Sorry, that was the charismatic lunacies most recent run at screwing with reality....but here is something for you to feed on related to the word
Regarding the John MacArthur video you link here, I agree with him that the word of God must be interpreted properly. I would disagree on a number of lesser issue. One is the idea that one verse has one interpretation. It is pretty clear from scripture that this is not the case. God called both the tribe of Ephraim and Christ His Son out of Egypt, for example. Some prophetic statements had a short-term application and also a broader Messianic meaning. Deuteronomy 18 had a section that applies to prophets in general and in particular to That Prophet, the Lord Jesus Christ. Israel was required to hear prophets, but especially the Prophet like unto Moses. The Israelites were to stone certain offenders, but a verse about putting away the evil among you also applies to dealing with sin in the church. The apostles did not follow John MacArthur's narrow principle in the way they interpreted scripture as is obvious from the text of scripture.
John MacArthur has had his own shortcomings when it comes to hermeneutics related to the topic of this thread. I have not read his 2012 or 2013 book on the subject. But his 1990's cessationist-promoting book was eisegesis. Like he says in the video, people can have wrong interpretations because of presupposition. His argument was based on presupposition. If one does not presuppose that for some reason the teachings of New Testament scripture on spiritual gifts are supposed to be gone by now, there is no reason to accept his argument. His argument basically boiled down to the idea that because God did miracles at certain time periods in the past, He will not do so today. Stripped of all the verbiage, it is not a reasonable argument. Scripture on the subject does not cease to be true because of how he clustered God's miracles.... pre-Pentecost at that. We live in a different era from the patterns he described in the book, this era after the Spirit has begun to be poured out upon all flesh.
I did not hear JM make this argument, but someone else at the conference his church hosted which promoted his book argued that II Timothy 3:16 was an argument against the contemporary role of the gift of prophecy. This is clearly poor hermeneutics.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
If we consider the original intent, this was written during a time when prophecy was active. Don't we accept that II Timothy 4 is prophetically inspired? If revelation ended when Paul wrote 3:17 there, then chapter 4 would not be inspired. Neither would the book of Revelation be inspired.
The way they were interpreting the verse displayed a lack of reading comprehension, also. The verse does not say that scripture is all that is given...that the man of God may be... thorouthly furnished. Rather, it says all scripture is given.... etc. This passage does not say that 'scripture is all you need.' If the passage is used to say that you don't need anything because you have scripture, and therefore you do not need prophecy-- which other scripture indicates is profitable and needful to the church, why not apply that same sort of 'reasoning to other things.'
If you can say you don't need spiritual gifts because you have the Bible because of this verse, why not say you don't need love because scripture is all we need, or you don't need preaching or teaching because scripture is all you need.
But the passage does not say that scripture is all you need.
JM has a set of presuppositions about the role of scripture and what he thinks 'sola scriptura' means. In order for that to be true, scriptures like I Corinthians 12 have to no longer be true and valid for the church today, but he does not have any other scripture that cancels out those other passages to present.
He also interpreted 'that which is perfect' to refer to the eternal state in his interpretation of I Corinthians 13 in his 1990's book.
Regarding the video, MacArthur only half knows what he is talking about sometimes when it comes to this topic. I would guess the man who said the Lord gave him his life verse because he was born in a year that corresponded to the verse probably did mean that as a method of hermenuetics. If he did, the host and his wife may have comically been pointing out the flaw of that type of reasoning in an indirect manner. Not everything on a talk show on these networks is intended as hermeneutics. In my experience with Charismatics and Pentecostals is that 'Bible roulette' is not typical behavior. Maybe I have heard of it once from an individual, not from the pulpit. But John MacArthur is no stranger to straw men when it comes to this subject.
