In other words, MacArthur, at this point, is unintentionally confusing repentance with the fruits of repentance, am I correct?Originally Posted by disciple
If you do find the quote, please post it. Just wondering, also, if you have ever read MacArthur's book, The God Who Loves?
Jason
Lordship Salvation teaching definitely holds an unbalanced view of repentance, works, surrendering all, counting the cost, etc. There can be no question about it in my estimation.
Although those who teach this notion use 'gospel language' to describe aspects of justification, they retreat and use the terminology of Wesleyanism to describe everything else in the Christian walk. My personal conviction is that they have no idea of what they are speaking of.
Lordship salvation theology in its essence stands condemned by the gospel. This is because it does not accept the superior revelation of Paul as the true interpretation of all of Christ's words, but retreats into a Judaistic-style speculative interpretation of the gospels, James, Hebrews, and 2 Peter--one that casts demonic doubt on full assurance. Throw out the slave woman and her bastard son! The gospel cannot mix with law-slavery!
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
actually, i went back and read his chapter on repentance and could not find much confusion. it actually seems that he is carfeul to make the distinction. it is just statements like the following that seem to introduce confusion:
i guess it depends on how one understands what it means to turn from sin. some understand that as to give up or forsake your sins. perhaps he just means this as a mental and volitional decision and does not mean to imply an action or human work. but i think this is a statement that could easily be misunderstood.These writers and others have thus redefined repentance in a way that minimizes or even evacuates its moral ramifications. They write it off as simply a change of mind about who Christ is. This kind of repentance has nothing to do with turning from sin or abandoning self. It is utterly devoid of any recognition of personal guilt, any intent to obey God, or any desire for true righteousness. [pg 161]
As metanoia is used in the NT, it always speaks of a change of purpose, and specifically a turning from sin.[pg 162]
i found some quotes that may be of concern:
this is very dangerous because this is what roman catholicism (and cults like jehovah's witnesses) do when they speak of faith. faith for the roman catholic is so intimately related to works that there is almost no distinction. faith and works are convoluted and justification and sanctification are nearly equated.Salvation is a gift, but it is appropriated only through a faith that goes beyond merely understanding and assenting to the truth. [pg 32; his explanation helps to clarify here]
The Bible does not recognize faith that lacks this element of active repentance. True faith is never seen as passive -- it is always obedient. In fact, Scripture often equates faith with obedience (John 3:36; Rom 1:5; 16:26; 2 Thess 1:8).
you can read some other issues at trinity review. i think the article is based on many misunderstandings and a failure to consider macarthur's qualifiers and explanations but overall it brings up some valid concerns for macarthur to at least be a bit clearer (considering the danger of messing up the gospel).
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/rev...p?ID=098a.html
Last edited by disciple; 03-06-2004 at 12:19 PM.
When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
--Erasmus
A room without books is a body without soul.
--Cicero
In listening to MacArthur in more recent years, he has improved significantly beyond the fables in 'The Gospel According to Jesus.' However, he still returns often to the 'language' of the lordship salvation heresy--trying to preach a 'revised' form of it. This is clearly holding to a theology of paradox. While John now fully confesses the imputed righteousness of Christ as the only basis of confidence, this gospel has not been used to rebuke and condemn all of the old demons.
These errors are typical of the evangelical world in general and are certainly not unique with MacArthur.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Faith is cognitive, good works are actions that MUST result from true faith (since action cannot contradict belief). The bad works of Christians are the fruit of the remaining sinful nature--not the fruit of faith. But evangelicalism mostly confuses faith and action. Many teach that faith IS action--that until one acts (good works) he is not saved. This is the teaching of the false gospel of the great apostasy.
True faith involves knowledge, confidence, agreement with God, and trust. All of these characteristics are a cognitive exercise of the mind (heart). One does not have to perform a good work before rejoicing in the assurance of salvation.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I'm not seeing too much of an error with what MacArthur said at all. He's simply attacking the notion of a "easy-believism." I have grown up in an evangelical church that never had an emphasis of repentance when the gospel was given. So I completely know where MacArthur is coming from with that statement.
If you read, "Gospel According to the Apostles," MacArthur does identify those distinctions as well as elaborate on the reformed view of faith as opposed to the RC view.
Please substantiate this because as far as I'm concerned, MacArthur has always believed in the imputed righteousness of Christ. That is a fundamental doctrine in protestantism. I would be surprised if he ever denied it in his past.
Billy, what in the world is up with the demon talk? Lighten up. Don't make me go into Infant Baptism because I sure hope you don't believe in that.
Jitl_5234:
Have you read the article at the link Disciple provided in his last post in this thread?
I'm not proposing that John MacArthur did not always PROFESS the doctrine of imputed righteousness. I am certainly proposing that he did not always ACT (in his writings) in harmony with his profession. I don't see how anyone can dispute that fact.
I am not into infant water baptism 'law' at all, as you will see if you read other threads currently posting in this discussion board.
In the love of Christ,
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Yes I have read that article a long time ago and I do not recall reading about any inconsistencies of that doctrine with MacArthur's book. I may have to read it again.
i too see where he is coming from and can totally relate to what he's saying. i too went to a complete easy-believist (anti-lordship) church. but, as always, a danger of combating an "enemy" or a perceived heresy (e.g., "easy-believism") is in overemphasizing something in order to make a point, not providing qualification and clarification, and sounding as if you're saying one thing when you're really saying another. this is where i think some of the statements he has made are coming from. like i said, i think a lot of the points robbins makes about macarthur are based on misunderstandings of what macarthur truly believes and is really trying to say. but, the confusions are there nonetheless and more than robbins have misunderstood him. in fact, easy-believists continue to miss his arguments because he perhaps has done a pendulum swing in order to defend "orthodoxy" and as a result has been misunderstood (not only because of the fault of the listeners, though that may be part of it, but probably primarily because poor communication on his part). so i think macarthur defenders have too quickly accused his detractors of deliberately misunderstanding him when the fault may be in a communication problem on his part (confusing statements, etc.).
also, i think it is possible that macarthur may have misdiagnosed the heart of the problem of easy-believism. i think that rather than a skewed understanding of the gospel message itself (or justification), that easy-believism has a skewed understanding of sanctification and its relationship to justification. so i think the heart of the problem is not necessarily in a false gospel (though that may be included in the heresy in some cases) but a false understanding about what salvation actually is and means. perhaps that's an issue of semantics and different emphasis but i think it's important. because the gospel is simple ("easy") and salvation is wholly by grace through faith without works. so i don't think the easy-believists are wrong on that. the problem is rather a false understanding on what must result and be expected after the gospel is given and supposedly embraced by a works free faith (e.g., sanctification). so what it might be is a false soteriology not a false gospel.
i've read it and understand that macarthur repudiates the roman catholic "gospel" (which is not really a gospel at all). have you heard his tapes with d.james kennedy, rc sproul, and john ankerburg (sp?)? those are very good to get an understanding of what he believes about the gospel as well. what i was specifically referring to was what i pointed out plus an earlier version of his book where he made confusing statements about justification. he said something like that justification is not only a declaring righteous but also a making righteous of those who believe. he got much flak for this and issued a revision of his work without making a big deal about it or issuing an official and public clarification and apology (as far as i know).
Last edited by disciple; 03-08-2004 at 10:12 AM.
When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
--Erasmus
A room without books is a body without soul.
--Cicero
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks