Immediately following the first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) men who wanted to be sympathetic toward Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship interpretation of the Gospel have referred to some of the more polarizing elements as “overstatements.” Some of these men were on the faculty of The Master’s Seminary. I have spoken to men with those concerns. They have been frustrated with MacArthur’s alleged “overstatements.” The Anniversary Edition contains many of the same themes and “overstatements” found in the original version of this volume.
If these areas of concern were merely “overstatements,” why hasn’t MacArthur edited, explained or eliminated them after 20 years in print?
The answer is quite simple: they are not “overstatements!”
The answer is quite simple: they are not “overstatements!”
In the preface to the Anniversary Edition this statement appears,
“The cost of discipleship; the need to hate one’s own sin; Christ’s call to self-denial; His command to follow Him; and (especially) every mention of submission to Him as Lord were systematically expunged from the message Christians proclaimed to unbelievers. Sanctification became wholly optional. A whole new category ‘carnal Christians’ was invented to explain how someone could be converted to Christ and given eternal life but left totally unchanged in heart and lifestyle by such a transaction.”One must remember that the primary crux of the controversy over Lordship Salvation is Dr. MacArthur’s view of what he believes are the requirements for the reception of eternal life. There is a difference between the requirements for and the results of salvation. My concern is primarily with the conditions Lordship Salvation places on the lost for salvation, that the Bible does not. It is this area that makes the difference between Heaven and Hell. The eternal destiny of human souls is as stake. This is why I wrote In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.
Dr. MacArthur’s Anniversary Edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a continuation of his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. For example, in the preface I cited above one can see that MacArthur continues the pattern of blurring the line of distinction between the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. He still insists the “carnal Christian” is a modern day invention completely disregarding the Holy Spirit’s inspiring Paul to define and address the reality of “carnal” believers in the first century church.
IMO, MacArthur does not condition salvation on the performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a disciple. He does, however, require an upfront commitment to the “good works” of discipleship in “exchange” for salvation. (See Is Lordship Salvation an “Exchange?” & Lordship Salvation’s “Barter” System)
Another theme that reappears in the Anniversary Edition is the *false dilemma. MacArthur argues against and seeks to answer what is portrayed as the only alternative to his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. MacArthur points readers to the opposite end, the extreme edge of the theological pendulum swing. On the far end of that swing are the egregious errors of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless/Deityless interpretation of the Gospel.
The reductionist Crossless Gospel is a legitimate target for criticism. MacArthur acknowledges that others are answering the Lordship view, but barely recognizes that these are more balanced biblical positions in sharp contrast to the reductionist extremism of Zane Hodges. While MacArthur references Dr. Charles Ryrie’s Balancing the Christian Life, he (MacArthur) never references Ryrie’s major contribution to the Lordship debate So Great Salvation.
MacArthur’s second Lordship apologetic, The Gospel According to the Apostles does include a discussion of elements in Ryrie’s So Great Salvation (SGS). However, in none of his three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus, which is regarded as the foremost defining apologetic on Lordship Salvation, does MacArthur refer to SGS.
Dr. Charlie Bing’s dissertation Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response is one of the most balanced and compelling refutations of Lordship Salvation on the market. Dr. Bing is a relatively well-known theologian and major contributor to the discussion over Lordship Salvation. The Grace to You staff is very familiar with Dr. Bing and his dissertation. Nevertheless, nowhere in any of MacArthur’s Lordship apologetics, does he acknowledge or cite Bing’s work on the Lordship gospel.
Many of you are aware I have been working on a revised and expanded edition of my book, In Defense of the Gospel (IDOTG). This process has gone well past the time frame I gave myself to complete the project. Many have called to ask me when it will be done and made available. Some, more than once, have called to encourage me to finish at my earliest convenience.In all sincerity there have been times of frustration over having to devote so much time to the Crossless gospel, which kept me from completing the revision of IDOTG. In the back of mind, however, I knew the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel had to be exposed and biblically refuted, the Lord’s timing is perfect, and there must be some compelling reason for the delay in finishing the revision.
Thankfully I did not rush the completion, but instead waited on the Lord’s timing. I would have been disappointed had I rushed to completion only to have my revised and expanded edition released just ahead of MacArthur’s 20th Anniversary Edition.
From his review of the original The Gospel According To Jesus, Dr. Ernest Pickering noted,
“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.” (Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus)Dr. Charlie Bing made a similar observation,
“They are motivated by the worthy desire to see those who profess Christ go on to maturity and fruitfulness. Faced with the sad realities of inconsistent behavior, ‘backsliding,’ and outright apostasy by some professing Christians, they have proposed a gospel that demands up front an exclusive commitment to an obedient lifestyle in hopes of minimizing these problems.” (Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, p. 11.)I share the thoughts expressed by Pickering and Bing. All of us share the distress over men and women in our churches who profess Christ as Savior, but show little interest in living for Him as Lord. The answer, however, “is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”
My initial review of The Gospel According to Jesus: Anniversary Edition leads me to conclude that this is a continuation of the same teaching found in each of Dr. MacArthur’s preceding major apologetics on Lordship Salvation.
The “overstatements” run like a thread through each of MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation apologetics. They define exactly what the Lordship message truly is. That is a message that frontloads faith with a “wholehearted commitment” of “submission” and “surrender” to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of mature, born again disciple of Jesus Christ. (See John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel)
I whole-heartedly support the biblical call upon the Christian to live in submission and sacrifice to the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1-2). MacArthur, however, speaks in terms that in one sense go beyond, but also precede what should be the natural result of a genuine conversion. To reiterate from above, MacArthur does not precondition salvation of the lost man on the performance of the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a disciple. He is teaching what he insists is the requirement for the reception of eternal life. That teaching, which frontloads faith with commitment in “exchange” for salvation, is present and as stark in this 20th Anniversary Edition as it was in the 1988 original.
Later in the week I am going to post a follow up to this article. I will be taking one page from this latest edition of The Gospel According to Jesus and from that single page demonstrate the most glaring and obvious error of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. IMO, that single page provides all one needs to affirm Lordship Salvation is a works based, man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
Yours faithfully,
LM
I invite you to read a companion article, Ominous Signs of Lordship’s Coming Storm! This article provides a unique historical perspective of the Lordship controversy from a man who was on staff at Moody Press with Phil Johnson who is John MacArthur’s senior editor. This article details pertinent events just prior to the release of MacArthur’s original The Gospel According to Jesus.
*The student of logic will spend some time studying fallacies. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the mental assent or “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ mental assent position decry all others as advocates of lordship salvation… There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation. (Dr. Fred Moritz, Preach the Word, Oct. – Nov. 1999, p. 10.)
Later this year the revised and expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel will be available. Once it is ready, I will announce it through various media outlets.
ReplyDeleteI would have a lot more respect for John MacArthur's work if he were to respond to the actual Biblical challenges to it.
ReplyDeleteI want to give the book an honest read, but I have to admit I find it hard to even get my head in that kind of "head space" when I realize that Dr. Bing is painted with the same brush as Hodges as though their theology is on the same level.
It's actually a good lesson for me. I'm even more dismissive of TGATJ because of Dr. MacArthur's treatment of Bing than I would be otherwise. I will attempt to treat MacArthur with respect in my writing.
I appreciated how your book always did the same, Lou.
Kev
Hi Kev:
ReplyDeleteAll who ID themselves as Free Gracers are painted with the same broad-brush by MacArthur because he does not openly recognize that there are significant differences with Hodges among many men in the FG camp.
IMO, one reason why JM never addresses Bing's book/dissertation is because it does not present the ripe and obvious targets that Hodges’ egregious errors do. The long-standing LS mantras do not work with others who have answered the problems with LS, but not from the Hodges view.
When my book came out, men in the LS camp, many of which never even read my book in the first place, began responding in mantra like fashion with the usual defenses/attacks that they have used with Hodges and Wilkin. Then they discovered that I do not hold to the Hodges view and I do not even cite him in my book. That was intentional so that I could in no way be linked to the heresy of Hodges and GES. That is when many of them shrank away and/or would no longer interact in an even exchange.
More later…
Lou
To All:
ReplyDeleteI have prepared the article that that looks at a single page from the latest edition of TGATJ. From it I demonstrate the most glaring and obvious error of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.
I was going to post it tomorrow (Friday), but I want this review to stay at the head of my home page for a few more days.
No later than Tuesday, I will post the new article.
Thanks for your patience.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "All who ID themselves as Free Gracers are painted with the same broad-brush by MacArthur because he does not openly recognize that there are significant differences with Hodges among many men in the FG camp."
Before you make a sweeping claim like this, you may want to consider reading MacArthur's book "Faith Works," more recently titled "The Gospel According to the Apostles." In this follow-up book, MacArthur very clearly distinguishes between what he refers to as the "lordship" view (his view), the "non-lordship" view (Ryrie's view), and the "radical non-lordship" view (Hodges' view). In particular, see his explanation of these three views in chapter 2 and the chart in appendix 1, which contains three columns corresponding to the three views.
You may or may not agree with how MacArthur has distinguished between Ryrie's position and Hodges' position, but at the very least this should cause you to retract (or at least clarify) your comment that MacArthur "does not openly recognize that there are significant differences with Hodges among many men in the FG camp," because the simple fact is that he does.
As it stands, it appears that either you haven't read this second book or else you are intentionally choosing to misrepresent MacArthur. In believing the best, I am assuming it is the former rather than the latter.
Or perhaps, as a third possibility, you are saying that this distinction was not made clear in The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) like it was in Faith Works (1993). If so, it seems more than a bit misleading to accuse MacArthur of not recognizing differences within the non-lorship camp when you know that he has done so explicitly in Faith Works. Furthermore, you may want to keep in mind that The Gospel According to Jesus was written before So Great Salvation (by Ryrie) and Absolutely Free (by Hodges)--in which Ryrie and Hodges responded to MacArthur--and therefore the differences between these two men had not yet been as clearly articulated. Once they were, MacArthur appropriately distinguished between the two, something you have failed to acknowledge.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate the concerns you raised and I will address them. Before I do address your concerns I want to state to you kindly, but emphatically that I do NOT appreciate and furthermore resent even the suggestion that I would “intentionally…misrepresent MacArthur.”
I have always done my dead-level best to accurately depict the views of any man I discuss. If ever I am in error, I always make that right.
Now to your concerns:
1) This article is a review of the latest of three editions of TGATJ. My review and thread comments have been limited to the three editions of TGATJ, but primarily to this third edition. There is one brief portion of the article in which I made a general observation that I will address below. Nowhere, that I am aware of, in any of the three editions does MacArthur recognize the major doctrinal divide that exists in the Free Grace (FG) community.
2) I do own and have read The Gospel According to the Apostles. It has been about two years since I have read that book.
With the existence of the section in TGATA I am willing to revise my thread comment above to acknowledge that in TGATA MacArthur did draw the distinction. I am offering that clarification because the thread comment, as is, could be misunderstood to be open-ended to include any LS book or article MacArthur has written.
Question to you: Why is it, in three editions of the mainstay of his LS apologetics, does MacArthur never find the opportunity to acknowledge this important distinction in the FG camp?
3) Since publication of Ryrie’s So Great Salvation (SGS) MacArthur has revised and released his original TGATJ twice.
Question to you: How does SGS a major work, by one of the most recognizable theologians in evangelical circles, who rejects LS fail to appear in the bibliography in either of the revised and expanded editions of TGATJ?
4) Are you aware that in the article I did recognize that MacArthur has acknowledged some differentiation?
“The reductionist Crossless Gospel is a legitimate target for criticism. MacArthur acknowledges that others are answering the Lordship view, but barely recognizes that these are more balanced biblical positions in sharp contrast to the reductionist extremism of Zane Hodges.”
I believe that portion of my article provides the acknowledgement you are calling for.
Question to you: Would you agree that in the article I “have (NOT) failed to acknowledge” MacArthur has to some degree drawn a distinction?
LM
Hi Lou, Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThe matter discussed is a distraction from the importance of the topic. Let me state:
Lou's statement could only (accurately) be seen as a misrepresentation of John MacArthur if one were to assume (inaccurately) that Lou's writing here was addressing his entire body of work.
What is important, is a theological work of the caliber and influence that TGATJ has ought not avoid addressing the most qualified, balanced, accurate and fair arguments against it's premise. This should not get personal. It really has nothing to do with the men involved. The Bible says what it says.
That TGATJ does not address the position held by the main stream of the Free Grace camp is disappointing. It makes it hard (for me, and I assume others who are aware) to take some of the work seriously.
No one who is aware spend either the time or the money to sit through a boxing match where the champ's opponent has been chosen to ensure he would win again. For ME that is one of the failings of TGATJ. John MacArthur's work is very convincing. But it's convincing in the same way a "proof-texter" is convincing. It's only so because the rest of the picture is not seen.
I would love to see him respond, openly, to In Defense Of The Gospel. A work that treats him with the highest regard, and according to my resent reading removes any possibility that TGATJ is an accurate representation of what the Bible teaches about the Gospel of Christ.
God Bless, sorry I'm rushed for time. This comment was very pointed for a first "hello" to someone. Bless you Matthew!
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteA number of important points you shared above.
You wrote, “For ME that is one of the failings of TGATJ. John MacArthur’s work is very convincing. But it’s convincing in the same way a ‘proof-texter’ is convincing. It’s only so because the rest of the picture is not seen.”
This is the “false dilemma” (see my article for definition) where in each edition of TGATJ MacArthur only addresses with the extreme and egregious errors of the Zane Hodges camp, but ignores the excellent refutations of TGATJ of work by Dr. Charles Ryrie and Dr. Charlie Bing.
Come to think of it JM never mentions Dr. Ernest Pickering’s actual review of the original TGATJ.
IMO, JM and LS advocates want no part of So Great Salvation and Bing’s Evaluation & Response. These volumes do NOT present the easy targets to shoot down that Hodges does. Furthermore, these volumes devastate LS in ways that MacArthur cannot fend off or easily dismiss, which IMO is why he will not discuss them openly.
If any such treatment(s) of these volumes exist by MacArthur I invite Matthew and any LS advocate, to direct my attention to them.
I appreciate the kind remarks about my book. I certainly do not possess the unique gifts that men like Ryrie and Bing have been blessed with. In the writing of my book, which took years, I worked out much of it on my knees.
I’ll have more for you later.
Lou
Lou, you said, "IMO, JM and LS advocates want no part of So Great Salvation and Bing�s Evaluation & Response. These volumes do NOT present the easy targets to shoot down that Hodges does. Furthermore, these volumes devastate LS in ways that MacArthur cannot fend off or easily dismiss, which IMO is why he will not discuss them openly."
ReplyDeleteI would agree with this. I recently read TGATJ (the 20th anniversary edition) and I felt it was deeply flawed. Overall, I felt his book was weak exegetically. MacArthur fails to: 1. Defend his points exegetically. He immediately approaches the LS texts with his theological presuppositions (often driven by his prior commitment to perseverance). He then provides an exposition based on virtually no exegesis. IMO, his exposition is driven by his already pre-existing theological convictions. I did not see consistently throughout the book that his conclusions were built on solid exegesis. One will also notice a major lack of citation of major reference works from leading lexical tools like BDAG.
2. I also agree that he fails to examine and refute numerous others in the Free Grace movement. He approaches the discussion and at times scoffs at the arguments laid out by the very selective Free Grace authors he chooses to quote. He does this without ever examining their contentions and then exegetically refuting them while exegetically defending his own view. Again, MacArthur fails to demonstrate exegetically how the texts he uses can be used to teach Lordship Salvation.
One thing that I appreciated about Bing's dissertation is the amount of exegesis he provides in examining the various texts involved in the debate. Bing also provides extensive interaction and discussion of the arguments presented by LS. Simply put, MacArthur did not do this.
Liam:
ReplyDeleteThanks for noting these important issues in or missing from MacArthur’s TGATJ.
The bottom-line for me is that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation simply fails the test of Scripture.
LS is a reaction to the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism” movements. His LS answer, however, went too far and created a works-based, man centered message that frustrates grace.
LM
Yes, I would also agree with this. When one reads MacArthur's book, there is simply no emphasis on grace. He calls it the "twin-truth" of salvation that we are saved by grace, that it costs us nothing yet on the other hand it costs us everything. I would not call this a "twin truth" but a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteLou:
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your response to Matt Waymeyer and thought it was very strong. I wonder if he will ever answer your questions? I do not believe you have misrepresented MacArthur. I just listened to the recording of your first breakout session from the 2007 Grace Conference on Lordship Salvation and I can see that you have done your best to accurately present MacArthur's views. The Lordship proponents themselves have agreed with your definition of Lordship salvation.
JP
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI am sincerely sorry that I offended you in my comment above. I should have simply pointed your readers to the distinctions made in “The Gospel According to the Apostles” without raising the possibility that you misrepresented MacArthur intentionally. I will try to be more careful in the future.
Let me see if I can summarize the way I understand part of the disagreement here. In your original post, you took MacArthur to task for failing to reference Charles Ryrie’s book “So Great Salvation” in his own book, “The Gospel According to Jesus.” This sounds like a legitimate complaint to those who may not realize (as you and I do) that “So Great Salvation” (1989) was not written until after “The Gospel According to Jesus” (1988).
So once Ryrie has written his book “So Great Salvation,” I suppose MacArthur now has three options: (1) he can ignore Ryrie’s book altogether; (2) he can rewrite “The Gospel According to Jesus” in such a way that he interacts with Ryrie’s book; or (3) he can write a follow-up book in which he interacts with Ryrie’s book. MacArthur obviously chose the third option in writing “The Gospel According to the Apostles” (1993), and you obviously wish he had chosen the second option. Furthermore, not only do you wish he had chosen the second option, but you also believe it was his only real option lest he be deemed guilty (by you) of the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma.
Does anyone else see the irony here? (Hint: false dilemma)
Lou, I don’t think I will be able to continue this dialogue (sorry Jonathan), but I’m sure you will set the record straight if I have misrepresented the disagreement in any way, and I’m sure your readers will be able to decide for themselves whether your accusations against MacArthur are sound.
Blessings.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the acknowledgement and apology. I may have a few comments later.
Lou
P.S. Lou, I know I said wouldn’t be back, but I found the following invitation downright irresistible. In a comment above, you wrote: “IMO, JM and LS advocates want no part of ‘So Great Salvation’ [by Charles Ryrie] and Bing’s ‘Evaluation & Response.’ These volumes do NOT present the easy targets to shoot down that Hodges does. Furthermore, these volumes devastate LS in ways that MacArthur cannot fend off or easily dismiss, which IMO is why he will not discuss them openly. If any such treatment(s) of these volumes exist by MacArthur I invite Matthew and any LS advocate, to direct my attention to them.”
ReplyDeleteYou claim that MacArthur will not openly discuss Charles Ryrie’s “So Great Salvation” because of how devastating this book is to the position of “lordship salvation.” It may interest you to know that in his 1993 book “Faith Works” (later retitled “The Gospel According to the Apostles”), MacArthur references Ryrie’s book “So Great Salvation” a total of 48 times in the first 100 pages alone (according to my rough count).
Lou, I know you said you read “Faith Works” two years ago, but you may want to consider reading it again. I really do think it will help you do a better job of representing John MacArthur more accurately in the future.
Shalom.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression this was settled, but it seems you want to re-hash and raise a question about my integrity and/or motives again. I can live with everything you wrote right up to that final sentence. I may have to put up with that at other blogs, but I don’t have to tolerate it at my blog.
I was quite unhappy and was going to delete your comment, but I’ll leave it be. You may want to rephrase that final sentence, delete the exiting comment and repost.
From all that I produced in the article in review of MacArthur’s latest edition of TGATJ I find it telling that you choose to zero in on an issue that does not address the crux of the doctrinal controversy.
Maybe you would like offer an opinion on whether or not I have accurately portrayed MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel. There are ample links to various articles I have at this blog that thoroughly document his views, in his own words, which I cite from his various books on LS.
In any event, you will have that opportunity once again next week. I will be posting an article on the single page from all three editions of TGATJ that irrefutably demonstrates the works based message of Lordship Salvation.
LM
Hello Again Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that John MacArthur does not address the Biblical argument against the premise of his "flagship" Lordship Salvation apologetic work, in ANY of the revisions of that work is the issue. I do believe that most of reading Christendom would agree that TGATJ is his "flagship" work. The character of John MacArthur, nor that of Lou is the issue.
This is the ducking and weaving that both the reductionists and the additionists do when it comes to discussing the Gospel.
It seems to be a "character trait" of those who attack the Gospel. They claim their credibity by their status, and dispute arguments against their theological positions by character attacks (justifiable or not).
Wouldn't it be interesting if the debate where about what the Bible says?
This will be my big "low blow" - if anyone who seeks to damage the Gospel of Christ were to debate based on what the Bible says they would fail. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get those who do such to talk about what the Bible says about the Gospel. Just a thought.
And just for the record, you manipulated Lou's words to force a "false dilemma" into them. How ironic is that?
Kev
Each of my posts should include the disclaimer - English is my second language, after gibberish which I am clearly much more fluent in. :)
ReplyDeleteKev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your statement: "if anyone who seeks to damage the Gospel of Christ were to debate based on what the Bible says they would fail." There is solid exegesis behind the Gospel. This is the anvil of God's Word that for ages skeptics blows have beat against. But although the hammer's gone, the anvil still remains.
JP
Lou,
ReplyDeleteSome questions:
Question #1- Did Mark 8:34-38 happen in an evangelistic setting or no?
#2 - On a timeline stretching from the Reformation; where on that timeline did your views originate?
#3 - Could a holder of Covenant Theology or New Covenant Theology, using their hermeneutic, arrive at your conclussions, conclussions wherein MacArthur's TGATJ is a works salvation, or "front-loaded" as you say?
Mark Pierson
BTW, you and me, we got some unfinished business at my bluecollar blog.
ReplyDeleteMark D. Pierson
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMatthew:
ReplyDeleteEarlier I gave you benefit of the doubt. Now it is obvious you did not appreciate or respect that.
Therefore I deleted your new attempt to stir controversy that was IMO settled.
It is quite apparent that your chief desire is to distract attention away from the egregious errors of the works based Lordship Salvation.
LM
Mark:
ReplyDeleteYou can make any demand you want at your blog, but strong arm tactics and demands for my time do not impress or motivate me to action.
I will address your questions when I am not at work, not involved with the final days of planning (and paying for) my daughter’s wedding and not engaged in other writing projects.
Did I say I will not answer your questions?
If you have no patience or respect for what I consider higher priorities at this time, then I can’t help that.
LM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMatthew:
ReplyDeleteYour posts become increasingly disingenuous. There is no theological view of John MacArthur (JM) that I have misrepresented, and you know it. I take pains to quote JM liberally so that he speaks for himself. His own words verify and confirm the works based message that he has adopted.
You take a thread comment where I asked whether MacArthur EVER addressed Ryrie’s SGS, which I had forgotten and was mistaken on, and try to make the field upon which you will die.
That issue is the sum total of your support for and/or defense of MacArthur’s latest LS apologetic, which I have briefly reviewed in this article.
This demonstrates to me that you surrendered the doctrinal high ground, which Lordship Salvation never commanded in the first place.
LM
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteRedirect and evasion tactics are typical of LS advocates. They do all they can to evade and distract attention away from the egregious errors and polarizing statements of John MacArthur in the TGATJ.
Matthew has chosen to ride a hobby-horse that has nothing to do with the theology of Lordship Salvation. I had to delete another (2nd) comment in which he tried again to fan flames that I trust in my previous comment have been doused.
Because of my time constraints I can’t keep checking back to see if Matthew is going to continue his mantra. I have, therefore, enabled Comment Moderation.
In the newest article I posted this afternoon, Matthew has another opportunity to address the teaching of LS by John MacArthur.
If Matthew’s participation in this thread is any indication of future behavior I highly doubt he will defend the position articulated by MacArthur from his book Romans.
LM
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteI have posted the following at Mark's two pro-LS blogs. This copy is for your consideration.
Charlie Bing’s dissertation, which MacArthur is familiar with, thoroughly refutes Lordship Salvation at every level.
Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response contains a discussion of Mark 8, which you questioned. The section on Mark 8 and its parallels in Matt. 16 and Luke 9 is on pp. 131-140.
Here are a few thoughts on Bing’s discussion of Mark 8 (provided by a close associate of Dr. Bing) for your consideration.
1) The cross that is mentioned in the passage is clearly not Christ’s cross, but our own. So what they’re really saying is that the work done by Christ on His cross PLUS our cross = salvation. That screams WORKS!
2) The parallel in Matt. 16:27 makes it very clear that the issue in the saving of one’s life is receiving a “reward” based on one’s “works.”
3) Thus in this context, the saving of the “life” is referring to one’s post-regeneration life not being wasted but having eternal significance in terms of eschatological reward and position of service for Christ in eternity.
4) One point that is often missed with this passage is that, not only in Mark 8, but also in Matt. 16 and Luke 9, the Lord’s instruction on carrying our cross is and not denying Him is immediately preceded in context by Peter’s confession of faith and subsequent denial that Jesus should go to Jerusalem and die, followed by Christ’s famous “Get thee behind Me Satan” statement. This means that the Lord was looking prospectively to the disciples’ future denial of Him when the Shepherd was struck and the 11 were scattered at Calvary. In other words, they DID deny Him and were ashamed of Him . . . for a while. It is possible for genuine believers to deny Him and not take up their crosses.
5) Luke 9:23 adds in some texts the word “daily” to the admonition to carry our cross. Does this mean that in order to get to heaven we must do something every day? Even many perseverance advocates wouldn’t go that far.
6) The Luke 14 parallel talks about “counting the cost” --the exact opposite of “free” salvation (Rom. 3:24; Rev. 22:17).
7) In Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23, Christ prefaces His comments by saying “if anyone desires to come AFTER (opiso) Me. . .”
Eternal life, justification, forgiveness, salvation, etc. is never predicated in any other passage of Scripture in “coming after” Christ but in “coming to” Christ, ie, by faith (Matt. 11:28; John 6:35, 37). In Luke 14:26, there are two conditions/descriptions stated, “coming to” Christ (all who are born again) and following “after” Christ (for obedient discipleship).
8) Mark 8 and the other parallel passages all talk about the possibility of being ashamed before Christ at His coming. This is a distinct possibility for genuine but carnal and sleeping believers! (1 John 2:28; 1 Thess. 5:4-10; Rom 13:11-14).
I told Mark that if he has any reaction- to focus on the theological views of Lordship Salvation advocates such as John MacArthur that are under scrutiny.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteEarlier in the thread I asked Matthew three unambiguous questions, all of which he ignored. The questions were:
*Why is it, in three editions of the mainstay of his LS apologetics, does MacArthur never find the opportunity to acknowledge this important distinction in the FG camp?
**How does Ryrie’s So Great Salvation a major work, by one of the most recognizable theologians in evangelical circles, who rejects LS fail to appear in the bibliography in either of the revised and expanded editions of TGATJ?
***Would you agree that in the article I “have (NOT) failed to acknowledge” MacArthur has to some degree drawn a distinction?
Like so many LS men Matthew will not even acknowledge, let alone address, a question that he either has no answer for or will not answer because it betrays his (their) disingenuous interaction such as we saw in this thread.
This is the pattern, as Kevin noted, of men who add to (LS) or take away (Crossless) from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you are new to these kinds of debate/discussion tactics that Matthew and Mark demonstrated, get used to it, for you will see more their evasiveness and redirects as we continue to expose, then biblically refute and correct the doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation.
LM
From the RYRIE STUDY BIBLE, page 1499, notes on Mark 8:35 -
ReplyDeleteThe verse means this: Whoever would save his life (by renouncing the gospel and thus avoiding the risk of martyrdom) will lose it (eternally, because he has not believed the gospel);but whoever is willing to lose his life (as a martyr for Christ) will save it (i.e., will prove that he is a follower of Christ and an heir ofm eternal life).
There, now let us compare Bing and Ryrie. Which is more in keeping with the historic interpretaion of these verses?
"1) The cross that is mentioned in the passage is clearly not Christ’s cross, but our own. So what they’re really saying is that the work done by Christ on His cross PLUS our cross = salvation. That screams WORKS!"
ReplyDeletePlease let us go on to remember the fact that MacArthur is examining what is authentic faith in TGATJ. What does authentic faith look like? If I am working out in the yard, and become hungry, and I hear my wife call out that dinner is on the table, how will the fact that I believe her statement manifest itself - here knowing that what she has prepared will fill my hungary stomach? It will manifest itself in my running to get to the table. So it is when a person believes Christ to be his only hope of salvation. That faith will manifest itself in becoming a follower. Christ is calling for THAT kind of faith in Him.
Mark:
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing the “Gospel.” MacArthur is writing LS books on what he believes is the saving message of the Gospel. There certainly should be genuine results of genuine, authentic saving faith in Jesus Christ, but what is the faith that saves?
If MacArthur were ONLY teaching what should be the results of salvation, what should look like the new life in Christ following a genuine conversion, he would be much closer to a balanced biblical position.
What we must remember, however, and that which is obvious to any objective reader, is that MacArthur, especially in all three editions of TGATJ, is teaching that the lost must make an upfront commitment of submission to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a genuinely born again Christian. That does indeed scream, “WORKS!”
This is what must be remembered, because LS is a non-saving message, being portrayed as though a lost man’s commitment to future performance is the way to receive the gift of eternal life.
To all readers: Most LS advocates prefer to talk about post-salvation issues in the LS debate. I am reminding you and them that the crux of the doctrinal controversy is MacArthur’s position on what he insists are the requirements for salvation. The debate is and must be primarily focused on the requirements for, NOT the results of salvation.
LM
Please read John MacArthur’s Performance Guidelines for “Lordship” Salvation
Clearly Bing has the right interpretation here.
ReplyDeleteLuke 9:23 states we are to take up our cross(everyones will be differant) daily...daily. Clearly discipleship is defined seperate from the one and only cross that Christ took up for us that none of us could ever bear. That was once and for all. Ours is a daily one since being delivered from the wrath of God. We can do this with hope in our hearts and not with a confused misconception of daily struggling to deliver ourselves from our sins. Its black and white here. Salvation and then sanctification, but do we all respond daily?
We should but I am afraid we dont. Thank God he does not demand that we try to get saved daily but has finished this for us once and for all and we can take heart when we face whatever cross we have to take up daily because of the love freely given to us.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
Lou:
ReplyDeleteIn Scripture, the "wish[ing] to come after" Christ in discipleship (Mk. 8:34) is distinct from "come[ing] to" Christ for eternal "life" (Jn. 5:40, 6:37, 6:44, 7:37). The difference between the cost of discipleship and the free gift of eternal life is one of the most basic distinctions in Scripture, and it is unfortunate that MacArthur nullifies not only this Biblical distinction but also stumbles over the "free gift of God...eternal life" (Rom. 6:23b).
As Liam pointed out in a previous comment, there is a sore lack of exegesis in MacArthur's book because the Bible simply does not support Lordship salvation.
JP