A review of John MacArthur's The Gospel According To Jesus 20th Anniversary Edition
Part 6: A Cross Examination
Please begin reading this series at Part 1: The Obligatory Introduction
In Part 5 I discussed how the Gospel is fundamental to our walk as Christians, that we are saved by reception of this declared Good News of Jesus Christ, and showed how Dr. MacArthur says that “all the years of [his] ministry” (1) were about learning what the Gospel actually is.
The fruit of the doctor’s long search is summed up in his statement “What we need is a complete reexamination of the gospel.” (2). He says that his work of pasturing includes re-baptizing people who once made a decision but who later come to a true conversion. He says that they hear testimonies of people in this situation nearly every week at his church. That truly is a sad state of affairs.
He states the purpose of his writing as “… to deal with the biblical accounts of Jesus major evangelistic encounters and His teaching on the way of salvation.” He goes on to state several questions that will be answered in the accomplishing of his purpose and finishes with “…they are not theological trivia.” I would fully agree, there is nothing about the Gospel that is trivia.
Though Dr. MacArthur to this point in the book has not actually defined this “Gospel According To Jesus” he makes several statements that can allow us to have some idea of what it is. He says that Jesus called sinners to a “submissive surrender to the truth, including the truth of His Lordship.” (3). He also calls a gospel that “makes no moral demands” a “new gospel.” (4) So, we can infer that the gospel the doctor wants us to know about would be about a submissive surrender to the Lordship of Christ that makes moral demands. Since the topic of this work is about Eternal Salvation it’s clear that Dr MacArthur’s “Gospel According To Jesus” is one which states the Sinner must meet the demands of God in order to attain that Eternal Salvation.
Scripture stands in stark contrast to this I have inferred the doctor is presenting. For Scripture in Romans 6:32 says;
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Some translations go so far as to render the Greek χάρισμα as the “free gift of God.” Even if we leave out the word free what does giving someone a gift have to do with demanding something of them. If Scripture describes Eternal Life in Christ Jesus Our Lord as a gift, how can we make the offer of this gift a demand? For if one meets conditions for a gift is it really a gift?
Think of how fast food establishments advertise offers as free when they really are not. If you buy this special package then you’ll get a free cookie. Well the cookie isn’t free because you had to buy the package to get it. Fast food establishments get away with this because they are not perfectly holy. The Lord Our God cannot even give the appearance of evil. What He says is free, truly is.
Dr. MacArthur plainly states the seriousness of the consequences of how we handle the Gospel of Christ by quoting Galatians 1:6-9. He quotes this passage, and I think I should do the same.
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Before we go on, let us consider the Apostle’s words carefully. He states that if anyone preaches another gospel other than the one the Apostle preached, and they received let such a one be accursed. Which Gospel is the Apostle speaking of? Well he summarizes it in the verses just before those the Doctor quotes. Galatians 1:3-5 NKJV
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
But we have the Gospel that all the Apostles preached, and all Christians must receive declared word for word in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 NKJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Be, sure that when the Apostle said even if an angel of light were to come and preach another gospel other than the one he had been given from Christ to preach, and all Christians must receive that we must let him be accursed.
Sadly, this must include someone who devises a message and uses our Lord’s name as an appeal to authority to give it credence which is different than the message the Apostle preached and anyone who would preach a “new gospel.”
The Gospel that Paul preached as of “first importance” was also the standard by which he instructed Pastors to evaluate the teachings of men. We read in 1 Timothy 1:3-11 NKJV
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this:
that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
Of Galatians 1:6-9 the Doctor notes “That is a sober warning of eternal damnation to those who would tamper with the message of salvation and corrupt it to make it a ‘different gospel.’” I would argue that we are to see one as accursed, not that we have the power to actually have one be so. I do not say, nor do I believe the Word of God says, that one who preaches a different gospel must be eternally damned.
Dr. MacArthur recognizes that some opponents to “Lordship Salvation” have labeled it as “another gospel” and says this has led him to be serious in his study. He rightly says that “We cannot confidently point people to the way of life unless we get the gospel right.” (5) He is right about this. The Gospel is of “first importance” 1 Cor 15:3 there is no life without it. Though many of those who respond to the Lordship Salvation gospel truly do, do their fleshly best to look alive without receiving that life.
In this installment of The Gospel Delusion series I have repeated some information, but only because Dr. MacArthur used Galatians 1:6-9 for his purposes. In the last installment we saw how the Doctor sought to look elsewhere than Scripture to find his “Gospel According To Jesus” and in this installment we applied the same standard he uses to evaluate his gospel.
His message of Salvation through surrender evidenced by works is not the Gospel preached by the Apostles. By definition then it is another gospel. I have tried not to let this be a “cross” examination by keeping my own self-righteous anger out of it. Instead I’ve endeavored to have it be a “Cross” examination because the Gospel is the Good News of what Christ accomplished at the Cross. It is not a demand of what we must accomplish in order to have our part in it.
References:
All references (unless otherwise stated) are from The Gospel According To Jesus: What is authentic faith? Revised & Expanded Anniversary Edition By John MacArthur Copyright 2008
1. Pg 19
2. Pg 21
3. Pg 11
4. Pg 20
5. Pg 22
33 comments:
Kev:
I appreciate your on going series. As I read the latter half of this article I recalled the following by Dr. Ryrie from his book, Balancing the Christian Life:
“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.”
Then, of course we have the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) reductionist assault on the content of saving faith. In trying to answer LS the late Zane Hodges and his followers came to believe that the lost can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing in who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation.
The shrinking cell of theological extremists in the GES bounced off one extreme Lordship Salvation right into another no less egregious error, which is Zane Hodges’s Crossless Gospel.
In any event, because of its extremist theology the GES has become irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of the Gospel. They just don’t know it yet.
Keep contending for the faith once delivered (Jude 3).
Lou
Hey Lou,
Thanks for this. You know it's amazing to me how error if pushed just far enough always looks the same no matter what direction it goes in. Calvinism and Arminianism (which I can almost never spell) look exactly the same if taken to their logical ends.
And really the same is true of LS and CG. Both negate the importance and power of the Cross and make man the deciding factor. Though neither admit such..in my experience this is has been consistent.
Thanks,
Kev
"You know it's amazing to me how error if pushed just far enough always looks the same no matter what direction it goes in. Calvinism and Arminianism (which I can almost never spell) look exactly the same if taken to their logical ends.
And really the same is true of LS and CG. Both negate the importance and power of the Cross and make man the deciding factor. Though neither admit such..in my experience this is has been consistent."
Kev,
You must have read my mind!
I have been noticing the exact same thing but I haven't figured out how to put it into words yet.
I have been listening to the speeches from the 2008 Resolved conference this past summer. In one of them JM talks for 55 minutes on hell and how to escape it. In all that time he never once mentions Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The closest he comes to that is to include as part of one's public confession (which is how he said one escapes from hell- making a public confession of Christ as Lord) that Jesus is the only Savior and the only Redeemer. And he might have included "and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" part of Romans 10:9. But he did not discuss the fact of Christ's death or it's atonement for sin and the need to accept this work on your behalf. It was simply missing. He didn't present the audience with that reality.
The other speakers so far (I'm on session 5 of 12 currently) have presented Christ crucified and, as long as you are already saved, He was crucified for you. So they don't make a direct connection between Christ crucified and the sinner's sin either. There seems to be, in their minds, some kind of direct connection between Christ crucified and His Lordship. So it goes something like, "Christ was crucified., or, "Christ died.", or "God sent forth His Son to redeem" (note the absence of such phrases as "for you" in these examples) "Therefore, you must receive Him as Lord to be saved." One of them even said, after a 40 minute treatise on Christ's sacrifice, "receive Him as Lord and He will become your Savior." For me that had the effect of tooling along at 50 miles an hour and suddenly throwing the car in reverse.
I'm still digesting this so I don't have much more to say than that at present.
But I'm glad to see it's not just me.
JanH
Hey Jan you noted;
One of them even said, after a 40 minute treatise on Christ's sacrifice, "receive Him as Lord and He will become your Savior." For me that had the effect of tooling along at 50 miles an hour and suddenly throwing the car in reverse.
I think I would say "Receive Him as your Savior and you will then realize He is your Lord."
He is Lord of the Unsaved and the Saved (every knee will bow, in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth).
Now that I type this... you know it's kinda funny the very people who claim that one must submit to His "Lordship" deny that same Lordship in their doctrine.
Interesting.
Kev
Yeah. It is interesting. I have mulled over the thought that they are inadvertently keeping people from obeying the gospel by presenting that obedience as obedience to the commands of the law or something else rather than to believe on Him. In Tim Challis' notes on Steve Lawson's speech from 2007 he quotes him as saying:
"You need to make terms of peace with this King or you will be subjected in damnation forever. Christ has made terms of peace and you need to settle out-of-court with him. You do not want to go into that final day of conflict with Christ, for He will be ruthless in the execution of justice. He offers mercy today. He will agree to terms of peace and surrender, but they are His terms of peace, not ours. His terms are this: you must love Him more than anything. If you cannot do this, you will meet Him in the final judgment and glorify God in your destruction.”
(The bolding is mine.)
I found this astounding. Isn't loving Him more than anything the first of the ten commandments? Aren't we then back to the law? But what about Galatians 2:21- "...for if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died in vain."? Isn't the reason we need a Savior because we DON'T and CAN'T love Him more than anything?
I am only half way through Lawson's first speech from 2008 and he hasn't yet said anything like this. But if he said it last year, I would expect him to get to it eventually. Unless someone corrected him and he listened, which would be good.
JanH
Kev, it’s not true at all that what we’ve discussed in the other thread will be irrelevant as you progress with the series. What we discussed there has much to do with your whole critique of his book because these misunderstandings you have about salvation and regeneration are foundational things that affect your interpretation of everything that he says.
And I must say that your statement that LS “negates the importance and power of the Cross and makes man the deciding factor” earns you first place in the upside-down award.
FG is what really negates the importance and power of the cross and makes man the deciding factor. Just to show you how mixed up you are, I will quote a sentence from your new JM critique and something I remember (and found) that you said last summer.
JM’s critique:
“For if one meets conditions for a gift is it really a gift?”
The Power Of God To Salvation (Tuesday, July 08, 2008):
God saving me based on Christ's finished work on the Cross is "conditional" based on if I place my faith in Him or not.
You said faith is a “condition”. And you also said if one meets “conditions” for a gift is it really a gift? Implying no, it’s not.
Your statements here show that somewhere in your confusion, you know the truth Kev. That if there are any conditions that need to be met (including faith) in order for a person to receive a gift and the conditions are met by the free-will choice of the receiver, then the gift indeed is NOT free. But if the conditions are met by the grace and power of God Himself (regeneration first), then the gift is free indeed.
I (and I am sure JM also) believe that the conditions of our Salvation (past, present and future Salvation), which include faith AND submission to the Lordship of Christ happen by the grace and power of God Himself, NOT by the free-will choice of man (as you believe).
Just please brother, I’m asking you one more time to take some time off and study, pray, and stop reading articles by men who are as obviously mixed up as you are. Going forward with your critiques when you misunderstand so much of what JM says is not a wise thing to do.
Hi Bridget,
I think you know how far out of context you are taking your argument by quoting me saying Salvation is conditional on if one places their faith in Christ in comparison to Dr. MacArthur's idea that one must meet the conditions of discipleship to be saved......
Further will you please show me what article or other work of man I have been reading.
I'm not mixed up by what the man is saying in his book. Bridget I opened that book with a great amount of Godly fear. I asked God to give me the strength to openly support the book if it turned out to be true.
I expected to be greatly challenged by it. Instead I have found straw-man arguments, assumption, intentional misquotes of Scripture and a multitude of other very un-Christ-like behavior.
I expected to be challenged and not be able to answer what this famous man wrote. I fully expected it to dwarf my understanding of Scripture.
Instead it fell apart...
You will see as this goes on. There's just too much to cover.
Saying I don't understand a book that I have read with GREAT attention which you have not read is probably about as wise as you have described my behavior.
Kev
This is what I mean by our previous conversation having everything to do with your current and future critiques of his book, kev. The conditions of discipleship DO need to be met in order to be saved. We covered that in the other debate when I showed you that Paul clearly talks of salvation in three tenses, and so discipleship is a requirement for “Salvation”.
Here’s the point kev: You realize (as you stated above) that if one has to meet conditions for a gift, it is not really a gift. You made that clear. So whether the condition that has to be met is faith for justification (Salvation) or submission to Christ for sanctification (Salvation), it cannot be a true gift if it requires a condition to be met. That is…UNLESS it is God, Himself, who grants and enables faith and submission, which is exactly what Scripture teaches.
The reason JM says that submission to Christ is necessary is because true conversion (BY GOD’S GRACE, not man’s decision) brings repentance, faith and submission. Along with the recognition of our sin and the beauty and truth of Jesus Christ, is a desire and power to forsake all and follow Him in ever-increasing measure. Put it on the time-table of salvation wherever you choose, but it is a requirement for eternal salvation.
JM understands God’s grace in this act of faith and submission Kev, but you do not. You see it as man having to perform something in order to be saved because you don’t rightly understand God’s saving grace at conversion and you compartmentalize Salvation which helps you to continue believing that FG isn’t works-based and LS is. But the truth of what you know underneath it all comes out in places like above, where you said that if there are conditions placed upon a gift, then it is not really a gift. You said it because it’s true.
When you look around at the lost multitudes kev, you must wonder what in the world is wrong with people who hear the gospel, but continue to reject Christ. I know I used to. And I work with a believer now who is Arminian and she has expressed her frustration and confusion many times over family members who’ve heard the gospel repeatedly and just won’t believe. You say that the power is in the gospel, but in reality you belive that the power is in the person who chooses to believe the gospel. JM understands that the power is in the Holy Spirit of God working through the gospel.
How can there be true compassion without knowing that, “there go I but by the grace of God" instead of "by my own decision?" And how can faith-filled prayers be poured out over people’s salvation if you believe that man’s will is sovereign over God’s desire?
That’s why Spurgeon said that Arminians pray like Calvinists, because they pray that God would open people’s eyes and draw them to Him, but in their theology they believe God would never trespass on the sacred ground of man’s free will. Don’t you know that they are blind kev, just like you were? That the god of this world has blinded their eyes so they cannot even SEE the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ? BUT GOD who said, “Let light shine out of darkness” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It is God’s GRACE that awakens dead sinners through regeneration, which leads to faith and submission to Christ in ever-increasing and glorious measure.
Btw, I don’t have The Gospel According to Jesus, but I have a lot of JM’s other books, including, Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles and Saved Without a Doubt, Being Sure of Your Salvation, so I think I understand what he’s saying and how you’re misinterpreting him.
Bridget:
You wrote, "I don’t have The Gospel According to Jesus..."
TGATJ was published and republished three times. It is the chief apologetic for JM's Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. You have a lot of nerve to question Kev's integrity, claiming he misrepresents what is written in a book it appears you may have NEVER READ in the first place.
bp: Have you ever read JM's TGATJ cover-to-cover?
Kev, This is yet another example of someone who is trying to defend what JM wrote in a book that in this case she does not not even own. Pathetic!
I have come across this kind of disingenuous behavior several times over the last few years.
LM
Hi Bridget-
I have just finished reading a most interesting article by a fellow named M. James Sawyer called "Some Thoughts On Lordship Salvation". As far as I can tell, he seems to be Reformed, but takes issue with JM. I felt he articulated 99% of the issues I have with JM exceptionally well. Possibly, due to his apparent Reformed persuasion, you may be able to get the idea from him better than you do from us.
Here are some pertinent quotes:
As I indicated, I find myself in substantial agreement with MacArthur’s position, but it is not a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. It is, however, being read as such, and as such it presents an unbalanced view of what the gospel is all about.
The very tone of the discussion has the effect of making faith the ground rather than the means of salvation. When this is done, wittingly or unwittingly, the net effect is to become preoccupied with faith itself rather than the object of faith. Faith itself does not save. It is the object of faith, Jesus Christ, who saves. When faith becomes the object of reflection, questions such as, “Have I really believed? Do I have the right kind of faith?” etc. can assail the confidence of the believer.
MacArthur’s delineation of Lordship Salvation adopts these same themes that are found in English Puritanism and Scottish Calvinism. While from a creedal perspective justification sola fide is still asserted, the psychological dynamic at work is far from that of Calvin and Luther. It has more in common with Medieval Catholicism than with the Reformers. MacArthur states “God through his grace declares believers righteous--and makes them righteous--by imputing the righteousness of Christ to them.”32 MacArthur and those who are espousing Lordship salvation, by stressing works as the evidence of a regenerate life, I believe, have de facto slipped back into a concept of justification as infused righteousness which finds assurance of salvation in one’s works.
Elsewhere, MacArthur notes that since salvation is a work of God, it is God who produces the fruit of salvation in us, noting that any professed salvation which lacks any of the elements of salvation is to be found wanting from a biblical perspective. The practical effect of such teaching is to suspend assurance of salvation (not salvation itself) upon performance--works. The net effect is to destroy the confidence that the believer is commanded in Scripture to have before God.
The dynamic of assurance espoused by Dr. MacArthur has its roots deep in the tradition of the Puritans and the Scottish Calvinists. The Scots referred to this process as the Practical Syllogism. The Puritans called it the reflex action.37 By whatever name, the process is the same. The believer is denied direct access to the Savior for assurance. Instead he must look inside and complete the syllogism. “The Scripture tells me that he who believes shall be saved. If upon examining myself I find fruits of righteousness in my life, I may then complete the syllogism ‘But I believe, therefore I shall be saved’.”38 However, such a doctrine lays the ground of assurance solely within ourselves “causing the believer to rely more on his own works for assurance, than on the work of Christ on our behalf.”39 The ultimate result of such teaching is uncertainty.
While I applaud the Lordship position in its insistence that the believer in Jesus Christ will show by his life that he is a believer, the rhetoric I hear is akin to a General George Patton slapping the G.I. who was hospitalized for nerves during WWII. Lordship teachers appear to be forcing all teaching on salvation through one grid, discipleship. This, I would argue, the Scripture does not do. I would argue that many (most?) who come to Christ are bruised, battered and shattered emotionally, as a result of the ravages of sin, both personal and corporate. They need spiritual and emotional healing, a healing that goes far deeper than most of the intellectualized theology which focuses upon positional truth as abstract and unrelated to the life of the believer.
There is quite a lot more, but that gives the general gist. He is very gracious in his tone and, I think, has valuable things to say.
Incidentally, he also deals with Zane Hodges.
His view is very balanced.
The article can be found here:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=347
JanH
Lou, are you always this angry in tone? I have not questioned the integrity of Kev, as you do mine in almost every post you address to me. I believe that kevin is as sincere as he could be or I wouldn't bother with him. And he already knows that I have not read TGATJ, but I am very familiar with JM's writings and reformed teachings and in-fact I'm reading Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles, which JM says actually fleshes out the frame-word of doctrine that was only hinted at in TGATJ. And I'm also going off his quotes and assesment of them in his ongoing series here.
Thanks Jan. I will check out the link as soon as I get more time. I did a brief skim of the quotes you gave and from what I read, I would align myself with MacArthur and the puritans over Mr. Sawyer. I have many books by Puritan authors and love them. But I will check out more later.
bp:
There is nothing angry about it. It is much like resentment that you have been critical of Kev's review of a book you admit you have NEVER read.
You are not the first and suspect won't be the last that we learn is trying to defend JM's TGATJ which he/she NEVER read in the first place.
Kev is critiquing, page-by-page, a book you have NEVER read, but still you are charging him with "misrepresentation."
Go do the honest thing and read JM's book TGATJ.
If you were a student in a Bible college class and the prof learned you never read a book that you were charging another student with misrepresentation over, you'd be in his office (or the Dean's office) for a discussion about academic integrity.
LM
Jan:
There are a number of Reformed pastors/teachers who reject LS as it is articulated by John MacArthur.
I presently interact with two Reformed men with earned Ph.D's who are very uncomfortable with MacArthur's front-loading faith with commitment to discipleship FOR salvation.
Lou
Hi Jan,
I think I'll have to give that article a read when I get some time. I'm always interested in honest discussion between people of like views. Not the pandering to each other but true iron on iron type stuff.
Kev
Bridget, you've said your view that you think I'm misrepresenting Dr. MacArthur.
I can't counter your view except to keep going, or by having you read his book. I have no intention of responding to this accusation further because I can not. My response will only be this series continuing as I am able.
Like Lou said I'm going almost page by page here... I think this may not have been the wisest choice but since I'm into it I'm going to continue because I trust there will be great value in doing so.
The problem with doing a overall review that just makes the points but doesn't go page by page would be people like yourself saying I am misrepresenting him.... so I'm going to go very slow with this.. which may be painful for some to read and endure... but in the end it will be clear that I have only argued against what the doctor has written.
And btw how many times must someone read the same accusations before they begin to show frustration? Don't bring accusation against a Brother here.
Kev
While there are any number of points to object to in LS, I think this one from Sawyer's article stands head and shoulders above the rest for me personally:
The believer is denied direct access to the Savior for assurance.
However, based on what I have been hearing from the Resolved group, I must add that the individual is denied direct access to the Savior for salvation as well.
I do recommend reading the article. I found it very helpful to hear some constructive criticism from someone who is in substantial agreement with MacArthur otherwise.
However, I am second guessing my assessment of him as Reformed. I may be wrong about that. He did take the Puritans to task for limited atonement, so perhaps he is not 5 point. Still being in "substantial agreement with MacArthur," he has a sort of friendly access that may allow him to be heard where we would not be.
JanH
Addendum:
Perhaps it would be better to say Sawyer is a Calvinist than to say he is Reformed. Four point, it would seem.
JanH
Jan:
My interaction with many Reformed men finds that very few are 5 pointers. many of the the five pointers do not consider those who reject the Limited Atonement true Calvinists. But that is an issue that is largely kept under the surface among them.
One of my friends wrote the following, which may have some bearing on the issue. See the bold section:
Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.
This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.
This reminds me of something that struck me as strangely incongruous in Rick Holland's speech from the Resolved conference. He spent a good deal of time earnestly entreating, begging and pleading with the audience to trust Jesus "TONIGHT!" It almost bordered on histrionics. I could not understand that and it struck me (maybe unfairly) as disingenuous because of just the reason mentioned in this quote. I was wondering why, in light of irresistible grace, he saw any need for such earnestness. Surely the Holy Spirit didn't need his help like that. Surely the elect would hear and respond to the call even if he had been totally dead pan. There really was no rational reason for it that I could see. It seemed to me to be a lack of faith either in God or in TULIP, one or the other.
JanH
Bridget I deleted your post but will re-post the portion that is not an attack.
All. No matter who you are this is not a place to attack each other. It's perfectly ok to question the content of my articles, and the content of each other's posts. But flat out attacks are not welcome here.
From Bridget's last -
Lou, so reading Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles, which JM says is more of a prequel than a sequel to TGATJ, that fleshes out the framework of doctrine that he only hinted at in TGATJ, isn’t sufficient? I also have read probably a hundred Lordship articles by JM and others and I sit under the weekly preaching/teaching of a pastor who agrees wholeheartedly with JM’s LS position.
Bridget:
To Reitertae...
TGATJ was published and republished three times. It is the chief apologetic for JM's Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. You have a lot of nerve to question Kev's review of the specific volume when you have NEVER READ it in the first place.
You are not the first and suspect won't be the last that we learn is trying to defend JM's TGATJ which he/she NEVER read in the first place.
Kev is critiquing, page-by-page, a book you have NEVER read, but still you are debating from the standpoint of ignorance in regard to the book.
Go do the honest thing and read JM's book TGATJ.
If you were a student in a Bible college class and the prof learned you never read a book that you were making what are clearly uninformed and false accusations against a student peer over, you'd be in his office (or the Dean's office) for a discussion about a lack of academic integrity, which after the last comment that deserved deletion, clearly demonstrated.
Lord willing you will one day be recovered from the works-based, man-centered, non saving message of LS.
LM
Kev:
I will look forward to future installments of your review of John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus.
Yours faithfully,
Lou
Hi Lou,
I'm trying to figure out how I can broaden the scope of each installment. Obviously I'm doing some disservice to people like Bridget. If it is within my ability to do so I will improve the next installments so as to be of more service to them.
Thanks,
Kev
Kev:
What you commonly find with LS advocates like Bridget is that they come to the discussion with their minds made up in the first place. Then you have to remember that they come to their views partially through extra-biblical presuppositions such as regeneration before faith.
They confuse and blend the truths of salvation with discipleship and loss all distinctions between the two that the Bible clearly teaches.
These extra-biblical trappings make them almost impervious to plain biblical truth.
Then there is the personality element. It was not quite as evident with Bridget, but some LS people get enflamed over any criticism of John MacArthur.
Lou
>>For if one meets conditions for a gift is it really a gift?
It certainly can be. Consider a real-life example.
I'm not sure this works the same in Canada, but in the US many universities will offer scholarships. The school waives the tuition for students based on GPA, need, and possibly other factors.
I'm not talking about sports scholarships where the student does something (like play football) for the school. I'm talking about the academically based scholarships.
Those will have conditions. You only get them if your SAT scores are high enough, if your family income is low enough, possibly if your ethnicity is desirable ... and only if you maintain a certain GPA and stay out of trouble when you get to school.
Now, a student may earn his way through college. He may work 50 hours a week while attending school. He may stay out a year to earn the money. He may get a loan which he pays off afterwords.
That student earns his way through college.
But the scholarship recipient doesn't. Keeping his GPA up is good -- but that doesn't earn his tuition. Otherwise every student of that scholastic ability would attend for free -- out of right, not gift. Having high SAT scores is good, but doesn't earn anything. Being of low enough economic background carries no merit with it at all, but can still be a condition to receive the scholarship.
When you get right down to it, that scholarship is a gift.
We deal with gifts that carry conditions plenty of times. The modern entitlement mentality obscures some of it ... we are taught to think we've earned things we haven't. The grocery store discount program may tell us we've "earned rewards". What we've done is played their silly marketing games to get a discount. If we'd really earned $3 by our purchases, we could redeem it for cash -- because we earned it!
>>Then there is the personality element. It was not quite as evident with Bridget, but some LS people get enflamed over any criticism of John MacArthur.
Aye, there are proud people of every persuasion. But from what I've seen, Bridget stays humble. That's better evidence of the true work of God's grace in her life than any amount of doctrinal precision could ever be.
Hi guys.
Just a word to let you know I'm stepping out for a couple of days due to illness.
Back soon.
JanH
Jan, have and will continue to pray. Let us know when things are ok.
Kev
Hi Daniel,
You said You only get them if your SAT scores are high enough, if your family income is low enough, possibly if your ethnicity is desirable ... and only if you maintain a certain GPA and stay out of trouble when you get to school.
and connected
Keeping his GPA up is good -- but that doesn't earn his tuition. Otherwise every student of that scholastic ability would attend for free -- out of right, not gift. Having high SAT scores is good, but doesn't earn anything. Being of low enough economic background carries no merit with it at all, but can still be a condition to receive the scholarship.
Then concluded your point with
When you get right down to it, that scholarship is a gift.
It's a gift that's only given to people who are smart enough, and needy enough to be worthy of the "gift." It's a "gift" that's only given to those who are worthy.
Are you saying you're "worthy" of Salvation? Did God save you because you were somehow better (smarter) than someone else?
Grace is "unmerited favor" that means that God shows favor on those who place their faith in Him based on NO MERIT.
That doesn't just mean no works, it means no merit. There is no reason for Him to show you favor except that He has gracefully chosen to show favor on those who place their faith in Him.
There is no goodness, potential, or ability that separates me from those who are unsaved. I have simply received the Gospel in faith. There was nothing in me worthy of His favor.
I think you have worded your argument well in that you show the failings of it. The idea that one must be worthy to be saved is fallacy.
Kev
Hi Daniel, while I see Bridget is in grave error I count her as a blessed Sister in the Lord who has promised to sanctify her even unto the image of Christ. Of course God's grace is working in her life. It's unfortunate that she is not being fruitful as she should if she were to allow faith to have it's full measure.
Kev
Post a Comment