Phil Johnson Responds to Julie Roys in the Most Appropriate Way Possible +Demonstrates her Dishonesty
We have previously responded to the allegations that John MacArthur and Grace Community Church mishandled a church discipline case here. We strongly advise everyone to read it before proceeding. In the article, we offer some possible explanations of where this went sideways (if indeed it did at all) while also showing the problematic and contemptible nature of much of Julie Roys’ reporting.
Despite having the story for weeks or months ahead of time, she released the article on the 8th. This is a day before Shepherd’s Conference started so in order to do maximal damage. It also ensured that the team at Grace Church would be busy for the next three days during the conference, then have the weekend, and then by Monday, enough time would pass where she and others could complain that the involved parties must be hiding something on account of their obfuscating and refusal to release a statement as if allegations from 20 years ago must be responded to within a handful of days lest they be accused of ignoring it or brushing it aside.
During this time, someone asked Phil for some initial observation, he acquiesced, and then Roys further revealed her true colors, pouncing on an answer and assuming the worst possible motives, prompting Phil to set her straight. The fact that he has a very reasonable and sound explanation for Roy’s hysterics and assumptions, such as her claim that “Phil minimizes offense” (20 years) or that he’s in some capacity “responded” to her article, officially or otherwise, should make the reader question the integrity of the original reporting and where else she played these games.
He writes on Twitter:
Despite this misleading mess:
1) I have not “responded to [her] article,” nor will I. She is citing an email I sent to a person who asked (via email) if I intended to respond to Roys. I answered THAT question.(I didn’t post it on social media.)
2) My observation that this case is 20 years old was NOT an attempt to “minimize” any offense—and the context of my comment makes that clear. My point was that it takes time to properly investigate anything that happened two decades ago. A snap answer is not called for here.
3) I’m not “evad[ing] responsibility.” I wasn’t serving as an elder in 2002-05. I have no firsthand knowledge of this case & I’m not the right person to nag for answers. Ms. Roys’s dragging my name into it is a pretty clear reason not to trust her motives.
4) I do indeed believe that Ms. Roys has shown herself (repeatedly) to be a shoddy ink-slinger with a personal agenda against JFM.
But I apologize for the use of the word “screeching.” It’s prejudicial to apply that adjective to written objurgations.
Exactly right.
I do not trust any of these religious imposters pretending to represent Christ. They do not. The victim’s continue to suffer however.
And what FACTS do you know directly? I bet I know…..NOTHING
I have just received $30,850 of my last month working and i was doing this in my part time online. I joined this 4 months before and i know how easy this job is to make money online. ggh Join now from the website below. ==-==>> http://workhere3.blogspot.com/
baloney
I don’t care for Julie Roys. I don’t care for liberal “Christians” who think they are more enlightened than God and His Word. However, I don’t care for the cold hearts and arrogance that Calvinism creates either. (Roys’ blog and this blog represent both unloving extremes.) John MacArthur messed up in this sickening situation, and I think he should step down. Even if it is twenty years too late.
And you don’t give a rip what has happened since or have knowledge of it!
Anti calvinists usually do not even understand what calvinism is but think its the “hyper calvinism” that is spread like a cancer! Anticalvinists unbiblically decide that ‘they chose’ to be saved when in actuality it is ‘God who chooses’ whom he predestined. God is sovereign. John 6:44
Calvinism ie the reformed faith is biblical. Those who are opposed to it are either babies on milk or not saved at all.
baloney
I don’t understand all the details of what is meant by Calvinism, but I do understand that that God’s sovereignty is not diminished by the fact that He willingly chose to give mankind free will. That is the message of the entirety of scripture, starting from Creation and Adam’s sin. If there is no free choice, and none can chose of their own accord to accept Jesus as their savior, then do they also have no free will to choose to do right or wrong?
God gives mankind, though totally and completely depraved and separated from Him in need of a Savior, the capacity to make good choices and do righteous things, as a matter of His gift of free will. As sin is a matter of free will, starting with Adam, so the choice to accept Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior – to accept God’s means of redemption – is also a matter of free will. That does not mean mankind has any inherent goodness of our own accord. It means God willingly chose to yield free will to us, though He certainly didn’t have to do so. He didn’t have to create us in the first place – didn’t and doesn’t have to do anything at all. It was all, and is all, a matter of His sovereign choice.
God willingly gave mankind free will, and that neither diminishes His sovereignty, nor elevates mankind’s goodness, nor diminishes mankind’s depravity.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” – 2 Peter 3:9
As far as MacArthur is concerned, I’ve been reading his books for decades. I’ve never known him to preach any message different from that which I just posted above. But as I said, I’m not familiar with what is meant by Calvinism, or terms like “hyper calvinism” etc. Seems such terms often have as many definitions as there are people using them.
Good points
Number 3 is at least a partial lie. Whether he has knowledge of this case remains to be seen, but documentation has been produced that he was an elder in 2003 and 2004.
Johnson’s mental gymnastics must be exhausting!