I am writing another post on John MacArthur because, again, I have Pastor friends who are influenced by him; whether that be because of the people in their church; theological sub-cultures they inhabit; or because they are simply influenced by MacArthur’s style of exegesis itself. What I wanted to draw attention to in this particular post is the theory of authority that is present within what I will call MacArthuritism. The nearest replica I can think of that correlates with MacArthurite church polity and government reaches back into the theological wells of the Medieval waters. As you will notice, if you read me for any amount of time at all, is that I believe in a reduction of things when it comes to diagnosing problems “down-the-line” within particular theological constructs. This holds true for the way I here am analyzing the MacArthurite system, and its notion of authority relative to pastoral and church ministry within Protestant Evangelicalism. So let me cut to the chase.
Thomas Aquinas and his substance metaphysics, with the belief that there is an interconnectivity to all of reality, serves as the basis not only for Medieval Roman Catholicism; but I will suggest here, for the MacArthurite system. It is my belief that MacArthur’s commitment to a hybrided 5 Point Calvinism and the substance metaphysics therein clears the ground for him to pound the pulpit with his “Lordship Salvation,” and keep the laity in check through the ministrations of his faithful minions (who he influences directly each year through his Shepherd Conferences). MacArthur is able to hold people in check by keeping them in fear of their salvation, by suggesting to them that if they don’t have certain thresholds of moral performance in their lives that they just might not be one of the elect for whom Christ died. I am jumping ahead of myself; lets get a better idea of how Thomas Aquinas’ view holds everything together, and then how that relates to a particular theory of ministerial authority (by way of hierarchy). Here is how Medievalist Steven Ozment helpfully describes Aquinas’ view:
[…] For Aquinas, God, man, and the world were connected to one another not by verbal artificial relations, but by the structure of reality itself. They related to one another like tendons to bones and muscles, not like a bride to a bridegroom or a friend to a friend; the relationship was organic, not covenantal. Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform,” 54
It is this kind of hierarchical relation between God and man that folk like John MacArthur can continue to hold authority over the laity who submit themselves to his “pastoral” authority. As with Aquinas, MacArthur functions with the concept that their is a hierarchy that moves its way back up to the Unmoved Mover, God. Meaning that working back from God, God’s authority and power moves back down the chain into creation; the Church as Christ’s body, and the Pastors as its gatekeeper (i.e. the ones who exegete God’s revelation, the Bible, for the laity) are at the top of this chain of knowledge and power. John MacArthur takes full advantage of this scenario by marshaling his capacity (something like the Pope) to exegete Scripture (attested to by his years of ministry, his Study Bible now translated into Arabic, and his multiple commentaries and books), and by commissioning the men under his charge (men who have put themselves under MacArthur’s style of ministry and theology); he is able to hold people in check by teaching a Gospel that is shaped by power-mongering and fear. This is expressed through his Lordship Salvation (e.g. if someone does not have a certain amount and continuity of good works in their lives they might not be saved).
This is a really crude sketch, but I think there are lineaments that are true in this sketch.
Morning Bobby
I have no idea of what substance metaphysics is beyond what you have written so pardon my question: The Scottish Confession mentions Substance (Ch 1, 6) as well. Was John Know operating under Aquinas’ influence as well?
I was wondering how I was going to answer the questions you asked me; so yes, I woke up thinking about Johnny Knox.
Thanks for your patient brotherhood – Or should I say, Longsuffering :- ]
Hmm. Very interesting stuff. So you suggest that MacArthur is continuing the line of Aquinean metaphysics into modern evangelicalism. Would it not be true, though, that claiming justification without evidence of sanctification is an unsupported claim? Meaning, justification will produce sanctification, i.e. fruit, and if there is no fruit, there may be no justification? I see the issue of promoting a moralistic deism wherein salvation is determined by fruit; that is contrary to the gospel; but mustn’t justificatication produce fruit, however small and unnoticeable but nonetheless lasting, over some period of time?
@Will,
No, John Knox would have been Scotist in contrast to Thomism (Calvin was Scotist as well in re. to his doctrine of God). I have some posts on Scotism, maybe I’ll do one again with more explanation. Maybe we can talk by phone soon to get to my questions π .
@Joshua,
How would you define fruit? The Puritans, and that kind of Calvinism today (like MacArthur’s http://growrag.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/classic-repost-john-macarthur-juxtaposed-with-english-precisianism-puritanism/) has a subjective range of what qualified as good works. As an Evangelical Calvinist I would want to emphasize the ground of good works in the vicarious humanity of Christ (Eph. 2:8-10). And that assurance of salvation is the essence of saving faith as John Calvin believed; here’s what he wrote in his Institutes:
“Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of Godβs benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.” Inst., 3.2.7
But no, I don’t think salvation looks to ourselves and our good works to provide a ground for assurance; this is the theology of folk like William Perkins and William Ames amongst others (just look both of those guys up, I think I have a category for William Perkins).