October 19, 2010

Let Your “Yes” be “Kinda, Sorta?”

A short while ago Lou Martuneac reposted an email from a pastor Norm Aabye, who told of a time when Phil Johnson was required by Moody Press to rewrite some cover copy for a book of John MacArthur's because it had “erroneous implications.”1 The implication, according to Pastor Aabye, was that one’s eternal destiny seemed to depend on how one worshiped. This brought to mind an incident with the original version of MacArthur’s book Hard To Believe, where it was brought to Phil Johnson’s attention that a certain paragraph had erroneous implications on how one gains eternal life:

Salvation isn’t the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it’s the fruit of actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile...The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destiny.”2
Both Tim Challies and Gary Gilley had inquired about this paragraph.3 Challies did not receive a reply, but Gilley did. Gilley shared that reply with a reader who had asked a question about it. Challies posts Gilley’s reply to his readers:
The questions that you bring concerning Lordship salvation, especially as found in MacArthur’s latest book, Hard to Believe, are important ones. I challenged the same statements as you in my review of this book…I also contacted “Grace To You” editors concerning these statements, then recently had lunch with Phil Johnson who is in charge of editing MacArthur’s books. Phil went back and examined these statements and was astounded. Upon further research he says that these comments do not reflect MacArthur’s teaching and that they are nothing less than works-righteousness. It appears that there were some changes made in the text by the editors of the publishing house that were not sent to MacArthur for affirmation. Therefore the books went to press with statements that are quite disturbing. They plan to make changes if there is a second printing of the book.4
According to Johnson, the wording is not MacArthur’s, but an editor’s at the publishing house. There is no reason to doubt this is the case. The revision (2003) is an improvement, but it still has problems:
Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile...The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.”5
A major improvement is that one is no longer told outright that one must live a certain way in order to gain salvation. For this we are grateful. Yet the back cover copy of this revised edition calls eternal life not a gift, but a reward that only comes from faithfully following Jesus:
The hard truth about Christianity is that the cost is high, but the rewards are priceless: abundant and eternal life that comes only from faithfully following Christ.”6 (Bold mine.)
It is troubling that the back cover copy of the revised version seems to support the teaching in the original version. (It would have been good if the back cover copy had been revised as well.) Furthermore, upon closer examination, the revised paragraph does not seem to be all that essentially different from the original. Here is the revised paragraph in its entirety:
Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a Book of Words or a Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.”7
Notice that the Book of Life is compared to an imaginary “Book of Words” or “Book of Intellectual Musings.” Then the comparison is made between the life we live and the words we speak. This comparison seems to imply that the Book of Life is really a Book of How You Lived Your Life. Now, what happens if we put that with the third sentence in the paragraph, “Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words.”? How is it then gained? In the original we were told that salvation “comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ...” and that “it’s the fruit of actions...”-much like we are still told on the back cover of the revised edition where eternal life is a priceless reward that only comes from faithfully following Jesus. But in the revised version at this same point in the paragraph we are no longer told what salvation comes from, but rather what saving faith looks like.

Should we be satisfied with this revision? Not necessarily.
While we may appreciate that Phil Johnson has stated that this is an editorial error in the original and not the wording of Dr. MacArthur, it would be helpful if MacArthur would disavow the original wording personally.
We are not aware that he has done so. It would be a great relief if a further revision of this work returned to the original purpose of the paragraph- how one does in fact become a Christian- clearly and incontrovertibly stating that salvation is through faith in Christ’s blood. We should appreciate Dr. MacArthur’s concern for fruit in the life of the believer. Given his conviction concerning the importance of fruit we should not expect him to go without mentioning it. But it would be greatly comforting to see a clear delineation between the faith that saves and the fruit of that faith, and what it is that actually saves a person. It seems if this had been done in the first place there would have been no such editorial error as had taken place in the original as his words could not have been misunderstood to teach works righteousness.

Where could such a misunderstanding come from? In another place Dr. MacArthur has said this:
“We cannot be saved by works, but we have been saved to do good works. Therefore when God judges, He will look at a man’s works to determine if salvation has indeed taken place. An unbeliever’s works will reveal his unbelief. They will reveal the absence of God in his life because all his works will be unrighteous. Even when he tries to be righteous his works will turn out to be filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). The believer, however, by faith has been given the power of God to produce righteous works. His salvation will be clearly indicated by them. God looks at a person’s works. If He sees manifestations of righteousness, He knows that the person is regenerated. If He sees no such manifestation of righteousness, He knows that the person is unregenerate. Therefore God’s final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works.”8 (Bold mine.)
Though he insists that works cannot save us, Dr. MacArthur makes works the determining factor in God’s final judgment of a person. Dr. MacArthur sees no conflict in saying that we are not saved by works and saying that these works are the determining factor on which God will base his judgment but many others do. Yet it is not at all unreasonable to understand that salvation is based on works if God’s final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works, in spite of Dr. MacArthur’s insistence otherwise. It would certainly explain how such a grievous editorial error could be made.

There are three other ways this statement is problematic. First, and perhaps most peculiar, is that this statement is at odds with Dr. MacArthur’s position that God regenerates a person before said person has even believed, let alone borne fruit. But now, apparently God is... unaware of whom He has regenerated until He sees the fruit of regeneration? He needs to look at a man’s works to determine if salvation has taken place? The One who does the regenerating surely does not need proof of His work before He can be sure it has been done.

Second, the statement is at odds with the doctrine of God’s omniscience. MacArthur’s statement seems to imply (no doubt inadvertently) that the One who formed our inward parts in our mothers’ wombs; who saw our substance when we were yet unformed; whose book contains the days fashioned for us when there were yet none of them; who knows our thoughts from afar; and who beholds our words before they arrive on our tongue needs to see a manifestation of righteousness before He can know that we have been regenerated. A very peculiar teaching indeed for a man who affirms the omniscience of God. It appears MacArthur’s words have made him a victim of the law of unintended consequences.

Third, when he says that God will look at a man’s works to determine if salvation has indeed taken place, MacArthur forgets the account of the Passover. When God sent the judgment of the death of the first born, the angel was to look for the homes where the blood was applied to the door posts, not the place where good works were in evidence. The only “work” he was to look for was the application of the blood to the door of the home. He was to look not for works but for blood. That was the singular criteria for whether the first born would live or die. Today the only “work” God looks for to determine our eternal salvation is that we believe in Him whom He sent, personally appropriating His death on our behalf (John 6:29, 53-57; 1 Cor 5:7) If He sees the blood of His Son on the “door” of our hearts, He again passes over judging us.

The omniscient God who regenerates the believer by His own hand upon a sinner’s faith in the blood of Christ does not need to look on a man’s works to see if regeneration is present. WE need to look on such outward things because we cannot see inside a person, but the Lord looks on the heart. Surely the Lord, who formed us in the secret place, who knitted us together in our mothers’ wombs, who knows the measure of our days before a single one has come to pass, and who knows it altogether before a word is on our tongue, does not need to wait for the outward evidence of fruit/works to determine whether we have been regenerated. Salvation cannot be DETERMINED on both the appropriation of Christ’s finished cross work and whether or not there is any fruit in our lives. It must be one or the other (Romans 11:6). It is DETERMINED on the personal appropriation of the blood of Christ. It is PROVED by the outward fruit. God does not look to our works to determine if salvation has taken place. Faith in the blood of His Son is the determining factor, for it is through faith in His blood that we are justified (Rom 3:25, KJV.)

MacArthur confuses the establishment of salvation with the validation of it. He causes that which serves only as a validation to become the very basis on which judgment is rendered. MacArthur rightly says that we are not saved by works, but unto them. But then he puts works to a purpose to which God has not assigned them-the DETERMINATION of our eternal destiny.

Because of this confusing teaching on the place of works it is not hard to see how the original wording in Hard to Believe came to be, whether or not Dr. MacArthur wrote it. He may not have written those words exactly as they came out in print, but they are not a gross misrepresentation of his view when seen in this light, either. Consequently it is not hard to believe (no pun intended) that an editorial error of the sort we saw in the original could come to pass.

There is an important lesson here for Dr. MacArthur. It is the editor’s job to take unclear portions of text and reword them for clarity. It would seem that whatever Dr. MacArthur’s original work said, the editor felt it was not clear and adjusted it for clarity. The offensive sentences in the original were the outcome. Thus we see the teaching of Dr. MacArthur distilled and clarified through an editor’s eyes. In other words, the offensive text is what the editors understood Dr. MacArthur to be teaching. This is not the first time this has happened, as Phil Johnson was rebuked for the same error in his wording a number of years prior. Dr. MacArthur (and Phil Johnson) should take notice. This is how his teaching has appeared on more than one occasion to more than one audience of publishers. If he does not want to be (mis)taken as a preacher of works righteousness then he would do well to clarify and consistently present his position accordingly, lest someone else clarify it for him again in a way he does not like.


JanH

1. Aabye, Norm: Personal email to Lou Martuneac; Ominous Signs of Lordship’s Coming Storm

2. Zeller, George: John MacArthur's Position on Lordship Salvation; Does MacArthur Believe that Sinners are Saved by Grace Alone?

3. Challies, Tim: John MacArthur’s Hard to Believe and Lordship Salvation

4. ibid.

5. MacArthur, John: Hard to Believe (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003) p. 93.

6. MacArthur: Hard to Believe (2003); Back Cover.

7. MacArthur: Hard to Believe (2003); p. 93.

8. MacArthur, John: Without Excuse: Principles of God's Judgment, part 3; IV Deeds

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Jan noted, “Though he insists that works cannot save us, Dr. MacArthur makes works the determining factor in God’s final judgment of a person.” This theme has been repeated by other LS advocates, for example.
There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160).

Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” (R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)
For additional study see:
Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?

“Final Salvation” is Dependent on Christ’s Life

What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?

27 comments:

  1. Slam dunk Jan! I was reading the article and thinking thr same thing about omniscience. Good observation on his view of regeneration before faith. I hadn't caught that myself but, yeah, why would God need to see evidence of something He supposedly already did? Not that I agree with their view in the first place but you aptly demonstrated how JMac and those like him can't even be consistent with their own views. The whole need for pre-faith regeneration thing, as I first saw exposed by George Zeller, was one of the first things to cause me to start questioning the biblical accuracy of the "calvinism"/"doctrines of grace" which I had previously held so confidently.

    Bottom line: LS proponents indeed cannot let their yes be yes. That's telling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And, not to beat a dead horse here, but it's funny that JMac would phrase it that way, about God needing to see our works to know if were (successfully??) regenerated. That's a truly baffling statement from him given that LS guys are so big on how us being able to actually choose would fly in the face of God's sovereignty... because we might say "no"!! Yet, here we have BigMac reducing God to not even being assured of his own work... unless it bears fruit. So much for LS's "high regard" for God's omni's... ridiculous. :-)

    This article and having recently read IDOTG prompted me to blog again, starting with a series on my de-Calvinisation which you can read here.

    Why I'm no longer a Calvinist #1 - Pre-faith regeneration

    I hope to have further installments every few days to hit on the main things about Calvinism which I found biblically inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stephen:

    Thanks for the commentary above on Jan's excellent article here.

    I also appreciate your providing a link to your new series. IMO, this will be a rare and compelling read. It is rare to read of one coming out of Calvinism and giving sound biblical reasons for the departure.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  4. In classic "Jan" fashion, with simple but straight-forward talk, she reveals one of LS and Calvinism's most glaring errors -- that they can't speak plainly and yet be consistent with even themselves. Calvinists can't speak plainly of "choice" in regard to saving faith until they redefine it. Similarly, Lordship can't speak plainly of "regeneration", "faith", or even "repentance" until they redefine those terms.

    As with most error, their need to redefine terms to try and make them fit is telling. GES', Mormon's, Jehovah's witness, Lordship, and strict Calvinism all have this in common -- they can't really speak plainly. As soon as you can't "speak plainly" red flags oughta start flying up.

    Letting your "yes be yes" is a simple guideline that will keep you away from a lot of error.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jan,

    I know I tend to gush over your ability to make complex doctrines clear.... so I'll try to avoid repeating such a spectacle. Just let it be known that I wish I could boil so much down into a single paragraph as you have here.

    This is truly brilliant.

    Third, when he says that God will look at a man’s works to determine if salvation has indeed taken place, MacArthur forgets the account of the Passover. When God sent the judgment of the death of the first born, the angel was to look for the homes where the blood was applied to the door posts, not the place where good works were in evidence. The only “work” he was to look for was the application of the blood to the door of the home. He was to look not for works but for blood. That was the singular criteria for whether the first born would live or die. Today the only “work” God looks for to determine our eternal salvation is that we believe in Him whom He sent, personally appropriating His death on our behalf (John 6:29, 53-57; 1 Cor 5:7) If He sees the blood of His Son on the “door” of our hearts, He again passes over judging us.

    There is SO MUCH here.

    Frankly, this is as strong a rebutal of the LS faith = willingness to work argument as I have read. Brilliant. OK I'm gushing again.. sorry.

    When the people put the blood on the doorway they were not signing up to be disciples of God, slaves of God, servants of God... or anything except for accepting the protection of God.

    Wonderfully clear!

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, gentlemen!

    Stephen-

    I don't think I knew you used to be a Calvinist. I remember something about you being sort of LS, but I don't remember you being a TULIP guy. I am thrilled that you are going to start blogging again! That is awesome! It will be good to read about a former Calvinist's "de-Calvinisation." :) I am going to go right to your article as soon as I finish here. Will Rachel be joining you in your blogging endeavor? Because that would just be too cool for words!

    Kev-

    Just yesterday I was reading at your site on the word "obey" from John 3:36 in your bad kool-aid series. When you said this (here) it reminded me of the disparity between the views on what the word "obey/believe" means:

    When the people put the blood on the doorway they were not signing up to be disciples of God, slaves of God, servants of God... or anything except for accepting the protection of God.

    The Hebrews did obey God in the way He wanted them to at that time when they put the blood on the door post. There were other things He wanted them to do afterward (which they mostly didn't do) but none of that was given at the time of the passover and so was not a condition for deliverance.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Jan,

    You made the same connection I did (after I posted that bit).

    Their putting the blood on the door was the equivilant of "obeying the Gospel."

    They were given the good news that they could be free of God's sure judgment if they came under the blood. They heard this message and "obeyed it" in that they trusted the application of the blood to save them.

    Just like the Christian today hides behind the blood of Christ in obedience of the Gospel.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, I was most definitely Calvinist when I first stumbled upon Lou's blog while researching Bob Wilkin's error. I wouldn't say I was "LS" at the time but I was "LS sympathetic" and I can tell ya I was startin' to head that way. Started blogging with Lou against GES' error and was incidentally exposed to a lot of challenges to Calvinism through contacts like Lou, Zeller, Kevin, and Rose and JoW. The influences caught me at the right time because I was at the crossroads of making some core decisions. Though I was critical of Wilkin I was also quite willing to be critical of my own core beliefs. I found that my Calvinist beliefs couldn't survive honest comparison to scripture so it was time to change. It was a process over time, and it was even a little scary because I had become so accustomed to viewing scripture through the eyes of a Calvinist that I wasn't sure what else it meant I'd have to change my mind about. In that regard, Adam Clarke's commentary on Romans 9 was a huge help to me too and once I could see Romans 9 as a non-Calvinist, especially in light Jeremiah 18, that was pretty much when the avalanche started and I was no longer scared. I saw that a non-Calvinist (and non-Arminian) perspective dealt with scripture more completely and honestly than did Calvinism and that was freedom. The pieces of non-Calvinism I had gathered over about two years finally started to clicked-together and I was no longer afraid, I was excited.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And, oh, as to Rachel blogging... I have no idea. We've been away from it for awhile because we've just had other demands on our time -- mostly Simon and Sam and their activities. After getting them to bed at night we found we were a lot more worn out than we used to be. :-) Also, I've been losing weight, exercising, and trying to be healthier and that means both spending less time on the couch and also going to bed way earlier than I used to. So, you know, there're only so many minutes in a day and something had to give -- in our case blogging had mostly run it's course and was a natural cut at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stephen,

    I was also quite willing to be critical of my own core beliefs.

    Amen and Amen! We should all be vigorously testing what we believe, and eager to dispose of anything that isn't absolutely true.

    Your testimony will be a powerful one!!!!

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great insights on the passover. Yes, that does show that accepting God "as savior" is different than necessarily "as Lord". I admire the LS camp for taking discipleship seriously, but they go too far when they change the terms of salvation... no amount of good intention can justify that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stephen-

    Good for you for being willing to challenge your existing beliefs like that. I think a lot of Calvinists get trapped in the artificial sequence Non-Calvinist= Arminian= Semi-pelagian= God-is-not-sovereign.... And once they buy into that, well, that's just it. That's all there is. Thankfully, you were not caught in that trap.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Jan,

    The new Calvinism is diabolical in how it traps people, it is very effective at discouraging challenge from within. First if you challenge Calvinism you're challenging the sovereignty of God, and second you may actually never have been saved!! Not exactly good things to be risking... especially if you've never been sure of your Salvation in the first place.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stephen:

    You wrote, “I admire the LS camp for taking discipleship seriously, but they go too far when they change the terms of salvation... no amount of good intention can justify that.”

    You’ve touched on one of the most serious missteps of the LS advocates. Blending salvation and discipleship as though they are one and the same. The late Dr. Ernest Pickering, a Calvinist, rejected Lordship Salvation. Your comment reminded me of an excerpt from his review of MacArthur’s TGATJ. Pickering wrote,

    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.”


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stephen:

    Earlier you mentioned the redefining of the terms. This is epidemic in the Calvinism, Lordship Salvation and the GES/Crossless gospel camps.

    One of the more notorious examples of Calvinism redefining the terms and/or creating new theologies is- Total Depravity (Jer. 17:9; Romans 3) for the Calvinist becomes Total Inability.

    For the Calvinist this means the convincing and convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11) is not enough to bring the lost to Christ. The lost man cannot hear or respond to the ministry of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. His ministry to the lost is insufficient. Therefore, the Calvinist must create extra-biblical means to aid the lost man and the Spirit of God to bring about salvation. Therefore, Calvinists invented regeneration before faith. That is a lost man is regenerated, born again, prior to and apart from faith in Christ. You will never find that taught in the Bible, it is forced into or extracted from passages that never teach that at all. Why: to bolster and legitimize Calvinism’s Total Inability.

    Then, of course, faith must be given to the sinner, because he (according to Calvinism) cannot call on God in faith until he is regenerated.

    BTW, without regeneration before faith the entire LS house of cards tumbles. It is how they disconnect works from their message that calls on the lost man for a commitment to the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ to become a born again disciple of Christ. They believe that commitment is coming from a man who has been regenerated, born again already. Confusing? Yes! False doctrine brings with it confusion.


    Lou

    PS: I encourage all persons who are uncertain about Calvinism to read George Zeller’s The Dangers of Reformed Theology, especially The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith and The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lou, Jan and others.

    What a great article. FWIW, I believe that Calvinism falls under the indictment of Peter: a "damnable heresy." Living in what is known as "the Little Grand Rapids of the West," I see Calvinism's fruit all the time. Churches full of people who think they are saved because they are in "the Covenant," and are elect, but who can't point to a born-again "experience." There is virtually no evidence of salvation in their lives, but if someone questions their Calvinistic theology, they become very defensive.

    Danny Sweatt, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in the Atlanta area preached a 4-message series on the TULIP this past July. It is hard-hitting and right on, IMHO. Here are the links, in the order they were preached, for those interested:

    http://www.berean-baptist.org/assets/mp3/20100620pm.mp3

    http://www.berean-baptist.org/assets/mp3/20100711pm.mp3

    http://www.berean-baptist.org/assets/mp3/20100718pm.mp3

    http://www.berean-baptist.org/assets/mp3/20100725pm.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  17. Appreciate the postings as I have read them but this last one, OH NO!! If a certain president of a certain seminary in the upper mid-west gets wind of Pastor's Sweatt's messages against Calvinism, there probably won't be enough bandwidth on the internet for his 'Nuff said series attacking Pastor Sweatt and his position. For those who don't know me I am being a bit facetious and sarcastic, okay, a little humor here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Gary, I'm going to listen to these. I've started the first one and the preacher makes some very clear rebukes of Calvinism.

    Lou, this thread is probably not the best spot for discussion of these sermons, though from the first 15 mins of the first one.. I suspect they will be worthy of discussion.

    I've never thought about how Spurgeon didn't really produce a great leader to follow in his footsteps. The preacher's rebuke of the "scorched earth" result of Calvinism is entirely knew to me. Shocking even! This is a much harsher rebuke than I have ever heard leveled against the system. I don't know if he's really going to be able to back it up, but he's got my attention.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian/Kev:

    Knowing the history I was hesitant to allow the comment with the sermon links, but let them pass. Let's not get distracted from the core of Jan's article.

    Brian you wrote, "If a certain president of a certain seminary in the upper mid-west gets wind of Pastor's Sweatt's messages against Calvinism, there probably won't be enough bandwidth on the internet for his 'Nuff said series attacking Pastor Sweatt and his position."

    If you recall last year's dust up the seminary president you refer to, Kevin Bauder, did not really attack Ps. Sweatt. Instead Bauder put his cross hairs on the legacy of John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr.

    Here is a sample of how I addressed that issue in 2009.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  20. I plan to listen to those sermons from Pastor Sweatt as soon as I have opportunity. They sound interesting!

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lou, thanks for Pickering's quote. I know I've heard that before and probably absorbed it subconsciously -- I certainly didn't mean to avoid giving the man credit. But, yeah, that statement totally nails it and is probably why it stuck with me. I have little doubt that many LS advocates are quite sincere, but sincerity is not license to change the terms. Redefining terms is, as noted, one of the (if not THE) key way in which Calvinism+Lordship can't "let their yes be yes".

    When they say "man has choice", they mean "kinda sorta... after regeneration".
    When they say "salvation is by faith alone", they mean "kinda sorta... so long as you include commitment to works as integral to that faith".

    ... and on and on the subtle (and some not-so-subtle) redefinitions go.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Looking over the article again, I note that BigMac erects both a strawman and a false dichotomy when he says "Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart,"

    The straw man is that, right, neither does FG believe one is saved by "reciting mere words". One is saved by believing the saving truth of those words, whether s/he "recites" them or not.

    His false dichotomy, in the same words, is to portray that "reciting mere words" and "faith transforms the heart" are the only two options. So, he burns a straw man and then conspicuously fails to even deal with the actual issue in dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Lou,

    I've made a post with links to the mp3s at my blog. Calvinism's Scorched Earth?

    I think that's a better spot for discussion about these. I've listened and found them to be very good, though I think there are a couple of minor weak spots.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kev:

    Thanks for the link and a place for discussion of those issues. I'll look in and listen at my earliest convenience.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  25. His false dichotomy, in the same words, is to portray that "reciting mere words" and "faith transforms the heart" are the only two options. So, he burns a straw man and then conspicuously fails to even deal with the actual issue in dispute.

    Stephen-

    This is the thing that drives me bananas. Other variations of it are that one is not saved by reciting a prayer, or raising a hand, or walking an aisle. Same diff. But they studiously avoid the issue of TRUSTING the truth that has been presented that might be demonstrated by "reciting mere words", etc. It is calculated and deliberate and makes me want to bang my head against a wall in the vain hope that that will somehow end the psychic pain.

    It's like what happens when I'm in a situation where I am being forced to watch The View or Oprah.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  26. MacArthur wrote, “Therefore when God judges, He will look at a man’s works to determine if salvation has indeed taken place…. God looks at a person’s works. If He sees manifestations of righteousness, He knows that the person is regenerated. If He sees no such manifestation of righteousness, He knows that the person is unregenerate. Therefore God’s final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works.”

    Jan/Stephen/Kev/Gary:

    That quote from MacArthur cited by Jan nailed the lid shut on the debate over whether or not LS is a works based, man centered interpretation of the Gospel. MacArthur and all LS advocates make the promise and performance of works the necessary component for justification and glorification.

    That theme from MacArthur is also articulated by men like John Piper and R. C. Sproul who respectively wrote,

    There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160).

    Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” (R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)

    IMO, they have relegated faith and believing to obligatory mention status, have redefined those terms to force them into conformity with the works based message of Lordship Salvation.

    There are men who say LS and Roman Catholicism are essentially one and the same. Quotes like the one above from MacArthur gives great legitimacy to that claim.

    Bottom-line, MacArthur and any teacher of this form of LS is a teacher of false, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

    Lordship Salvation, as defined by John MacArthur, is a heretical message. LS is an open assault on the free gift of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

    I am praying that the unsuspecting will be kept from falling into the trap of this gross distortion of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the purveyors of this false gospel are one day recovered from and repent of this error.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  27. In another discussion with Jan, she noted that her link here to JMac's "God’s final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works." quote has moved and asked me to place an updated source since I had found it at GTY's own site. Here is the updated link which you can either leave here as a comment or perhaps just update he old link in her footnotes.

    http://www.gty.org/Resources/Print/Study%20Guide%20Chapter/45-19

    ReplyDelete