I’ve talked to Dr. Old about that comment at length, and it doesn’t accurately represent his view. First, it is something he wrote about 10 years ago (despite the recent publishing date). He has increasingly become more conservative over the years. When he graduated from PTS in 58, he was a liberal. When he took his first church in 59, he started preaching through the gospel of John. By the time he got to chapter 5, he was convinced of the miracles of Scripture (actually, it is an exhilerating story the way he tells it). When he returned to America after receiving his doctorate, he wanted to worship at the most conservative Presbyterian church around, so he started going to 10th Presbyterian. At the time, inerrancy was the big issue, and Dr. Boice was a leading figure among those defending it.

In an unpublished manuscript that will soon be published as The Ministry of Praise and Prayer, Dr. Old firmly defends the doctrine of innerancy and says something to the effect that over the years, he has struggled with whether or not he is a fundy or a lib, but at the end of the day, he is an old school presbyterian fundy.

The piece in volume 7 (if one reads it closely) is actually a confession of the failure of liberalism to do justice to the text of Scripture. What Dr. Old is saying is that he had a very difficult time preaching Matthew 8 because he was always trying to demythologize the text. He is commending the practice of John MacArthur who had no difficulty preaching that text because he took it at face value. So, Dr. Old is saying to the reader, “Don’t follow my example; follow the example of MacArthur.” That’s the point that Dr. Old is making. It is unfortunate that the comment about the existence of Satan was not removed from the manuscript before publication because it doesn’t accurately describe the view that he now holds.

I appreciate your concern, I too am somewhat trouble by the statement as it stands. However, the denial of the one need not necessarily lead to the denial of the other. I am assured of the fact of Dr. Oliphant affirms the real, true, and historical events of the incarnation and resurrection.

Now, why or how someone can affirm those things, and the full and verbal inspiration of Scripture, and yet deny the existence of Satan, I am frankly clueless. I suppose this is a parallel situation to John Stott denying the existence of hell.

As I have mentioned, these sermons on Matthew 8 and 9 have a particular interest for me because I once tried to preach through these chapters and was very unhappy with how I did it. Where MacArthur succeeded and I did not may well be in his complete clarity on just how he stood on some of these issues. While I would insist that Jesus did perform miracles, I have to admit that the caveats of the Enlightenment still obscure my thoughts from time to time. I suppose I am troubled by a shadow of doubt, but then the same would be true of many in my congregation.

The place where I have always had the greatest trouble is the whole matter of exorcism. I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don’t. I am willing to agree that I may have been too strongly influenced by the intellectual world in which I was brought up to fully grasp the full teaching of Scripture, but that is the way it is. What is more than clear to me after listening to these sermons is that those who can take the text the way it is seem to make a lot more sense of it than those who are always trying to second-guess it. Surely one of the greatest strengths of MacArthur’s preaching ministry is his complete confidence in the text . . . .