Probably a good decision by both parties. it does seem that his position has changed over the years and he is quite emphatic about limited atonement these days. It sounds like it was a friendly process.
I am glad that this has happened. The IFCA position on the atonement is clear and Dr MacArthur differs from it. This action was important because of the mixed message that was being sent through Dr MacArthur’s remaining in the Fellowship. Whichever position one takes on the extent of the atonement (and I respectfully differ from MacArthur, who has made no secret of his acceptance of definite atonement), this friendly parting of ways is for the best.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
It sounds like this was handled well by all parties, and I commend Dr. MacArthur’s integrity for resigning and the IFCA’s integrity for adhering to their founding documents and not compromising for the sake of associations and influence.
This is the way Christians ought to handle these kinds of disagreements, and I hope this sets a model for others to follow.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
It’s an interesting test case for various views on what “separation” is. My own view is that in the NT, separation is always punitive and censorious. It’s either the result of a disciplinary process or a pre-emptive rejection of cases of obvious apostasy (though the latter kind of stretches the boundaries of language a bit… since things that “separate” must first be together).
You have the case of Paul and Barnabas as an example of limiting fellowship based on disagreement. But this is not “separation,” since neither intends to communicate that the other is certainly disobeying God/Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Is this ecclesiastical separation? I’d agree with my brother Jim and say no. If you asked JM I’m fairly certain that he would not consider it ecclesiastical separation. I also suspect that there may be a few who see this as the IFCA creating separation between itself and a brother who holds to what some of them see as a false doctrine. To them the answer would be yes.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
…but it strikes me that an implicit message here is that the rejection of limited/definite atonement is a fundamental of the faith. Their organization, their rules, but this is part of the message being sent.
A Christian group has a perfect right to be for Unlimited Atonement; for Limited Atonement; or for including both.
And that organization has a right to expect members to live up to their standards.
Of course, I pray that John MacArthur will one day come to realize the biblical position is Unlimited Atonement :-).
David R. Brumbelow
…..that the Atonement was Unlimited. Based on my study of the question, that’s what I believe.
I think it’s really unfortunate that the question of Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement has to divide Christians in any capacity, however. Why must we make what are “disputable matters” such as this (which is the category I put this question into) something that will divide us?
I appreciate Central Seminary’s faculty stance on this question:
“Since God commands all people everywhere to repent, we all believe that the offer of the gospel should be extended to all. Some of us [ed: among the faculty] believe that Christ has provided the benefits of salvation for all people, while others believe these benefits may have been secured only for those whom God intends to save.”
“I think it’s really unfortunate that the question of Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement has to divide Christians in any capacity, however. Why must we make what are “disputable matters” such as this (which is the category I put this question into) something that will divide us?” - Larry Nelson
Well, to put the cat among the pigeons, it’s because for many advocates of limited and unlimited atonement it is not disputable. For me, I am convinced that Scripture clearly says that Christ died for all sinners but that only those who believe will be saved. I also think that for Christ not to have died for “all the world” distorts the meaning of the word “kosmos” (see any lexicon or theological dictionary), and leads to the irrepressible conclusion that a sinner for whom Christ did not die could logically claim that in not believing in Christ he was doing the will of God, and that it would be unjust therefore for God to condemn him for doing God’s will.
For the limited atonement advocate, they would claim that to teach a “hypothetical” atonement takes glory from God, gives the power of salvation to man, and logically entails that Christ somehow failed to atone for those He might have saved. It’s one of those areas where both sides feel justified in taking a strong stand.
Hence, MacArthur’s gracious resignation while standing his ground is a commendable example of how to disagree amicably.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Here is my own deep, nuanced take on this - who cares?
Well, I don’t have a whole lot of time for it right now either, but I definitely want to file it away for some future use. In brief, the separation question matters for a couple of reasons. One, because many individuals and ministries have made something they call “ecclesiastical separation” the centerpiece of their identity, but when they go to Scripture to support it, they use texts about local church discipline and texts about avoiding obvious apostates to support a practice that resembles neither of these scenarios. So we have a situation where a practice is upheld as of near-supreme importance, but it is neither church discipline nor rejection of false gospels… It’s an aggressive rhetorical resistance to other believers with whom they have never had any relationship at all, because they perceive them (often correctly, but that’s not the point) to be in error.
Now I think there is a need for a fair amount of aggressive teaching against various forms of error, and certainly selective fellowship is necessary (based on things as trivial as geography if nothing else), but where is this in the NT? (It’s there… just not in passages about church discipline and shunning apostasy… and “ecclesiastical separation” is not the word for it… I don’t think it’s any kind of “separation” at all).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron I am inclined to agree with you that it’s a question worth asking. I would call it more of a lack of fellowship than separation. Maybe it would fit under the discussion (Bauder) of levels of fellowship. I also agree that separation has to be viewed as punitive. If I “separate” from someone that I have never even met I have not done anything. We are told to “mark them that cause divisions….and avoid them.” Pretty hard to do that with someone I will never be in the same room with.
While some would see the IFCAs action as making more of unlimited atonement than necessary, I say if that’s their doctrinal position than more power to them. I don’t think it’s separation, they have a doctrinal position and they expect that those in their fellowship should hold to it. For the same reason I doubt I will ever be a member of a church (again) that references the KJV in their doctrinal statement. If they see fit to include that as sound doctrine that is their prerogative, I just don’t see it that way.
I’m not sure about this, so I’m going to ask because I haven’t found links to the source documents…
What is the precise disagreement between the two? Is it that MacArthur believes that salvation is only available to and efficacious for the elect and the IFCA’s position is that the atonement is unlimited in scope but effectual for only those who will believe?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion
NewProbably a good decision by
Probably a good decision by both parties. it does seem that his position has changed over the years and he is quite emphatic about limited atonement these days. It sounds like it was a friendly process.
NewI am glad that this has
I am glad that this has happened. The IFCA position on the atonement is clear and Dr MacArthur differs from it. This action was important because of the mixed message that was being sent through Dr MacArthur’s remaining in the Fellowship. Whichever position one takes on the extent of the atonement (and I respectfully differ from MacArthur, who has made no secret of his acceptance of definite atonement), this friendly parting of ways is for the best.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewHandled well
It sounds like this was handled well by all parties, and I commend Dr. MacArthur’s integrity for resigning and the IFCA’s integrity for adhering to their founding documents and not compromising for the sake of associations and influence.
This is the way Christians ought to handle these kinds of disagreements, and I hope this sets a model for others to follow.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
New"Separation"
Is this “ecclesiastical separation”?
It’s an interesting test case for various views on what “separation” is. My own view is that in the NT, separation is always punitive and censorious. It’s either the result of a disciplinary process or a pre-emptive rejection of cases of obvious apostasy (though the latter kind of stretches the boundaries of language a bit… since things that “separate” must first be together).
You have the case of Paul and Barnabas as an example of limiting fellowship based on disagreement. But this is not “separation,” since neither intends to communicate that the other is certainly disobeying God/Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewNo
Nope!
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewMaybe It Depends on Who You Ask
Is this ecclesiastical separation? I’d agree with my brother Jim and say no. If you asked JM I’m fairly certain that he would not consider it ecclesiastical separation. I also suspect that there may be a few who see this as the IFCA creating separation between itself and a brother who holds to what some of them see as a false doctrine. To them the answer would be yes.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
NewMore Nuanced Position
Here is my own deep, nuanced take on this - who cares? :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewPerhaps the right decision,
…but it strikes me that an implicit message here is that the rejection of limited/definite atonement is a fundamental of the faith. Their organization, their rules, but this is part of the message being sent.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewI wonder
how many IFCA members are graduates of The Master’s Seminary, which is limited atonement in soteriology. Will there be a mass exodus of them?
NewGood for both sides I suppose
Good for both sides I suppose.
A Christian group has a perfect right to be for Unlimited Atonement; for Limited Atonement; or for including both.
And that organization has a right to expect members to live up to their standards.
Of course, I pray that John MacArthur will one day come to realize the biblical position is Unlimited Atonement :-).
David R. Brumbelow
NewMy conviction is.....
…..that the Atonement was Unlimited. Based on my study of the question, that’s what I believe.
I think it’s really unfortunate that the question of Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement has to divide Christians in any capacity, however. Why must we make what are “disputable matters” such as this (which is the category I put this question into) something that will divide us?
I appreciate Central Seminary’s faculty stance on this question:
“Since God commands all people everywhere to repent, we all believe that the offer of the gospel should be extended to all. Some of us [ed: among the faculty] believe that Christ has provided the benefits of salvation for all people, while others believe these benefits may have been secured only for those whom God intends to save.”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/statement-on-salvation-and-sanctification
Unless I am misinterpreting the intent of that statement, I gather that the question has adherents on both sides among Central’s faculty.
NewWhy?
Well, to put the cat among the pigeons, it’s because for many advocates of limited and unlimited atonement it is not disputable. For me, I am convinced that Scripture clearly says that Christ died for all sinners but that only those who believe will be saved. I also think that for Christ not to have died for “all the world” distorts the meaning of the word “kosmos” (see any lexicon or theological dictionary), and leads to the irrepressible conclusion that a sinner for whom Christ did not die could logically claim that in not believing in Christ he was doing the will of God, and that it would be unjust therefore for God to condemn him for doing God’s will.
For the limited atonement advocate, they would claim that to teach a “hypothetical” atonement takes glory from God, gives the power of salvation to man, and logically entails that Christ somehow failed to atone for those He might have saved. It’s one of those areas where both sides feel justified in taking a strong stand.
Hence, MacArthur’s gracious resignation while standing his ground is a commendable example of how to disagree amicably.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewIt matters
Well, I don’t have a whole lot of time for it right now either, but I definitely want to file it away for some future use. In brief, the separation question matters for a couple of reasons. One, because many individuals and ministries have made something they call “ecclesiastical separation” the centerpiece of their identity, but when they go to Scripture to support it, they use texts about local church discipline and texts about avoiding obvious apostates to support a practice that resembles neither of these scenarios. So we have a situation where a practice is upheld as of near-supreme importance, but it is neither church discipline nor rejection of false gospels… It’s an aggressive rhetorical resistance to other believers with whom they have never had any relationship at all, because they perceive them (often correctly, but that’s not the point) to be in error.
Now I think there is a need for a fair amount of aggressive teaching against various forms of error, and certainly selective fellowship is necessary (based on things as trivial as geography if nothing else), but where is this in the NT? (It’s there… just not in passages about church discipline and shunning apostasy… and “ecclesiastical separation” is not the word for it… I don’t think it’s any kind of “separation” at all).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewAaron I am inclined to agree
Aaron I am inclined to agree with you that it’s a question worth asking. I would call it more of a lack of fellowship than separation. Maybe it would fit under the discussion (Bauder) of levels of fellowship. I also agree that separation has to be viewed as punitive. If I “separate” from someone that I have never even met I have not done anything. We are told to “mark them that cause divisions….and avoid them.” Pretty hard to do that with someone I will never be in the same room with.
While some would see the IFCAs action as making more of unlimited atonement than necessary, I say if that’s their doctrinal position than more power to them. I don’t think it’s separation, they have a doctrinal position and they expect that those in their fellowship should hold to it. For the same reason I doubt I will ever be a member of a church (again) that references the KJV in their doctrinal statement. If they see fit to include that as sound doctrine that is their prerogative, I just don’t see it that way.
NewSerious question
I’m not sure about this, so I’m going to ask because I haven’t found links to the source documents…
What is the precise disagreement between the two? Is it that MacArthur believes that salvation is only available to and efficacious for the elect and the IFCA’s position is that the atonement is unlimited in scope but effectual for only those who will believe?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells