|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 April 1994 |
|
Darwin
Fish
God's Word Fellowship
Green Valley, CA 91350
Dear Darwin,
I'm
replying to a couple of letters from you. One is
the letter you wrote Jerry Wragg on March 18. The other is a letter dated
March 22 that you have mailed to a number of Grace Community Church members,
including some elders.
I want
to state as clearly as possible for you that
what we appealed to you to repent of is your factiousness. According to Titus
3:10, we are commanded to "Reject a factious man after a first and second
warning." Factious, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
means "given to faction; seditious." Seditious is defined
as "engaged in promoting disaffection or inciting to revolt against consti-
tuted authority."
The
Greek word translated "factious" is hairetikos,
which means simply "causing division."
Darwin,
you publicly accused the duly constituted
elders of our church after you had taken an oath to support this church and
its elders--and you did so without personal-ly speaking to any of these men
first. Moreover, the charg-es you have made are of the gravest sort. You have
accused godly men of teaching damnable lies--false doctrine for which you
suggest they will be condemned eternally to hell.
You
made those charges in a public forum outside the
church, then brought your tapes and divisive accusations into the church
and spread them among young believers, new members, and other vulnerable people.
I personally over-heard you talking to a woman who had joined Grace Church
only moments before. You were telling her that John MacArthur is a dangerous
false teacher to be avoided. And you were standing at the foot of the pulpit
when you made those statements! You are a textbook example of factious-ness.
When Lance Quinn, Jerry Wragg, and I confronted you
about these things we explained all this to you in detail.
Your letters give the false impression that we did not
sufficiently make these things clear to you. Your letters
are filled with other lies, misrepresentations, and
distortions of the truth that need to be corrected.
In
your letter to Jerry, you stated, "Jesus was very
factious with His teaching." That is simply untrue. In no
sense was He "factious." When he denounced the Pharisees' unbelief,
he did it to their faces (cf. Matt. 23:13). He did not make Himself a member
of their group, publicly vow to support them, act as if he were a member in
good standing in their congregation, then skulk around attacking them and
accusing them in other forums. He did not make railing accusations against
anyone. Your tactics bear no relation-ship whatsoever to His ministry. It
is offensive that you would attempt to draw such a comparison.
Also in your letter to Jerry, you said this:
All of you would be a much greater help to a man like myself if you
could show from the Word of God that what I have said (not the way I
went about saying it), is |
Darwin,
we did not discipline you for your "mannerism" or your methodology.
We disciplined you for your factiousness. We did show you from Scripture
where you were wrong: Titus 3:9-11; Romans 16:17-19; Hebrews 13:17; Jude 9-16;
and Proverbs 16:27-28. I read all those verses aloud to you in our meeting.
You refused to heed them. You showed contempt for the Word of God where it
applies to your own sin. We are therefore commanded by Scripture to
reject you (Titus 3:10). To dispute with you about specific points of doc-trine
while you remain unrepentantly factious would be use-less and unprofitable
(cf. Titus 3:9). If we engaged in that form of dialogue with you now, we would
be in violation of God's clear commandment.
In other words, we are concerned for your soul--and
in a far more solemn sense than you evidently realize. You brought railing
accusations against various leaders of our church in violation of 1 Timothy
5:19. You profaned the vow you made publicly when you joined the church. You
have sown conflict and discord in the body of believers. You have tried to
set church members against their leaders. Strife, disputes, dissensions, and
factions are works of the flesh, according to Galatians 5:20. We cannot, and
will not, over-look your sinful factiousness in order to engage you in further
disputes and controversies about points of doctrine. If we did that, we
would be sinning.
All of that brings me to the misrepresentations that
need to be corrected in your March 22 letter, which has been distributed by
mail from you to members of Grace Church, some of whom have told me they do
not even know who you are. In this letter, you state:
| The only "factious" thing I have done is that I have exposed John MacArthur's erroneous teaching publicly (via my taped sermons to the congregation at God's Word Fellowship). |
Not true. You came to Grace Community Church on the night we admitted 400 new members, drew one of them aside after the service, then stood at the front of the church for an extended time making your accusations against John MacArthur loudly enough that I overheard you. No reasonable person would deny that your behavior that night was factious in the extreme. Now by mailing letters that distort the facts to church members whom you don't even know, you are simply proving what a factious man you are, and heaping more guilt upon yourself.
| The leadership at Grace caught me in a manmade doctrine of church membership (since I was still "on the books" as a member). |
Wrong. You voluntarily joined Grace Community Church and vowed before God and the entire congregation to support the church and submit to its doctrine and leadership. You knowingly kept your membership active; I know this because at the beginning of our meeting with Jerry and Lance, you stated that you were a member. You were very aware that you were still on the membership rolls. We did not entrap you in any way.
Furthermore,
our charge that you violated your vows is
not based on any "manmade doctrine." Scripture says, "If a
man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind him-self with a binding
obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that
proceeds out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). "When you make a vow to
the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you,
and the Lord your God will surely require it of you. However, if you refrain
from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what
goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your
God, what you have promised" (Deut. 23:21-23).
Do
you think those verses do not apply to you? You
could have freed yourself from the membership vow at any time by withdrawing
your membership, but you did not. Again, we plead with you to repent of this
grievous sin against God and renounce your factious behavior.
In
our meeting I pointed out to you that you had never
been faithful to your duties as a member of the body at
Grace Community Church. Although you joined the church at least a decade ago,
you never involved yourself in any ministry that gave you any degree of accountability
to the elders or the duly constituted leaders of this church. You claim that
for many years you respected John MacArthur as "a godly man whose example
[you] desired to follow." Yet for all those years you avoided direct
accountability to John and all the other elders and ministry leaders. Why?
| You
also write,
If a pastor of a church can not examine and expose publicly what he feels to be dangerous doctrine taught by another pastor in the area, then we are again under a Protestant popery. |
That
is a baseless allegation. As I noted above, you have
been unfaithful as a church member. For you now to claim for yourself
the prerogatives of a pastor is sheer effron-tery. We have called you
to account for your actions as a member of our church. We do not recognize
any pastoral authority that you may have usurped for yourself. If you felt
God was leading you to be a pastor, why did you not seek some form of ministry
under the elders' oversight? Is it not one of the qualifications even for
deacons that they "first be tested; then . . . serve as deacons if
they are beyond reproach" (1 Tim. 3:10)? How much more crucial is
it that an elder (or pastor, as you call yourself) first prove himself before
he takes on the role of spiritual overseer? You failed to prove yourself in
any regard during your years in membership here. You have no right to demand
that we now recognize you as a pastor.
But the most galling and fallacious portion of your
letter states:
| But,
the worst part about it is this, THEY COMPLETELY REFUSED TO DISCUSS OR
CORRECT ME IN REGARDS TO WHAT I TAUGHT IN MY EXPOSITION OF MACARTHUR'S TEACHING. |
Darwin,
that is simply a lie. I told you several times that
I was "willing to discuss doctrine with you all day," if you
would first repent of your factiousness. I personally
promised to answer every one of your allegations against
John MacArthur, Wayne Mack, and Lance Quinn if you would acknowledge your
sin in having tried to undermine church leaders whom you had vowed to support.
In fact, one of our chief points to you was that if you honestly felt these
men were sinning, you should have confronted them personally with your allegations
before you attacked them publicly (cf. Matt. 18:15). Once you made your charges
a divisive matter within the church body, however, the principal issue that
needed to be dealt with was your sin of factiousness.
| You
add this misleading comment:
They asked me to recall the tapes stating I was wrong in the manner in which I presented the material. They explicitly stated they were not asking me to recant on the tapes' content. |
That
badly misrepresents what we said. First, we explicitly stated that we had
listened carefully to your allegations and were convinced that you were in
error on virtually every point you made. We also explained that Scripture
forbade us at this point from engaging you in a doctrinal dispute. We pointed
out that you had violated Scripture by being fac-tious (not simply in the
"manner" of your presentation). And we made it clear that we were
asking you to repent of all your factious behavior. We stated that we were
not at this time insisting that you recant on the points of doc-trine.
We said this to underscore the fact that we were not attempting to use the
threat of discipline as leverage to gain your acquiescence to our doctrinal
convictions. But we
repeatedly stated that we believe your teaching itself is
seriously in error. We pleaded with you to repent of your
factiousness precisely so that we could discuss the points of doctrine you
had raised. Your refusal to repent despite clear biblical proof of your own
wrongdoing left us with no choice but to reject you, in accordance with Titus
3:10.
Darwin,
I did not know you, or even know of you, until
that night when I overheard you proselytizing a new member at the front of
Grace Church. Since that time, several people who evidently do know
you have come to me on their own initiative with even more concerns. I have
been told that you frequently beat your children until they are bruised. (Perhaps
that explains your obsession with John MacArthur's supposed lack of emphasis
on "the rod.") I have been told that you sponge off other people,
even to the point of living in their homes, and that you have never held a
steady job that would support your family. (If that is so, you are worse than
an infidel, 1 Tim. 5:8.) I have heard that you dominate the lives of your
"disciples" and exhibit some of the same characteristics we saw
in David Koresh, Jim Jones, and other cult leaders.
I do
not yet know the facts behind those accusations.
I do not say they are true. I pray that they are not. I am
even willing to assume they are false until I see proof to
the contrary.
But
many aspects of your character I have observed
firsthand are consistent with that of a cult leader: your
pattern of avoiding accountability, your inflated view of
your own spiritual importance, your bizarre applications of Scripture, your
refusal to obey Scripture where it clearly applies to you, your willingness
to make railing accusations against godly men, your underhanded methods of
beguiling naive and unsuspecting church members into your sphere of
influence, your proclivity to ad hominem attacks on the
most visible church leaders, your penchant for deceiving and twisting facts
(as you have shown in these two letters), your disdain for authority, your
self-willed behavior, and your factiousness. Notice how many of those same
character-istics are spoken of in 2 Peter 2 and Jude, where they are applied
to the lowest variety of false teachers--dogs who lick their own vomit, and
pigs who wallow in their own muck (2 Pet. 2:22).
Darwin,
as I told you that day we met, I fear for your
soul. God is graciously calling you to repentance. You
have been put out of the church. According to Matthew
18:18-20, heaven is in agreement with our verdict against you. I plead with
you not to harden your heart. "Therefore repent of this wickedness of
yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may
be forgiven you" (Acts 8:22). Don't remain in the gall of bitterness
and the bondage of iniquity.
Sincerely in Christ,
Phillip
R. Johnson
Elder, Grace Church
|
14 August 1994
Darwin
Fish
God's Word Fellowship
Green Valley, CA 91350
Dear Darwin,
Thank you for the tape you sent last month in response
to my request for your teaching on justification by faith.
I listened to it immediately but have been so bogged down with an editorial
deadline that I am only now able to take time to respond. Please forgive me
for the delay.
While the tape itself barely touched on the issue of
justification, what you did sayabout justification
sounded orthodox. I was grateful for this, because as I
mentioned, I believe Scripture makes the distinction between the true gospel
and "a different gospel" hinge on the doctrine of justification
by faith. This is, in effect, the
central message of the entire book of Galatians and of
Romans 4. (And Romans 4:4-5 clearly makes justification by faith the doctrine
that separates true believers from all others.)
As I said, you made only a passing mention of
justification by faith in your sermon. I want to encourage
you to contemplate the centrality of this doctrine in
relationship to all gospel truth. You have asked me to show you where your
teaching is in error, and while I will not engage in any kind of doctrinal
debate with you while you remain unrepentant about your factiousness, I do
want to suggest that you should reflect deeply on the significance of justification
by faith, because it goes to the heart of what seems to make you so factious.
You tend to view every error as a fatal heresy. It
seems that if someone even uses a term like "self-esteem" in any
context other than a critique of the self-esteem
movement, you automatically label that person a heretical false teacher and
damn him to eternal destruction. I detest the self-esteem cult with all my
heart, but I'm not willing to consign to the flames of hell every teacher
who casually speaks of "self-esteem."
If a man preaches the gospel of salvation by grace
alone through faith alone in Christ alone--acknowledging the supreme authority
of Scripture--he is a brother in Christ, although he may be in error on other
points of doctrine. It is one thing to disagree with or even sternly rebuke
such a person (cf. Gal. 2:11), and entirely a different matter to pronounce
a sentence of eternal damnation against him. You have not carefully distinguished
between doctrines that are fundamental and those that are peripheral. Consequently,
you are often in the position of condemning those whom God
has justified (cf. Rom. 8:33-34). That is a grievous sin,
and I urge you to examine your heart on this.
Francis Turretin, in volume 1 of his Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, includes a very helpful section on
distinguishing between fundamental and incidental matters; also Herman Witsius
has a chapter on this in volume 1 of The Apostles' Creed. John MacArthur's
next book, Reckless Faith, due for release this fall, will also have
a chapter that deals in depth with the question of which matters are fundamental.
If you're interested, I will give you a copy of the book when it is released.
Meanwhile, Darwin, I urge you again to examine your
heart on these things. I fear for the discipline God will
subject you to if you harden your heart against the
discipline the church has placed you under (Heb. 12:5-6;
Matt. 18:17-20). I know that many besides me have warned you about the symptoms
of pride that reveal themselves in your preaching, your demeanor, and especially
the way you have responded to the elders of Grace Church. Please ponder thoroughly
these repeated warnings which God in His goodness has enabled you to hear.
Sincerely in Christ,
Phillip R. Johnson
Executive Director
|
1 September 1994
Darwin
Fish
God's Word Fellowship
Green Valley, CA 91350
Dear Darwin,
When your letter arrived, I was in New Zealand. A
large stack of correspondence was waiting for me when I
returned, but I want to respond at length to your letter
first of all. It contains a number of significant
misunderstandings that I am eager to clear up.
First, at no time have I stated that you are on your
way to hell. Unlike you, I am content to leave such
judgment to Christ. "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has
given all judgment to the Son" (Jn. 5:22). You evidently feel free to
intrude into an office reserved for Christ alone; I do not. What I have said
consistently is that I fear for your soul because of the way you have hardened
your heart against church discipline. Our Lord said He is in agreement with
the verdict of a church of believers acting in His name (Matt. 18:18-20).
That certainly ought to make you tremble as the time draws closer when you
will stand before His throne to give an account. But it is He who will judge
you in that day; I in no way wish to usurp that prerogative here and now.
That is perfectly consistent with my statements about
justification by faith. If you truly believe in Him who
justifies the ungodly, He will reckon your faith as
righteousness, no matter how inconsistent your present
behavior is with perfect righteousness (Rom. 4:5-8). The
key question is whether you truly believe. Certainly your
failure to heed the discipline of godly elders seems to call the reality of
your faith into question (Matt. 18:17)--but I am quite content to leave all
judgment to the One who knows all the secrets of your heart (Ps. 44:20-21).
Second, I did not say that justification by faith is
the only test of whether someone is in the faith. But it
is certainly the most telling doctrinal test. Many people
believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the
authority of Scripture, yet remain outside the true
household of faith. (This is surely the spiritual state of
millions of Roman Catholics.) Scripture does not promise eternal life to people
who believe in those
doctrines--unless they are trusting in Christ alone as their righteousness.
That was the point you evidently missed in my reference
to Romans 4:4-5. This passage clearly makes justification by faith the watershed
between true faith and unbelief. It states plainly that all who believe in
the true Christ alone for their justification have righteousness reckoned
to them. They are genuine Christians. God justifies them. We can safely conclude,
therefore, that justification by faith, properly understood, makes the difference
between heaven and
hell. Indeed, that conclusion is confirmed by more than
just these two verses. It is the whole point of Romans
3:20--5:21, as well as most of the epistle to the Galatians.
See also Luke 18:9-14 for our Lord's teaching on the
importance of justification.
This is certainly not to say that justification by
faith is the only doctrinal test of true faith. The faith
that justifies encompasses all other essential doctrines.
You cannot consistently affirm justification by faith and
deny the deity of Christ, for example, because the perfect
righteousness essential to our justification hinges on the
truth that Christ is God in the flesh.
There are many other fundamental doctrines besides
justification by faith and the deity of Christ that are
essential to true faith. How do we know which truthsare
fundamental? They are identified as such by the Bible it-
self.
The deity of Christ, for example, is plainly marked as
a fundamental doctrine (1 Jn. 2:23). Likewise, the bodily
resurrection of Christ is said to be essential, precisely
because our justification depends on it (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:14). We could
add several other articles of faith that Scripture expressly classifies as
necessary for true faith (e.g., Jn. 14:6; Heb. 11:6; 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, 10; 2 Jn.
7).
Ultimately, they all center on justification by faith,
because this is the very heart of the gospel. That is why
it is the doctrine that cults and false teachers inevitably
attack. The curse of Galatians 1:8-9 is leveled at those
who would corrupt this very doctrine. Numerous passages of Scripture can be
cited to prove that justification by faith is the sine qua non of sound
doctrine (Rom. 3:27-28; Gal. 2:16--3:29). It was an error on this very doctrine
that was at the heart of the apostasy of the Jewish nation (Rom. 10:3-4).
This is precisely why John MacArthur has publicly
attacked Robert Schuller's self-esteem teaching but has
refrained from placing James Dobson in the same category. Schuller's teaching
deliberately and explicitly denies human depravity and justification by faith.
He has clearly abandoned the fundamental doctrines of Christ. Dobson, on the
other hand, affirms justification by faith, human depravity, the deity of
Christ, the bodily resurrection, and the inerrancy of Scripture. We disagree
strongly with Dobson's self-esteem teachings and his reliance on psychology.
(This is abundantly clear from John MacArthur's writings.) But unlike you,
we are not prepared to ascend the Great White Throne and consign a man to
eternal doom who declares that he trusts Christ alone to be his righteousness
and who affirms every doctrine Scripture says is essential
to eternal salvation. "Who will bring a charge against
God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one
who condemns?" (Rom. 8:33-34). Darwin, you are far too
eager to pronounce doom and damnation against people who testify that they
trust in Christ alone. Doesn't it concern you that you may be damning people
whom God has justified?
I am astonished at your declaration that "the Bible
makes no such distinction" between fundamental and
peripheral doctrines. That statement, it seems to me,
betrays the reason for the appalling lack of discernment
that underlies virtually all your errors. If you really
mean what you seem to be saying, it would be impossible for genuine believers
("especially after they have been exposed to the truth") to disagree
on any point of doctrine. Are you saying that Presbyterians who have been
exposed to Baptist arguments yet persist in sprinkling babies are therefore
on their way to hell? Do you believe that all are eternally doomed who hold
to a different eschatalogical scheme from the one you deem true? Are you suggesting
that all evangelical Arminians are headed for a Christless eternity? Those
are judgments that go beyond any pronouncement of God's Word that I am aware
of. Are you certain you want to elevate yourself to that height? If not, you
must acknowledge that not everything Scripture teaches is of equal importance.
On some issues people can be wrong without peril to their salvation. This
is clearly affirmed in Scripture.
Romans 14, for example, a chapter you would do well to
master, contains an in-depth exposition of this truth that you claim is nowhere
found in Scripture. Paul could have settled matters that remained questionable
among the Romans by a simple apostolic dictum. Instead, he called for charitable
forbearance on all peripheral matters: "Now accept the one who is weak
in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions"
(Rom. 14:1). This surely lays down the principle we ought to follow in all
matters not explicitly identified by the Bible as essential doctrines. (Here
Paul is talking about things as significant as Sabbath observance and dietary
laws, certainly prominent issues in the Old Testament economy.) Regarding
such issues the apostle Paul ultimately says, "Let each man be fully
convinced in his own mind" (v. 5). And, in a verse I urge you to take
to heart, he writes, "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you
again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of God" (v. 10).
First Corinthians 3:11-13 also makes a distinction
between the foundation and that which is built upon it.
There Paul indicates that many will build with wood, hay, and stubble. He
is not describing unbelievers who attempt to destroy the foundation, but believers
who build on that foundation with shoddy materials. All their wood, hay, and
stubble will be incinerated in the purifying judgment. The one who has employed
such materials will see his work burned up. "He shall suffer loss; but
he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire" (v. 15).
One of the rather serious errors of the Pharisees was
that they confused the fundamental and essential (the moral law) with the
peripheral and changeable (the ceremonial law). They substituted the latter
for the former. Like them, you seem to place more weight on the peripherals
than you do on the essentials. That is why I sincerely rejoiced to hear that
you do believe in justification by faith alone. But I am still grieved that
you give this truth, the very heart of the gospel, such scant emphasis in
the aggregate of your preaching.
One final misunderstanding persists in what you say,
despite the fact that we have covered this ground
repeatedly. You were not disciplined "just because a
division occur[ed] as a result of [your] actions." (As far
as I know, no serious division has occurred within Grace
Church because of you.) You were disciplined for attempting to draw people
away from Grace Church while you were still a member here. You disseminated
tapes and written accusations against the men God placed in leadership over
the church where you kept your membership. You publicly labeled several of
these men heretics without first sharing your concerns privately with any
of them. You did this in flagrant defiance of the vow you once made in the
presence
of our whole congregation that you would love, encourage, and support these
men as leaders duly ordained by God. I don't know of a Bible-believing church
anywhere in the world that would not discipline you for that.
You cited 2 Timothy 2:24-26 against the way we have
dealt with you. I would advise you to back up one verse and read 2 Timothy
2:23: "But refuse foolish and ignorant specu-lations, knowing that they
produce quarrels." Your failure to obey verses 23-26 is precisely
why we had to initiate discipline against you. And in accordance with Titus
3:10, we were forced to reject you after a first and second warning.
Several times you have made the statement that the word translated "factious" (hairetikos) in Titus 3:10 refers to doctrinal heresy rather than divisiveness. Therefore, you say, we are obligated to refute "the issues [you] have raised against MacArthur's teaching." Please allow me to respond to that in two ways. First, John MacArthur is not under discipline; you are. A discussion of the merits of your accusations against him would in no way resolve the charges that your design in airing those accusations the way you did is manifestly factious. As I have told you repeatedly, when you confess and repent of your factious-ness, I will discuss whatever concerns you have about John MacArthur's teaching for as long as it takes to resolve those concerns.
Second, hairetikos and its cognate hairesis both come from the
primary verb haireomai, meaning "choose" (cf. Phil. 1:22).
Hairesis appears nine times in the New
Testament and is translated "sect" (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5,
14; 26:5; 28:22), "heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1), and "factions"
(1
Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). As you can tell from those verses,
it can, and often does, encompass the idea of destructive
false doctrine. But there are other times (as in the 1 Cor.
11:19 reference) when it simply refers to the needless
separation of brethren into warring factions. The root
meaning of the word is the idea of division, not false
doctrine. In fact, false doctrine is labeled heresy
precisely because of its divisive effects.
Hairetikos
is found nowhere in Scripture except Titus
3:10, where the context describes a person who creates
unnecessary divisions and strife between Christians by
stirring up foolish controversies that needlessly separate
brethren or rip the ecclesia asunder. Look up
hairetikos in Colin Brown, or any of the standard New
Testament dictionaries. The mark of the factious man's
error is that he tends to draw his followers off into a
faction, or sect, where they isolate themselves from the
rest of the body of Christ, spurning the brethren who will
not follow all their factious leader's pronouncements.
That, Darwin, is exactly what you have done. Since you
insist that every doctrinal question is fundamental, you
don't see any controversy as worthless or unprofitable
(cf. 3:9). To you, every nuance, every point of dis-
agreement about doctrine, even every variation in emphasis is a matter of
eternal significance. That perspective has made you both factious and proud.
You have asked me to show you your error from
Scripture. I have done so again and again, and you have
consistently refused to hear. You say you want the truth,
yet when confronted with your sin, you refuse to repent.
You broke a public vow you made before the whole church, but you shrug that
off as "a technicality." Scripture does not treat this so lightly
(Deut. 23:21; Eccl. 5:4-5). In my April 5 letter to you I documented several
lies in the letter you were distributing. You ignored the facts and continue
to disseminate the same lies. You acknowledge that many others have confronted
you about your pride. Yet your response is arrogance rather than mourning
(cf. 1 Cor. 5:2). It seems clear enough that you have no intention of yielding
to what the Bible demands of you. You insist that we must first defend
John MacArthur against your factious accu-
sations. And thus you only compound your sin with further arrogance.
This is at least the third lengthy letter I have
written you. In each case I have appealed to you carefully from Scripture.
Yet you insist that you have been disciplined without being shown where you
are in error. You continue to mail your accusations to people all over the
country who have no involvement in any of these issues (thus further demonstrating
your factiousness). Many who have received your mailings have written to ask
us for the truth about your accusations. I want you to know that wherever
it
is necessary to answer questions you have raised in people's minds, I will
distribute copies of the letters I have written, so that people can see the
true basis of the appeal we have made to you. I see no need to keep my corre-spondence
with you confidential if you are going to continue to widen the circle of
involvement through your mass mailings.
Perhaps you cited 2 Tim. 2:24 because you don't feel we
have corrected you gently enough. Please forgive me if
anything about the manner of my approach has been a
stumbling block to you. I have frankly struggled with
whether sharp rebuke or gentle entreaty is the most
appropriate way to deal with you (cf. 1 Cor. 4:21).
Realizing the gravity of the sin of factiousness, I have
tried to appeal to you as I would my own brother (1 Tim.
5:1). My sincere desire for you is that you would see your
sin, repent, and be restored to full fellowship with us. I
have been deeply grieved by your response--the hardening of your heart, the
puffing up of your pride, and the theatrics of your campaign to distribute
your broadsides against the elders of Grace Church. How can you justify these
things biblically? Do you really imagine that the Lord is pleased by what
you are doing?
Like Paul, we rejoice and will rejoice whenever Christ
is preached, however ill the motive of the preacher (Phil.
1:15-18). That's why I was encouraged greatly to know that you affirm the
doctrine of justification by faith alone. Again, however, I would suggest
that this crucial doctrine deserves much, much more prominence in your preaching
than you are currently giving it. In all your messages that I have listened
to, the only place I have heard you refer to justification is on the tape
you sent after I expressly asked to hear your teaching on that doctrine. Your
comments about justification were very brief, barely an offhand reference
in what was a very long sermon. I think you spend so much time attacking others
that you often forget your first task is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Surely justification sola fide is an infinitely more
weighty eternal issue than a lot of piffle about whether
John MacArthur might here or there employ a word that you believe has psychological
overtones. Since John has
repeatedly and vigorously condemned the doctrines of psy-chology and self-esteem
(for a recent example, see his book The Vanishing Conscience, especially
chapter 4), your public attacks on him as a purveyor of humanistic self-love
amount to little more than "a morbid interest in controverd or listened
to enough of
John MacArthur's teaching immediately recognize your
factiousness. Unfortunately, those who are undiscerning or unfamiliar with
John's message are confused and misled by what you say.
I offer these things with a final appeal to you to
repent of your factiousness and your arrogance against men of God whom you
once vowed to love, encourage, and support.
I don't intend to write you again until you have dealt
with your own sin against the body of Christ and the
leadership of Grace Church. Reading this and my previous letters to you, I
believe I have given you ample evidence from Scripture that you have sinned
and need to repent. As long as you choose to continue in your sin and justify
yourself, Scripture is clear about the course we must take (Tit. 3:10).
Sincerely in Christ,
Phillip R. Johnson
Elder, Grace Church