The Joseph Zichterman Issue

I trust many have heard the news about Dr. Joseph Zichterman, a well-known man from Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) circles. On May 7, 2007 it was suddenly announced Joe Zichterman was leaving the IFB movement and would transfer his church membership to the Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC). Joe’s announcement and departure has apparently caught even his closest friends completely by surprise. Joe’s shift was announced by him at a new web site he opened to break this news. The site, which is now offline, was called Life of Faith Ministry*.

News of Joe’s departure was broke at Sharper Iron (a pseudo- fundamentalist blog) under this title: Joe Zichterman Launches Website (JZLW)**. This article and the discussion thread was removed by then SI site publisher Jason Janz. In that deleted thread was a comment written by a student from Northland Baptist Bible College now known as Northland International University. I reference his notes below.

The JZLW article and thread which followed generated well over 25,000 hits in just four days. This is pretty much unprecedented for a single article in the Christian blogosphere. I posted several comments in the JZLW thread, which I have republished here:

I do not know Joe and I am not familiar with what I see now appears to be his former ministry in Fundamental circles. I can see many are saddened by this announcement. I sense the loss.

From what I have read in the first few pages of this thread it appears Joe was fairly high profile and quite influential with young people. Joe’s transition could very well become a catalyst or bridge for others to follow him over to the Willow Creek mentality/ministry.

For the sake of those who Joe had an influence with, and while keeping the spirit of Colossians 4:6 in mind, it needs to be made loud and clear that membership with the Willow Creek church is wrong and especially why it is wrong.

Another article with a thread discussion was opened as a follow-up to the JZLW article. Like the first, however, this was also deleted by SI site publisher Janz. It was titled, Crossing The Bridge!! There I contributed two posts, and these did generate a good reaction. Following are my two comments from Crossing the Bridge!!

Was it Known?
I am going to wonder out loud for a moment. Did some in positions of leadership over and/or in fellowship with Joe have some inkling, or even a strong sense that Joe's shift was possible, and may even be on the near horizon, while he continued, what we must conclude, was a facade ministry in IFB circles?

Showing Them The Way
Anyone can miss something boiling under the surface. In regard to Joe, however, it seems to me that he did not go to bed one Sunday night as a Fundamentalist and roll out of bed on Monday morning in the Willow Creek community. In cases like Joe’s there is usually a gradual slide from where he was (IFB) to where he just landed (WCCC).

Joe Zichterman was relatively high-profile, and well connected with many in leadership positions in IFB circles. Did this 180 shift take everyone by surprise?

How to respond: That appears to be ramping up in regard to how some might like to address Joe personally. If some men think they can in some way recover Joe I am all for it. My chief concern, however, is how we respond to Joe’s shift back here in our IFB circles. I think a type of Damage-Control is in order.

One need only read the post by Anthonydi (from NBBC) in the Joe Zichterman thread. He wrote, “I know that my opinion as a twenty year old matters little, but there are those students here that respect Dr. Z for what he is doing. Frankly this scares me.”

That post IMO was the most significant and prolific in the entire 20 page thread. That should scare and wake all of us up! Do IFB Bible college students respect Joe’s move to Willow Creek? I would hope the NBBC administration took note of that. We had all better take note of that. Anthony’s note sounds much to me like a cry for help.

Joe Z. did and is still having an impact on college students and his impact may linger and draw some of these young people to the WCC and Emerging Church Movement. I believe Joe has become another bridge that has the potential of showing IFB young people the way to the New Evangelical and Emergent Church movements.

Men, if we pass on addressing this close to home with our young people we are going to see a lot more of what we just saw with Joe Zichterman.

My chief is concern is how leadership in Fundamentalism responds in our own circles to what has transpired. I am praying for those in a position who can do so, to take this event with Joe Zichterman to heart and set out to lovingly, patiently, passionately help our young people understand what has happened.

These concerns I have expressed are NOT about saving a movement (Fundamentalism); it is about preserving a generation to come. A generation who will understand the necessity of being stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, (1 Cor. 15:58). That they will see fidelity to God, His Word and proclamation of the saving message of Jesus Christ, His Gospel, as a sacred duty.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16).

Vance Havner said, “God has always been in the remnant business.” God does not need an organization or big crowd to accomplish His plan. Just a “faithful few on fire” are enough. We have a task ahead of us. If we don’t pass on to the next generation who sit in the college classrooms:

A passion for God,
Unshakeable desire for fidelity to the Scriptures,
Dedication to personal holiness, and
Heart for the evangelization of the lost;

God will raise up another remnant for His name sake and glory.


LM

For Related Reading:
Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture

Your First Step Won’t Be Your Last: Avoiding the Path to Compromise

*The Life of Faith site Joe opened to coincide with his move to the WCCC was deleted presumably by Zichterman sometime in early 2008.
**Sharper Iron blog also deleted the article in regard to Zichterman’s move.

Rick Warren: Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This article on Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture and my article on (The Zichterman Issue) are examples of the very few times I break from the Lordship discussion to address another issue. Recent events that have involved a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianty have necessitated this break from the Lordship discussion.

Last week I concluded a debate/discussion at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron site on the Church Growth Movement- Rick Warren's Saddleback/Purpose Driven philosophy and methods.

Men who are sympathetic and supportive of Warren’s philosophy are interacting on line at various sites. SI was happy to host one of Warren's most vocal apologists, John Brown a former staff member of the Saddleback church. They will do what they can to influence others to consider Warren’s philosophy.

There were several men who joined me to expose and refute the extreme errors of Warren’s Purpose Driven philosophy. Following is a listing of eight major problems with Warren's methods. This list was first compiled by Dr. Mike Harding.

The roots of Saddleback sink deeply into the ministry philosophy of ultra liberal Robert Schuller:

"During his last year in seminary, he (Rick Warren) and Kay (his wife) drove west to visit Robert Schuller's Institute for Church Growth. 'We had a very stony ride out to the conference,' she says, because such nontraditional ministry scared her to death. Schuller, though, won them over. 'He (Schuller) had a profound influence on Rick,' Kay says. 'We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back.' " (Christianity Today, Nov 18, 2002).

Warren spoke for Schuller in subsequent conferences.

1. Warren embraces deliberate pragmatism of the worst kind. He believes that anyone one can be reached based on "finding the key to that person's heart." Therefore, the unbelieving community sets the agenda for his church: Warren says, "We let the unchurched needs determine our programs; the unchurched hang-ups determine our strategy; the unchurched culture determine our style; the unchurched population determine our goals." (PD website)

2. Warren routinely misuses Scripture. The Bible is a tool that Warren manipulates to cover his own ideas with a veneer of divine authority. For example, in the Purpose Driven Life he quotes from 15 Bible versions and paraphrases, picking and choosing the one that fits his pragmatic need. This process often wrenches texts out of context.

3. Warren is guilty of serious theological reductionism. He discounts the value of a well-rounded system of doctrine and even considers doctrine an obstacle to unity. On his Purpose Driven website he lists his doctrinal statement that any Bible college graduate would find completely inadequate:

His doctrine of theology proper is the following: "God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine". That's it for the doctrine of God. It is so insufficient one could say that it falls short of an adequate understanding of the Christian concept of God the Father.

4. Warren promotes extreme ecumenism. In April, 2005, the PD org. officially forged ties with the Roman Catholic Church by providing a training conference at Holy Family Catholic Church in Inverness, Illinois. "We are excited by this because we are seeing God unify his churches." (Pastor Brett Schrock, Purpose Driven's Director of Strategic Relationships.)

5. Warren justifies cultural capitulation by embracing anti-God cultural norms. A notable example of this occurred when Warren sang the Jimi Hendrix song, "Purple Haze," during the 25th anniversary celebration service of Saddleback Church.

6. Warren redefines ministry in terms of social activism. Alan Wolfe of the Wall Street Journal says, "Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns."

Warren's Global Peace Plan for "Purpose Driven Nations" includes involving himself with the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. in order to rid the world of "poverty, disease, and illiteracy" by forming entangling alliances between churches, secular businesses, and governments. This is an agenda completely foreign to the Great Commission and the NT church as laid out in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

7. Warren accepts easy-believism.

"Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: 'Jesus, I believe in you and receive you.' If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!" (PDL, p. 74).

8. Warren relies heavily on pop psychology. Popular themes in secular psychology appear regularly in Warren’s writings, shaping everything from outreach strategy to discipleship curricula.



LM

Recommendation by Dr. Lance Ketchum

To All:

I want to share with you what Dr. Lance Ketchum posted at Sharper Iron yesterday.

There is only one thing better than a book that states the obvious and that is a book that does so redundantly. Brother Martuneac’s book In Defense of the Gospel redundantly deals with the falsehood of Lordship Salvation. He confronts the issue at a level that can easily be understood by almost anyone. I recommend purchasing a copy.

I expressed my appreciation to Dr. Ketchum this way.

Dr. Ketchum:

Thanks for the kind remarks about my book In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Some may not appreciate redundancy, but I wanted to make sure that, over the course of the book, the doctrinal problems with Lordship Salvation (LS) would not be missed.

You also noted something that was my intent from the inception of the project: To write so that anyone could understand what I had to say.

Lordship Salvation is often introduced in such a way that the errors are difficult for some to detect. If all one knows is that Lordship Salvation is responding to the Easy-Believism and Mental Assent Only positions (which are equally wrong) they might accept (LS) without first investigating it thoroughly. My hope is that by reading In Defense of the Gospel folks will:

*More easily recognize LS when they encounter it
*Recognize what is wrong with LS and why it is wrong
*Ultimately be able to refute LS in their own circles

Years ago I heard Dr. J. Vernon McGee on his radio program say something that stuck with me. In your mind imagine his Texas drawl.

“Now the Lord said, ‘Feed My sheep.’ He did not say, ‘Feed my giraffes.’ So, I like to get the teaching down good and low where the sheep can get at it.”

May I say to you: I like that, I write like that.


LM

Defining the Debate with Dr. Mike Harding

Dear Guests:

Pastor Mike Harding was addressing another man in this thread at SharperIron (see p. 5). He made some helpful remarks that help in defining some of the major issues in the Lordship debate. I wanted to comment on a few of his remarks. Following is his post on p. 5 of the SI thread titled, John MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist.

The most pertinent question on Lordship is in regard to the nature of saving faith. Brother Martuneac and I were in general agreement about repentance. As Lou and I interacted on this issue, Lou affirmed the recognition of the object of faith being Christ as Lord and Savior. We disagreed over the idea that Christ had to be recognized by a sinner as “the Lord” as opposed to “my Lord.” However, I don't think Lou would object to the sinner calling on Christ as “my” Lord. It seems that the real disagreement between some good men on this issue (by good men I mean men of the caliber of Kevin Bauder) is whether submission is a part of faith at all, whether that submission is explicit or implicit in faith, and finally whether submission is in principle as opposed to complete, mature, and total. The position that I have defended is that submission is (1) implicit in faith, (2) that saving faith is submissive in principle, and (3) that this faith will grow and progressively mature. On the other hand, there are passages in the Gospels and the Epistles that exemplify faith in explicit terms of submission. As far as the so-called “hard sayings” of Christ that discuss aspects of commitment and discipleship in relationship to the Gospel of the Kingdom, these are the most difficult issues to resolve and I believe that these passages have become the battleground between the opposing positions.

Following is my reply to Pastor Harding at SharperIron. I had posted a few comments in the same thread just prior to this one.

Mike:

You are referring to “nature” or “content” of saving faith. I like to boil it down a little differently to clearly define the area of debate. I like to speak in terms of what are the requirements for and what are the results of saving faith. We all agree that genuine saving faith should result in genuine results. As you put it, “that this faith will grow and progressively mature.”

The question that fuels the debate is: What is required of a sinner that would constitute saving faith, i.e. the faith that results in his receiving the gift of eternal life? As we have discussed saving faith as defined by many LS men is front-loaded with demands for commitment to the results of salvation as if these commitments are required for salvation. Those statements are the crux of the debate and have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make those claims.

MH wrote,

“As Lou and I interacted on this issue, Lou affirmed the recognition of the object of faith being Christ as Lord and Savior. We disagreed over the idea that Christ had to be recognized by a sinner as "the Lord" as opposed to ‘my Lord’. However, I don't think Lou would object to the sinner calling on Christ as ‘my’ Lord.”

No problem with “my Lord,” and not necessarily a problem with “the Lord.” There is nothing inherently wrong with speaking (even in soul-winning) of “the Lord.” It comes down to what is being implied by the speaker when he calls upon a sinner to receive Jesus Christ as Lord. When I hear this, “You must receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior,” I do not necessarily cringe, but I am listening. I am listening for how the term/title “Lord” is defined as it relates to what a sinner is required to know or what decision he must make regarding Christ’s lordship for salvation. The reason I am listening is because the Lordship interpretation of the gospel (as defined by JM) has made deep inroads into fundamental Baptist circles.

Allow me an example. I heard this myself in a Sunday morning service. The speaker was preaching a gospel message directed only to the lost. There was no mention of sin, death or Hell. Repentance was briefly mentioned, but there was no mention of faith or believing. The lost were told that all he must do is, “open the door to his heart for the Lord to rule in His life” and he will be saved. This kind of “submission” to “the Lord” for salvation is an example of crossing the line.

MH wrote,

“…whether submission is a part of faith at all, whether that submission is explicit or implicit in faith, and finally whether submission is in principle as opposed to complete, mature, and total.”

I think many would agree there is an element of submission in principle as long as we are defining faith in terms of dependence, trust and believing. If someone were to define submission to the gospel message of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, as “submission in principle,” I have no problem with that. The problem is that many of the LS men go way beyond principle. They may, but I am not certain LS advocates teach a lost person must start out his relationship with Christ immediately following salvation in “complete, mature and total submission.” I’m sure we’d all like to begin our walk with God in “complete, mature and total submission.” We, however, know the realty of the inner warfare (Rom. 7) and the sin which doth so easily besets us (Heb. 12:1).

What they are calling for is the upfront commitment for “complete, mature and total submission” to the commands of Christ to begin a relationship with Christ. Once “commitment, full-surrender, a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake,” becomes part of a definition for saving faith, that then is a departure from principle and Scripture.

MH wrote,

“On the other hand, there are passages in the Gospels and the Epistles that exemplify faith in explicit terms of submission. As far as the so-called “hard sayings" of Christ that discuss aspects of commitment and discipleship in relationship to the Gospel of the Kingdom, these are the most difficult issues to resolve and I believe that these passages have become the battleground between the opposing positions.”

I trust we all agree none of us here are taking on the Hodges’ Mental Assent only as the “opposing position.”

The “battleground” is to a large extent over the “commitment and discipleship” passages. I would also include the Sermon on the Mount because LS advocates consider it supportive of their view of the gospel message for today. John MacArthur (representing LS) for example says the Sermon on the Mount contains, “pure gospel,” and he writes,

“Hell will be full of people who thought highly of the Sermon on the Mount. You must do more than that. You must obey it and take action.” (Hard to Believe, pp. 81,86.)

LM

Revised Version in the Works

To All:

There were several benefits from my (Fall 2006) interaction with the advocates of Lordship Salvation at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog and John MacArthur's Pulpit Magazine.

In those discussions I was able to provide the Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation to a very wide cross section of concerned Christian across a broad spectrum of Evangelical Christianity. To this day I still receive private contacts from folks who are interested in and concerned about this issue.

As the discussions wore on I was developing increasingly better ways to hone in on and articulate some of the issues and concerns with the Lordship gospel. As a result I began to feel that I needed to go back and do a revised and expanded version of In Defense of the Gospel. I have been working on that revision for well over a month and should wrap in less than 30 days.

There are no major overhauls, just some revisions and a few additions. Overall, this revision will make my exposure of Lordship Salvation and the biblical answers to it much more compelling. I will keep you posted as the revised version develops.

Here is a sample revision from the opening page of the chapter titled: What is Lordship Salvation?

As we begin to look at Lordship Salvation it is imperative that a clear distinction be drawn in regard to what the area of debate is, and is not. One of the central questions that fuels and defines the Lordship debate is: What is required of a sinner that would constitute saving faith, i.e. the faith that results in his receiving the gift of eternal life? We will see Lordship Salvation’s interpretation of the gospel, as defined by many of its advocates, is front-loaded with demands for commitment to the results of salvation as if these commitments are required for salvation. Those statements are the crux of the debate and have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make those claims. For me the main thrust of debate over Lordship Salvation does not revolve around the results of salvation. The debate is over the requirements for salvation.

Biblical saving faith is a faith that will grow and progressively mature. Daily submission to the lordship of Christ should follow a genuine conversion to Christ. Most men on both sides of the debate will agree in principle that a new creature in Christ will set out to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a believer, and that he will grow in the grace and knowledge of his Lord and Savior (2 Peter 3:18). Christians struggle with the flesh (Rom. 7:15-25) and the besetting sin (Heb. 12:1). Christians will flop and fail at times in their walk with God, but growth is seen to one degree or another.

Many share a common frustration over the examples we see in our churches today of people who profess Christ as Savior, but seem to live more like the Devil. There are, of course, people in Bible believing churches that are professing Christ, but never received Him as their Savior. These, Lord willing, shall one day get saved, or they will likely move on. No sinner can be born again if he prays a prayer to escape death and Hell, but he fully intends to go on in his sinful ways and in rebellion and defiance against the Lord. There is no genuine faith or repentance in that. Problems begin, however, when a commitment to certain expected behavior is made a condition for receiving the free gift of salvation.

As you read my book you are going to find, just as I did, that Lordship Salvation touches on numerous Bible doctrines. This makes arriving at a brief definition a difficult, but not impossible undertaking. One editor nearly insisted I provide a simple definition within the first two or three pages of the book. That editor also said if I did not give a working definition very early in the book publishers would read no more than the first few pages. Well, I never had it in mind to impress an editor of a publishing firm. My goal has been to inform readers at any level that the Lordship interpretation of the gospel is wrong and provide the biblical answers.

Because Lordship theology touches on a broad range of Bible doctrines, with practical ramifications, I decided to deal with each doctrine in turn allowing for a complete definition of Lordship Salvation come forth as the book unfolds. With that said, I also believe it is important to provide a brief definition in the early stages of this book. The following definition is not all encompassing of the Lordship position, it may not be one that all Lordship advocates would sign on to 100%, but it is a beginning.

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered as reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. An indispensable condition that must be met to fully define Lordship’s saving faith, which results in salvation, is an upfront commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience.

That is close to final form.

By the way, I have visited for the first time, the Baptist Board site. A thread opened on Lordship Salvation, and I decided to drop in a few comments. The discussion has been pleasant thus far. You can view it here.


LM

John Piper Discussion at Sharper Iron

Greetings:

Over the last few days I have been in a (now closed) discussion thread at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog. The link to and title of the thread is: John Piper.

I had some very good exchanges with several men in a discussion over John Piper’s ministry. The discussion also included some thoughts about John MacArthur. There are serious concerns men have with Piper beyond his Calvinism and Lordship Salvation positions.

There have been numerous decisions/actions on the part of John Piper that have been quite disconcerting. These indiscretions are not limited to, but include:

* Taking his staff to the Toronto Blessing, for a blessing
* Preaching at Christian Rock concerts
* Bringing a RAP artist into his church for a performance
* Sees the miraculous gifts of the 1st century church as still active and possible for today
* Proposed acceptance of a regenerate, but not scripturally baptized church membership (subsequently dropped)
* Used Mark Driscoll (the “cussing” pastor) in his pulpit, and has used some very off-color remarks himself. (I’ve read his letter of explanation, and it falls far short of expressing repentance or remorse. He uses the off-color language choices to try and make his message relevant to his audience)

The crux of the discussion really has to do with the fact that there is a big difference between what John Piper writes in his books and what he does in practice.

Following is my summation from the discussions at SI:

I hope and pray that across the landscape of Fundamentalism everyone will recognize that men like John MacArthur and John Piper are not Fundamentalists. They are not representative of historic Fundamentalism especially in a specific area of doctrine and practice, which is: biblical separation. There is, therefore, an inherent danger in recommending these men to fundamental believers as examples in doctrine or practice.

These men have an established track record of disobeying the Scriptural commands for separation (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Examples of this can be found ecclesiastically and personally. They write books about living in obedience to the Lord’s commands, and surrendering to His Lordship. In the area of biblical separation, however, they act in such a way that one must conclude they do not see separation as a necessary part of submitting to the Lordship of Christ.

On page 202 of my book I wrote,

“The command in Jude 3 to ‘earnestly contend for the faith’ and from 2 Corinthians 6:14-ff to separate from unbelievers and disobedient brethren are not open to selective application. They are mandated courses of action found I the Word of God.”

Biblical separation is one of the hallmarks, and probably most distinguishing characteristic, of our Independent Fundamental Baptist heritage. With so many respected pastors/teachers in fundamentalism pointing our people in the direction of MacArthur, Piper, Driscoll and Dever we are not just showing, but setting our people upon a path that leads to New Evangelicalism.

One of the men I interact with, who is Reformed in his soteriology and sympathetic to Lordship Salvation, made this observation,

“John MacArthur poses a danger to us (fundamental Baptists) because he is closer to us than Piper and the others, and therefore, our men will accept anything he does in his ministry as normative.”

Again, differences I have with those men’s Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel set aside: If we don’t raise the level of awareness and provide serious cautions we will one day see what were once young independent fundamental Baptist preachers looking a lot more like John MacArthur and John Piper in doctrine and practice because mentors in Fundamental circles pointed them in that direction. Consequently, those pastors will lead their congregations down that road. We will see churches that were once known as a “Baptist” church undergo an overhaul. The overhaul will reveal itself when a new sign that reads Metropolis “Community” Church replaces the sign that once read Metropolis “Baptist” Church.

The promotion of men like Piper and MacArthur without serious cautions has been one of my chief concerns with what is happening across the Fundamental(ism) landscape. My fear is that as these men are continually held up as examples, (with so few clear or no cautions) some of our young people are going to follow their examples right up to, and maybe beyond, organizing and cooperating in events like the Resolved Conference.

If men like Piper and MacArthur, who do not consistently practice biblical separation, are presented as though they are doctrinally sound, then we should not be surprised when we begin to see young fundamentalists jettison the practice of biblical separation.

When young people are handed books by Piper and MacArthur I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe the young people will simply appreciate the books and steer clear of the behavior and indiscretion issues. Our young people will pick up on and adopt both the theology and practices of MacArthur, Piper or worse. An analogy from child rearing is I believe appropriate here: “What you allow for in moderation, the children will take to extremes.”

If and when that day comes we are going to look back on these days and realize we showed our young people the bridge and opened the way for them to cross over to New Evangelicalism.


LM


In the SI thread take a moment to locate read these comments I posted: p. 14, post #97; p. 17, post #’s 116,117, & 118.)

I also strongly encourage you to locate and read Bob Topartzer’s comments. He has an excellent way of defining and summing up issues. You will Bob’s comments in the thread on pages: 5, post #35; p. 8, post #52; p. 14, post #93; p. 18, post #120; p. 19, post #127.

The Gospel Controversy: Faith & Obedience

In a thread at the pseudo- fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron a Pastor asked for information about the relation between faith and obedience.

Following is an excerpt from The Gospel Controversy, an article which appeared in the official periodical of Preach The Word Ministries, October-December, 1999.

The Bible teaches that true saving faith is, in itself an act of obedience to Jesus Christ. This theme is like a thread running through the fabric of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Paul begins by stating that the reason God made him an apostle was “for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name” (Rom. 1:5). Further, he describes the sinfulness of mankind by speaking of “them who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” (Rom. 2:8). Sinners are disobedient to God while they obey lawlessness. He tells the Roman Christians (and us present day believers) “that ye were the servants of sin, but ye obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17). In chapter ten, Paul reiterates six times that men receive justification by faith (Rom. 10:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). He then equates faith with calling on the Lord (Romans 10:12, 13). After the great challenge that some have never called on Christ because they have never heard of Him (Romans 10:14, 15), Paul turns to the nation of Israel. Israel’s lost condition is not because they had never heard of Christ but because “they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). No point could be more clear. When a disobedient sinner truly trusts Christ to save him, that act of faith is itself obedience to God! Paul’s benediction to Romans concludes the theme. Speaking of the Gospel, the Apostle tells us: “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26).

Rather than make demands on the lost that Scripture does not make, let us preach the Gospel as it is, dealing squarely with the issues of sin, repentance, and faith. The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him at that point. Convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit, they will understand that their obedience to sin places them under the judgment of God. They will trust Christ alone for salvation, calling on Him. That is obedience to the Gospel! Those who have so trusted Christ can be trained as disciples of the Lord Jesus. They will follow Him in baptism, the first step of obedience to Christ in the Christian life. They will surrender their wills fully to Christ and follow Him. They will be willing to take up a cross, enduring humiliation, suffering, and possible death for the One who literally bore a cross to save them from sin.

Reprinted by permission

The last paragraph is key. The first highlighted portion shows that Lordship’s call for upfront commitments to obey, follow, surrender and bears the cross to get saved, are demands which the Bible does not make on a lost man.

The second highlighted portion shows that obedience should be the natural result of saving faith. Some might state it this way,

"The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him from that point forward."

This article contrasts the Lordship idea of commitments to obedience and discipleship for salvation with the Bible's plan of faith resulting in obedience and commitment to discipleship.

LM

Insights from the IFCA Interview with John MacArthur

I have been reading the transcripts (see links below) of the interview, conducted by the Executive Committee of the IFCA, with Dr. MacArthur in June 1989 shortly after the release of The Gospel According to Jesus.

The result of that interview with Dr. MacArthur, in regard to his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel, lead to the IFCA’s Executive Committee writing and issuing the doctrinal statement titled, The Nature of Saving Faith.

The first transcript (Part 1) of the Q&A with Dr. MacArthur dealt with three areas of doctrine. Each area was or is an ongoing concern some have with John MacArthur. The three issues he was being questioned about are:
1) The blood of Christ
2) The eternal sonship of Christ
3) Dispensationalism

The blood of Christ issue is one that people have been passionate over. Most I have heard from or about have moved on from this.

The eternal sonship caused a huge flap. Some IFCA members resigned over it. Later MacArthur issued a statement that I once read at the GTY site where he acknowledged he had made a mistake on that issue.

As for the dispensational question- the concern was raised because of the heavy, nearly exclusive use of reformed theologians in the footnotes of The Gospel According to Jesus.

Part 2 of the interview was devoted totally to some of the doctrinal issues stemming from The Gospel According to Jesus.

In the early portions of Part 2 transcripts you can read from Dr. MacArthur’s own remarks, about several people he knew when he was a young man who sorely disappointed him in regard to an alleged relationship with Jesus Christ they had. They either backslid horribly, or their appearance of being a Christian was a façade; I don’t know which.

What I do know is this: Those events started him on a journey that lead him to adopt and later advocate the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel.

In the transcript Dr. MacArthur said,

“And as a pastor I have seen them come and go and come and go and come and go, and trying in my own heart to assess the nature of true conversion was very much a personal struggle with me, not a theological one. And then I began to study the Gospel of Matthew, and I preached in Matthew for eight years at our church. And in that process of going through Matthew, I began to come to grips with the whole gospel record, because I was doing a study of the synoptics and John at the same time. And I began to fix on how Jesus evangelized and what He called for and so forth.”

This point in his life and study of Scripture is pivotal. He had experienced the disappointment that any pastor would if those he believed to be saved went bad or had lived out a facade. With those disappointments in mind his study of Matthew resulted in coming to believe The Sermon on the Mount contains pure gospel. In my article, Is The Sermon on the Mount Pure Gospel, I explain why that sermon is not an evangelistic appeal.

In his review of The Gospel According to Jesus, Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote the following, which I cite in my book:

“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.”

Dr. Pickering speaks of the “desperate desire” which lead to Dr. MacArthur’s “changing the terms of the gospel.” From reading Dr. MacArthur’s opening remarks in the LS section of the IFCA interview with him- one can read when, how and why his “desperate desire” originated.


LM

IFCA Interview with John MacArthur (Part 1)

IFCA Interview with John MacArthur (Part 2)
The Lordship Q&A is in Part 2

IFCA Statement on: The Nature of Saving Faith

To All:

In 1990 the IFCA International, of which John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church is a member, had several scholars do a study to interpret their statement of faith on salvation. It is my understanding that this statement was drafted in response to Dr. MacArthur's original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, published in 1988.

The title of the IFCA statement is: The Nature of Saving Faith.

The IFCA statement appears to be very balanced and to speak against MacArthur’s Lordship interpretation of the gospel. The study committee is listed at the end of the paper. It is very impressive.

Dr. Robert Thomas of The Master’s Seminary was on the committee. Dr. Thomas is considered a world class New Testament scholar, he taught at Talbot for years (1959-1986) where John MacArthur was one of his students. Dr. Thomas has been at The Master’s Seminary since 1987.

This is just a sample from the statement:

Some suitable expressions equivalent to the reliance on Christ that brings salvation include “believe in,” “trust in,” and “depend on.” Other terminology that may be misleading in representing this relationship include “submit to,” “yield to,” “dedicate [oneself] to,” and “make Jesus Lord of one's life.” These are better reserved for a stage of sanctification that usually comes subsequent to saving faith. Two additional phrases, “make a commitment to" and “become a disciple of,” are ambiguous because they could or could not refer to reliance on Christ, depending on how they are defined. “Repent” is not a suitable way to describe saving faith, because it only partially represents what it is to rely on Christ alone.

That paragraph addresses several of the controversial terms/phrases that are inherent in the Lordship gospel. They appear in The Gospel According to Jesus and in the later works by MacArthur on Lordship Salvation.

The sentence in bold is the key to the Lordship error. As I demonstrate in my book and in various articles here and at other sites John MacArthur, and the Lordship advocates he represents, conditions the reception of salvation on the upfront promise from a lost man to "submit, yield, dedicate" his life in "exchange" for eternal life. Lordship Salvation places demands on a sinner (requirements for salvation) that belong to the born again child of God in regard to growth as a disciple of Christ.

This IFCA statement was adopted by the Executive Committee (Board of Directors) in November 1990 and was affirmed by 93% of the individual members participating in a straw poll.

Incidentally, another Master’s Seminary faculty member, Dr. James Rosscup (retired June 2005), also wrote about his reservations with MacArthur’s expressions of his Lordship theology. See post #10 on page 2 by Bob Topartzer at Sharper Iron in my response to Pastor Todd Wood’s review of my book.


LM

An Example of Lordship’s Man-Centered Message

At his blog site Tim Challies was doing what I might call a play-by-play from the Resolved Conference held Feb. 16-19 and sponsored by John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. I had no particular reason for visiting Tim’s site Sunday evening, just clicked on it and found the Resolved Conference (VI) report.

The VI report is a review by Tim Challies of a sermon by Pastor Steve Lawson (Christ Fellowship Baptist Church).

The text Pastor Lawson chose to speak from is Luke 14:25-33 and the title of his message was The Cost of Discipleship (It Will Cost You Everything).

At face value that title is direct and can be supported biblically. The problem is that Pastor Lawson is not only talking about the cost of discipleship for a believer, he teaches, just like John MacArthur, that there is a cost FOR salvation.

In the Bible Luke 14:25-33 is a message directed to those who are born again. This sermon is an example of taking a passage, such as Luke 14:25-33) meant for instructing the born again child of God on how to grow as a disciple of Christ, and reinterpreting it as though it is a gospel message directed to the lost.

Remember the problem with Lordship Salvation is not in regard to the results of salvation. I am in agreement with any Lordship advocate who believes that a genuine conversion should evidence itself in genuine results: a desire to live for Jesus Christ.

It is what Lordship advocates insist are the requirements for salvation that is the error in their system. In Pastor Lawson’s text when he speaks of following Christ, self denial and cross bearing in the context of a born again believer needing to make those commitments to his Lord and Savior he is on biblical ground. When, however, he takes those same commands and presents them as conditions which must be agreed to in exchange for salvation he has checked out on the Scriptures and is preaching a works based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Here are three excerpts from Lawson’s sermon:

“If you want to receive this gift it will cost you the total commitment of all that you are to the Lord Jesus Christ. There are many here who think they are saved, but are not; they have never really done business with God.”

“I want to single you out in the midst of this crowd. Have you taken up a cross in order to follow after Christ? Have you recognized your own sinfulness, acknowledged that God's judgment is true, have you acknowledged Christ's right to rule your life? Have you submitted to the Lordship of Christ? Have you really come to the end of self? Because Jesus does not begin until you end.”

You can read how Pastor Lawson conditions the reception of “this gift” (the gift of eternal life) on an upfront “total commitment” from a lost man. In the second quote Pastor Lawson is saying that a relation with Christ cannot begin until the lost man has come to the end of himself. That sounds pious, but that is not the gospel.

And then this astounding statement:

“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.”

Whether Lawson is speaking to the believer or the lost the quote above (in context with the balance of the message) is probably one of the most biblically unsound I have heard in the last ten years.

Tim Challies confirms that Lawson’s sermon was an evangelistic appeal meant to reach the lost. At his site this is the final paragraph of Tim’s review of Pastor Lawson’s sermon.

“I was glad to see an evangelistic message, even three days into the conference. I think it is wonderful that the speakers are not simply assuming that everyone here is saved, but are continually pushing, continually asking people to examine their hearts and to determine if they are truly saved. Lawson's message was as convicting an evangelistic appeal as I've heard in a long time. And what's more, it was a call for Christian commitment as well.”

Lordship advocates see no distinction between salvation and discipleship. That is one of the ways in which they wind up in what is the false gospel commonly referred to as Lordship Salvation. In my book there is a chapter dedicated to this specific issue. The chapter title is- Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference?

Pastor Lawson’s gospel is a man-centered message and thereby frustrates the grace of God (Gal. 2:21). Pastor Lawson’s sermon is a stark example of the extreme to which the Lordship advocates have twisted the Gospel of grace into a works based message.

LM

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).