in a sermon at Shepherd’s conference, that MacArthur was like a Martin Luther of our day. It’s an exaggeration, but not by way too much.

Anyways, to the point.  Why is it legit to love John MacArthur?

1. He is a worthy hero
   1. If your son looked up to John MacArthur, wouldn’t you be happy? I mean, goodness, MacArthur is actually a worthy hero don’t you think?  wait, what? are heroes bad too? Didn’t Paul say “imitate me”?  that’s hero-talk.
2. He is uncompromising in his convictions
   1. Ever feel like Evangelicalism today ebbs and flows with popular culture? John MacArthur is like a hunk of concrete on the beach that won’t move.  He brings a great measure of stability to the confused craziness of popular Christianity.  From the No-Lordship kiddos to the Emergent movement, he’s been through it for decades and well…he’s sitting quite still.  If there’s someone I’d like to follow, it’s someone who knows where he’s going, hasn’t backed out on the course for 40 years and doesn’t care if other people tell him he’s stupid or a dinosaur.
3. He is courageous before the secular public
   1. Most people bow to the public.  MacArthur just sits next Larry King and tells him to repent and believe.  I’m down.  Thats Romans 1 to me, how about you?
4. He is a shepherd of his flock
   1. 4 decades of faithfulness to the same church. Enough said.  I want to be like that too.
5. He brings us the Word of God.
   1. If there’s anyone who deserves to be honored it is the man who brings the Word. (1 tim 5:17)

There is however a word of disapproval that I do feel is worth mentioning.  So a lot of people love MacArthur, Sproul, Piper… the main men of conservative evangelicalism today.  I don’t have a problem with that.  I love to see how a flock loves its shepherd, or young men and women look up to people who really deserve being looked up to.  But I do have a problem when people applaud these men and do not see it as important to do what these guys preach.  They say they love MacArthur, but when was the last time they strived to live a life sold out to evangelism, unashamed and unembarrassed by the Gospel of Christ? They say the love Piper, when was the last time they really took seriously the war time lifestyle or devoted their life to dreaming and yearning for the pleasures of God and forsaking the pleasures of the world? They say the love Sproul, when was the last time they tried reading anything more substantial than Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology?  We love to sing the praises of the heroes of the faith, but very few of us actually follow in their steps.

Anyways, if you love John MacArthur and people call you a MacArthurite, I understand.  You’re not worshipping him, you just think he’s super cool.  That’s legit.

Is Hell the Absence of God? (taken from DGM blog 9.28.2007)

“R.C. Sproul gives a masterful response to this common explanation:

It is common to say that hell is the absence of God. Such statements are motivated in large part by the dread of even contemplating what hell is like. We try often to soften that blow and find a euphimism to skirt around it.

We need to realize that those who are in hell desire nothing more than the absence of God. They didn’t want to be in God’s presence during their earthly lives, and they certainly don’t want Him near when they’re in hell. The worst thing about hell is the presence of God there.

When we use the imagery of the Old Testament in an attempt to understand the forsakenness of the lost, we are not speaking of the idea of the departure of God or the absence of God in the sense that He ceases to be omnipresent. Rather, it’s a way of describing the withdrawal of God in terms of His redemptive blessing. It is the absence of the light of His countenance. It is the presence of the frown of His countenance. It is the absence of the blessedness of His unveiled glory that is a delight to the souls of those who love Him, but it is the presence of the darkness of judgment. Hell reflects the presence of God in His mode of judgment, in His exercise of wrath, and that’s what everyone would like to escape.

I think that’s why we get confused. There is withdrawal in terms of the blessing of the radical nearness of God. His benefits can be removed far from us, and that’s what this language is calling attention to.

R. C. Sproul, The Truth of the Cross (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2007), pp. 157-158.”

Side note: hearing brother Leo’s testimony (a Taiwanese brother who studies 3 hrs of the word everyday)and watching Matt Hauck (pastor at EBCT) study greek has inspired me to start translating again. Today I begin Galatians. The first verse, is the easiest “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through a man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, the one who awakened him (Christ) from the dead…”

A Psalm that does not have a happy ending.

“ But I, O LORD, cry to you;
in the morning my prayer comes before you.
O LORD, why do you cast my soul away?
Why do you hide your face from me?
Afflicted and close to death from my youth up,
I suffer your terrors; I am helpless.*
Your wrath has swept over me;
your dreadful assaults destroy me.
They surround me like a flood all day long;
they close in on me together.
You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me;
my companions have become darkness.*”
(Psa 88:13-18 ESV)

This psalm is difficult to read because God refuses to relent in bringing suffering even when the psalmist cries for mercy. But at the same time I think we all understand. God does not always take away his hand of discipline, nor does he promise that our sufferings will end in this life time. But despite this fact, we ought to still be like the psalmist, recognizing that God is still the God of salvation as well as the one who reigns as the sovereign over our grief.

This psalm just goes to show, sometimes God says “No” and we just have to bear with it.

EBCT people.

I started reading this blog.  It’s a bunch of EBCTers who are here in Taipei serving the Lord and ministering day after day.  They are really really encouraging. Read it if you have the chance and pray accordingly.

I met this native guy Leo a while ago at the church, really great, kind, passionate, down to earth and humble guy and most of all a servant of the Lord Jesus.  What amazed me is how he came to know the Lord through the evangelism ministry of the church here.  Almost made me weep.  The action is still going on today with other people.  There’s a dude John here who is currently sharing the gospel week by week with a girl named Jia Ning. Pray for her, John confronted her with the cost of discipleship today and she’s thinking about it now.

Bryan is a korean learning chinese so he can share the gospel.  Remember him in your prayers too.  He’s like Justin Lau at GOC doing ET, cept he’s korean and is not obsessed with Mariah Carey.  Matt is working as a tentmaker and ministering in the church. He leads worship and is doing a great job.  Jammin with him and Bryan is vaguely reminsicent of jamming with MT back home. Both of them are into Mayer, yesssss.

Oh, and a new favorite feeling.  When you stand at the subway stop and the train is about to come but you can’t see the light yet and you feel this really strong breeze that blows over you all the way until the train opens the door…  I love that feeling.  It’s the feeling of arrival.

Speaking of which, when Jesus comes back, I wonder if there will be a breeze when the trumpet blares.

Isaiah 43:24-25

    “But you have burdened me with your sins;
you have wearied me with your iniquities.

“I, I am he
who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins.”
(Is 43:24-25 ESV)

Serving appropriately.

This caught my eye.  I like it because it’s how it should be and I hate it because I know it’s talking about me.

“When it comes to serving Christ, half-heartedness, lukewarmness, laziness, sluggishness, and slothfulness are utterly inappropriate.”

John piper speaks on Romans 12:11

Galatians use of Isaiah 54:1

So what is Paul trying to say here? Why pull out Isaiah? What is this barren woman thing? Okay good question, here we go.

1. The Purpose of the Section

Gal. 4:21 (NAS95S) Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?

The purpose of the section for the past two chapters has been specifically about our relationship with the Law as believers in the new covenant. Here is a brief summary of the argument.

• 3:1-4 – Are you so foolish that you would revert back to the Law? Sanctification does not occur by Law but rather by Faith.
• 3:5 – Because God works by hearing with Faith. For example, it is through faith that the spirit is provided and regeneration occurs.
• 3:6-7 – So those who are of faith are sons of Abraham (i.e. Christians/Believers)
• 3:8-9 – How so? The Gospel was preached to Abraham through the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and he responded in faith
• 3:10-14 – The Law then, prepared the way for the promise of Christ’s atonement, who was the blessing to all the Nations mentioned in the covenant.
• 3:15-18 – So even though the covenant was between Abraham and God, it has not been annulled over time but has been ultimately was fulfilled in Christ.
• 3:19-24 – The Law served only to guide us to faith in Christ. It was not meant to impart life.
• But now that we are in Christ, we have come to realize that we are sons of God and heirs of Abraham, descendants by faith.
• 4:1-3 – What did this look like for us? Before faith brought forth adoption, we were watched and managed by the rules and regulations of the Law. Because of this, though we may have been children to be adopted, outwardly, we appeared no different than slaves.
• 4:4-8 – But now that we are adopted by God, we call him Father, and are in no way any longer slaves to law. Rather we are sons and if sons heirs of God.
• 4:9-20 – Why then are you turning back from your adoption back to slavery? (Paul appeals to the integrity of his message and his ministry)
• 4:21 – Okay fine, if you want to be under the Law again, why is it then that you do not listen to the Law (referring to the Old Testament in general, the following verses demonstrate this usage by the words “For it is written”)?

2. The Allegory

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

It is important for us to see that Paul is very clearly taking an OT passage and speaking through it allegorically. This is not a fulfillment of prophecy or anything of the sort but an illustrative use of the OT. (allegory : The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form) There are two parties represented here and each party has three representatives.

1. Hagar / Mt. Sinai (the place where the Law was given) / Present Jerusalem
2. Sarah / implied Mt. Zion (the place where the promise will be fulfilled)/ Heavenly Jerusalem

3. The Allegory Demonstrated

27 For it is written,
“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.”

Very simply this verse corresponds to Sarah, the Barren Woman (in Isa 54, Sarah represents the whole nation of Israel), and Hagar, the one who has a husband (she was given to Abraham as a wife in order to bear his children according to Gen 16:3). But out of Sarah’s hopelessness God promised her that she would bear nations. Thus, God granted a promise to Sarah which was by faith, and the children who proceeded from her would then be children of promise as opposed to children of flesh (conceived by the will and exertion of man).

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?
“CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON,
FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

Ishmael persecuted Isaac and treated him poorly. Likewise, we who are also children of promise, are now persecuted through legalistic teachings by those who subject themselves to the Law (in this case Judaizers). Paul then draws the application from the allegory. Just as Abraham was called to cast out the bondwoman so that Ishmael would not share in the inheritance with Isaac, so we also must cast out those who are of the Law from fellowship so that the Promise in Christ is attained by faith alone and not corrupted by the earning mindset of works and Law.

4. The Conclusion

Gal. 5:1 – It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Paul goes full circle now and states his original argument. Jesus set us free from the Law by fulfilling it. Do not then be foolish and revert back to the Law but stand firm in faith and reject the yoke of slavery to Law. We are no longer slaves but sons. Do not corrupt or forfeit the inheritance in Christ by giving into works-based teachings but cast out such teaching so that the purity and legitimacy of the the promise remains intact.

lame.

The first thing EBCTers do to me is log into my facebook account and change my relationship status.  The love of the body of Christ is sometimes so very lame.

Okay, The Church situation is settled.

Eastbay Baptist it is.

I will still be buddies with the other churchies but I’m going to settle and invest at EBCT. The answer is clear.

Why? Would you believe it, it has to do with Eschatology and Ecclesiology. Never thought that would come in handy did ya.

The other church which I love deeply, is also deeply reformed in its theology which is rockin, but that means they are also majority covenantal and so disagree with certain key points of dispensational theology. I don’t think its an issue to divide us as fellow bondservants in Christ, but if there is a church that teaches dispensational theology and premil, pretrib rapture, I’m super down.

I guess I just can’t let go of looking forward to an imminent, unpredictable, return of our glorious King. It’s too awesome.

(So if you’re reading this Matt, you are now my pastor and I am your sheep. Please take care of me -_- and please preach pretrib premil Rapture. )

Thanks to all of you who have been praying for this decision. Your prayers have been answered.

Oldie Goodie

I went to Oldie Goodie today, kinda like a music/jazz bar.  It was good.  Stinkin good…I came out smelling deeply of cigar/cigarette/cigarillo smoke.  Even my underclothes smelled like it.

Anyhow, the band was amazingly good.  It’s really something special to see a 23 year old taiwan girl effortlessly playing the most rockin funk and jazz riffs on a double layered synthesizer.  In one minute she singlehandedly put all of asian boy korean-soap-fake-jazz piano players to  shame.