Archival Series: Ominous Signs of Lordship’s Coming Storm

In May 2008 I received an e-mail from a Pastor Norm Aabye.[1] Pastor Aabye shared a unique view of events that predate the modern day Lordship Salvation controversy, which was reignited in 1988 with release of Dr. John MacArthur’s first major Lordship Salvation apologetic The Gospel According to Jesus.

From Pastor Aabye’s first hand historical perspective you can see that ominous signs of Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel were coming into view as much as seven years prior to the release of The Gospel According to Jesus. Pastor Aabye includes a reference to a related matter I have covered here, the IFCA meetings with John MacArthur in 1989.

I asked for and received permission to share Pastor Aabye’s e-mail, which follows.

Dear Brother Lou,

I “accidentally” came across your site while doing some research for a message I am preparing on the substance of the Gospel. Let me say that you are doing an admirable job of providing pertinent information on the Lordship Salvation issue.

My wife and I are currently involved in a ministry to the elderly in nursing homes in northwest PA and northeastern OH, but for 18 years I was the pastor of an independent Baptist church in Connecticut. But prior to my call to preach, I was employed for several years by Moody Press (this was before my wife and I determined that we were really more fundamental in our doctrine and beliefs than the Moody crowd, which has slipped further into New Evangelicalism!).

I clearly remember a staff meeting at Moody Press (MP) where Phil Johnson, who was then an editor at MP, presented one of John MacArthur’s newest books to us, The Ultimate Priority[2], which had to do with worship.

A controversy ensued at the meeting because of the back cover copy, which implied that a person’s eternity destiny was dependent upon how they worshipped. I clearly remember the director of MP requiring Phil Johnson to go back and rewrite the copy because of what was believed to be its erroneous implications. I believe this was around 1981 and John MacArthur was Moody’s “fair-haired boy” at that time. If I remember correctly, it was shortly after this that Phil Johnson left MP to work full-time with MacArthur in California.

When The Gospel According to Jesus was published in 1988, MacArthur’s favor with MP apparently quickly diminished.

Dr. Charles Ryrie was one of our key authors at that time, with his study Bible being the flagship product. His clear teachings on the substance of the Gospel were diametrically opposed to MacArthur’s Lordship view of the Gospel. I knew Dr. Ryrie and he was solid on all he taught, and a real Christian gentleman.

Years ago I was in a personal conversation with John MacArthur during a Christian Bookseller’s Association convention in Anaheim while I still worked for Moody. We were making some observations about Kenneth Hagin’s ministry and MacArthur began conversing with me about the charismatic movement in general. His knowledge on that topic is extensive, as it may be on other topics. While he demonstrated himself to be very capable in dealing with “certain” issues, I lost confidence in his [MacArthur's] ability to discern the simplicity of the Gospel itself. Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation is, of course, wrong primarily on the very basic issue of what constitutes saving faith, and certain other issues we are contending for.

The escalation of the Lordship Salvation debacle, as well as the blood issue and the eternal sonship of Christ [3], quickly made me lose confidence in him. Over the years, I have watched him plunge deeper into Reformed theology and was aware of his fall from favor from the IFCA International (I still have the tapes of the 1989 IFCA meeting in which John was asked to explain his views).

I have only begun to peruse the articles on your site, as there is so much to read, but I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate what you are doing and the importance of a clear Gospel of grace in our day of confusion. May God continue to bless you in your efforts.


Pastor Norm Aabye
Saegertown, PA

Site Publisher Addendum:

For additional reading on the IFCA controversy with John MacArthur see these articles that include links to transcripts from the 1989 IFCA interview with John MacArthur-

IFCA Statement on the Nature of Saving Faith

Insights From the IFCA Interview with John MacArthur

John MacArthur Requested to and Resigns From the IFCA

Footnotes:

[1] Pastor Norm Aabye was born and raised in Connecticut ; USAF veteran; saved in 1970, while serving in the Philippines; graduate of Colonial Hills Baptist College, Danbury, CT; ordained in 1987; founded River Valley Baptist Church in Ansonia, Connecticut in 1987, and pastored there for 18 years; taught in the Bible department for 9 years on the faculty of the New England School of the Bible, Southington, CT; founded C.A.R.E. Ministries (Christ’s Ambassadors Reaching the Elderly) in 2006, a nursing home ministry in northwestern PA and northeastern OH. Pastor Aabye and his wife, Priscilla, currently reside in rural northwestern Pennsylvania, serving as full-time missionaries to the elderly in nursing homes.

[2] You can view the back cover of John MacArthur’s The Ultimate Priority as it appears today.

[3] “Those who teach this view would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jimmy Swaggart, Finis J. Dake (Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible), Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults). Popular Bible teacher John MacArthur, Jr. for many years denied the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, but he has changed his position and now embraces this doctrine.” For detailed study see- The Eternal Sonship of Christ by Pastor George Zeller. But has MacArthur truly repented of that view? Serious questions raise doubts over whether or not MacArthur has repudiated his former view and genuinely abandoned it. See John MacArthur: Christ’s Eternal Sonship for a discussion of this controversy.

Dr. Lance Ketchum: The Subtlety of “Good Words and Fair Speeches”

People who are called to serve the Lord as pastors, missionaries, and evangelists understand the insecurity of ministry. They know that people are often fickle. Pastors understand the volatile nature of local church ministries. Many local churches are like powder kegs that could explode at the first spark of a personality clash. The natural tendency for pastor and missionaries living in such volatile conditions is to live by the simple principle – PROCEED WITH CAUTION! Sadly, in many cases, pastors and evangelists simply avoid any thing that is controversial just to protect the little bit of job security that they have. The central thrust of Romans 16:17-20 is a warning about the subtlety of the failure to deal with the issues of false doctrine that regularly arise within local churches. The thrust of the warning is found in verse 18 – “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Romans 16:17-20).

Phil Johnson

I was notified recently that the Minnesota Baptist Association will host its annual Men’s Fellowship in September of 2013. The featured speaker will be Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You, the broadcast ministry of John MacArthur. John MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist, believes in Lordship salvation, Presbyterian polity, uses CCM and Christian-rock in his church ministries, and is undoubtedly a New Evangelical. MacArthur was flirting with the National Association of Evangelicals back in the early 1980’s when I was a member of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.). Phil Johnson is essentially MacArthur’s public relations person. MacArthur and Johnson are certainly not independent Baptists.

Why then would an association of independent Baptist churches promote someone that so blatantly disagrees with them in doctrine and practice? The answer is obvious. They do not disagree with him in his doctrine and practice. They must think his doctrinal positions to be at least viable. They have changed!

Compromise is often expressed in small increments. There is a subtle and dangerous undercurrent in the temptation to compromise. The undercurrent has to do with a pastor’s inherent desire for self-protection and survival in the ministry. It also affects leaders of ministries like Bible colleges and seminaries. When a pastor allows such inherent feelings to dominate his thinking, he will soon be led into varying degrees of incremental compromise. Pragmatic measurements, particularly in using numbers of people in determining ministry success, lead many men astray. No one wants to see the numbers of people diminish under their leadership whether it is in a local church, Bible college, or seminary. Talk to any pastor who has lost large numbers of people and almost always you will find a man who believes he has failed. The fact is, he may have been faithful in preaching the “whole counsel of God” and some people just did not like it. When the solution to a loss of numbers of people is anything other than revival, you will find the willingness to compromise somewhere in the mix.

Perhaps the main reason Paul was so faithful in his many battles for “the faith” was that he saw himself as a “sheep for the slaughter.” He told the Roman believers earlier in his epistle to the Romans that their thinking of themselves as “sheep for the slaughter” ought to be the norm for all true believers.

“As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (Romans 8:36).

Maintaining such an attitude in our ministries is certainly difficult. In order to maintain such an attitude, it demands that we do not view our ministry as a job, and that we do not give ourselves self-importance. Although pastors serve people, people are not their employers. God is their boss and it is to Him they will ultimately answer for our leadership. All of this is even more difficult when we consider the threat to the financial security of their families. In most cases, we cannot they men-pleasers (I Thessalonians 2:4) if they are going to be God’s ambassadors (II Corinthians 5:16-21). Although those that truly love the Word of God will be pleased when it is preached without consideration of the fear or favor of men, those who do not love the Word of God will wince and retreat when it is proclaimed.

The church I pastor separated from the Minnesota Baptist Association in 2012 because the M.B.A. began to redefine the way they were going to practice separation. The use of Phil Johnson as their featured speaker is merely a reflection of their new Gospel Centrism (their Gospel is really Reformed Soteriology). During the six years I was the State Missionary of the Minnesota Baptist Association and editor of their North Star magazine, I wrote many articles to keep the association from going the direction it has gone. Apparently, in most part, those articles have gone unheeding. In some cases, they were ridiculed. One such article, entitled The Hegelian Dialectic, is quoted below: 

“The Hegelian Dialectic is basically a process that ultimately results in Centrism. This is accomplished by bringing together diverse positions for dialogue. The process involves bringing together a thesis (extreme right) together with an antithesis (extreme left) for discussion that moves both extremes towards the center (compromise). Two things happen to the majority of those involved in the dialogue. 1. The majority of the participants form a synthesis (a composite position) somewhere between the two extremes (this is the goal of the Hegelian Dialectic). 2. Those not accepting the synthesis become sympathetic towards the various degrees of positions of those involved in the dialogue in that tolerance becomes the banner under which the process functions. This process is repeated with each generation and the center (synthesis) constantly moves towards the extreme left (compromise, tolerance, and liberalism). No one likes to be viewed as an extremist or a radical. That is why all Christians are naturally prone towards moving towards the middle on every issue of conflict. That is the reason why the vast majority of local churches, associations of churches, and conventions/denominations have become New Evangelical and Liberal. When conflicting positions arise, we will find most people settling for one of two solutions: tolerance or compromise. Neither of these two positions is acceptable to God. Neither should they be acceptable to the person that calls himself a Biblicist. Truth is always a constant. God is immutable. All truth originates in God’s immutableness. Therefore truth is immutable. Which of God’s truths is inconsequential to Him? Which of God’s truths does He delineate as a major truth and which is a minor truth?”

Therefore, Centrism is an applicable term to describe the outcomes of what we see in the dialogue between radically different theological positions. Romans 16:18 describes this process by the phrase - “good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” One example of this is how biblical separation is now being redefined during this dialogue. In order to justify the way separation is being redefined, they must redefine the way unity is defined. Therefore, they must take a Big Christianity view of the doctrine of the Church rather than an independent local church view. This is Reformed Ecclesiology. Reformed Theology seems to be a common denominator for defining who is going to be included in the dialogue and who is excluded. In fact, Dr. Kevin Bauder has regularly criticized people for criticizing Reform Theology, especially Reformed Soteriology. Under his paradigm, anyone believing that Reformed Soteriology is unscriptural, and is willing to say that publicly, is outside of his acceptable Fundamentalism.

Dr. Kevin Bauder, past president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, clearly defines “fundamental doctrines” as those “doctrines that are essential to the gospel.” This statement seeks to reduce Fundamentalism to Gospel Centrism. Certainly, Fundamentalism is Gospel centered, but the fundamentals of the Bible extend into other areas of theology as well. Anything less is the abdication of theological dogmatism regarding anything other than the Gospel. In most cases, Evangelicals cannot even agree on what the Gospel is and certainly do not agree on what defines a biblical response to the Gospel.

“To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines.”1 

New Evangelicalism essentially developed in order to build bridges between Evangelicalism and Liberalism (Theological Modernism). Gospel Centrism is a group within Fundamentalism (actually Evangelicals), trying to build bridges to the ever drifting New Evangelicals now rapidly becoming the Emergent Church. Dr. Kent Brandenburg defines the issues in this form of compromise very well in a new book he has recently edited and in which has written a number of chapters:

“Disobedience to the Biblical doctrine of separation follows the spirit of this age, which reflects post-enlightenment human reasoning. The world will get to where man is in charge of everything, but to get to that goal, there will be a series of compromises fitting to a Hegelian dialectic. Dialogue and consensus building are the means. The goal is the ‘third way’ that we often read about in politics today. The first and Biblical way is separation. The second and man’s way is getting along. The third way is the compromise of separation in order to get along more. The result of the compromise is called progress, reaching toward the end of world peace. Churches are now caught up in this cycle. Compromise is called love, which is really sentimentality. The watering down of doctrine is labeled humility, which is really pride. Humility submits to God. Pride replaces what God said with man’s ideas, elevating men. Pride is the new humility, however, in the new political and theological correctness. The new humility emphasizes nuance and repudiates dogmatism. Finally, anything anyone believes is accepted so that everyone can get along with everyone else, except God.”2

Dr. Doug McLachlan seems to be a connecting link to what he refers to as a “radical new center.” This “radical new center” is being fleshed out by a form of Gospel Centrism in some kind of New Fundamentalism. Unfortunately, this New Fundamentalism looks much like old New Evangelicalism. He has stated that he believes that the way Northland International University, Central Baptist Seminary, Calvary Baptist Seminary, and Detroit Theological Seminary are now practicing separation is what he intended in the writing of his book Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. This Authentic Fundamentalism is markedly absent of a central characteristic of old Fundamentalism, which is militancy. Dr. Roland McCune offered his review of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism:

“Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy. 

‘What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true.’3 

I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought,4 seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.”

Terms like “militant meekness” and “radical new center” sound very intellectual, but they are nothing more than “good words and fair speeches” that “deceive the hearts of the simple.” I wrote an article on this October 22nd, 2011 entitled - Has God Changed the “Old Paths” for a new "radical center"? The closing paragraph of the article is quoted below:

“I do not understand how knowledgeable men can so easily be led into the ditch of philosophical compromise. I do not understand how knowledgeable men can justify using the language of Centrism when they must know it is the language of cultural manipulation. I think they must understand their methodology and have adapted certain agreed upon talking points. If they are right (and their argument is that they are right), then everything to the right of them is wrong and everything to the left of them is wrong. Yet, they are willing to label everyone they say is to the right of them as Hyper, while labeling select individuals to the left of them as friends. Then they separate from those to the right of them (which means all those unwilling to accept their new center) and maintain fellowship with those they admittedly understand to be to the left of them. It does not seem too difficult to discern the direction in which they are moving, even though they claim they have not moved. This obviously tells us something about them. Either they never were where they once professed to be, or they have moved. Either of those two possibilities is unacceptable.”5

When professed fundamentalists such as Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Douglas McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, and Dr. Dave Doran begin to defend men like Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Maheney, and Rick Holland (to name a few), it becomes very apparent that there has been a considerable change in direction regarding the practice of militant separation. 

This goes one step further when they invite these men to preach for them.

In Romans 16:19, Paul commends the Roman believers for their obedience to “the faith” and then warns them in the next sentence – “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.” The word “evil” is from the Greek word kakos (kak-os'). The context would imply the meaning to be about worthless teaching that is harmful or injurious. This context is established because the word “simple” is from the Greek word akeraios (ak-er'-ah-yos), meaning unmixed in the sense of being unmixed with false teaching. Therefore, the word “simple” here means harmless. An alternative reading of last part of Romans 16:19 might be, “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and harmless concerning harmful false doctrine.” The “harmful false doctrine” refers to what Paul said earlier when he spoke of “good words and fair speeches” that are intended to “deceive the hearts of the simple.”

The biblical doctrine of separation is nothing to be trifled with. The biblical doctrine of separation should certainly never be reduced the way the Gospel Centrists are attempting to reduce it. To propose that Christians focus on the center while ignoring the parameters is ludicrous and bizarre. Such a proposition is to say the center of biblical truth is more important than the boundaries established by biblical truth.

To emphasize unity at the sacrifice of doctrinal continuity is equally ludicrous and bizarre. This is what the New Evangelicals have done for years and is the practice of those within the varying degrees on Emergent Christianity. We all certainly understand we are not talking about doctrinal unanimity. No two people will ever be perfectly unanimous doctrinally. However, there certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on what defines the Church and how it is to be governed. There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on what the Gospel is and how people get saved. There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on what the Bible teaches about the end times and the Christian’s part in these future events. There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on whether sign gifts have ceased or if they continue throughout the Church Age.6 These are very important issues of orthodoxy that radically impact orthopraxy and orthopathy.

To define the “unity of the Spirit” outside of its parameters of the statement in Ephesians 4:5-6 is equally ludicrous and bizarre – “5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” This simple statement does not reduce unity down to one commonality as does Gospel Centrism.7 This simple statement in fact expands the “unity of the Spirit” exponentially by the phrase “one faith.” There is but one true God and He has given only one inspired Bible. Therefore, there is only one correct interpretation that defines the “one faith.” True “unity of the Spirit” will only be found where there is unanimity within all the parameters of the “one faith.”

Who then gets to decide what defines unanimity? Does a Bible college get to define this? Does a seminary get to define this? No, every individual and every local church must define unanimity for themselves. Then they must decide how they are going practice separation within their own definition and agreement. They must do this so as to insure no believer will be led astray by identifying with someone, or another local church, that teaches false doctrine or practices separation that appears to endorse false doctrine.

Romans 16:17-20 appears almost as a parenthesis within the context of Paul’s salutation to the faithful believers within various local churches at Rome. The text is Paul’s final statement defining a true Opus Dei (the universal call to holiness). Paul pleads with these faithful believers to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17. There are two admonitions in the text. These faithful believers were to “mark” these people that causes “divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine” and they were to “avoid them.” The word “mark” is from the Greek word skopeo (skop-eh'-o), which literally means to take aim at. The intent is to put a mark on them like a point on a target. The word “avoid” is from the Greek word ekklino (ek-klee'-no), which means to deviate. The idea is to walk away from such a person. Obviously the intent of the verb is separation. 

Let me be careful here to say that I do not disagree with everything these men teach. I have been often enriched and edified by their ministries, teaching, and writings. However, this new pathway of Gospel Centrism is a pathway on which we cannot walk together. It is serious enough to require biblical separation from these men. It is serious enough for spiritual men to separate them from their associations. I have talked to a few men in the leadership of the Minnesota Baptist Association of churches regarding these issues. My comments were received with a smirk of derision and ridicule. What they have done is shunned the “mark” that should be put upon these men for their apparent compromises. In doing so, they have accepted a pathway of heteropraxy foreign to every Bible believing fundamentalist for thousands of years. Thousands over the centuries have adorned the true doctrine of biblical separation with their own blood.

Most importantly, these men have rejected the clear statements of the Word of God about separation in exchange for “good words and fair speeches” intent upon the deception of “the hearts of the simple.” This was addressed in an article entitled Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of Separation. The quote below is from that article:

“We must understand Paul’s instruction to ‘mark them’ and his command to ‘avoid them’ as referring to anything that departs from ‘the faith’ he had just laid out in careful divisions and meticulous detail including the vocational election of national Israel, the details of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the place of Church Age believers in the unfolding already, not yet beginning of the New Covenant. Paul gives details of Pneumatology in Romans chapters 6 and 12 regarding the supernatural baptism with the Holy Spirit (6:1-18) and the supernatural enabling of the Holy Spirit in the lives of consecrated believers (12:1-8). Paul gives details of the Church Age priesthood of all believers in Romans chapter 11 and warns them of the consequences of unfaithfulness by disobedience to what they were saved to do - Ambassadors of Reconciliation.

Secondly, two practical outcome failures are addressed in the statement ‘cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine.’

            1. ‘Divisions . . . contrary to the doctrine’

            2. ‘Offences . . . contrary to the doctrine’

Those to be marked and avoided are those involved in these two corrupt outcomes. The words ‘the doctrine’ are synonymous with the words ‘the faith’ used elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. In fact Paul uses the phrase ‘the faith’ to refer to the complete inscripturalized doctrines of the Word of God over and over again in his epistles. I believe Paul uses the phrase ‘the faith’ on 20 different occasions and Peter and Jude each use it once. The phrase ‘the faith’ is what Paul refers to in Acts 20:27 as he addressed the ‘elders’ of the local churches of Ephesus, ‘For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.’

The word ‘divisions’ in Romans 16:17 is from the Greek word dichostasia (dee-khos-tas-ee'-ah), which means disunion. Paul is referring to doctrinal dissension resulting in division or sedition. Therefore, the primary meaning of ‘divisions’ is the breaking of what was previously joined together. ‘Divisions’ is doctrinal disunity as contrasted with doctrinal unity.”8

The men I seek to mark by this article are creating “divisions contrary to the doctrine.” This refers to heresy in that heresy is creating a faction or a new group from those led away from a previous group. This is explained in the same article as the quote above.

“Once the division is created and an individual is disjoined from the unity of the ‘one faith,’ this creates a faction or new sect within Christianity. Therefore, this division in doctrine leads to heresy. The word heresy in the New Testament is from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is), which basically means to choose a party or sect. The negative aspect of the word heresy refers to the removing of an individual from the main stream of Bible believing Christianity to form another division that wants to represent itself as the main stream or the norm.”9

“The Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is) is often translated by the word sect rather than by the word heresy. There was ‘the sect {hairesis} of the Sadducees’ (Acts 5:17). There was ‘the sect {hairesis} of the Pharisees’ (Acts 15:5). On two occasions, true Christianity was called heresy by the Jews (Acts 24:5 and 14). Paul refers to the divisions within the church at Corinth as heresy (I Cor. 11:17-19). Paul referred to ‘heresies’ as one of the manifestations of the ‘works of the flesh’ in Galatians 5:19-21. Peter referred to the divisive teaching of the ‘false teachers’ as ‘damnable heresies’ in II Peter 2:1 that ultimately denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The point is that even though individuals who come under the pretense of unity, but with some new divisive theological position thereby creating a new faction and sect within Christianity, thereby this is the very essence of what defines the word heresy. Therefore, although Paul’s use of the word ‘divisions’ in Romans 16:17 is not the Greek word hairesis, the outcome of these ‘divisions’ is heresy (new sects).

The second practical outcome failure addressed in the statement of Romans 16:17 is that they ‘cause . . . offences contrary to the doctrine.’ The word ‘offenses’ is translated from the Greek word skandalon (skan'-dal-on), from which we get our English word scandal. It is derived from a word meaning trip stick. The context of use gives us the meaning to refer to the outcome of false doctrine that would cause people to be tripped up or to stumble in their Christian walk. This certainly would apply to the false teaching of Conservative Evangelicalism that cooperation amongst various sects of Christianity should only be determined by some ambiguous definition of the Gospel.”10

The words “good words and fair speeches” in Romans 16:18 do not sound as ominous as these words that come forth in the Greek text. We see how ominous these words are when we look at the outcomes of their intent. David Sutton brings this forth in his comments on this text:

“They deceive the hearts of the simple. These good words (xrestologia) have a pleasing quality. They seem full of virtue and reason. They are not brash or harsh, but gentle, offering better results that the ‘old’ way. This is the same tactic that Satan used with Eve. He questioned God, contradicted God, and gave a reasonable solution for why Eve should do what he wanted. Does it work? It does? The fair speeches (eulogia) come out as polished language, smooth and flowing, filled with good words and blessing. Many times, these people speak their messages with eloquence and style. They use tactics that tickle people’s ears and capture their attention. They flatter, look humble, sound sincere, and talk spiritual. They know the Bible and often do good works. Yet something seems off. What they say does not line up with Scripture, yet they seem so believable. The spiritually mature see problems, but the simple do not. As a result, the simple are deceived in their hearts (their way of thinking).”11

There is always a common pattern in the process of developing leadership among people. The first step is to earn a hearing. The second step is developing a friendship. The third step is winning the heart. The fourth step is creating loyalty. However, once these four steps have been achieved, they can be used for good or evil. Those following these leaders must always be extremely cautious when leadership appears to be taking a new pathway contrary to God’s Word.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Psalm 14:12).

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein” (Jeremiah 6:16).

Dr. Lance T. Ketchum
Originally appeared: Disciple Maker Ministries

Reprinted by permission

---

[1] http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelicalism

[2] Brandenburg, Kent, editor. Contributing authors: Custer, Michael; Mallinak, Dave; McCandless, Erich; Mitchell, Bobby; Smith, Thomas; Sutton, David; and Webb, Gary. A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation. El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2012, page 296-297.

[3] George Houghton. "The Matter of Militancy," Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[4] The idea of "servant leadership" as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term "has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporaryservant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of "the body" from which their direction and standing derive" (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]' pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well's point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.

[5] http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/has-god-changed-old-paths-for-new.html

[6] http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2012/04/tests-of-fellowship.html

[7] http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/crossing-guards-for-doctrine-of.html

[8] http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2010/12/conservative-evangelicalisms-distortion.html

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Brandenburg, Kent, editor. Contributing authors: Custer, Michael; Mallinak, Dave; McCandless, Erich; Mitchell, Bobby; Smith, Thomas; Sutton, David; and Webb, Gary. A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation. El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2012, page 40.

Related Reading:
Platform Sharing & Identification by Dr. Clay Nuttall

Dr. Ernest Pickering: “A Mood of 'Broadmindedness'.” The NEW “New” Evangelicalism
“Moods are difficult to define sometimes, but they nonetheless can be real and potent forces. Theirs was a mood of toleration, an acceptance of widely varying theological concepts - a mood of “broadmindedness.” We fear such moods since we have seen, within our lifetime, their final outcome - a full-blown movement steeped in compromise. We believe we sense such a mood abroad today among those who, in all sincerity no doubt, think we should broaden our bases and reshape our image.”

Editor’s Commentary:
Because of the importance of this article to the discussion of new wave New Evangelicalism making inroads into once fundamental, separatist Baptist circles, through the efforts of Drs. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Doug McLachlan, Sam Horn and Matt Olson you might consider forwarding a link to this article by Dr. Ketchum to a wide circle of friends and acquaintances.

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?

“Dangerous Influences Have [Definitely] Infiltrated the Evangelical Movement”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Recently I read an interesting and telling interview given by Phil Johnson at the *Exiled Preacher blog. I appreciated much of it. I’d like to share and comment on one statement from Brother Johnson. Near the conclusion of the interview he stated,

“The greatest problem I see is the ever-broadening boundary of the evangelical movement and (corresponding to that) the increasingly ambiguous definition of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are too concerned with gaining collective clout and publicity and not concerned enough with being evangelical (being faithful to the gospel). Many of evangelicalism’s most visible and popular leaders and institutions—including evangelicalism’s self-styled “house organ,” Christianity Today magazine—have been tearing down evangelical boundaries instead of guarding them. Consequently, a host of dangerous influences have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews don’t see the danger, because it’s considered impolite to be critical of a fellow ‘evangelical’.”

The portion in bold, in particular, is nearly a mirror image of what Peter Masters wrote in his article, The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness. Dr. 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…. A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book (Hansen’s) 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.”

I’m wondering when men like Phil Johnson and John MacArthur who “see the danger” are going to openly criticize and biblically resist the propagation of the charismatic sign gifts by their fellow T4G “conservative” evangelicals C. J. Mahaney and John Piper. Dr. MacArthur is going to share the platform at T4G (in April) with both of these men. Will MacArthur confront Piper and Mahaney over their “dangerous influences” or as Masters noted will he, “learn to accept every point of view” to be part of T4G?

Of course the danger of ecumenism has infiltrated the evangelical community and NT church with Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. This is another of the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews….”

John MacArthur, however, is this very week at his Shepherd’s Conference honoring Dr. Al Mohler by giving him a keynote speakers’ role. This is a strange honorarium for a man who is “tearing down the boundaries” and has become a conduit for the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews…”

Finally, how many (Fundamentalist) pastors who claim allegiance to the God-given mandates for biblical separatism, that forbid fellowship or cooperation with “enemies of the cross of Christ” (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:11; Phil. 3:18) or those disobedient brethren who give them Christian recognition will be attending T4G, Desiring God and/or Shepherd’s? Who among those who claim a heritage of biblical separatism are going to place themselves, and those under their oversight, at the feet of men (Mohler, Duncan, Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, et. al.) who are bringing “dangerous influences” into the NT church?

We are discussing the propagation of Charismatic theology and/or ecumenical compromise. These are no mere, “matters of judgment” that some men might suggest. What these erring brethren believe and practice in these examples are “matters of fundamental doctrine.”

To fellowship with, to sit under the conference teaching/preaching ministry of men who have compromised the Gospel is a form of “pro-separatism” that is neither biblical nor part of any historic, balanced Fundamentalist heritage.


LM

*Exiled Preacher, Blogging in the Name of the Lord: Phil Johnson
(Thanks to Rachel, of the KnetKnight clan, for providing this link)

Editor’s Note:
After initial publication of this article I’ve expanded the quote from Phil’s interview to provide a fuller context.