Examining the Doctor

Ok it's finally done! I have read, studied, prayed about and written this piece on Dr. John MacArthur. I have nothing against him personally. In fact ,I find much of his teachings to be very positive and I enjoy much of what he has to say. However, I've focused on Chapter 5 of his book "Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible".


Examining the Doctor

The name Dr. John MacArthur is familiar to most Christians. He is an influential Bible teacher, author and a well-known radio preacher. His program "Grace to You" airs across the country and is heard by thousands. Many evangelicals hold him in high regard and often refer to his theology to form their own personal beliefs. I would agree with Dr. MacArthur on many things, but I would caution Christians as to his understanding of Roman Catholicism and tradition. Dr. John MacArthur's article, "The Sufficiency of the Written Word: Answering the Modern Roman Catholic Apologists" exposes some of his misunderstanding. MacArthur refuses to accept that Scripture and the traditional interpretation of that scripture are needed in conjunction to fully understand the Word of God. He says, "Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture." This is just not true. Scripture and tradition co-exist on the same level. Tradition is as much the Word of God as the written word. They cannot be separated. Tradition is useless without Scripture. Scripture is misunderstood and misused without tradition. That is not to say the teaching of the Catholic Church is superior to the Word of God, but to say that supremely authoritative Scripture has to be interpreted is not to denigrate it. The question is how do we interpret it? We compare what the early Christians believed to scripture. This is what forms tradition.

Dr. MacArthur correctly asserts tradition is the "lens through which the written word is interpreted and stands as the authority rendering the only true interpretation of the Word." Christians need a single authority to consistently instruct and guide. That preserved consistency is the tradition found only in the Roman Catholic Church. Yet to many Protestants "tradition" is a dirty word.

Many will challenge with Mark 7:6 ("Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.") but you need to understand what scripture (Not Dr. MacArthur) really says. The Bible does not teach that all "tradition" is bad or evil or merely the "traditions of men." It teaches that there are indeed untrue traditions (Matt 15:2-6, Mk 7:8-13, Col 2:8), but there are also apostolic traditions, which are positively endorsed. These apostolic traditions are not contrary to Scripture and are in total harmony with the Bible. Catholics believe that the true traditions must always be consistent with Scripture. I would challenge anyone to find a Catholic tradition that goes against the Word of God. In that sense, Scripture is its "final judge," but not in the sense that Scripture somehow rules out or makes impossible all tradition and church authority. If you really look into this you will find the Catholic Church is right on track and the Bible espouses true tradition:1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.The Apostle Paul explicitly grants oral proclamation or teaching the same authority as written:2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

I know this will shock those of the Protestant Sola Scriptura mindset but with some simple biblical cross-referencing you will discover Tradition, Word of God, and the Gospel are regarded as essentially identical in Scripture. All are conceived as predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received.1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

Go back and see how the Word of God has been delivered to man. There is a history of oral presentation throughout the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself is a result of these collected presentations. Ironically, Dr. MacArthur's view (and the larger Protestant view) between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by any truly biblically minded person as a corrupt tradition of men. This is the inherent danger in dismissing the authority of the Church and following man's interpretation. God's word is both oral and written and one must not contradict or corrupt that word. Sola Scriptura does this and exposes itself as a self-defeating concept, since it cannot be established from Scripture alone. With all do respect to Dr. MacArthur, when one falsehood is accepted, everything else is suspect and often corrupted. Protestant theology is built upon a foundation of flawed belief. Stemming from that foundation are other falsehoods that fuel resistance to the Catholic Church teachings, foster a consistent misunderstanding and maintain the man made divide between Christians.

Catholics regard Scripture and tradition as a single authority. In Scripture, the Church has a binding authority. No one has the right to change or dismiss this fact. In Paul's statement: ".the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) the design is clearly displayed. If the Church is the pillar, then that pillar holds up Scripture. To believe otherwise you must claim Scripture is the pillar holding up the Church. To do that ignores the Word of God.

We find ecclesiastical authority in Matthew 18:17, where "the church" is to settle issues of conflict between believers. We see Church authority in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), where we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement, which was binding on all Christians not just those who felt like it. "Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (15:29) In the next chapter, Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling proclaiming: "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem." (Acts 16:4) This Church authority is far more like Catholic structure than any Sola Scriptura based Christianity. Sola Scripture, that so many mislead Christians cling to, is nothing more then a false manufactured tradition of men.
Roman Catholicism has a high regard for Scripture as a source of knowledge. Roman Catholic statements concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture would satisfy any Protestant fundamentalist. Yet there is no agreement by which standard Scripture is to be interpreted if tradition is abandoned.

MacArthur admits Scriptural authority was not clearly delineated in the early church. The church as an institution through the ages has been and remains the foundation and arbiter of truth. To admit that leads to the true concerns of those defending the reformation. MacArthur repeatedly refers to the "attacks" by Catholic apologists on the issue of Sola Scriptura. He says, " If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers' other points will fall." In his own words he reveals the weak foundation of the Protestant church. He continues, "if Rome can prove her case against Sola Scripture, she overturns the arguments for the Reformation in one fell swoop." That concern would explain the forceful argument against using Scripture to disprove Sola Scripture. If MacArthur and Protestants will not accept what Scripture has to say about the issue, yet they claim to base everything else on Scripture, they have in a sense proven themselves wrong.

If Scripture is, as MacArthur claims, "the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved" then why does disagreement exist among Protestants on so many issues? Throughout his article, MacArthur self-interprets Scripture and uses it to attempt to defend his position. However he relies on his "infalliblilty" to do so and continually ignores Scripture to the contrary of his belief. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul instructs Timothy to train other men for leadership in the church. But MacArthur refuses to recognize this as apostolic succession. What Timothy was to teach, Paul himself had preached "in the presence of many witnesses." MacArthur ignores this oral presentation.

All through his writing on this subject, MacArthur seems to be in a tug-o-war with himself. His own contradictions reveal this. He says, "Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritive, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith." If God could inspire and guide church leaders then, he surely does so today. He continues, "Even non-Catholic versions of scripture speak of a certain 'tradition' that is to be received and obeyed with unquestioning reverence." Yet where in Scripture is one given the right to pick and choose which ones to follow?

Catholics do not seek to emasculate Scripture, as MacArthur would have you believe. Rather Catholics hold it equal and essential with tradition. MacArthur writes some things about the Roman Catholic faith that is wrong or misleading. He says, "If we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is irrelevant." That is not true. The voice of the Church that tells us what the Scripture really says. He also claims that Roman Catholics are forbidden to compare Church teachings to Scripture. That is not true. We are to submit to the authority of the Church, but reading Scripture is not forbidden for any Catholic.

MacArthur acknowledges that not everything Jesus taught is preserved in Scripture. Yet he claims everything God requires of us is included in Scripture. So MacArthur writes off some off Christ's teaching as unimportant and irrelevant if it was not included in Scripture. This is a dangerous assumption knowing that not a single word contained in the scriptures was ever written by Jesus himself. Even Jesus chose to give us his Word by speaking it and handing it down to his apostles in non-written form.

Dr. MacArthur claims 2 Timothy 3:15-17 clearly affirms Scripture is sufficient for salvation. The problem is when you read this, and every other passage of Scripture, you must truly understand it. Dr. MacArthur is reading the large role scripture plays in our salvation and stretching that into something it is not. Scripture can teach, reproof, correct, train and equip us for good works; however, it does not say Scripture alone is what we are to exclusively cling to.
Sola Scriptura appeals to the modern mind. We live in a "do it yourself" environment. It is much more appealing to read and claim to understand, then to submit to a higher authority. Jesus taught orally and the disciples handed on his teaching by the spoken word. It took several decades for the 27 books of the New Testament to be written - and much longer for them to be officially recognized as inspired. This cannot be denied. There are many like MacArthur, who mislead and present twisted elements of theology to those who do not know any better. In 2 Thessalonians the people had be mislead by the forged words of Paul. Paul warns them not to be taken in by false "inspired truth". He tells them they had heard the truth from his mouth and not to be misled by false words. MacArthur says, "The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth." I submit it has been. Those teachings are only corrupted outside the Church. How do I know this? For over 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught, preserved, written, protected and passed on those essential teachings. Paul ordered the Thessalonians to receive as infallible his word of mouth teaching. The Catholic Church does the same today for all Christians.
MacArthur continues to say, "it is pointless to test the Catholic Church's teachings by Scripture" because conflicts are settled by the traditions of the Catholic Church. A conflict is a misunderstanding. It is the duty of the Catholic Church to address that misunderstanding to insure that nothing goes against the word of God and the properly interpret the Word of God in matters. The faithful will accept that instruction.
Knowing that only a fraction of Paul's message is preserved in his epistles, Dr. MacArthur says he assumes what Paul taught the Thessalonians is contained in such. I will not base my belief on an assumption, but the larger problem is, so many Protestant claims are based on just that, assumptions. Dr. MacArthur asks the question of New Testament Scripture, "Who can prove that anything essential is omitted?" I would ask Dr. MacArthur, who could prove that it isn't?You are free to accept Dr. MacArthur's assumption that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and to equip us for life and eternity, however, you are missing much of what the early Christians taught and you are left guessing at interpretations of his Word. It leaves those denying tradition and the historical teachings of the Church with mere pieces of truth.