Hi there. I cant thank you enough for your clear, wise, kind, grounded and truthful words.
It left me so convicted, that I gathered most of your comments on this blog post and saved them, in order to re-read and humbly learn. You articulated a deep understanding of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is lacking amongst Christians these days. (the understanding that Johnny Mac seems to be fighting and calling for, from his comments)
I also shared your comments with a friend and we were wowed and humbled. You really held and spoke the Truth in Love on a topic that seem controversial for many, especially in ugly mire that is the internet
Anyways, Safe to say I had to make a disqus account, just to inquire on your testimony. I am so curious, and would love to be blessed by the story of how you came to saving faith. What is/has that journey of walking with Christ been like for you? let me know if you are willing to share and I can give you my email and have you send it to me privately. God bless you sir/ma’am

…plus I cannot stand to see theologically illiterate keyboard warriors hiding behind their avatars tearing down a good man like John MacArthur (not you, btw).

As I said above, I don’t share MacArthur’s perspective of the gospel. I believe his view is too narrowly focused (probably because of his dispensationalism). I believe that God is reconciling the entire cosmos to himself (Col 1:19-20) in Christ through his blood. So I would agree that racial reconciliation is in aspect part of the good news of Jesus’ sovereign rule over creation. And that being the case, I do believe this is work that the church ought to involve herself in. However, what I personally soundly reject, is mixing that theological reality with contemporary socio-political theories and their methodologies. And that’s where I stand with Dr. MacArthur. We may not agree on the gospel’s scope or extent but we do agree that we must not confuse the methods of the Athenians for the freedom that was found in Jerusalem.

He’s speaking against the theological idea that righting wrongs committed against people who are victims of injustice is the gospel.

It seems to me that you are splitting hairs in defense of MacArthur. I think Warren summed it up well here (emphasis mine):

It is hard for me to see how it can be wrong to strive for equal social treatment for all. One may advocate for traditional Christian redemption and for equal social treatment at the same time without doing violence to either one. Where Christians have failed to treat others the way we want to be treated, remorse and apologies are in order. … Being honest about historical facts (e.g., native Americans and the trail of tears, or slavery or the captivity of Japanese) doesn’t compromise the gospel.

You seem laser focused on what is labeled as “The Gospel” or good news, i.e. the reconciliation of God and man. While that may be the central component of the message, it certainly isn’t the only responsibility of the Church or Christians in general. MacArthur seems to be dipping into the culture war waters, specifically a right wing talking point about “identity politics.”

He is taking a much wider swath than you, and not making much sense to me. His definition of social justice is not one I’ve ever heard, and certainly don’t agree with. Likewise with this claim that “[y]ou have moral authority, because you’re in multiple victim classes.” This is just politics with a slightly theological spin attached.

The SBC came about directly as a result of racial discrimination and practiced it for many decades, well into the last century. It wasn’t until the late 80s that they made a concerted effort to shake the image and even that was resisted. There are still plenty of SBC churches that would rather an African American family not visit (something MacArthur denies). What is wrong with the SBC apologizing for this injustice? MacArthur seems to think it is “a complete disaster” for them to.

Where you are ultra-specific in what you see MacArthur saying, I find he is all over the place about this. If one were to take him literally, the Church would be seen as cold and unfeeling, arrogant and irresponsible (remind you of something?), caring only about selling fire insurance to as many people as possible, without bothering to follow any of the myriad examples and teachings of Christ.

Being in favor of social justice should be lauded, not attacked. It does not necessarily mean replacing “The Gospel” with a “Social Gospel.” MacArthur’s position, and this entire line of thinking, is just bizarre to me.

I’m not a proud bigot, for starters.

Doesn’t work that way with theology, James.

Dr. MacArthur is 79. Do we give deference to his conclusion because he’s older than you?

And typing ad hominem comments in response to phil8 isn’t a refutation of the quote the he offered you.

“Who is claiming a ‘victim class of sinner?'”

Nearly everyone commenting on this thread. It’s happening because they refuse to read Dr. MacArthur charitably or in context and that’s leading them to make a category error.

Dr. MacArthur never said and never wrote that people don’t fall victim to sinful behavior. That’d be a fool’s errand to prove. Nor did he ever say that God will not vindicate those who have fallen victim to injustice. All that he’s doing is drawing a line in the sand and saying “This is the gospel and that is not the gospel”.

The justice of God implicates sinners who rebel against him, therefore, the gospel is good news to sinners who repent. IOW, a person who willfully chooses to sin against God isn’t a victim, they are a rebel in need of redemption.

As I wrote elsewhere, it’s very clear that Dr. MacArthur is equivocating on the word victim to make his point. He’s speaking against the theological idea that righting wrongs committed against people who are victims of injustice is the gospel. It’s not the gospel. It’s derivative of the gospel but it is not itself the gospel. Therefore, we should not speak of victims when sinners are the category of people who need saving.

And, FYI, I think that Dr. MacArthur has a truncated gospel. For him, the gospel is justification. I think it’s much much bigger than just that. So I don’t necessarily share his perspective. But it does no one any good to misrepresent the man.

I second that. Josh Elsom is winning.

Have you and phil8 placed bets on this or something? Let’s try to keep this mature, shall we?