“Conservative” Evangelicalism: Threading a Frame Work for Discussion, Part 1

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm…is the Together for the Gospel conference…. A more adult affair…this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety. (Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness)

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week at the Religious Affections Ministries (RAM) blog I had a charitable and transparent exchange with Pastor Will Dudding. Brother Dudding is pastor of a local church in Fremont, CA. Much of what I discussed with Will was within the frame-work of thoughts and concerns I’ve had in regard to certain doctrines and practices of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, its star personalities and fellowships.

While not reproducing the entirety of Will’s end of our discussion I am reproducing excerpts from his perspective that I interacted with at RAM. At the conclusion of this article I link directly to the point in the RAM thread where you can see both Will’s and my discussion in their entirety.

For clarity and further development of my thoughts I have edited and expanded upon my RAM thread comments. This I have done because discussion threads limit the scope of interaction. I am resisting the desire to develop a full-blown expose such as I produced in my series on Al Mohler, the Manhattan Declaration and Ecumenism.

I liken the theme of my concern to what Dr. Peter Masters called “the ministry of warning,” which in Masters (and my) opinion is steadily being “killed off.” Killed off in regard to the doctrinal aberrations and questionable methods of ministry that are commonplace in the conservative evangelical community, in some discussions also becoming known as the “new” Calvinism.

Today I present the first in the series of expanded thread commentary as a frame-work for future discussion of conservative evangelicalism.


Brother Will, I appreciate much of your initial commentary to me above in the thread above. However, you wrote, “The attraction to the Sovereign Grace, Desiring God, Grace To You type ministries…”

The subject matter of this article has been Dr. Minnick’s commentary on evangelicalism and Sovereign Grace music. Although valid concerns IMO the least of the disconcerting issues of the conferences such as: Desiring God, Shepherd’s, T4G, Gospel Coalition, Resolved, Passion, et. al. is their music choices.

The truly BIG issues, are that you have men, who depending on the personality, are teaching that the charismatic sign gifts are active and should be sought after today (John Piper & C. J. Mahaney), are unapologetic ecumenicists (Al Mohler & Ligon Duncan), or utilize disgraceful speech (“corrupt communication,” Eph. 4:29) in their preaching (Mark Driscoll).

Recently, at a *pseudo-fundamentalist site, Sharper Iron (SI), I read your note about going to John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference next month. What is the “attraction” of those things I noted above that draw you to those conferences? Those IMO far and away trump the danger of their music choices.

FWIW, I would not even have to squirm through CCM if it happened to be used in a conference because I’d be up and out before they finished the 1st stanza. However, with men on the platform who tolerate, stand for and/or propagate disgraceful speech, charismatic theology and ecumenism I’d never show up in the first place. I am obviously referring to conferences such as and in addition to Shepherd’s.

Part of the reason you cited at SI for going to the Shepherd’s Conference is to demonstrate to them separatism. You wrote,

“…to influence some of the conservative evangelicals to exercise more discernment concerning biblical separation and unity if we do it properly first….”

Unity is created by the Spirit, it is a good thing and should be sought after (Eph. 4:3). At what expense, however, is unity being encouraged and sought after with evangelicalism? Furthermore, and my primary concern is:

How can you teach separatism when you do not “withdraw from” men who are unapologetic ecumenicists and/or Charismatics?

That kind of participation with to “influence” them strategy is what I am now calling “Infiltration Theology” and is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

The “influence” you speak of is working exactly the other way around. It is men like you who are being influenced by the evangelicals- their doctrine, music and methods. Some of you have and/or will get caught up in those things and then, furthermore, bring their aberrant distinctives and disdain for balanced, biblical separatism back to your own ministries. A few weeks ago I spoke to a so-called “YF” who has now tragically come to accept as authentic the non-cessationism teaching of Piper and Mahaney.

One pastor (Larry Rogier) who identifies himself with Fundamentalism posted a statement at his blog suggesting there is a mindset that,

“The men on ‘our side’ (Fundamentalism) we must say nothing bad about; the men on ‘the other side’ (Evangelicalism) we must say nothing good about.”

Broad-brushed misrepresentative caricatures like that do not manifest integrity and must be necessarily dismissed.

Is everything coming from conservative evangelicalism aberrant or destructive; of course not. Is everything coming from Fundamentalism the ideal; of course not. There is IMO, however, more than enough in contrary doctrine and practice of the conservative evangelicals to cause a balanced Fundamentalist, who longs for unity in the body, to step back and instead,

Call on Them to Become the Best of What We Are in Balanced, Biblical Separatism.

But they are not going to do that; are they? Instead I see the rise of this “Infiltration Theology,” such as you noted. An outworking of a theology in which some IFB men decide to fellowship and/or cooperate with evangelicals allegedly for a chance to teach them to obey the principles of biblical separatism. To infiltrate evangelicalism, however, one must be willing to tolerate and allow for their aberrant doctrines, open rejection of biblical separatism and worldly methods of ministry that thus far would never be allowed for or tolerated in their own IFB ministries.

IMO, continued exposure to the conservative evangelical camp, through active promotion of and participation in their numerous conferences and on-line communities, apart from an active and vital ministry of warning will desensitize you and others to what they are and propagate. As Peter Masters noted, to attend T4G (for example), “the ministry of warning (must be) is killed off.”

Sorry for the blunt terms, but they are offered from one who desires to speak the truth in love.

Yours in His name,

LM

Please continue to- Part 2 of this series.

*Sharper Iron

Any who wish to read the thread exchange between Brother Dudding and I, in full context, please begin here at RAM.

John MacArthur: Christ’s Eternal Sonship

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Questions occasionally resurface on the eternal sonship of Christ controversy. This teaching was highly controversial and caused a huge rift in the IFCA when John MacArthur took the position that, “Christ did not become the Son of God until He was born at Bethlehem.” In September 1999 Dr. MacArthur seemed to have repudiated incarnational sonship, but has he forsaken it entirely?

I am welcoming back JanH who is a frequent commentator and contributor for this compelling discussion and we will turn to it without delay.


LM

This blog typically discusses divergences from the gospel in the form of either Lordship Salvation or the Crossless Gospel. However, as sometimes happens in the course of conversation, a topic which gets little attention came to light in the comment section of Does “Final Salvation” Serve as Cover for Works-Salvation

The topic came to light because of this response Lou Martuneac gave to a question I asked:

Jan, you asked, Why does Piper (JMac) “get away with” these things [saying works are a requirement for final salvation]? Two thoughts: 1) Because of their popularity they go *almost entirely unchallenged by their peer group and followers. There are some Calvinistic men in my IFB circles who are troubled by statements like these [pertaining to the requirements for final salvation], will confide they find these troubling, but will not say so in any public venue....

*An exception being when MacArthur was challenged over and he subsequently retracted and disavowed his earlier teaching on the eternal sonship of Christ. His former teaching on that caused a major rift in the IFCA.

Here Lou noted an exception to the unwritten don’t openly challenge MacArthur rule, which involved the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. For 25 years Dr. John MacArthur had openly denied that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God. Instead, he aggressively promoted the Incarnational Sonship position, which says that Jesus was not always/eternally the Son of God but was the second person of the Trinity who became the Son of God at the incarnation, i.e. His birth in Bethlehem.

Pastor George Zeller (Middletown Bible Church, Middletown, CT) challenged MacArthur on this teaching (as well as several others). In 1999 Pastor Zeller was rewarded for his efforts by Dr. MacArthur’s public disavowal of Incarnational Sonship in the form of a published paper titled “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ.” In this paper Dr. MacArthur states plainly that he no longer holds to the view that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation. He also states plainly that Jesus is eternally the Son of God and says why he now believes this is so. Good news! Or...maybe not as good as we would hope.

Unfortunately, Dr. MacArthur has left some loose ends. We will look at two of them here and compare them with Dr. MacArthur’s Reexamination… declaration.

Loose End #1
It is common knowledge that Dr. MacArthur is the President of The Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley, California and senior pastor of Grace Community Church. Under the section “Statement of faith- GOD,” the doctrinal statement for The Master’s Seminary proclaims this orthodox confession on the Trinity:

We teach that there is but one living and true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5-7; 1 Corinthians 8:4), an infinite, all knowing Spirit (John 4:24), perfect in all His attributes, one in essence, eternally existing in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)—each equally deserving worship and obedience.1 (Bold added.)

We applaud and wholly agree with this statement on the Trinity. However, a little further along, in the sixth paragraph under the section “God the Son,” we read this:

We teach that, in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8).2 (Bold added.)

This statement affirms the doctrine of Incarnational Sonship, which we have been given to understand that Dr. MacArthur had disavowed in 1999. This presents a point of confusion. First we are told that God eternally exists in three Persons- Father, SON, and Holy Spirit. Then we are told that “in the incarnation, the SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY...assumed the PLACE of a Son.”

The first statement is just what we would expect from an orthodox teacher. But the second statement is troubling. It says that Sonship is a “place” that “the second person of the Trinity...assumed” in the incarnation. This is just what Dr. MacArthur used to teach before he declared his repentance on this issue. There are two problems here.

• One, He is going in two directions doctrinally in this statement of faith.
• Two, in 1999 Dr. MacArthur had made it truly plain that he had abandoned the Incarnational Sonship view, which would say that Jesus assumed the place of a Son at the incarnation, in favor of the Eternal Sonship view that Jesus was not merely and vaguely the “second person of the Trinity,” but the Son of God always/eternally.

So now we must ask, which one does MacArthur intend for us to understand is his actual position? And we may also inquire which position is taught and affirmed in the classroom.

Now it is true and must be noted that Dr. MacArthur said in his reexamination paper that, “I’ve often wished for the opportunity to review and amend all my own published material, but I doubt I’ll ever have the time or the energy to undertake the task.”3

And indeed that would be daunting for him since he is a prolific speaker/writer. It is easy to understand how some comments in a series of his radio sermons may go unaltered due to obfuscation. We are, however, looking at a published doctrinal statements. This doctrinal statement is much more visible than a sermon given once or twice. I would think something so salient would have undergone some revision, especially when he says this:

“If more precise understanding on an important point of doctrine demands a change in my thinking--even if it means amending or correcting already-published material--I want to be willing to make the necessary changes.

I have made many such revisions over the years, often taking measures to delete erroneous or confusing statements from my own tapes, and sometimes even preaching again through portions of Scripture with a better understanding of the text. Whenever I have changed my opinion on any significant doctrinal issue, I have sought to make my change of opinion, and the reasons for it, as clear as possible.4 (Bold added.)

While it is truly encouraging hear that Dr. MacArthur is a humble man who has the integrity to make changes when necessary and has indeed done so in the past (not everyone would), I wonder how it is, then, that his doctrinal statement could still confess Incarnational Sonship? One or the other statement is erroneous and both statements affirmed in the same document is confusing. Why, then, have measures not been taken to edit or eliminate one statement or the other? Could it be that a publication as visible as the doctrinal statement for The Master’s Seminary had somehow fallen through the cracks and thus escaped the necessary revision? But surely the official doctrinal statement of a seminary where future church leaders are taught doctrine in a careful and systematic manner is more important than a tape or a sermon? Yet it still has this confession of a doctrine which Dr. MacArthur has stated publicly he had abandoned.

To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of “incarnational sonship.” Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s Sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation.5 (Bold added.)

How could this be? Surely after 25 years of preaching aggressively on Jesus’ Sonship, albeit from the Incarnational Sonship perspective, Dr. MacArthur has not come to the conclusion that this is not an important doctrine after all? No. It is not reasonable to conclude that Dr. MacArthur feels it to be an unimportant doctrine. There must be another reason for its continued presence in his doctrinal statement. But what could that reason be?

Perhaps the answer lies in this response Dr. MacArthur gave in 2006 when asked for an explanation of his view on Christ’s Sonship:

Let me make it real simple. He is eternally God. Jesus Christ is and always will be the eternal God—a member of the Trinity. He is eternally One of Three. And I don’t have any problem with calling Him the eternal Son therefore. But I do understand that there is a uniqueness to His incarnation in that the Scripture says, “This day have I begotten Thee.” And that’s related to His incarnation.6 (Bold added.)

I am afraid this is not real simple, though. In fact, this leads us to-

Loose End #2
If Jesus being eternally One of Three is what qualifies Him to be regarded as the eternal Son, then why could we not regard any of the Trinity members as the Son? They are all eternally One of Three. Jesus is the only member of the Trinity that has experienced incarnation, that is true. But He was not incarnated eternally. He was incarnated in time. So the incarnation would not make Him the eternal Son. But being eternally One of Three does not make Him the Son either. It makes Him One of Three. Indeed Dr. MacArthur recognizes this too, as he notes in his Reexamination:

If Christ’s sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don’t refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s Son, do we? Yet isn’t He also of the same essence as the Father? 7

This being the case, why, then, does he frame it the way he does in this answer given 7 years after his public statement that he has abandoned the doctrine of Incarnational Sonship? Instead of answers there are more questions. Instead of simplicity and clarity, confusion and perplexity.

I think Dr. MacArthur made it real simple in 1999 when he stated:

Expressions like “eternal generation,” “only begotten Son,” and others pertaining to the filiation of Christ must all be understood in this sense: Scripture employs them to underscore the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren’t intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the Members of the Trinity.

Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s Sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation. 8

However, since then we have the not-so-simple explanation that Jesus is the Son because He is eternally One of Three and His Sonship pertains to His incarnation after all. And in 2010 his seminary doctrinal statement still implies that Jesus assumed the place of a Son in the incarnation.

What then do we make of Dr. MacArthur’s Reexamination of the Eternal Sonship of Christ? What do we do with these loose ends? Where does Dr. MacArthur really stand on this issue? Has he indeed changed his view? Or must we reexamine his reexamination?


Jan H

1. The Master’s Seminary Statement of Faith, http://www.tms.edu/AboutSOFGod.aspx, (accessed Feb. 3, 2010). Also see the Grace Community Church Doctrinal Statement, p. 3, http://www.gracechurch.org/ministries/Resources.aspx?MinistryID=1&topic=Doctrinal%20Statement, (accessed Feb. 3, 2010).
2. The Master’s Seminary Statement of Faith, http://www.tms.edu/AboutSOFGod.aspx, (accessed Feb. 3, 2010).
3. John MacArthur, Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ, Sept. 1999, http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonjm08.htm, accessed Feb. 3, 2010).
4. Ibid
5. Ibid
6. John MacArthur, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary radio interview, Oct. 2006, http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonjm12.htm, (accessed Feb. 3, 2010).
7. John MacArthur, Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ, Sept. 1999, http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonjm08.htm, accessed Feb. 3, 2010).
8. Ibid

Can an Unregenerate Person Believe the Gospel?

Courtesy Dr. Charlie Bing, GraceLife Ministries

Many would answer this question, “Of course. How else could a person be eternally saved?” But there are some who would disagree, because they think that a person must be regenerated (born again) before he or she can believe the gospel. That perspective is demanded by their view of man’s sinfulness, which they call total depravity. But what does the Bible say?

The issue of total depravity
Total depravity is a theological term used by some to describe the sinfulness of man. The term itself is not in the Bible. After Adam’s fall in Genesis 3, man is considered “dead in trespasses and sins” as described in Ephesians 2:1 (see also Rom. 3:10-18; 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). How one understands this spiritual death determines how one relates faith to regeneration.

Those who insist that God must regenerate a person before that person can believe define total depravity as man’s total inability to respond positively to God. They believe that an unregenerate person cannot even understand and believe the gospel. This view is held by Reformed theology and strong versions of Calvinism.

It would be more biblical to take “dead in trespasses and sins” as a description of man’s condition before God. Because of Adam’s sin and man’s relationship to Adam, man is totally separated from God and lacks anything that can commend him to God. Though sin’s corruption extends to every man and all of his being, man retains the capacity to respond to God’s initiative. Even after Adam sinned and died spiritually, he was able to talk with God immediately (Gen. 2:17; 3:1-19).


The biblical evidence that regeneration does not precede faith

Many biblical arguments show that man’s sinfulness does not require regeneration before faith.

Man remains in God’s image. Man was made in God’s image, which includes a measure of self- determination. The image of God was not destroyed by man’s fall, but marred or corrupted, with the result that man, when left to himself, is inclined toward evil and rejection of God. Self-determination, even if used to reject God, is essential to humanness and personhood. Without self-determination man would be nothing more than a robot with every decision and action determined and controlled by God.

Man is responsible. Because human beings can make self-determining choices, unbelievers are held accountable by God for rejecting the gospel (John 3:18, 36; 5:40-47; Acts 17:30; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). God would not be just or fair if He condemned people who could not believe because He did not regenerate them. That would actually make God the author of evil.

The invitation to believe is legitimate. God’s invitation to be saved through the gospel is a sincere and legitimate offer only if any and every person can believe it. If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again. But this is contrary to biblical statements that the gospel is for all (John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 2:3-6; 1 John 2:2). Just as Paul preached everywhere with the assumption that anyone could respond to the gospel (Acts 20:21), we also should share the gospel with everyone (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8) because it is a genuine offer to everyone. God regenerates anyone who believes the gospel.

God draws men to Himself. Because in his sinful state man does not seek God. The Bible teaches that before anyone believes, God draws that person to Himself (John 6:44; 12:32). God convinces or persuades the unbeliever of truth, righteousness, and judgment concerning Jesus Christ (John 16:8-11). The Holy Spirit works mysteriously in a person’s heart to bring her to the point of faith (John 3:8).

Faith is the means not the result. Nowhere does the Bible say that faith is created by regeneration. John 3:16 is a very familiar verse which, according to the preceding context of 3:1-15, explains how God gives eternal life as a result of faith, not a requirement for faith. Likewise, Ephesians 2:8 explains how it is through faith God made alive those who were dead in sins (Eph. 2:1-7). Regeneration is the result of receiving God’s eternal life, and that life is only available through faith (John 5:24; 20:31).

Faith is simply a personal response. Man can believe either truth or falsehood that is presented to him. An unregenerate person can believe the truth of the law of gravity, or he can believe the error of a flat earth. Likewise, an unregenerate person can believe the truth of Christ’s gospel or she can believe the error of a false religion. Since faith is only the instrument, the response of faith in the gospel is not a special kind of faith. Faith is simply faith. It is the object of faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is special and brings salvation.

Faith is not a good work. Those who define total depravity as total inability claim that if man were able to believe, then that faith would be a meritorious good work for salvation. But that cannot be true, because the Bible declares that faith is necessarily contrary to works (Rom. 3:27; 4:4-6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9). Faith is not the cause of our salvation; God is the cause. Faith is God’s designated means by which the unregenerate can receive His grace for salvation. Faith is passive because it means that one is convinced that something is true or trustworthy. It is not a work in the sense of actively doing something, thus it is non-meritorious.

Conclusion

The view that regeneration must precede faith is a theological construct,

not a biblical one.

To say that a person goes from being spiritually dead to eternally alive before he believes in Jesus Christ is both absurd and contrary to biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that left to himself, he would not seek God or believe the gospel. Therefore, God must draw a person to the point of faith. Nevertheless, it is the person who believes. Faith is not man’s contribution or good work. It is the means through which man receives God’s grace in salvation. The unregenerate person believes in Jesus Christ as Savior precisely because he can contribute nothing to God’s work of salvation. Faith makes the new birth accessible to anyone, but that birth is God’s work.


Dr. Charlie Bing
GraceLife Ministries
Original article appears in GraceNotes

Editor’s Note: You can read more answers to regeneration before faith. Follow these links to Brother George Zeller’s

The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith

The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God

Best of 2009: Lordship Salvation and/or Crossless Gospel

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Today I am offering several more articles from 2009 that are among the best. These will address either Lordship Salvation, the Crossless Gospel or elements of each.

The Free Grace Fracture: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know

There are sharp differences between the views of Drs. Lightner/Ryrie and Dr. MacArthur on the necessary content of saving faith. However, everyone in on or viewing the debate must understand that Hodges, Wilkin and GES have drifted far outside the main stream of Free Grace theology with their reductionist assaults on the content of saving faith. The teaching of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES is commonly known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-ONLY” gospel…. Myth: Free grace theology began in the 1980’s as a response to John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus.

Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel: “Joined at the Hip”

This article by Tim VanderPloeg examines a common denominator between Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel. And introduction is provided by Jan Hawthorne. The article is followed by an extended editor’s note that I added after a private discussion with a friend whom I appreciate.


The Gospel of the Christ: The “No Lordship” Counter Claim

This is just one article from a series of excerpts I posted from Pastor Tom Stegall’s new book, The Gospel of the Christ.

When Lordship Salvation proponents refer to the Free Grace position as the “no-lordship” view, they are specifically referring to the subject of eternal salvation, not sanctification in the Christian life per se. They are referring to our view as the “no-lordship salvation” view. As this applies to the Free Grace movement historically, “no-lordship salvation” would not be an accurate or appropriate designation since Free Grace advocates have traditionally viewed belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as a requirement for eternal salvation or justification, just as Acts 16:30-31 and Romans 10:9-10 teach.

Men Consistently Saw the Light of Zane Hodges’s Reasoning

This multi-art series by Ron Shea opens by attempting to answer the question: What turned Hodges to this profound Deconstructionist Error? The series then turns to a discussion of why men such as Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society would swallow whole virtually every aberrant doctrinal view that came from Hodges through his passing in 2008.

I have noticed that those who have embraced the Crossless gospel were not theologians and Christians punctuating the evangelical landscape, who read the work of some unknown theologian (Zane) on the web or in print, and found the arguments compelling. NO! The “inner circle” consisted of those men…who had been embraced by Zane as a friend, and/or fellow theologian. They had an emotional stake in Zane’s friendship. Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them as theologians. To a man, people like Bob Wilkin and John Niemela somehow “saw the logic” of all of Zane Hodges’s defections.

Believing the Gospel, “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace”

This article through numerous examples documents some of the most extreme manifestations of the reductionist heresy of the Crossless gospel originated by Zane Hodges are documented and many are answered by a variety of contributors.

To those of you who have any level of God-given influence as pastors, teachers, or through a Christian service ministry, you would do well to caution and warn those whom the Lord has placed in your sphere of influence. You can protect your people from the GES reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith, by equipping them to recognize what it is at first sight. It would be a genuine tragedy of the Crossless gospel if even one of your acquaintances were to be caught up in these obvious and extreme errors.

Evangelism With the Jehovah’s Witness at My Door

In January 2009 two JW’s came to my home and I did speak to them.

I told them as long as they reject that Jesus Christ is one and the same as the Father, the Bible says they are dead in their sins and on the way to Hell. They maintained that Jesus was “a god,” but NOT equal with the Father. I sent them on their way with another (biblical) admonition that as long as the reject the Lord’s deity they are dead in their sins and on the way to Hell.

The direction of this article is to demonstrate how the advocates of the GES Crossless gospel: “...would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions [sic] and beliefs about Jesus.”

The Best of 2009: Peter Masters, “The Ministry of Warning is Killed Off”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

If I had to choose just three articles and/or series from 2009 as the standouts today’s offering would be among those Top 3. In June 2009 I contacted Dr. Peter Masters to ask for and I received his permission to reproduce his article, The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness.

The truth and potency of Dr. Peter Master’s Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness was not well appreciated by the Calvinists in the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp, where the heart of the controversy which he addresses lies. His article was also under-appreciated by Calvinists in the Fundamentalist community. Many in both camps elected to negate, ignore or dismiss his polemic.

The truth is that the “new” Calvinism is, as Masters noted, becoming increasingly indifferent toward, “authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.” The “new Calvinists,” furthermore, do not want or accept legitimate criticism nor do they want to be confronted with what they are becoming even when it comes from one of their own whose reputation is highly regarded. Doctrines and/or practices under assault by the “new Calvinists” include:

• Personal Sanctification
• God-Honoring Worship Music
• Young Earth Creationism
• Cessation of the Charismatic Sign Gifts
• Biblical Separation

Masters wrote:

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

The “new Calvinism” through its star personalities (Piper, MacArthur, Driscoll, Mahaney, Duncan, Mohler, Dever, Lawson) and their conferences (T4G, Gospel Coalition, Resolved, Passion, Desiring God) is moving believers in a direction away from authentic fidelity to the Scriptures on several levels, which Masters details. Masters is blunt on these things.

Please proceed to The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness for Dr. Peter Masters complete “ministry of warning.”


LM

Editor’s Notes:
Exiled Preacher blog host Guy Davies published an interview with Phil Johnson (senior editor to John MacArthur). I posted a comment the the discussion thread in recation to a statement made by Johnson. Phil’s comment was ironically similar to a portion of the excerpt from Masters’s article above. Please continue to the thread below or this link for my commentary at the Exiled Preacher blog.

Later this year I will reproduce Masters’s article in its entirety once we get closer to the prime instigators of the “new Calvinism” annual event, namely- Together for the Gospel (T4G).

You may view Dr. Masters original article at The Sword & Trowel

The Best of 2009- Is Christ’s Resurrection Part of the Saving Message?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Over the past 2+ years I have documented any number of egregious reductionist heresies coming from the Grace Evangelical Society. Most of them were originated by the late Zane Hodges. Although the Grace Evangelical Society has become an isolated cell of theological extremists they do, however, perpetuate the legacy and reductionist soteriology of Zane Hodges.

The two part series from 2009 by Phillip Evans considers how Bob Wilkin, Executive Director of Grace Evangelical Society, representing the Crossless Gospel strips belief in the resurrection from the saving message. For example,

Wilkin’s fourth reason for apologizing for his prior Statement of Faith is the most troubling for those who hold to the truth of the Gospel. He writes: “Fourth, the term ‘risen Christ,’ though accurate, has caused some to wonder if we are saying that to be born again a person must believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”

Let there be no misunderstanding. Wilkin does not consider belief in Christ’s resurrection to be necessary in order to be saved! With seeming relief, in reference to the resurrection he writes, “The statement doesn’t say one must believe that to be born again.”

For a compete expose of this Hodges inspired error please continue to-

Is Christ’s Resurrection Part of the Saving Message? (Parts 1 & 2 )


LM

The Best of 2009- “Final Salvation”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This latest category from the Best of 2009 is on Lordship Salvation’s theme of “final salvation.” I published a series of five articles on this subject. The following links and excerpts are from and to that series.

The Gospel and Separation: Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong

I would say the term “final salvation” in itself is not necessarily wrong, but I have been noticing a tendency of Calvinist/Lordship Salvationists using this term in such a way that raises a red flag. John Piper used it in his book What Jesus Demands From the World, in such a way that disturbing implications are evident. (See article for Piper’s statement.)

An analogy to “final salvation” might be the term “full gospel.” While “full gospel” may be a valid concept in that nothing should be detracted from the gospel, that term has found a common usage among Pentecostals who claim their version of “tongues” and “spiritual gifts” should be included in the preaching of the gospel. In the same way “full gospel” raises a red flag, so may the term “final salvation.”

Does “Final Salvation” Serve as Cover for Works Salvation?

“Isn’t this usage of ‘final salvation’ by Lordship Salvationists just the ‘escape clause for closet Catholicism’?!” I would say, technically “No,” but practically “Yes!”

As one who was saved out of Catholicism and who was definitely trusting in his own works and righteousness before being born again by God’s grace, I will tell you it sure hits me as diluted Catholicism when I read the Lordship Salvation statements of leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur... .

“Final Salvation” is Dependent on Christ’s Life

Reading the comments of the Lordship Salvation men about their understanding of the requirements for salvation, one seriously has to wonder if they would have us put our ultimate confidence for salvation in our commitment to be crucified with Christ than just solely in Christ’s death. Likewise, according to this passage “final salvation” is dependent upon “Christ’s life” not mine! Can they not understand what it says, “we shall be saved from wrath through him” and “we shall be saved by his life?”

Sadly, these Lordship Salvation men would have us to be consumed with minding our Christian life, our obedience, and our faithfulness in order to have confidence rather than relying on Christ’s life. From beginning to end salvation is all of Christ.

The Best of 2009- Charles Spurgeon

Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon’s Personal Testimony Speaks Against It

I saw at once the way of salvation. I know not what else he said—I did not take much notice of it—I was so possessed with that one thought . . . . I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, “Look!” what a charming word it seemed to me. Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away…. Between half-past ten o’clock, when I entered that chapel, and half-past twelve o’clock, when I was back again at home, what a change had taken place in me! Simply by looking to Jesus I had been delivered from despair, and I was brought into such a joyous state of mind that, when they saw me at home, they said to me, “Something wonderful has happened to you,” and I was eager to tell them all about it. Oh! there was joy in the household that day, when all heard that the eldest son had found the Saviour and knew himself to be forgiven.

Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon Speaks (more than once) Against It

Then, dear Friends, remember, if we begin to preach to sinners that they must have a certain sense of sin and a certain measure of conviction, such teaching would turn the sinner away from God in Christ to himself. The man begins at once to say, “Have I a broken heart? Do I feel the burden of sin?” This is only another form of looking to self. Man must not look to himself to find reasons for God’s Grace. The remedy does not lie in the seat of the disease—it lies in the Physician’s hands.

The Best of 2009 by Category

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

With 2009 having come and gone my blog IDOTG has begun its fourth year in defense of the gospel.

Ordinarily I posted a *Best of… series in December for each of the past three years. For 2009, however, because of its ecumenism, threat to the Gospel and biblical separatism my series on The Manhattan Declaration took precedence for December.

In 2009 there were 78 articles posted by various contributors, which made selecting the following for inclusion especially difficult. A brief comment and/or excerpt will be included; a tease for the main article as it were.

In each of the previous Best of… series I would post all of my choices for the year in a single article. This time, however, I am going to post my selections in successive steps by category. My purpose is to give readers an opportunity to click on and review various articles from abbreviated lists rather than wade through one extended listing. Once I close the Best of 2009 series I will then tie them all back together into one Best of 2009 article.

On Wednesday morning we will begin with the first category from: The Best of 2009.

Kind regards,


Lou Martuneac

*Following are links to IDOTG’s Best of series from each of the past three years.

The Best of 2006

The Best of 2007

The Best of 2008

Snow-Covered, High Velocity Research

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The time has come to make my annual pilgrimage to the snow capped peaks of some far away mountain range. I’d like to present this pilgrimage to you as a scientific experiment with an educational value.

I have a passion for testing the velocity capability of two man-made laminated planks on a snow-covered, sharp angle descent when boarded by yours truly. Maximum velocity is achieved by creating as little friction as possible during the descent. This means a great deal of angling the planks on to their steel coated edges.

The occasional misfire generally results in my getting a very close look at the snow-covered descent, otherwise known as the “face-plant,” superbly demonstrated to the right.

To the left- Yours truly at 23. Yes, kids we did dress that way for Spring skiing and it was a very “cool” look then. Check out the “groovy” wind shirt and “far out” Foster Grant shades.

After I return, with all my parts in the right places Lord willing, I’ll begin publishing again. Until then…

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

*I’ll be looking in as time and Internet connectivity permit.