This was originally published almost a month ago here and the only comment was a pingback from another post here that referenced it. I am pasting it to the front page because I think it a serious issue. Although Dt. MacArthur is speaking as a pastor to pastor’s, it applies to all of us who name the name of Christ, and especially to those of us who share our beliefs with the world via the Internet.
From this John MacArthur article:
“That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.
The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”
The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.
Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.
Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.
There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.
True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.
No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know.”
How well I remember this sort of Bible study! I have not always been as adamant about first finding out what scripture actually SAYS, and then applying it, as I am these days. Not only have I learned NOT to trust my feelings, I sincerely believe that there is more than enough to apply from what Scripture SAYS to keep me from trying to get something ‘special’ just for little old me. If there is something I need as a personal admonition, encouragement or application, I am confident I will receive a much clearer message studying what is plain from reading and inductive study than ‘comtemplating’ until I get some ‘deeper revelation’.
A”ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
It’s scripture that is breathed out by God, NOT my interpretation, my insight, or my feelings. I can trust the plain teaching of scripture 100% of the time and, unlike what’s in my head and in my heart, I don’t have to figure out who’s really ‘speaking’.
The Battle Cry 
Words on a page, my man.
God, or whatever, told me sumpthin, so get yer words on a page out of my face, you Pharisee!
LikeLike
God’s word says we are known by our love for one another. By this shall men know that you are my disciple, that you have love for one another. “Words on a page,” is not a soft answer, not one resounding in love.
God’s Word is a picture of himself, a way to get to know Him as well as guidelines for a successful life full of the evidence that He is your Lord. So I agree, if I understand the article’s intent, that God’s Word needs to be viewed as more than “application to me.” It is His message of love to us, His requirements of us as we respond to him and the Holy Spirit lends the understanding as we read.
LikeLike
I basically agree with MacArthur’s stance: true doctrine undergirds a correct understanding of how I am to apply God’s Word to my life.
However, the emphasis of many on ‘correct’ doctrine has assuredly divided the Body of Christ and made us somewhat of a laughingstock in the eyes of the world.
Hebrews 6 lays out the foundational doctirnes that we are to know and apply if we are to build anything worthwhile in our Christian life.
The concept of ‘sound doctrine’ is missed by many–including (it appears) Macarthur. (I say ‘appears’, because I obviously have not read everything this servant of the Lord has written.)
Paul tells us plainly what “sound doctrine” is in Titus 2:1 where he lists the many aspects of sound doctrine. Also, in 1 Tim 1:10 he gives a list prior to using the phrase ‘sound doctrine.’ In both instances, as well as the other two places Paul uses this phrase, we are confronted with the issues that pertain to godly living.
Therefore, sound doctrine is, indeed, about what the Scripture means to me; but not in some airy-fairy, New Age wu-wu way.
Sound doctrine teaches me how I am to live in the world.
LikeLike
Ms. Hill,
“Words on a page,” is not a soft answer, not one resounding in love”
You are quite right. Thank you.
Much of what the article addresses is the considerable misuse of the following concept:
“the Holy Spirit lends the understanding as we read”
This is of course, true. However, the article does not speak against this truth, it more begins to address the considerable problem with persons using the above reasoning to propose that what God’s word means is something entirely different than what it says. This is a constant error, though entirely puzzling and irresponsible. The idea that The Holy Spirit would “tell” someone that what words on a page clearly say is in fact not what they mean at all makes God a liar. There are a great deal of examples of just this sort of irresponsibility throughout blogland.
Which is why “words on a page” continue to be not the problem of mine, just a miserable bit of sarcasm towards those who resist the truth of God’s word as he has given it.
Jason
LikeLike
Dale,
Could you explain your position a bit further? The examples you give suggest that Christian doctrine is in fact an ethical system. Though ethics are indeed a significant facet of Christianity, the fact of ethics at all pours fron God himself, making the fact of God and his character the “sounder” doctrine if you will.
Otherwise we are theistic Confucianists – presumably not your goal.
There is another issue: your suggestion that sound doctrine is used incorrectly by MacArthur. The translation of “doctrine” and its use in contemporary language do not necessarily refer to the same things.
For instance, Paul’s item of first importance to the Corinthian church is the fact of Jesus Christ in his divine incarnation, life, crucifixion and resurrection. This can properly be called “doctrine” which is just another word for established teaching, and not only that, it is the backbone for any higher ethical calling of the Christian.
What I mean to say is that the reason that we may use a word in common parlance may not parallel with the reason it was used in Greek, or even in the direct translation of the Greek. And the fact that it receives this moniker in the translation does not therefore universalize the concepts in Titus 2 – there are many sound doctrines that are not labeled hugiainouse didaskalia, and most of them are not ethical concepts which have their backbone, Our Fabulous Lord, removed.
Do you understand?
Jason
LikeLike
Jason,
Thank you for making me probe a little deeper. As I re-read the excerpt from the article, I see that I missed an important statement: “nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.” So, my statement that included MacArthur in the mix was off-base. Thanks.
I came up through the “Jesus People Movement” of the early 70s. At that time, churches were still fighting over ‘doctrine.’ Most of us (kids at the time) saw how useless that was in the face of the commandment of love. “Doctrine” became a bad word for us. Still is for me, when it is used out of context or without definition.
I agree, doctrine is simply teaching. But, when I hear ‘sound doctrine’ used in the context of such things like understanding water baptism, eternal security, the Rapture, millenialism, and a host of ther things (none of which MacArthur referred to in the excerpt) I have a problem.
With the weakness that exists in the Body of Christ as concerns a lifestyle that exemplifies godliness, it is important that we return to the ‘sound doctrine’ as listed by Paul.
Ethics? sure. But, as you so accurately pointed out, just because I use that term does not mean I am enamored with what passes for ethical understanding in our modern era.
Finally, any doctrine/teaching that does not find its focus on the Lord Jesus is error and is to be extracted.
Again, thank you.
LikeLike
I leave for a few days and miss some serious conversation! I was at a Pray and Plan retreat for the ministry with I am closely associated. There is a Baptist retreat center just north of Colorado Springs called The Ponderosa and my last name is Cartwright – I think I’ll apply for a job there…:) I’m catching up on things at the moment and I chall be back.
The Jesus Movement – 2nd Chapter of Acts, Barry Maguire, Keith Green et al. I remember it well.
LikeLike
you posted and then fled??
My,my 🙂
Jump on in and help us out here.
LikeLike
Having been quite familiar with the aforementioned method of Bible study I have to confess that it stunted my growth when if meant ‘what this verse means to ME’ rather than simply ‘what this verse MEANS, followed by HOW I apply it to my life. The ‘to ME’ I think Dt. MacArthur said it well.
“The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”
The emphasis on ME can end up in the front seat and what IT MEANS in the back seat. “ME” gets in the way of what God has simply said in His word.
Let’s say I share an insight that doesn’t come from the plain reading from the text. Was the insight from the Holy Spirit, or am I talking to myself? it might just be me. Other members of the group assume it’s an insight from the Holy Spirit because I’m the study leader. We end up discussing my insight instead of what is plain in the text in the context of the chapter, which is in the context of the book that has a main theme, such as the Gospel of John and the divinity of Christ.
We go around the table and ask everyone what the verse or passage means to them. Some will share something directly from the text that comforted or convicted, while others will share ‘personal insights’. Someone might disagree with an insight, which most often happens when there is conviction instead of comfort. For the sake of ‘peace and unity’ we end up accepting everyone’s insight as valid. We pat each other on the back and feel greatly uplifted. The Bible study even grows because the word is out that when you come to “Dan’s” study you leave always having been encouraged and uplifted (nobody talks about anything that might be negative).
In John 17:3 we find Jesus saying “Eternal life is to know God and the One whom He sent.” Which method of Bible study accomplishes ‘knowing God and the One whom He sent’ more effectively – “What does this verse mean to ME?”, or “What does this verse SAY?”. Which method of study brings more glory to God? Which method can (and often does) lead to us having an opportunity to boast?
Back to the short answer – “What does this verse men to ME” bible study stunts our growth.
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly.
Therefore, it is in our best interests, and the interests of the One we serve, and the interests of those to whom we minister that we not throw stones at the “Me” style interpretation of scripture. Rather, we will be better servants and ministers if we exemplify the true method and use it.
LikeLike
What would you consider throwing stones, Dale? Is it making them aware of the potential danger?
LikeLike
Ok, this is going fine, but the throwing stones thing bugs me.
The casting of stones was for execution, not for constructive or even unconstructive criticism. It is a huge pet peave of mine.
Those stones kill people. We need to stop using that out of context.
As well, Dale, “the true method”??
LikeLike
Jason,
I’m lost on your last ocmment: “the true method” so I cannot repsond to that.
But, to Jason & Dan:
Making people aware of potential danger, criticism (constructive, unconstructive, or destructive) has become an all too easy form of trying to edify the Body of Christ. It is very easy to do.
Yes, there is a time, place, and a season to do such. But, I am not absolutely convinced that we are all/each called to be God’s policemen.
There is a place for plucking up, tearing down, and destroying; but it must also be accompanied by building up and planting (Jeremiah).
If you are set as a watchman upon the wall, and it is your duty/job to point out the errors in the Body of Christ, then so be it. In my 40 years of experience, I have seen that we have many who are more than willing to do just that; but we have few who look upon God’s people as Jesus did–as sheep without a shepherd. The Church needs those who will feed the flock of God with knowledge after God’s own heart.
It is recorded that the pharisees spent most of their time telling the people how wrong they were, and Jesus spoke against them bitterly. I do not want to be found in that group. When the light shines, darkness is revealed. When the truth is told, error stands out.
A figure of speech never kills people, but the letter of the law does. “Throwing stones” is the casting of aspersion.
LikeLike
Dale,
“we will be better servants and ministers if we exemplify the true method and use it.”
That was your comment. Maybe Jason was asking you to please define the ‘true’ method. Hint: The gospel according to the Beatles ain’t it.
Random thoughts about your coment:
I can understand un/destructive criticism being easy since it is driven by the flesh most times, but not constructive criticism being easy. Criticism of any kind nearly always comes across as somehow not being kind. Making needed criticism ‘constructive’ is sometimes really hard to do.
You sound like warning the flock is NOT edifying. Define edifying please. Warning is NEVER an easy thing to do. “Truth tellers” always have faced risk. It also carries a lot of weight and is done with much prayer, not to mention some fear and trembling before the Lord.
When you are in darkness and a bright light is turned on, it is usually very harsh at first.
The issue I have seen in blogland, in the short time I have been hanging out here, is that merely pointing out truth that may be harsh even while presenting it with encouragement and in as loving a manner as possible is seen as “throwing stones”! That is simply not true.
For years we have had in the evangelical church this carryover from the positive self-esteem always say ‘positive’ stuff that is NOT to be found in scripture – at least I have not found it.
We do have, however, examples of telling the brethren what they are doing well and where there is error – in Paul’s teachings and in his approach, as well as the book of Revelation and Jesus speaking to the churches.
I hear that because we are not Jesus and don’t know the hearts of folks we have no right to be critical. Balderdash. We have the Spirit living inside of us and have been given discernment.
Sounding warnings is perhaps the hardest thing to do! I do not do so with the intention of personally telling someone they are wrong, unless there’s a wolf in the sheep pen who must be told.
Where exactly is warning to come from, if not from believers? Where in scripture do we find an instance of a man of God praying for God to supernaturally show people error and not say anything?
“Truth tellers” – those who would dare to expose error and issue warnings to the flock – are some of the most unpopular and lonely folks in Christendom.
LikeLike
Hi Dale,
“the true method”
It’s in quotes because you wrote it. Since you were speaking contrastively with Dan, i presumed you had something in mind when you wrote it. I was unclear in asking what the true method was, in contrast with Dan, sorry about not explaining.
“It is very easy to do.”
I disagree. Look to the vaguries and distractions written on this blog by a certain Bad teacher. Following the syntax of these free-thought bunny trails is not easy. And this person and his Bad ideas has the ears of many.
“It is recorded that the pharisees spent most of their time telling the people how wrong they were, and Jesus spoke against them bitterly.”
This is an excellent example. Jesus told them that they were wrong, he didn’t just “speak against them bitterly.” The manner in which you chose to frame this made what the Pharisees did something different than what Christ did. The difference is not that one told people that they were wrong and the other spoke against said wrong tellers bitters, the difference is that both told others that they were wrong, but only one had the big picture right. The manner in which you framed this avoided addressing what Christ said when he told others that they were wrong.
Those who are “teaching” in many of these blogs are indeed teachers, and yet a huge majority has been found completely resistant to what the bible actually says on many matters. This is what the Pharisees did, they rejected the truth when they heard it, and in fact circled the wagons and cast out those telling the truth so that they didn’t have to hear it any more.
This is a microcosm of one of the most common narratives of the bible.
“Throwing stones” is the casting of aspersion”
Again, those stones are not metaphors to be used by those who want others to be quiet. They are not stones of aspersion, they are stones. This concept is almost universally used out of the context of its use in John 8 – to try and get people to stop actually reading and understanding and addressing the substance of what is being said or written. This is misused much as Matthew 7:1 is chronically misused.
LikeLike
I think I hear what each of you are saying.
Now that you cast it in the light of the “blogland” that makes things a little clearerfor me.
I come from the place of a heart for the churches–organized, unorganized, and disorganized. That is only one small part of the Body of Christ. The blogosphere makes up another, entirely different segment of that Body. However, I do read of many bloggers who are also committed to their local assembly.
I am learning through my blogging experience just how exacting writing is. It is so easy to be misunderstood. In fact, the majority of my negative experiences are around people misconstruing what it was that I didn’t say. I’m still learning how to deal with that.
But you two gentlemen have brought me to task in a kind way and made me look even deeper into what it is that I do.
I assume too much.
Warning and admonition has its place. I am not against that. I just do not want to leave anyone in a place of fear because of my warnings. Too often, it is the good-hearted, saved saints that take warnings to heart, and not the ones who really need it–especially when the warnings are broadcast in a shotgun basis to everyone and anyone. Those are the people I hurt for.
Most warnings of a general nature seem to fall on deaf ears.
therefore, I only warn those with whom I have direct responsibility or relationship; or, as you mentioned, a wolf whose presence is detected.
I do not have a clue who the “Bad teacher” is to whom you refer, Jason.
LikeLike
I think most Christian bloggers are also plugged into a local fellowship and that is good. At the same time, relationships are built between bloggers, even if they are only ‘virtual’. That could mean that with the relationships that arise out of ‘virtual’ small groups the topic of correcting, etc. must be addressed. the difference is that when we are face-to-face the love behind correction can be seen whereas in the virtually world we have to try and ‘show’ that we care with words without facial expression, ‘audible’ tones of voice, or body language that could communicate so much.
And since we, by nature, we don’t appreciate correction unless we have learned to earlier in life, the issue is compounded. We can’t see the love in the person’s eyes and heart that would be communicated in person.
Truth wrongly perceived as personal attack is still truth. Truth present with a less than perfect attitude is still truth.
LikeLike
Or, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in “The Gulag Archipelago,”:
Truth in its first form is always negative
LikeLike