by Phil Johnson
|
ob Wilkin, founder and chief mouthpiece of the Grace Evangelical Society, published this "review" of The Gospel According to Jesus in the October-November 1988 issue of the GES newsletter, within a few weeks after the book was first released:
|
I wrote Bob a letter on 4 November 1988, in which I identified myself as the book's editor and said,
While I had no expectation that GES would be supportive of Dr. MacArthur's position, I had hoped for an honest evaluation of the book....When I received no reply or acknowledgement from Bob Wilkin, I wrote him again on 25 April 1989, enclosed a copy of the original letter, and again requested a reply. More than fifteen years later, he has still not replied to or acknowledged that letter, and yet the original "review" is still posted at the GES website in its original form.In the first place, assurance is not, as you state, one of the four main issues of The Gospel According to Jesus. The book barely touches on the subject. Its focus is the message Jesus proclaimed and the response He demanded. The book clearly is not intended to be a treatise on assurance. Far from teaching that assurance is impossible, however, Dr. MacArthur consistently encourages readers to examine their lives by the biblical standard, and be sure of their salvation.
Also, despite what you say, Dr. MacArthur never once speaks of "doubt and worry over one's salvation as a strong motivation . . .for people to live holy lives."
Perhaps one further quotation from your review will serve to show the utter dishonesty of the way you dealt with this book. You write, "[MacArthur] even admits at one point that [repentance] is in part a human work. He says, 'Nor is repentance merely a human work' (p. 163). That is, he sees it as a work of God and us" (your emphasis).
But did you read the paragraph in its entirety? Here it is:
Nor is repentance merely a human work. It is, like every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God. The early church, recognizing the authenticity of Cornelius's conversion, concluded, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18; cf. Acts 5:31). Paul wrote to Timothy that he should gently correct those who oppose the truth, "if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25). If God is the One who grants repentance, it cannot be viewed as a human work (emphasis added).Perhaps you haven't thoroughly read the book. If not, I encourage you to do so. I have no doubt that because of your theological position, you were predisposed to disagree with the book before you even saw it. But please do yourself and your constituents a favor and read the book again carefully and completely. The gospel is too important an issue for you to treat this book so cavalierly.You mention at the end of your article that you're planning an expanded review for the Spring issue of your journal. I hope that review will be written with more integrity than this one. I hope you'll use more quotations, and more in-depth ones. I hope you'll let the book speak for itself, rather than taking it upon yourself to explain what Dr. MacArthur "never says . . .in so many words." I hope you'll respond to Appendix 2 of the book, which seems to me to offer convincing proof that your view of the gospel is the one that deviates from the historic Christian faith. Above all, I hope you'll interact with the biblical data Dr. MacArthur brings out in the book. Rather than simply attacking Dr. MacArthur for urging believers to examine themselves, why not explain why you believe 2 Corinthians 13:5 doesn't mean what it says?
Awaiting Your Reply, Phillip R. Johnson
For more than a decade following the book's initial release, I replied to every letter sent to our ministry regarding The Gospel According to Jesus and the lordship debate. There were literally hundreds of letters on the issue, and with no more than three or four notable exceptions, every bit of interaction I ever had with hardcore no-lordship advocates was equally fruitless.
That's why I have been less than responsive to the spam and goading that appears from time to time in the comments here on the blog. Frankly, I think the GES version of no-lordship doctrine is as outlandish as some of the distinctive doctrines of the major cults. And given the obvious lack of seriousness in the commenters here who have advocated those doctrines, I'm no more inclined to devote multiple posts to the subject at PyroManiacs than I would be to discuss the Seventh-Day Adventists' doctrine of "investigative judgment."
But, in an effort to keep the spam out of other comment-threads and appease the handful of people who are itching to debate the issue here, I'll open the comment-thread in this post to the discussion. I just want to make a few ground rules, which I will strictly insist on:
- Raise only one issue at a time, and no more than three twelve-line paragraphs per comment (including Scripture references). Ask a question, make a challenge, or make a point, and I will try to answer it. Post a long diatribe or a term-paper-length "comment," and I'll ignore it. (I might even delete your comment if it seems a deliberate breach of this rule.)
- No prefabricated cut-and-paste-style comments, and no rambling propagandizing or graffiti-style posts.
- If you cite Scripture and the point you are making isn't stated plainly by the text itself, please cogently explain the point you think the text makes.
- If I raise a question in reply, you must give an answer to the point, and not a deflection that introduces a different issue.
- If you ignore my questions or counterpoints, I will delete your subsequent comments.
- I will endeavor to honor the same rules, and if you think I have failed to do so, please feel free to call me on it.
- Keep your comments on the lordship issue in this thread, and nowhere else on my blog. Starting now and until this thread is closed, comments on the lordship issue in other threads will be automatically and unapologetically deleted.
360 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 360 of 360Phil: "Funny, I was just about to say that you can count on some anonymous pomo from the peanut gallery to start lobbing jargonal grenades against epistemic certainty whenever a good hearty disagreement starts to be discussed with clarity and conviction."
Step back Phil, I am fixing to yell.......
AMEN AND AMEN AND AMEN!
I just put you down in my book as one of my heros.
You have a great weekend.
Douglas Mabry
Gojira: "You used the word "again" as if I had introduced Bonar prior to that one post. Why are you misrepresenting me?"
Arrrgh. OK. I retract the word "again" though it wasn't a reference to you in particular. I've made the point repeatedly in this thread that when we say "so-and-so said this:" or, "I'm just quoting what this person said," I want people to give references or links to the source. You left off the reference anyway, even after I had scolded others for that; hence "again."
Now I wonder if you are ever going to make a substantive argument on point without veering into some dispute about words and peppering your posts with demands that your critics apologize or retract what they have said. In other words, can we discuss the doctrinal issues like men?
Regarding Mr. Johnson's foils: To paraphrase Churchill, never has so little been said by so few in so many words....He's dead, leave the poor horse alone.
Gojira: Do you need for me to produce ***your own words*** to me from a few weeks back where I asked you for documentation and you both publically and privately told me it wasn't your job to do my homework for me? Yet now you appear to want me to do your homework. Why is that, Phil?"
Because in that case, you were asking me to provide documentation on something that you brought up and spoke of in shorthand fashion as if you were thoroughly familiar with it. Then when I challenged you about whether you really knew what you were talking about, you replied by demanding that I furnish the record of the exchange in question. Bad form.
In this case, I had already requested people in this thread to quote accurately and provide documentation.
Phil: "Incidentally, I'm not suggesting Christians ought to obsess all the time over whether they are truly Christians"
Gojira: Really? It was you yourself who said, "So such careful self-examination should take place regularly, but the specific frequency with which we do it is not specified. I personally don't think daily is too often (cf. Hebrews 3:12-14)."
Well, I hope you use deodorant every day, but that's not the same as suggesting you should obsess over it.
BTW, does anyone else notice how virtually every one of Gojira's arguments hinges on a deliberate attempt to force his opponents' words to mean something novel that they aren't intended to mean?
Gojira, for someone who professes to share my contempt for pomo wordplay, you seem to indulge in a bit too much of it yourself. Then again, that might be just my own individual, subjective perspective.
Phil said:
We're all partly wrong, so perhaps we should just find the murkiest possible position somewhere in between the two views, I guess.
*Averaging* the two doesn't help you any more than over-reaching one way or another, does it? That's just another way to over-reach.
I forget who said make things as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein?), but that seems apropos for this thread.
paul doutell,
I read the rules (gotta keep this short!). Not under any illusions about control, here. That's just the point. I've no idea what Antonio's posts said yesterday (the ones that got deleted), but I suspect they were more substantial to the issue than a lot of the rest of the stream. It's his ballpark, but you can tell a lot by the way a man controls his own playing field. Sometimes, good discussion trumps your guideposts you put up to help the discussion.
-Touchstone
Phil,
This is my last post to you, and it might go a smidgen over your rule, but the reason why is because I want to tell you how great your blog actually is, including Dan.
But first, you spicifically indicted me. That might not have been your intent, but that is how your post is read. Secondly, you yourself have done the same exact thing that you called me out on. You talked about Berkouwer in the same way that I talked about Bonar. You talked but didn't provide documentation. (By the way, his _General Revelation_ is fairly good to read as well.) And lastly, I think I have engaged you fairly well. Now you and alot of other people might not think so, but that is alright, I didn't engage you for the purpose of meeting anyone's satification.
Now, what I really want to say in parting. I think you are a great guy; I think everybody on this team is great. I can think of many times I have went to God in prayer about something, and then later comeing here or over to Frank's site, and hitting search, and actually finding the thing I was in prayer about. And I would be a bigger idiot than I already am if I didn't give God the credit for that. I hope that this team, and you as well, nver stop posting. I love in Christ each of you, but particularly you, Phil, and Frank. I look up to each of you as my older and far more wiser brothers in Christ. And I am the better for it. So peace and blessing to you and to all your team. At the end of the day, like today, you guys shine as an awesome witness to Christ. But not because of you, but because of Him.
Douglas Mabry
Phil,
Answer to your question:
I haven't read Berkouwer, do you have a link for the chapter?
I have read some of John Calvin, and from what I can tell concerning his doctrine of assurance and definitions of faith, I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY.
Reformed theology's (and thus Lordship Salvation's) doctrine of assurance is at variance with Calvin's own, as Beeke, Dabney, A.A. Hodge, and D.A. Carson admit.
Furthermore, Reformed theology's (and thus Lordship Salvation's) definition of what saving faith is at variance with Calvin's own, as I can abundantly supply Calvin's definitions of faith and compare them to MacArthur's and other Reformed writers, and we can analalyze them ourselves.
Are there any other questions that I have missed?
Oh. To your spurious faith question, I fully answered it.
1) If spurious faith = faith in the wrong object/content I would say there is a spurious faith. But if spurious faith = some kind of substandard faith in the correct object with the correct content (Christ's promise to guarantee eternal life to all who simply believe Him for it) then I say NO.
2)The second part of your question is the wrong question. You write: "or do you think everyone who thinks he is a true believer really is?" Your question poses an absolute either/or. In a sense it is a false dillemma, as those are not the only choices, nor are they the right ones to ask. I will tell you what I think: "Everyone who is certain that they have eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ through His promise (ex. jn 3:16, 5:24; 6:47, 11:25, 26, etc) really is saved." I will agree that not everyone who thinks they are going to heaven are going. Only those who have solely entrusted their eternal well-being to Jesus Christ will be there.
Phil, what other questions have I missed? I am willing to answer any question that Lordship proponents ask of me.
Antonio
Gojira: You talked about Berkouwer in the same way that I talked about Bonar. You talked but didn't provide documentation.
Actually, if you search the beginning of the thread, you'll see that the first time I mentioned it, I gave both the book and chapter titles I was referring to. Note: I'm asking those who want to argue that Calvin's view of assurance was like Zane Hodges' to read that entire chapter.
If you're suggesting that's not enough info and I need to give a full formal citation, that's not exactly what I demanded of others. I simply asked for a link or enough info to be able to find the original source so we can check one another's quotes and references. But because I know you're looking for reasons to argue and nitpick, here is a full, formal citation:
G. C. Berkhouwer, "Election and the Certainty of Salvation," in Divine Election (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 278-306.
Now, I have a busy evening, and I'm not going to be able to respond to any more threads until much later tonight. Talk amongst yourselves.
Thanks for your response Phil and on a light note you seem to be doing an impressive juggling act today:-)
Concerning 2 Corinthians 13:5 Paul had been defending his apostleship as I see the context from the super apostles and in verse 4 he speaks to weakness demonstrating the power of God in the crucifiction. The way I understand it is these Corinthians were making their boasts in flesh and he called them for a reality check within the context of their thinking.
Kind of like..."Hey wait a minute guys Christ was crucified in weakness and you are looking these super guys and saying my apostleship is of no authority because I am weak...examine yourselves" IOW "what are you thinking?
That is just a synopsis statement I am wording to see what chapters 12 and 13 are culminating to.
He was laying down groundwork for his coming to see them.
Please consider this Phil. Essentially the apostle Paul is saying.."You feel I am disqualified...examine yourselves and see if YOU are disqualified."
Turns out I have half an hour before I have to leave for my dinner appt. I'll post a few quick replies:
Gojira: "Now, what I really want to say in parting. . ."
Hey, don't leave now.
Touchstone: "I've no idea what Antonio's posts said yesterday (the ones that got deleted), but I suspect they were more substantial to the issue than a lot of the rest of the stream."
Right. Antonio suddenly turned into a pithy scholar, and that's why I deleted him. And now you've caught me red-handed.
Actually, three of the deleted posts were more than three times too long to meet the guidelines, and were largely made of quotations he cut and pasted without commenting on substantially. The other 15 posts or so that I deleted were short angry posts from him claiming I had no right to delete his posts.
I guess we'll see how "substantial" his arguments really are. As I said in a comment here, I sent Antonio copies of all the deleted posts, invited him to reformat them and repost them in accordance with the guidelines, as long as he stays within the parameters of polite conversation and the boundaries of the rules. He's back now. The jury is out on whether he will try to play nice or not. And I fully realize that if I finally have to ban him, there will be a few screaming pomos who accuse me of wielding my power as chairman of this blog to silence the already-marginalized masses. I'm unmoved by that, just as I am unmoved by your uncharitable speculations about what might really be going on behind the scenes.
232 Posts!!! I feel left out. Phil this whole discussion has been more eyeopening than two years at seminary. Thanks.
Antonio: "I haven't read Berkouwer, do you have a link for the chapter?"
A "link"? It's a chapter in a book. I've given the book title and the chapter info twice now. Are you actually following the discussion? In any case, you need to read that chapter before expostulating any more about how far out of sync the later Reformers were with Calvin on assurance.
Incidentally, Berkhouwer wrote this book in the 1950s, after he had become friendly rather than adversarial with Barthianism, so the book has its flaws as far as his treatment of the doctrines of election and reprobation are concerned. But the chapter I referred to is a scholarly history and analysis of the opinion you are parroting. It was an early and very important part of the larger debate, and you ought to at least be familiar with it if you are going try to pass yourself off as someone who can speak with authority about whether Reformed Theology is compatible with Calvin's view of assurance or not.
Antonio: "Reformed theology's (and thus Lordship Salvation's) doctrine of assurance is at variance with Calvin's own, as Beeke, Dabney, A.A. Hodge, and D.A. Carson admit."
Well, let's see: you haven't read the landmark Berkhouwer treatment of that question; you've only read "some" of Calvin, but not enough to see how far out of sync he might be with a theology that denies the perseverance of the saints; and you completely misrepresent Beeke, as I have already demonstrated. Have you read the works of any of the other authors you are citing?
...to be continued.
For the sake of my argument that Reformed Theology has abandoned Calvin and Luther's doctrine of Assurance, which by the way, is Free Grace Theology's Doctrine of Assurance, I wish to quote a few people.
Joel R. Beeke (TMS) admits, "Whereas the early Reformers held that assurance is part and parcel with faith, post-Reformation divines felt free to distinguish assurance from faith as witnessed by chap. 18 of the Westminster Confession." He also makes this further admission: "The bulk of current scholarship, however, no longer views the post-Reformation struggle to develop a detailed doctrine of assurance as a faithful outworking of early Reformation principles."
D.A. Carson, writing on assurance, states that the Reformation, with “its virulent [sic] emphasis on sola fide led Luther to see assurance as an element of saving faith. If one truly trusts Christ for the forgiveness of sins and full justification, so far also one is assured of his forgiveness.” Carson continues, “The same connection can be found in Calvin”
Robert L. Dabney concluded that the "doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers … Luther and Calvin… adopt[ed] from their opposition to the… teachings of Rome… asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his commentary on Romans: ‘My faith is a divine and spiritual belief that God has pardoned and accepted me’"
A.A. Hodge states that the Reformers "identif[ied] assurance with faith, making it essential to salvation," teaching "that the special object of justifying faith is the favour of God toward us for Christ's sake: therefore to believe is to be assured of our own personal salvation. Thus Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin taught. This is the doctrine taught in the Augsburg Confession and Heidelberg Catechism"
The aforementioned Reformed author’s admissions are significant in that they frankly declare that the prevalent view in contemporary scholarship is that post-Reformation theologians departed significantly from John Calvin’s own view of assurance. While Luther and Calvin state that one should keep their eyes on Jesus alone for assurance, the post-Reformation writers significantly ground their assurance on self; on the works that are produced by them and their degree of sanctification.
The reason for quoting these authorities is to prove my point. I have counted 12 sentences all together, not including this one. And if anyone needs the bibliographic data (I ommitted it for space concerns) please ask.
A quick note to Phil:
Phil, you got the roaring shout out for this week! Your love for theology is exceeded by your love for Christ -- and He shines brightly through you!
http://gojirasstompingground.blogspot.com/2006/11/giving-huge-roaring-shout-out-to-phil.html
Gotta go now for sure. Gotta start my papers on Mariolotry.....errr...Mariology....
Gojira
Phil,
I don't deny that Calvin had a doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But I deny that he used that doctrine as a measuring device for one's appropriation of their assurance of the certainty of eternal life.
Tell you what, I will do a study on Calvin's doctrine of assurance and definition of faith and you do the same. We will compare notes. That would mean I would have to quote Calvin liberally. Maybe you would to. I wouldn't do that here of course. Maybe I will post the data on my blog. But anyway, let us let John Calvin speak for himself.
Frank,
Howdy!
Real quick, you never asked my views on those things you listed. Make no mistake about it, the result of salvation is commitment to Christ. Some will have a commitment level greater than someone else. That is according to Jesus Himself. Grace most certainly does cause instant change. One goes from being spiritually dead to spiritual life. Not only is grace necessary, grace also causes necessary change.
You have a good one Frank, cause you DA MAN!!!!!
For Touchstone,
If Luther really believed that salvation was possible and that works did not neccesarily follow faith, then why did he not recant at the Diet of Worms. After all he believed in Christ, he therefore could recant and still be saved, at least that's how I read the FG position.
Luther couldn't recant because he had faith, and he had a Lord. A lord who demanded that he obey Him and stand for what His Word says.
Yes, Christians fail to obey, but what is their habitual path? Christians strive to please their Lord because He saved us. When we fail we repent, and examine ourselves where we went wrong.
Could I be saved and still live in sin? I would doubt it. But even if I could, I would not want to, I don't want to have a life that dishonours my Master.
To All (reply to Nathan):
I am going to keep it brief as Phil requires, but more is needed to properly address the drive-by Nathan posted. Thus is not a plug, Nathan refers to my book. More should be read at Pulpit Magazine and my blog site on each of the following issues.
“The key issue, as you noted, is the nature of saving faith.”
As I have stressed, my concern with “saving faith” is with how Lordship advocates confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. My chief argument with Lordship’s “saving faith” is in regard to what constitutes the faith that saves man from sin, death and Hell. As for the results of a genuine conversion, I believe we are in very close agreement.
“Lou Martuneac acknowledges the need for repentance, but tries to exclude from it "any sincere intention to serve God" (p. 114 of his book).
On page 114 I am discussing the reception of salvation. I make crystal clear that man cannot be saved by any personal commitment, sincere intention and I will add not by any “attitude of the heart” to bear the cross or follow. A lost man who is saved the Bible way should have a new desire within him to serve God. One of the problems with Lordship Salvation is demanding a commitment to the results of repentance for the reception of salvation.
“The "barter-system" that LS opponents try to turn it into is truly a straw man.”
As I pointed out at PM and my site, there is no Straw Man. The positions I disagree with are found on the printed pages of Dr. MacArthur’s books. His meaning and definition of various troubling aspects in his Lordship theology are clear, and I argue against his stated position. Therefore, the Straw Man charge falls flat.
“I should also note that Lou himself affirms faith as ‘an act of obedience’ (p. 247).”
Nathan neglected to properly cite and attribute this page as an appendix entry from a contributor, one of several in my appendix. Incidentally, that article appears in a journal which was addressing the errors in Lordship Salvation. Upon reading one would have to decide if the writer supports the Lordship gospel. He does not!
“Because Lou rejects God's initatory work of regeneration in salvation…”
Nathan vaguely eludes to my rejection of the extra-biblical, rational view of the order of salvation: regeneration before profession of faith.
I have a lengthy article on this issue at PM and my blog, which was directed to Nathan in response to a post where he makes the case for regeneration preceding and enabling faith. He has not responded.
Much of Lordship Salvation is based on Calvinism’s regeneration before faith presuppositions.
LM
LM:
Much of Lordship Salvation is based on Calvinism’s regeneration before faith presuppositions.
If that is the case then why do Arminians hold to it?
Lordship salvation is part and parcel of the gospel. Throughout the book of Acts sinners are enjoined to repent. In Acts 26:20 it brings out that their repentance should be shown outwardly.
I am not a great thinker and I can't claim to understand the whole which comes first - regeneration, faith, etc... thing, but I know this, God is the one working...
How can I turn from something that I love with every fiber of my being towards Someone who is my enemy, unless He somehow creates the desire, gives the ability and causes the work.
How can I have any assurance of the work of salvation being done if I say I believe in Christ, and am not willing to forsake my sin?
1 John 1:6-7 is very relevant here. I don't care who the person is, if they say that they are saved, and that they believe in Jesus, yet they continue in their sin(not just stumble, but willingly, stubbornly cling to it) they are not saved. Genuine faith will produce repentance, and repentance hates the sins it used to do (2 Cor. 7:11).
Saving faith must produce these things, otherwise it produces nothing... or at least nothing verifiable.
Antonio,
Is it true that Zane believes there's no guarantee that a believer in Christ will love Christ? And that a believer in Christ can actually come to be an unbeliever, who is still a believer?
Are these two statements true statements in and of themselves?
These would be serious questions concerning Non-lordship salvation for me.
You should make this discussion into a book.
....off on a slight tangent, anyone here catch the Way of the Master radio program on a regular basis? - I love it myself and this whole debate seems to be a running theme on the show.
I love that -- I "never asked". Someone e-mails me to debate about something, they want to take the affirmative, and I "have to ask" what they believe.
I'm going to make a questionaire for people to fill out before they start talking to me ...
Phil, you have been doing a remarkable job of responding to questions, and I have been disappointed to see some of the abuses of that graciousness.
Now I have 2 (brief?) questions, which I hope is not in violation of rule 1 since I am seeking clarification on previous issues rather than raising new ones.
You recommended early in the comments the 9 Point GTY summary of the Lordship position (LINK). Point 2 states, "Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man" and point 6 states, "Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender."
Is saving faith a gift from God, or a surrender which He demands? If they can coexist, please explain how, as I can not comprehend that.
At 12:26 on Nov. 11 you (Phil) said: "The need to "quantify" obedience is often thrown by no-lordship teachers at those of us who insist Christ demands surrender to His lordship."
Doesn't all evaluation require some sort of quantification? I don't know how to obey 1 Cor. 11 without at least rough quantification...
Brett,
Can I just give a brief analogy to how faith is compatible to surrender:
Imagine you have been on a boat which was wrecked, and you are now drifting in the sea... You are clinging to a piece of driftwood that is waterlogged and soon going to drag you down with itself rather than support you. You then see a boat in the distance. Because you know the boat can save, you release the driftwood and head for the boat, or you motion to the boat and yell...Either way you have to let go of the driftwood to get into the boat. If you truly believe that the boat is the only way, then you will comply with whatever the captain of the boat requires for admittance.
This analogy is not perfect (specifically it doesn't clearly show that all these things originate in God), but I believe it does show how faith is compatible with surrender.
Brett:
Is saving faith a gift from God, or a surrender which He demands? If they can coexist, please explain how, as I can not comprehend that.
May I offer...
1) Always remember to insist on a distinction between the faith that saves, and the results of the faith that saved.
Most Lordship advocates believe regeneration must precede and enable faith. This order is wrong! So, faith becomes a gift of God because they believe man cannot respond (in faith or repentance) to the gospel, or even believe in Jesus, until he has first been regenerated, born again.
2) On the surrender issue: Obviously a man submits to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. God does not save rebels. But this "willingness to surrender" has nuances of a commitment for future surrender. Anytime "commitment" enters the definition for the reception of salvation, that message become man-centered, and thereby a false gospel.
Dr. MacArthur wrote, "That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom. (TGATJ: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 148.)
At salvation there only has to be surrender to what the Lord is convincing and convicting of at the moment. Future issues may not even be on one's mind.
LM
Antonio: "Joel R. Beeke (TMS) admits,"
Seriously, Antonio, I have no clue why you persist with this kind of nonsense. You posted this same claim, and the same quotation already in this thread. I looked up the article you cited and gave you a thorough reply, including:
1. I advised you that the introductory summary you are actually quoting from was probably written by the editor of the TMS journal (Dr. Robert Thomas), not Beeke himself.
2. I cited a further quotation from that very same article, proving that Beeke is not saying what you keep claiming he is saying. The quotation I gave you included this: "The discrepancy between Calvin and Calvinism on faith and assurance was largely quantitative and methodological. In other words, it was a matter of emphasis and method, rather than qualitative or substantial."
3. I gave you yet another quotation, also from the very same article, saying: "In this article the aim is to show through a comparison of John Calvin (1509-1564) and a typical Dutch Second Reformation divine, Alexander Comrie (1706-1774), that notwithstanding different emphases on the question of personal assurance of faith, both Calvin and the Calvinists were fundamentally of one mind on assurance."
So Beeke's position is the exact opposite of what you keep claiming. Now: 1) stop cutting and pasting the same quotes over and over; 2) read the dialogue so far and get up to speed; and 3) stop this mindless reposting of repeat material without even interacting with the answers you have already been given.
Antonio: "The aforementioned Reformed author’s admissions are significant in that they frankly declare that the prevalent view in contemporary scholarship is that post-Reformation theologians departed significantly from John Calvin’s own view of assurance. While Luther and Calvin state that one should keep their eyes on Jesus alone for assurance, the post-Reformation writers significantly ground their assurance on self; on the works that are produced by them and their degree of sanctification."
Hardly. Not one of "the aforementioned authors" has held the no-lordship view or anything approximating it. In fact, they all have vehemently opposed the antinomianism inherent in the strict "assurance is of the essence of faith" view. Most of them argued that Calvin's view was much more nuanced than you want to admit. I pointed out to you yesterday that John MacArthur deals with all these issues in the chapter on Assurance in Faith Works. I also asked if you have read that chapter.
You haven't answered that question yet.
Have you actually read this comment-thread, or are you interested only in what you have to say?
Gojira:
Thanks for the kind words, and for the interaction. Don't go too far.
Antonio: "I don't deny that Calvin had a doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But I deny that he used that doctrine as a measuring device for one's appropriation of their assurance of the certainty of eternal life."
On what basis? You haven't studied Calvin on assurance yet, and I have referred you to scholarly articles that argue against the position you claim you are prepared to argue for. But so far, we haven't managed to identify a single primary source that you have actually read with the possible exception of Zane Hodges. What, precisely, qualifies you as any kind of expert on Calvin's doctrine of assurance?
Lou:
Dr. MacArthur wrote, "That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.
All I can say is "amen."
Wholehearted commitment is humanly impossible...that's why God demands it. It is miraculous in nature. A sort of half-half want my Saviour and my own way looks nothing like what I see the Scriptures to call true faith.
I can't think of a single example from Scripture of someone who was saved, yet didn't stake everything on God, Old or New Testament.
That's my boat, you obviously reject that. I would rather ride in my boat, because I don't think yours will stand the test.
brettmaxwell.blogspot.com: "Is saving faith a gift from God, or a surrender which He demands? If they can coexist, please explain how, as I can not comprehend that."
I'm not sure why it's difficult to comprehend. But I'll grant that some people do think it difficult. It's the very same principle Pelagius stumbled at in Augustine's Confessions. Augustine wrote, "Give what you command, and command what you will." Pelagius claimed by regarding divine grace as necessary for obedience, Augustine was denying human responsibility. The whole heresy of Pelagianism grew from Pelagius's refusal to see how the two principles (human duty and the fact that God's grace alone enables us to fulfill our duty) are perfectly compatible.
brettmaxwell.blogspot.com: "Doesn't all evaluation require some sort of quantification?"
I don't think so. You can evaluate a great work of art, but how would you ever "quantify" the beauty of the Sistine Chapel frescoes?
daniel kropf,
As I said earlier, I'm a lordship subscriber, I just find the certainty fetish on display here a larger problem than the actual point of contention.
It's been a while since this was a fresh debate, but at the time (early 1990s?), both Hodges and Ryrie were pushing for a reductionist view of sola fide, so reductionist that it compartmentalized the "alone" idea in "justification by faith alone" to the point where it ended up meaning nothing more than a nod toward the veracity of Biblical assertions.
By necessity, this view diminishes the relative roles of repentance, submission and sanctification in terms of their soteriological necessity. Or, in this view none of those were seen as strictly necessary to be saved, when "alone" was construed as Hodges and Ryrie did. I'm sure others held this view as well, but Hodge and Ryrie are the ones I recall from reading them on this issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I understand MacArthur takes that to be a departure from normative solafidian belief, but if you ask Hodge or Ryrie, I believe they'd claim the above view to be the one offered in the classical Reformation by Luther and Calvin.
On balance, I agree with MacArthur, but I think the reasonable view equivocates a bit here. My experience suggest that what provides the "certainty" here is presuppositional baggage brought to the table -- on both sides of the divide. That's fine, natural. Let's just not try to fool others or ourselves about the surety available here.
-Touchstone
Daniel, thanks for that analogy. I often use a similar analogy of jumping from a burning building into a fireman's net; gravity, the net, and the firemen are doing all the work, but to simply lean into that fall requires faith and trust beyond a simple knowledge that such a method works.
What I don't like about your analogy is the boat captain asking whatever he wants for admittance. When salvation is frequently called a free gift (3 times in Romans 5 for instance), I simply picture the boat captain offering his hand without making any requests or demands.
Lou, your last paragraph is a middle ground that I think I can agree with.
Touchstone:
I'm not the least bit surprised that someone who writes a blog devoted to "Evangelical Christianity & Evolution in the Post-Modern Matrix" would be a bit unsettled by any hint of certainty. But let's table that aspect of your dispute with me until we start a thread like this devoted to exposing the manifold follies of postmodernism, OK? I'd prefer to keep this debate just a bit more focused than that—especially since I'm trying to reply to every question and answer every cogent argument.
The "cogent" qualifier would pretty much rule out your contempt for certainty anyway, if you ask me.
Antonio: "Tell you what, I will do a study on Calvin's doctrine of assurance and definition of faith and you do the same."
Tell you what: You do a serious study of Calvin on assurance, and read the major resources I've already read and cited for you (and which you admit you have not read), including Beeke's doctoral thesis, Cunningham, Dabney, Berkhouwer, and Calvin himself on the issue. (You have to agree to read the full works or chapters where they treated the subject, and not just selected quotes from secondary and tertiary sources.) Then come back and we'll talk about it.
That should take you a couple of years—or perhaps nine months if you devote your full time to it.
See you then.
Phil,
You're mistaken if you're thinking I have a problem with certainty. I don't. It's just not a fetish. When *everything* is certain, *nothing* is.
In deference to the things which *are* certain, we ought not conflate them with those that are not.
As for managing this thread, I completely understand. Quite a challenge to manage so many "mini-conversations", no doubt.
Carry On. Ping me if you should want to engage on other issues...
-Touchstone
Phil, thank you for the timely response.
We can identify an amazing picture or painting almost instantly. However if asked to evaluate, things like color, contrast, composition, etc. must be... well... quantified in order to be more objective. This is especially applicable when the first impression is mediocre or things that you like and things that you hate.
Practically, what if my life is not the spiritual equivalent of the Sistene Chapel? I hope my assurance is not to be as subjective as "art".
Phil,
Thank you for this discussion and your firm stand for the truth! Could you come up the I-5 and help us kill the dead horse in the North Bay? Too many Hodges/DTS adherents here causing confusion. Thanks again!
"Regeneration must precede and enable faith. This order is wrong!" -Lou
"I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matt. 11:25-27
"But you do not believe, because you are not My sheep." John 10:26
"Does this offend you? ... It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. But there are some of you who do not believe. ... Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." John 6:62-65
"Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God'.
Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matt 16:16-17
I believe it is the right order. You must be born of God, born again, or you will never see the kingdom.
Phil, Dan, Cent, thanks for the wisdom of our Father that you so eloquently reflect.
Phil, have you, or Dr MacArthur, reflected on how the non-Lordship position seems untenable given the offices of Christ? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that perspective.
Wow, this is such an important and amazing thread. Back in the original post (remember that?) Phil mentioned the fruitlessness of trying to interact with "hardcore no-lordship advocates," and some of that is in evidence here (as it was over at Pulpit, too).
But the great value of this discussion is not in trying to get a few clamped minds opened, but for those who are on the fence (or who aren't real clear on what's being taught in their church) who happen across this blog. They will see the thorough dismantling of the no-lordship position (or, at least, the obvious weakness of their various defenses) and that will move them toward the gospel truth.
So bravo for Pulpit and Pyro on this one.
Quoting John Newton, "I am not what I ought to be; I am not what I wish to be; I am not even what I hope to be; but by the cross of Christ, I am not what I was."
and the Word of God, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure." Philippians 2:13
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:28-30
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:4-10
"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord." II Corinthians 3:18
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2
God began a work and can be trusted to be the Finisher, the preserver of those once sinners positionally He now calls "saints". What He says carries absolute authority and credibility.
brettmaxwell.blogspot.com: "Practically, what if my life is not the spiritual equivalent of the Sistene Chapel? I hope my assurance is not to be as subjective as 'art'."
Now you're changing the argument. You suggested that all evaluation requires some kind of quantification; I gave you a counter-example that proves otherwise. That's it. I made no analogy between the Christian's self-examination and an art show. I'm just demonstrating that you can indeed make judgments and evaluate things without some kind of numerical quantification. We do it every day. And if you reflect on the single counter-example I gave (rather than trying to turn it into a complex metaphor about self-examination) you ought to be able to think of dozens of judgments we make every day without any form of quantification.
August: "Phil, have you, or Dr MacArthur, reflected on how the non-Lordship position seems untenable given the offices of Christ?"
Yes. You might have in mind an argument more specific or more complex than this, but MacArthur has pointed out that Christ is eternal King and Lord of all (we don't "make" Him Lord). Therefore those who refuse to have Him as their Lord haven't received Him at all.
In other words, you can't divide His offices and "believe in Him" as Prophet and Priest while deliberately spurning Him as king. "Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
In the words of the shorter catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." His offices don't constitute a smorgasbord so that we can pick and choose.
...I guess that's a no on the Way of the Master Radio program - anyways I highly recommend it (they have great respect for Dr. MacArthur btw) - and again touch on this subject regularly.
Antonio:
Just a word of caution here, and a reminder that one more breach of the guidelines will get you permanently ousted. I re-read your contributions so far and feel compelled to give you a friendly word of exhortation:
Don't even think about posting another comment unless you have actually read the last two comments I addressed to you. Your next post must interact seriously with what I wrote there. See guidelines 4-5.
If you change the subject again, post a long string of Calvin quotes, attempt to deflect the topic by complaining about something (or whatever) without answering the points and questions I directed to you specifically, that will be a violation of guidelines 1, 2, and 4. We wouldn't want that to happen again, would we?
Phil, that is exactly how I see it, and can therefore not comprehend why this is even a debate at all.
Whether an individual acknowledges Jesus' kingship or not is irrelevant to whether He is king or not. And you cannot accept Jesus as priest or prophet without acknowledging what He says in those capacities, which includes His kingship.
Thanks for the answer.
Phil, I am rather puzzled as to your seemingly categorical insistence that the Lordship debate has been won and is over.
How can it be objectively determined whether a debate is over?
Who decides? The academic community? The majority of Christians?
Do you rather mean to say that no new issues have been raised by Free Grace advocates in recent years?
If that is what you mean, I think it is inaccurate to say that the debate has been won. Rather it would seem that there is disagreement as to how to interpret and evaluate the primary evidence in the Biblical texts.
There are plenty of Covenant theologians who think that Dispensationalism has been decisively refuted and there are Charismatics who think the debate about the charismata is over and has been won by their own camp.
Attempting to insist on some sort of manifest or objective rhetorical victory by the Lordship camp seems very dubious to my mind.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Sorry, I missed this one:
Lionfood: "off on a slight tangent, anyone here catch the Way of the Master radio program on a regular basis? - I love it myself and this whole debate seems to be a running theme on the show."
I am actually a devoted listener (one might say "addicted") via podcast.
And you are right. These very issues come up there all the time, because one of the reasons they do what they do is to expose the shallowness and folly of the popular styles of evangelism ("Jesus will fill that hole in your self-esteem"; "Jesus will make you successful and happy"; and whatnot).
Most recently, Todd Friel hosted a three-day donnybrook after he dared to wonder aloud if Ted Haggard (while living his secret life of doing drugs and doing male prostitutes for several years) would have actually benefited from a slightly different theological perspective than the default no-lordship opinion Haggard and the NAE have apparently been operating with.
Specifically, would it have been appropriate for someone like Ted to do a little self-examination—starting several years ago (especially around the time he began to scheme and plan and carry out ways to maintain such a vile double life). Would it not have been beneficial for him to examine himself, to see whether he was truly in the faith—and honestly face the question of whether he was indeed soundly converted? And how do we know with certainty that this admitted "liar and deceiver" (Ted's own words) is a genuine believer even now? The signs of authentic repentance toward God (not just "sorry for all the hurt I have caused") were noticeably lacking in Ted Haggard's "confession."
Let's just say a lot of the people who e-mailed Todd Friel after he raised that issue were not necessarily warmly supportive of the position he took. The way Todd handled the backlash was extraordinarily thorough, biblical, and very, very gracious. You've got to hand it to him. No other national talk-show host I know would speak so frankly and field so much hostile feedback on a question like that.
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "Phil, I am rather puzzled as to your seemingly categorical insistence that the Lordship debate has been won and is over."
Really? Are you reading the same thread I am? I have yet to see a significant biblical or doctrinal point made by anyone on the no-lordship side.
Granted, others may see things differently. So here's my challenge to you, DF: Pore over this thread and make a list of the serious biblical points that have been scored by contributors on the no-lordship side. Give me one-sentence, or single-phrase shorthand references to those arguments, and we'll keep a running list of them. Remember, we're limiting this to the biblical arguments that have been raised in this thread so far. (Just so we don't veer off-track.) Presumably, all the fine folk who have been so keen to debate this issue with me all these weeks will have posted their best arguments somewhere in the first 275 comments of this thread.
As a matter of fact, I have been keeping a running list of those fine arguments from our no-lordship friends. So here's my list of all the biblical, historical, and theological arguments from the other side I haven't already answered:
·
I'd be interested to see your list, and if it's not a sizeable list, you should get my point about why the debate is effectively over.
I will admit if I was new to the Free Grace position I would not be persuaded by it just from reading the stuff in this thread.
But I am not sure you have really answered my question.
Is the debate over because the Free Grace position has been refuted in a systematic fashion?
or
Is the debate over because the Free Grace side have not made any recent contributions beyond what Zaen Hodges has already written?
or
do you mean something else when you say the debate is over?
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "Is the debate over because the Free Grace position has been refuted in a systematic fashion?
or
Is the debate over because the Free Grace side have not made any recent contributions beyond what Zaen Hodges has already written?"
Well, both. The no-lordship position has been systematically dismantled by dozens of authors (not just John MacArthur). I have a shelf full of books on the subject that were all published in the 1990s. Off the top of my head, that includes significant contributions by Curtis Crenshaw, Robert Lescelius, Richard Belcher, Kenneth Gentry, and John Piper. Not one serious book actually interacting with those critics was ever published from the no-lordship side.
They do not interact seriously with their critics. Like our friend Antonio, they merely parrot the same tired prefab arguments that have already been thoroughly answered, and when pressed, it invariably turns out that they haven't even bothered to study or reply seriously to the answers they have been given.
Instead, after 20 years, the GES is putting out 2-page newsletter articles with titles like "An Idiot's Guide to the Lordship Debate," or whatever. Their "Journal" reviews are mostly shallow and filled with the kinds of errors and misrepresentations I have already documented (above) in their two "reviews" of The Gospel According to Jesus. They appear to be deliberately avoiding any serious defense of their system in the academic arena, and they are attempting instead to resurrect their position among the grassroots, with throwaway demagoguery like the Idiot's Guide.
It's hard to see how anyone could watch all that for two decades and think this is a serious and viable position.
Lou Did-I-Mention-My-Book?-eac -- ...Nathan vaguely eludes to my rejection....
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[To all: for extra credit, to what movie am I "eluding"?]
Phil:I am actually a devoted listener (one might say "addicted") via podcast.
- as am I. I don't miss a show. Thanks for responding, I'm sure they appreciate the kudos.
Matt Waymeyer:
Here's another:
The Evangelists uniformly employ the terms believers and disciples as synonymous. (Institutes, III, 2, 6).
And another:
We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. . . . By faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). . . . Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification. (Institutes, III, 16, 1)
There are many more places where Calvin denounces no-lordship ideas, of course. But my own guidelines say that's enough for one comment.
Phil, I must say that I am impressed with the time you have taken to interact on this issue.
As for DTS, I’ve been asked about the Free Grace contingent here. I have always thought it was an extreme minority of the students that would hold the position. In fact, I would say that within a decade there will be no Hodge-like FG (XFG) professors at DTS. The “old guard” at DTS is a great group of good, godly men, but when they leave I really don’t see a place for FG at DTS.
I think that goes to show that this really is a dead horse issue.
P.S.- didn’t MacArthur debate Radmacher years ago at ETS?
Jonathan Moorhead: "didn’t MacArthur debate Radmacher years ago at ETS?"
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. It wasn't really a "debate." They read opposing papers. (As a matter of fact, after all these years, I had forgotten the guy on the no-lordship side was Radmacher until you mentioned it.) MacArthur's paper dealt with James 2:14-26 and eventually became the basis for one of the chapters in Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles.
I don't remember much about Radmacher's paper except that it was short and acused MacArthur of "paving the way back to Rome"—a rather ironic complaint, given the facts about who went to the front lines and who stayed in the shadows during the ECT conflict in the mid-nineties.
When I went to lunch with Bob Wilkin a few years back, I scolded him for wanting to portray GES as the last bastion of defense for sola fide, even though GES remains almost completely and totally silent on issues like ECT, the New Perspective on Paul, and several other mounting attacks against the doctrine of justification by faith.
Phil,
Where can people go to see the various retractions or clarifications Dr. MacArthur has made in his books (or at least for "Justification by Faith")? Thanks for your work,
Josh
[To all: for extra credit, to what movie am I "eluding"?]
The Princess Bride
Not to say that the horse is just "mostly dead".
Phil:
Have you read the book "Christ, the Lord" by Michael Horton. I recently finished reading his "Putting Amazing back into Grace" and I am curious about what he have to say about this matters.
Greetings
Phil:
Forgive me if this has been answered here already, but could you please do a Biblical exegete on: Regeneration preceding faith.
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist says:
Phil, I am rather puzzled as to your seemingly categorical insistence that the Lordship debate has been won and is over.
I had been itching to express that exact sentiment. I sure don't feel like the LS "debate" is over! I do believe that the LS movement is gaining disciples every day. Does that mean the issue is settled? The "debate" - if it was just by those commenting on this blog or even writing books ... is one thing. The bigger question (or debate):
___________________________
Is the sinner ...
who simply trusts Christ in a moment of conviction over the truth of the Christ's sacrifice and His authority to offer salvation NOT saved ... unless he submits to the Lordship of Christ and is categorically ready to give up his blatant sinful lifestyle
___________________
I am sure not convinced that those of LS persuasion have "won" by their methods of answering this question in the affirmative. LS proponents have passages from the gospels that seem to back up what they are saying. (Interesting for a "dispensationalist.")
On the "non-lordship salvation" front, we have Paul's teaching of justification by faith (not behavior) alone .... FAITH ALONE in light of Christ's having fulfilled all righteousness.
Then, we have the LS side taking James to mean that FAITH ALONE is not enough - (remember, by DEAD FAITH James says he means it is alone).
ETC and ETC...
______________________
So...
we either have a conundrum or ...
we have a gospel other than by faith alone or ...
we have a difference between salvation and discipleship.
_______________________
I am glad you opened up the discussion on your blog, Phil.
I hope I didn't just break any rules.
Touchstone said: "Phil's editorial control over the thread, specifically with respect to Antonio, is probably more telling than anything he's actually said on this thread. Too bad, that."
Phil's "editorial control" has made this one of the most readable and sane debates I've seen in a long time. Why should one side be allowed to do all of the question-asking, without answering any questions themselves?
Keep it up Phil, this has made the Lordship controversy more understandable than many of the books that I've seen.
By the way, unless I've missed it, none of the no-lordship folks have wanted to address Phil's earlier statement about handling church discipline in no-lordship churches. I thought that was a very interesting point.
Josh: "Where can people go to see the various retractions or clarifications Dr. MacArthur has made in his books (or at least for "Justification by Faith")?"
1. The "retraction" of which I spoke (above) had reference to a passage published in a study guide published by Moody Press and titled Justification by Faith. You'll find a copy of that retraction here. I think it was first issued in 1990 or '91.
2. The actual changes between the first and second editions of The Gospel According to Jesus are described in detail in a preface to the second ed. Those changes include the addition of two chapters and lots of minor wording revisions, all for clarification's sake. The second ed. reflected no change in MacArthur's actual position, so there was nothing that needed to be "retracted."
3. There was, however, one other significant change in the 2nd ed. It involved a revision of the opening paragraphs of chapter 18 ("The Certainty of Judgment"—now chapter 20 in the 2nd ed.). MacArthur had begun the original chapter by describing a letter from a listener who was confused about whether MacArthur was blending justification and sanctification. The original ed. said, "He had missed the point," and then MacArthur went on to explain (correctly) that justification and sanctification are distinct concepts but both necessary aspects of salvation. On reflection (especially in light of the retraction cited in no. 1 above) MacArthur decided the fellow's confusion was quite possibly justified, so he rewrote the opening paragraphs to eliminate that whole anecdote.
Again, despite the fact that there is some folklore to the contrary floating around here and there, there were no significant alterations of MacArthur's actual position between the two editions of The Gospel According to Jesus. The rumors that the book was totally rewritten, or that John MacArthur did a quiet flip-flop on this or that question, are patently false. For ten years I have had a standing challenge to everyone I've ever heard slinging such tales: Show me one significant change between the two editions that is something more substantial than a clarification or rewording to remove some unfortunate ambiguity. No one has yet pointed any out. Since I literally keyboarded all the editorial changes that went into the revised ed., I can tell you definitively that there are none.
A careful, word-by-word comparison of the two editions would nonetheless be an instructive exercise for no-lordship critics, and I heartily encourage those who may be skeptical to undertake the task.
Daniel Calle: "Have you read the book "Christ, the Lord" by Michael Horton."
Yes.
"I am curious about what he have to say about this matters."
Well, that's a longish tale. Here's an abbreviated answer that might fit the guidelines of this thread (or nearly so):
I thought Horton's book made some very good points. But it was severely marred by two things: One was the authors' agenda to turn the lordship debate into a stick to beat all dispensationalists indiscriminately with. In fairness, sometimes it seems like the lordship issue is a fine stick for that purpose, but I think that approach actually helped de-rail what had previously been a more fruitful discussion.
The other, more glaring, flaw in Horton's book was the assumption throughout that MacArthur was deliberately denying the forensic nature of justification. Prior to the release of Christ the Lord, Lance Quinn and I had met with Horton and given him a copy of MacArthur's (then-unpublished) chapter on justification by faith from Faith Works along with the retraction referred to above. So Horton was fully aware that MacArthur affirmed, and did not deny, the principle of sola fide, the Reformed view of forensic imputation, including both the active and passive obedience of Christ, etc. For whatever reason, (though Horton seemed to tone down some of his own criticism of MacArthur) he apparently failed to pass any of that info on to his book's other contributors. Thus the book has a few chapters that badly misrepresent MacArthur's position.
Since then, however, MacArthur and Horton have always seemed to be in full agreement on the doctrine of justification. (Of course they disagree on sacramentalism, eschatology, and a host of other secondary matters, but not on justification.) Horton and MacArthur once (around 1998 or thereabouts) even participated together in a live call-in radio program dealing specifically with the doctrine of justification by faith. That day, after the radio program, I went to lunch with Horton, and he expressly told me that he had no disagreement with MacArthur on justification. As far as I know there is no lingering disagreement between them on the issue.
So it's a shame there was no second ed. of Christ the Lord, because I think the whole debate would have been advanced, rather than stalled, by a clearer and more accurate treatment of MacArthur's position from Horton and friends.
Jim: "Forgive me if this has been answered here already, but could you please do a Biblical exegete on: Regeneration preceding faith."
Any of the standard Calvinist soteriologies that deal with the ordo salutis will provide this for you. I Recommend Anthony Hoekema's Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) or John Murray's Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).
Couple of notes on this: I prefer to speak of regeneration as the cause of faith, rather than using temporal language such as "preceding." The cause-and-effect relationship is the real point; not the temporal order of regeneration-before-faith. I think a case can be made to argue (as I believe) that regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but R is the cause of F. I would deny the view of some of our presbyterian brethren that a person can be regenerate for years and yet an unbeliever. This seems to be Berkhof's opinion, and I think it's hooey.
Second, older Calvinist writers did not use the word regeneration this way at all. They spoke of "the effectual call." They were making the same point: God's grace, rather than the free-will choice of an unregenerate sinner, is what opens blind eyes, awakens dead hearts, and enables us to believe. Remember, of Lydia it is said, "The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14).
What I want to know is why does DTS and its history as a Free grace institution bother the Lordships so much as they seem to view it as Hamburger Hill or something.
It seems to me that to a degree both sides are viewing this as geographical. What in the world is going on??????
Hello? We are injecting our American instincts into the upside down kingdom that some of you Lordships believe in.
I do not see where in the Bible other than in the Jewish theocracy where God ever worked this way. In fact the New Testement believers scattered throughout the world. Perhaps you may indeed feel the debate is over, but what states are in the red and what are in the blue while the rest of the world goes to hell?
Rose: "I sure don't feel like the LS 'debate' is over! I do believe that the LS movement is gaining disciples every day."
That's an interesting choice of words. "Disciples?" or do you mean believers-only?
"Does that mean the issue is settled? The 'debate' - if it was just by those commenting on this blog or even writing books ... is one thing."
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, Rose: When I say the debate is dead and has been for years, I'm not talking about the discussion on this blog. I'm talking about serious discussion and debate in major venues of the evangelical academy. Two current students at DTS have written this week to say they think the lordship issue isn't even taken seriously at Dallas Theological Seminary anymore. I believe them.
I'm suggesting the view is doctrinally and biblically bankrupt and now being disseminated chiefly in the same way cultists promote their doctrines: by grassroots propagandizing while ignoring serious thought, writing, and debate. When Jody Dillow's ten-year-old practically-self-published book is the finest example of an academic presentation advocates of no-lordship evangelism can point to, the view is in trouble.
Is the sinner ...
who simply trusts Christ in a moment of conviction over the truth of the Christ's sacrifice and His authority to offer salvation NOT saved ... unless he submits to the Lordship of Christ and is categorically ready to give up his blatant sinful lifestyle
If someone is not ready to give up a blatantly sinful lifestyle, in what sense do they even think of Christ as "Savior"? And if they don't understand their own urgent necessity of a Savior from sin, in what sense can they genuinely "trust" Him as Savior? The utter irrationality of the position is written all over the face of the question you posed, Rose.
Jim from Oldtruth,
I do not see how church discipline is really relevant to this issue.
Both Lordship and Non-Lordship people agree that not every who should be excommunicated is necessarilly unsaved.
Treating somebody as a publican does not entail that the person is a genuine unbeliever. Of course they certainly may be.
I am reminded of Phil's question to Antonio as to whether their are spurios believers.
Antonio has been asked this many times. He has given the same answer that there are in fact such persons, though they include only (1) those who believe a different gospel and (2) those who pretend to be believers while not believing at all.
It seems to be quite a common charge that Free Grace people deny any kind of false believers.
In fact, if the Free Grace position is correct, there may be many more false beleivers than is realised. Churches may well be filled with people who have never truly understood the Gospel and who are lost.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
BTW,
The blogishere is not geographical.
:-)
So DTS is really is Hamburger Hill in a sense or Peleliu Island. Places where gaining that territory made no differance.
Judging by the amount of comments...nearly 300. I would say the debate is alive and kicking and is only just beginning.
Consider that the pendulum swings in both direction before we discover its need for precision in its place of balance as well.
Or when we Marines used to call in artillery we had to both over shoot and undershoot to find the proper and precise range.
Speaking in geographical terms:-)
Bhedr: "It seems to me that to a degree both sides are viewing this as geographical. What in the world is going on??????
Hello? We are injecting our American instincts into the upside down kingdom that some of you Lordships believe in."
Yeah, that's it, Bhedr. Lordship people hold their doctrinal position just because they don't like Texas.
Where are all those people who threw a hissy a few weeks ago when I complained about how hard it is to get no-lordship advocates to debate the issues seriously? Throwing a bunch of garbage at the wall just to see what sticks is hardly "serious."
Hey Phil,
You need to fish through the dumpsters sometime. I found a fine operating vaccuum cleaner the other day and a working Oreck exel.
:-)
But I rarely ever do that:-)
Think about it in serious terms though Phil. What I am trying to communicate to you is...well,
Havard and Yale where biblically based institutions at one time and the YMCA was a christian organization...since they apostasized later does that mean liberalism is winning and is the right cause of the day?
Also don't be surprised if Hogdes and company regroup one day and form another institution of learning that may indeed grow and become big with written in clauses to keep out Lordships. That is the way things work. Perhaps you can find a bit of worthy history in my garbage:-)
Hint: You should have said spagetti on the wall as I would not have had a comeback for that.
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "I do not see how church discipline is really relevant to this issue."
So I gather.
"Both Lordship and Non-Lordship people agree that not every who should be excommunicated is necessarilly unsaved."
Fine. I agree that we cannot know with absolute certainty the state of anyone else's heart. But that doesn't alter Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18, where Christ told us to pursue the repentance of sinners who profess to be believers. And if they prove incorrigible, we're commanded to regard them as unbelievers. That is precisely what no-lordship theology argues should not be done.
I don't know of a single no-lordship church anywhere in the nation where discipline is faithfully practiced in accord with Matthew 18. I could show you numerous books and writings from no-lordship authors who argue that this or that unrepentant ne'er-do-well is certainly and absolutely saved.
That includes one book I own that recounts a very sordid story about an evangelical pastor who robbed banks in his spare time to finance regular dalliances with prostitutes. The dude is (thankfully) in prison for his crimes today, and no longer even professes faith in Christ. Yet the author of the book claims he is certain this fellow was and is genuinely and soundly saved.
Reconcile that with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18.
Phil,
Of course I knew you were referring to major venues of the evangelical academy.
I referred to the comments on this blog with tongue in cheek ... and because you said this when DF asked you about why you think the debate is over:
Really? Are you reading the same thread I am? I have yet to see a significant biblical or doctrinal point made by anyone on the no-lordship side.
More seriously,
You ask:
If someone is not ready to give up a blatantly sinful lifestyle, in what sense do they even think of Christ as "Savior"?
As saviour for the penalty of their mountain of sins, including the ones that they may be addicted to at the time of conversion.
And if they don't understand their own urgent necessity of a Savior from sin, in what sense can they genuinely "trust" Him as Savior?
Well, don't get me mixed up with anyone else. I am not saying that one does not need to understand their own urgent necessity of a Savior from sin. I absolutely see the necessity of seeing oneself as without hope - in need of a Savior. I have a GOOD NEWS post on my blog sidebar where I spell this out.
The utter irrationality of the position is written all over the face of the question you posed, Rose.
I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think it is irrational at all. Christ came into my life when I would not have imagined "giving up" the lifestyle I was involved in. He came into my life and I did give it up, but it was not presented as a requirement for entering the relationship with God. I am glad it wasn't! Was I preached a false gospel, Phil? (I apologize if you don't appreciate the personal example, but I know many who, like me, don't think of this as an "irrational position" when they think of their own pre-conversion selves.)
"I don't know of a single no-lordship church anywhere in the nation where discipline is faithfully practiced in accord with Matthew 18."
Is this a unique characteristic of Non-Lordship churches or a more general characteristic of American churches?
Those Brethren who followed J.N. Darby in the 1849 division have never really followed Lordship salvation ideas but they have been pretty rigid in their discipline.
But coming back to your main point, Phil, we have a genuine exegetical issue here:
Matthew 18
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
Is our Lord actually saying that the person is unsaved, or is He commanding us to place this person in a changed relationship?
If it is the latter, it really does not alter the issue at all. Regardless of the salvation or non-salvation of the person, they are to be excommuncated.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Paul-
""Little children, *make sure no one deceives you*, the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil."
No-lordship's refusal to accept those words at face value is convincing proof that it is false teaching. When no-lordship teachers stand up and proclaim obvious sinners as true Christians, we all need to stand up and say, "No, I won't let you deceive me." "
Free Grace people take those words perfectly at face value.
If anyone practices sin, they are of the devil. There is nothing in the context of that passage to indicate that this is only talking about non-Christians.
The Free Grace position takes very seriously the reality of sin in the Christian life and refuses to accept that a degree of sin is excusable.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Your personal experience is not relevant to what the Bible teaches about salvation and its fruit.
See, I knew someone would say that. ;~)
You miss my point, Paul. I am talking about the message to the pre-convert.
BTW, the straw man of decisionism gets old. I never said anything about someone who *must* be saved because they made a decision X number of years ago.
Also, as to 1 John 3:7-8, I see that as talking about a perfect, sinless creature, the new creation within us. John is stressing that all sin is of the devil, whether a believer does it or someone else. Our new nature cannot sin because it is born of God. Apparently, we have a bit of the old nature hanging aorund or else none of us would sin. Is that where YOU have arrived?
I know I don't have to answer your questions, but I just had to on that one. Does that help?
Oh my look at the time...
Phil Johnson thought Horton's book made some very good points. But it was severely marred by two things: One was the authors' agenda to turn the lordship debate into a stick to beat all dispensationalists indiscriminately with.
Phil, I would put Ernest Reisinger's Lord & Christ on the same bookshelf as, if not right next to, Horton's Christ the Lord.
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "If anyone practices sin, they are of the devil. There is nothing in the context of that passage to indicate that this is only talking about non-Christians."
One word:
Yeouch.
Some of these comments from the no-lordship perspective actually answer themselves.
Don't miss today's post. I'm shutting this thread off at 400 comments. My advice to the no-lordship side: Don't waste the rest of your quota with posts like that one.
Phil said to me:
No. Now think with me here: My only point with regard to 2 Corinthians 13:5 is that it disproves the universal assertion that people who believe that they are truly saved never need to do any self-examination to try to discover whether they might actually be self-deceived.
Nor does it support what you said earlier about this passage, you said:
Second Corinthians 13:5 does command believers to examine, among other things, whether we are "in the faith"; whether we are adokimos, disqaulified; and whether Jesus Christ is truly "in us"—basically, to put ourselves to the test in light of the judgment to come.
So since you have basically conceded what you said earlier, here, I'll rest my case on that text.
Btw, just for clarification, if someone happens to not be a "Lordship" guy/gal does not by default make them a "Zanie". In fact I follow what historically has been called "Affective Theology".
Also Phil has said that this debate is a settled issue in the academy. Yeah maybe at the The Masters Seminary. Most of theological academia, and I'm talking about Evangelicals, consider this to be a "popular" discussion. Which I wish they didn't, since obviously this discussion is impacting many many poeple.
Bobby Grow: " I follow what historically has been called "Affective Theology."
Yeah, I've been meaning to ask you about that. Sibbes is a favorite of mine, and I frankly don't think he would approave of your use of his name in support of the no-lordship position. But I wonder:
Have You read Mark Dever's doctoral work on Sibbes, where he specifically argues against the interpretation of Sibbes's theology that you seem to be affirming? (Dever also argues against the notion—already raised in this thread—that Calvin and the later Reformers were seriously at odds with one another.) If so, could you explain why you think Dever is wrong?
Phil said:
Have You read Mark Dever's doctoral work on Sibbes, where he specifically argues against the interpretation of Sibbes's theology that you seem to be affirming? (Dever also argues against the notion—already raised in this thread—that Calvin and the later Reformers were seriously at odds with one another.) If so, could you explain why you think Dever is wrong?
Actually Phil I sat under and worked for Dr. Ron Frost, his PhD dissertation for the University of London (King's College), was on the theology of Richard Sibbes--I've read his (Frost's) and Dever's dissertations. It's all about assumptions, isn't it? Dever first of all relies on older research and premises, and prior to that, and more importantly Dever makes the assumption that Sibbes simply is part of the typical classical theistic continuum--which Frost roundly undercuts with his research. Frost's dissertation on Sibbes is forthcoming under publication, I believe by, Paternoster Press, so watch for it--it's a must read!
Sibbes indeed was "Covenantal" in his theology--but he also clearly picked up on themes and the trajectory set out by Luther (i.e. Law vs. Gospel). Sibbes also followed the "Marriage Mysticism" tradition which frames the soteriological discussion much differently than that offered by the Westiminster "Divines", in general, and the TULIP, in particular.
I've noticed that Calvinists want to lay claim to most historical personages, at least insofar that those people are perceived to be a part of the Calvinist tradition (i.e. Sibbes, even Luther along a continuum of dogmatic development). But if further research and viale "reconstruction" is engaged, it becomes clear that there is more nuance to the story, and that many of the claims made by Calvinists are under-cut. Sibbes would be a good example of that.
OK, anyone tempted to take at face value Bobby Grow's assertion that the theological perspective of Puritan Richard Sibbes had anything in common with contemporary no-lordship doctrine ought to read this article: "Barely Saved."
Sibbes describes the "man that is righteous by the Spirit of God":
"The constant tenure of his life is righteous. He hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and labours to be more and more righteous still, every way, both in justification, that he may have a clearer evidence of that, as also in sanctification, that he may have more of the 'new creature' formed in him, that so he may serve God better and better all his days."
The article, which includes a superb refutation of all the main ideas of no-lordship thought, also includes a major section under the subheading, "The way to come to salvation is full of difficulties."
That's just one brief sample of why I have said Sibbes is squarely on the lordship side of this debate.
Want more?
Phil,
for further insight on Frost's position on Sibbes (until his dissertation is released) see:
The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics, eds. Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason, Intervarsity Press, 2004
Frost has a chapter on Sibbes in that book--it would be a good introduction to his research and thesis on the theology of Sibbes.
Phil,
you can try to couch Sibbes in the Lordship camp--but you're wrong. I'm not arguing for the Free-Grace position at this point. I'm highlighting the fact that Sibbes rejected the soteriological framework offered by Calvinism, and the idea of Perserverance of the saints. As I noted Sibbes followed the "Marriage Mysticism" tradition which pressed into the Eph. 5 motif and the bridal language relative to our relationship to Christ. He framed the whole soteriological differently than you do, Phil.
That's why the quote you provide from Sibbes, I believe is special pleading. Note the reflection of a man who was comforted by the preaching of Sibbes, this man's name is Humphrey Mills, and he said:
“I was for three years together wounded for sins, and under a sense of my corruptions, which were many; and I followed sermons, pursuing the means, and was constant in duties and doing: looking for Heaven that way. And then I was so precise for outward formalities, that I censured all to be reprobates, that wore their hair anything long, and not short above the ears; or that wore great ruffs, and gorgets, or fashions, and follies. But yet I was distracted in my mind, wounded in conscience, and wept often and bitterly, and prayed earnestly, but yet had no comfort, till I heard that sweet saint . . . Doctor Sibbs, by whose means and ministry I was brought to peace and joy in my spirit. His sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons won my heart and refreshed me much, for by him I saw and had muchof God and was confident in Christ, and could overlook the world . . . My heart held firm and resolved and my desires all heaven-ward.” (Ron Frost. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, eds., “The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics,” Frost is quoting from: John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tabernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653)
One must ask, why did Mills feel a sense of relief under the preaching of Sibbes vs. the typical Calvinistic/Puritan preaching that was predominate during his day. The answer: Sibbes followed a different tradition that did not focus on the "externals" as the basis of assurance. Sure obedience to Christ was important for Sibbes, I'm not denying that, but this was not the "emphasis" of Sibbes' soteriology--as it is for Lordship salvation.
Phil is right, there is more on this, much more . . . if anyone wants more come on over to my site--I have a few introductory articles . . . and there will be more to come!
Phil,
I have read Dabney, Hodge, Carson, and Kendall. But what I am impressed with more is the variety and bulk of text of Calvin that equates faith with absolute assurance. Your quote only shows that Calvin believes that experiential and progressive sanctification is inevitable. I disagree with him on that. Yet can you find a quote which he basis the certain assurance he talks about on works? He does not base assurance on the practical syllogism, on a subjective introspection of sanctification of works, but objectively on Christ alone and His word. What I said I agree with on Calvin, and where I said that Calvin disagrees with Reformed theology and Lordship Salvation, is in the area of the DEFINITION of faith, and his doctrine of assurance, not with what he says is the results or fruits of salvation. It is manifestly obvious that you could agree with another on what the definition of "anger" is yet disagree on what are the supposed, inevitable results of anger.
Matthew,
It is one thing for Calvin to define what Saving faith is (and which I would whole-heartedly agree with him)and quite the other thing for Calvin to consider what he would think the RESULTS of it are: note your "inevitably engenders". This is one of the problems with the Lordship position: subtly defining faith by its supposed fruits which is nothing but qualifying faith with works. I am sure that a man of your education can understand the difference.
Regarding Calvin's doctrine of repentance, he believed that repentance came after faith: "Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith ... There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it... such persons have never known the power of repentance..." (Institutes III.iii.1) Why does he feel so strongly about this? John Calvin states: "a man cannot apply himself seriously to repentance without knowing himself to belong to God." (Institutes III.iii.2) Repentance does not come until one is certainly assured of his eternal relationship with God through faith in Christ's death.
The length of this comment is due to addressing TWO people. (Even so, it is only 3 paragraphs.)
Antonio
Thanks, Phil for your long, but very informative response about Michael Horton's book.
Incidentally, I was re reading "Future Grace" by John Piper and he mentions John Macarthur on one of his footnotes. Piper says that "the essence of faith is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus" (p. 206). And in the footnote, he says:
"I am gratified to read the same definition commended by John Macarthur in his excellent book Faith Works. He says: 'Notice we have come full circle to the definition of faith suggested by the (Oxford) English Dictionary: Faith is being satisfied with Christ".
Thanks Phil and all the Pyro gang for this blog. And as I always said: Please forgive my english.
Blessings
Here's a great question that came to me via e-mail from a blog-reader whose anonymity I'll protect:
"Isn't it equally possible that there are just as many people walking around with a spurious confidence and false assurance based on 'fruit' in their life that is no more fruit of the Spirit's work in their life than the good works of the Pharisees was fruit of the Spirit's work in their lives?"
Absolutely. In fact, I would even concede that in the wider scope of all church history and international (as opposed to Dallas-based) evangelicalism, this may well have been a bigger problem cumulatively over the years than the antinomianism of the no-lordship view has been.
That's why in the year and a half that I have been blogging I've had a whole lot to say about the dangers of Pelagianizing influences, sacramentalist soteriologies, fresh ideas and new perspectives that are undermining sola fide, and various other kinds of legalism, moralism, pietism, and works-based systems—but this is the first time I have ever entertained a debate about the lordship issue.
Here's how I see the landscape: I think the no-lordshippers err on one side and the New Perspectivists err on the other. I'm suggesting we need to walk a fine line without falling off the cliff on either side.
Phil:
“Did you read my earlier post…?”
I did read your earlier post. As you are aware when I speak of “saving faith” my concerns are primarily with the reception of salvation. We are in substantive agreement on what should be the results of a genuine conversion.
I have stated I do not accuse Lordship advocates of demanding, as you state, “a process” such as the RCC mandates through the sacramental system.
At times you are discussing the results of saving faith, which I believe you referred to above as “the nature of faith.” Dr. MacArthur’s position, however, on the reception of salvation is very clear from the quotes I have cited from his various books. For the record, I have acknowledged he does claim to believe salvation is a free gift, and cannot be earned or merited.
When Dr. MacArthur speaks of cross bearing, following and self denial, it is often in the context of what he finds necessary to be saved. For example he wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God- anyone who wants to be a Christian has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)
He is speaking of becoming a Christian, and to become a Christian requires self-denial, cross bearing, and following. This contradicts the claim of holding to a gospel that is free, unmerited and without conditions.
When I compare the quote above with similar statements in his other lordship books I find the same position in each. I chose to quote from one of his more recent books on Lordship Salvation to show that the same theme is found in each of his works.
Dr. MacArthur has attempted to explain and clarify himself in the books that followed the original edition. I have read your attempts to expalin and clarify some of Dr. MacArthur’s confusing and controversial statements. Portions of the books, however, which follow the original reiterate many of the same controversial themes.
LM
Bobby Grow: "Sibbes rejected the soteriological framework offered by Calvinism, and the idea of Perserverance of the saints."
I'll read Ron Frost's book, and the chapter you recommended from the book on Puritanism. (I think I already have that book on my shelves at the office.) But I'm highly dubious of your claim and I'm not simply going to take your word for it. I also own the collected works of Sibbes and read a quite a bit of Sibbes about a decade ago, mainly because MLJ admired him so much. What I know of Sibbes, and even what I cited above, simply can't be reconciled with what you claim he taught.
Also, interestingly enough, one of my favorite historical figures, and a Puritan whose works I have read at length, was John Cotton, a personal friend and close theological ally of Sibbes. Both Puritan leaders had a considerable amount to say about the antinomian controversy of that generation. As a matter of fact, Cotton was more or less up to his eyeballs in the controversy from the very start of it. By no means were Sibbes and Cotton friendly to the Antinomian perspective, even though elements of Cotton's teaching were cited by Mrs. Hutchinson in support of her outlandish opinions.
She'd have fit right into the blogosphere, I fear. ANd there's no shortage of people today who want to recast her as a feminist hero. That's one of the reasons I don't automatically assume the latest "scholarship" is superior to the views of people who lived closer to that time. For now, I'm with Dever.
Phil:
There are several positions I believe contribute to the errors in Lordship Salvation.
One is the extra-biblical position of regeneration before faith and belief in Jesus.
Because of this presupposition Lordship advocates believe they are dealing with a man who has been regenerated, already born again. So, calls for cross bearing, submission, and a willingness to die for Jesus sake, in the Lordship advocate’s opinion, can’t be works, because he is dealing with a man who is already converted.
The other is presenting passages meant for the born again disciple of Christ, (calls for cross bearing, self-denial, following), as though these are gospel appeals directed to the lost.
If the demand for cross bearing and following is meant for the lost, you are asking the lost man to make a commitment (or have a heart attitude toward commitment and/or obedience) to what a disciple of Christ ought to be. This then becomes a message of faith plus commitment to a life of “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a believer.
As soon as you require a commitment, whetehr in action or attitude, you have a man-centered, self-dependent gospel.
“And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it,” (Luke 9:23-24).
Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?
Luke 9:24 is a conditional verse. Twice it says “for whosoever will . . .” Do you view the demands of Luke 9:23-24 as a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ to be believed for salvation?
Thanks,
LM
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "Is our Lord actually saying that the person is unsaved, or is He commanding us to place this person in a changed relationship?"
That's a false dichotomy. Christ commands us to regard the person as an unbeliever. The question of whether the person is actually unsaved or not is beyond our ability to know for certain. But the whole church is expressly commanded to deal with the person as an unbeliever, and that is precisely what the no-lordship perspective refuses to do. Note: That refusal is even reflected in the way you framed your question.
I don't think this point—or the fact that you have to work so hard to pretend it's irrelevant or hard to grasp—is lost on the objective reader.
Phil: I'm still in the process of wading through the 50,000 plus words of posts. But I'm afraid I'll miss my window if I don't get this in now.
Could you define (as briefly as you're able [or point to another resource that talks about it--I'm not trying to be a beardless Calvinist or anything]) progressive sanctification? It was mentioned waaay back at in the early days of the meta.
I'm asking because, while I like the idea, I struggle with examples from Scripture which appear (to me, anyway) to contradict it. Certainly could be my own (mis)understanding. But when I see, for instance, David's sin with Bathsheba, Noah's drunkenness (& the resultant incest), Moses disobedience in striking the rock...I struggle to see how those events fit with progressive sanctification. We're not talking about small things here--these (and other examples) are huge lapses in what might otherwise be deemed faithful lives.
Thanks.
That's fair, Phil. Hutchinson was of course an extreme of "antinomianism".
I've also read much of Sibbes' work (his 7vol.)--and Frost spent 3 yrs of concentrated study on Sibbes. He also did his Master's on Cotton.
I'll correspond with Frost, maybe I'll see if he'll do a guest post at my site on Sibbes'.
Phil said:
. . . I also own the collected works of Sibbes and read a quite a bit of Sibbes about a decade ago, mainly because MLJ admired him so much. What I know of Sibbes, and even what I cited above, simply can't be reconciled with what you claim he taught.
Sibbes was no Calvinist, and his marriage framework more than substantiates this. Anyway I have to go to work, so I'll be out the remainder of the day and night.
Antonio: "what I am impressed with more is the variety and bulk of text of Calvin that equates faith with absolute assurance. Your quote only shows that Calvin believes that experiential and progressive sanctification is inevitable. I disagree with him on that. Yet can you find a quote which he basis the certain assurance he talks about on works? He does not base assurance on the practical syllogism, on a subjective introspection of sanctification of works, but objectively on Christ alone and His word. What I said I agree with on Calvin, and where I said that Calvin disagrees with Reformed theology and Lordship Salvation, is in the area of the DEFINITION of faith, and his doctrine of assurance, not with what he says is the results or fruits of salvation."
See: I already stated very early in this thread that I agree completely with Calvin (and, I'd like to point out, with the Westminster standards) that a measure of assurance is of the essence of faith. I also have agreed with the point made by many that Calvin stressed the objective aspect of assurance more than some of his heirs did. But I don't think you really have much of a point there. I know Zane Hodges thinks that's a killer point, and you ape his enthusiasm well.
But as a matter of fact, when you say, "I agree with on Calvin . . . in the area of the DEFINITION of faith, and his doctrine of assurance, not with what he says is the results or fruits of salvation" you contradict yourself.
What I'm saying, as well as what Dabney, Berkhouwer, Cunningham, Helm, and others have said, is that Calvin's view of works as a necessary fruit of faith is absolutely essential to his "DEFINITION of faith, and his doctrine of assurance." So, it turns out, you don't really agree with Calvin at all. And I think a simple objective reading of Calvin, rather than Kendall, would prove that fact to any objective person.
PS: good job on trying to follow the guidelines in that last comment of yours.
"we need to walk a fine line" -Phil
"we are sinners and saints all at once! That is the paradox of evangelicalism. The Antinomian and the Perfectionist would abolish the paradox-- the one drowning the saint in the sinner, and the other concealing the sinner in the saint." B. B. Warfield
Gummby: "when I see, for instance, David's sin with Bathsheba, Noah's drunkenness (& the resultant incest), Moses disobedience in striking the rock...I struggle to see how those events fit with progressive sanctification."
Good question. "Progressive sanctification" simply means that believers will progress ultimately (note: I didn't say, "press steadily without interruption") toward the end to which God predestined them in the first place: "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Romans 8:29).
That's not to deny that they might have appalling setbacks or even fall into serious sin for a time (as the biblical examples show). But if they are true believers, the Spirit of God is working within them to help them finally overcome (1 John 4:4) and God the Father will chasten them and thereby bring forth "the peaceable fruit of righteousness" (Hebrews 12:5-11).
In other words, the doctrine of perseverance does not teach that believers will never fall into sin—even serious sin. It does teach that if they are really true believers they will never fully nor finally fall away from Christ (1 John 2:19). Big difference.
Phil:
In light of the fact that you hold all true christians will inevitably love Christ, be obedient, and persevere until the end;
1. What is the purpose of the Judgement (Bema) seat of Christ?
2. How does the Judgement seat differ from the Great white throne?
Don Sands:
You wrote, "I believe it is the right order. You must be born of God, born again, or you will never see the kingdom."
Naturally, but in regard to ordo you are choosing the Calvinistic view: regeneration (the gift of eternal life) precedes faith/repentance and belief in Jesus Christ.
This position means man cannot believe or express faith and repentance unless he has first been regenerated, been born again.
The Bible has a different view. Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
So, a choice must be made: do we accept the revelation of Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ; or do we choose a position that flows from a system based on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings?
LM
Jim: "1. What is the purpose of the Judgement (Bema) seat of Christ?"
2. How does the Judgement seat differ from the Great white throne?"
The bema is where believers' good works are judged to see what sort they are (not to see whether they persevered, or whatever). The Great White Throne is where all whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will be condemned and consigned to hell.
I really can't see how questions like those advance the discussion about the lordship issue. If you are saying you understand the doctrine of perseverance to mean that all believers experience perfect, continuous victory and therefore have nothing to be evaluated or rewarded for, you have probably not read what has been posted in previous comments, or else you have utterly missed the concept.
No one is suggesting that all believers bear fruit equally or produce good works in equal measure. Only that none fall away, because we are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Donsands:
Great quote from Warfield. Best comment yet.
Phil, this comment has to do with the definition of Faith and how the Bible and Calvin disagree with Lordship's assesment of saving faith:
The Bible defines faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).
John Calvin is very biblical in his definitions of faith: "...as regards justification, faith is something merely passive, bringing nothing of ours to the recovering of God's favor but receiving from Christ that which we lack." (Institutes III, xiii, 5) "In short, no man is truly a believer, unless he be firmly persuaded that God is a propitious and benevolent Father to him... unless he depend on the promises of the Divine benevolence to him, and feel an undoubted expectation of salvation" (ibid., III.II.16) "Now we shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say, that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence towards us, which [is] founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ" (ibid., II, ii, 7)
These definitions of faith by John Calvin are light years away from those held in Lordship Salvation! See also how Calvin believes that faith is persuasion, passive, intellectual, and renders one fully assured and certain of eternal salvation. John MacArthur's radical redefinition of faith is illustrated by such statements as these:
"A concept of faith that excludes obedience corrupts the message of salvation" (TGATJ 174). "'Believe' is synonomous with 'obey'" (TGATJ 174). Agreeing with Vine's : faith is "conduct inpsired by such surrender" (TGATJ 173, 174). Saving faith is "unconditional surrender, a complete resignation of self and absolute submission" (TGATJ 153) "He is glad to give up all for the kingdom. That is the nature of saving faith" (TGATJ 139). "Forsaking oneself for Christ's sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion: it is the sine qua non of saving faith" (TGATJ 135)
Antonio:
Calvin's use of the word passive stresses that faith is a gracious gift from God, not a human work. On that count, we definitely agree with Calvin, and Zane Hodges doesn't.
The radical no-lordship doctrine Hodges represents portrays faith as "passive" in the sense that it is potentially fruitless. On that count, we have already established that Calvin disagrees with you and you disagree with him.
PS: We're running out of comments rather quickly. Do you guys have anything better than a handful of fifteen-year-old recycled claims from Zane Hodges' book?
Someone asked somewhere on here about regeneration preceeding faith. Here is an article dealing with that:
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf
It's a bit long, but a good read.
Phil, John Calvin teaches that men must not look to themselves, to their works for absolute and certain assurance of salvation. As we have already seen in my last comment on Calvin's definition of faith, he regarded certain and absolute assurance as the very essence of saving faith.
"Doubtless, if we are to determine by our works in what way the Lord stands affected toward us, I admit that we cannot even get the length of a feeble conjecture: but since faith should accord with the free and simple promise, there is no room left for ambiguity" (Institutes III.ii.38) "But if we have been chosen in Him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive Him as severed from His Son. Christ, then is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election." (Institutes III.xxiv.5)
Calvin consistently urges men to not look to themselves for assurance, the very thing Lordship salvation teaches men to do.
Indeed, "if you contemplate yourself, that is sure damnation". (Inst III.ii.24). For if men begin to judge whether they are regenerate "by good works, nothing will be more uncertain or more feeble." For if works are judged it is shown that "by their imperfection they will no less declare God's wrath than by their incomplete purity they testify to His benevolence" (Inst III.xiv.19) Moreover, "when the Christian looks at himself he can only have grounds for anxiety, indeed despair" (Comm. 1 Cor 1:9). We should not seek assurance by "conjecture", for faith corresponds "to a simple and free promise"; therefore "no doubting is left" (Inst III.ii.38) "Nevertheless, though a good conscience cannot be separated from faith, yet no one should hence conclude that we must look to our works in order that our assurance may be certain. (comm 1 Jn 3:19)Calvin looks to Christ alone for his assurance: "If Pighius asks how I know I am elect, I answer that Christ is more than a thousand testimonies to me" (Predestination, 130)
Phil says, "The radical no-lordship doctrine Hodges represents portrays faith as 'passive' in the sense that it is potentially fruitless." This is not what we mean by "passive".
Faith is passive in the sense that the will is not involved in its exercise. Saving faith is the passive result of being convinced, firmly persuaded, that Christ has died for me, Calvin says.
What Free Grace theology teaches about the passive nature of faith is that saving faith is exercised the moment someone is convinced, persuaded that they have eternal life through Jesus Christ in His promise.
Question: Does the unregenerate present himself to someone who is "Lord" - that is - is there someone or something who "runs" his life? Yes - he is a slave to sin and in bondage to and blinded by the "god" of this age. So "salvation" by Jesus is, according to the "mental assent only" view, the place wherein Jesus puts you in a state of "neutral" to His Lordship. His salvation is "from" something but can not be "to" something. And of course this line of reasoning in regards to "belief" is clearly articulated by Paul in .... oops!
David Sheldon
phil,
There is one thing that I wish to tell you about this forum. Proof of a position resides within the treatment of texts. With this consideration in mind, this forum that you have so graciously opened up to us "nattering nabobs of no-lordship" thought, is of questionable value.
In the Pulpit travesty on Lordship Salvation, I questioned the posts because they were only assertions with attached proof texts. I made the point that well-reasoned, exegetical and expositional treatments of texts were the only way that we analyze each other's positions.
Nate B offered me this consolation:
"We will explore various passages in much greater depth over the upcoming weeks....But I think the posts yet to come will show that honest exegesis necessarily leads to the lordship view, and leaves the free-grace alternative hermeneutically untenable."
In the whole of the series, only ONE post treated a text, written by Matthew Waymeyer (1 Cor 6:9-11). I posted my objections to it, and my exposition of it. No other texts were treated.
Neither Nate, nor Matt, nor you attempted to discuss my points with me. You all left me high and dry.
Now if we are going to get to the heard of this matter, Phil, we need to discuss texts. This post, and the constrictions of the meta, are not conducive for such a task. Why don't you do a few posts on actual treatments and expositions of texts that are Lordship hole-in-ones and we can discuss them.
I thought that was going to happen on Pulpit, but we were all left disappointed.
For a text of my indictment of Pulpit's lack of anything substantial, click here:
Pulpit's Last Day of the Lordship Salvation Series, and Still no Content
Antonio: "John Calvin teaches that men must not look to themselves, to their works for absolute and certain assurance of salvation."
See, the thing is, Antonio, I agree with that. So does MacArthur. Question: Have you read his chapter on assurance in Faith Works? I think I've asked that already and it's one you chose not to reply to.
Also, if you'll read the Berkouwer book I keep referring you to, he likewise points out why the syllogismus practicus is not incompatible with Calvin's emphasis that "Christ . . . is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election." Berkouwer includes that very quotataion and comments on it at length, as I recall.
Now, you need to either read the stuff on this issue that I have already recommended to you, or else move on to a different argument that you are better prepared to discuss intelligently.
Remember, you don't win any points here based on the sheer volume of posts you make. You are eating up the remaining comment-space with all this reposting of arguments that have already been addressed.
Antonio: "There is one thing that I wish to tell you about this forum. Proof of a position resides within the treatment of texts"
So far, I haven't seen you deal with any texts. If you can do it within the space parameters, give it a go. I'm sure it will be better than any of your other arguments so far.
If you can't do it in the allotted space, be sure you do what I suggested earlier: make a long post at your own blog, then link to it from here. We'll respond to it.
But you'd better hurry. Your spammy style is burning therough the remaining allotted posts. If you haven't made some kind of reasonable case before we hit 400 comments, the discussion here will be over.
Phil:
"If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
1 Cor. 3:15
In light of the fact that this takes place at the Bema seat, what exactly does the phrase "yet so as by fire" mean, and what is this "loss"?
Phil, I am not a Zane Hodges groupy, I have never read his books or Wilkin's for that matter. To label all questionners of the "Lordship doctrine" as "no-lordship" is inaccurate and belittling. I am simply looking for Biblical answers to the reasons for your take on things.
Lou,
I choose both. I think we need both, in order to discern and understand doctrine such as salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, for the glory of God alone. For teachings such as the Trinity we need both.
Eschatology calls for both I would think.
i love the verse John 3;16. And I love the whole chapter 3, and the whole Epistle. We need to look at the whole og God's counsel, as I know you believe.
I could take one verse as well: "And as many as had been appointed [ordained] to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48
Have a blessed Lord's Day.
These discussion has been good.
May we all be more conformed in the image of our Savior as we prayfully continue to read, study, and meditate upon His Word.
Phil, fine.
Lets take a couple:
The Parable of the Sower:
Exposition of the Parable of the Sower
Additional Thoughts ont the Second and Third Soils in the Parable of the Sower
The Broad and Narrow Way Contrasted: Matthew 7:13-23
Antonio
Phil,
It is abundantly clear that you must be dealing in contradictions.
The practical syllogism reads something like:
Major Premise: All who have believed and have the fruits of regeneration are saved
Minor Premise: I have believed and have some fruits (IOW, works)
Conclusion: Therefore, I am saved
The practical syllogism bases assurance on experimentation, the introspection of self and evidence of works.
This is light years away from Calvin who claims that
1) Assurance is of the Essence of Saving Faith (along with Free Grace theology)
2) We must not look to our works for certainty of Salvation, for they are feeble. Certainty is of the essence of saving faith. Christ and His promise alone are the objective referents of our absolute and certain, fully persuaded and convinced assurance.
Anyone that can read the practical syllogism understand that according to it WORKS ARE INDISPENSIBLE to assurance. Calvin states quite the opposite!
You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
As far as the definition of saving faith goes, and as far as the doctrine of assurance goes, John Calvin definitely is CONTRARY to modern day Calvinistic Lordship Salvation.
Antonio
Matthew,
Calvin was clear: Repentance follows faith AFTER ONE is certain of his relationship to God.
Furthermore, he knows of no such thing as a "repentant faith", for he both distinguishes them and has one following the other logically AFTER one is certain of salvation.
Furthermore he does not define faith by repentance OR its supposed fruits.
His definitions of faith are enough to quell your argument.
My argument is that I wholeheartedly agree with Calvin's definition of faith and his doctrine of assurance.
That claim stands.
Antonio: "It is abundantly clear that you must be dealing in contradictions."
It's abundantly clear that you are determined to pursue the argument mindlessly without actually doing the necessary research. If you haven't yet read the one or two simple resources I have recommended, you mindless repitition of the same failed arguments you have already used isn't going to get you anywhere. You are just stuck in the mud.
Once more: see G. C. Berkhouwer, Divine Election (Eerdmans), the chapter on assurance, for a thorough answer to your erroneous claims about Calvin and the syllogismus practicus. See also MacArthur's chapter on assurance in Faith Works for a thorough discussion of whether assurance is of the essence of faith, and the ramifications of that for the lordship view.
Until you can show some degree of familiarity with the material I have referred you to, I'm not going to reply to your reiteration of the same old points.
You're burning up the remaining comments with this nonsense.
Funny, I thought this was a discussion about Lordship Salvation. Antonio seems to have turned it into a debate on what Calvin believed.
Nevertheless, IMO, it's not that complicated. Christ's indwelling Spirit gives assurance; works confirm it; personal examination finalizes it; confession that Jesus is Savior AND Lord proclaims it!
Jim:
You asked for Phil's take on regeneration before faith.
Phil's reply, "I prefer to speak of regeneration as the cause of faith, rather than using temporal language such as "preceding." The cause-and-effect relationship is the real point; not the temporal order of regeneration-before-faith."
Phil is correct in moving away from a temporal order of the events of faith, repentance, regeneration, conversion, and justification. The events happen simultaneously, but there is a trigger for the events of faith, repentance, regeneration, conversion, and justification.
When Phil says, "cause of faith," he is using what might be a more palatable or subtle way of saying regeneration precedes faith. I know he does not mean separated in time, but he definitely believes a lost man is first regenerated and this causes or is followed by faith.
Calvinists hold the trigger is regeneration followed by faith, repentance, conversion, and justification. As I noted this is a system that is born from logic and reason. The Bible order of the events has faith as the trigger. The Bible teaches faith and belief result in regeneration. John 3:16; Eph 2:8-9;
Evangelist John VanGelderen and Pastor George Zeller both use the following questions to demonstrate the absurdity of regeneration (being born again) preceding faith:
Is it “look and live” or “live and look?” Is it “Look unto Me, and be ye saved” (Is. 45:22) or “Be ye saved, and look unto Me?” Is it “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or “He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?” Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 6:36) or “Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?” (Faith vs. Fatalism, p. 3.)
Phil (and Nathan at Pulpit Magazine who I also questioned on this) believes regeneration (everlasting life) precedes/triggers faith and belief. Nathan never did reply, he might later.
This extra-biblical position is one of the extremes of Calvinism that leads to Lordship Salvation.
You can read more on this at:
www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm
There is an article on this issue at my blog.
God bless,
LM
Antonio - You never interacted with this portion of Matt W.'s quote of Calvin...
"“Not that repentance, properly speaking, is the cause of salvation, but because it is already seen to be inseparable from faith and from God’s mercy, when, as Isaiah testifies….” (III,3,21)."
Phil:
I know you are trying to address many inquiries. You may have missed the following question I posted above.
I will repeat it here, so you have an opportunity to address it before the 400 post limit is reached.
“And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it,” (Luke 9:23-24).
Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?
Luke 9:24 is a conditional verse. Twice it says “for whosoever will . . .” Do you view the demands of Luke 9:23-24 as a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ to be believed for salvation?
Thanks,
LM
Lou said: Calvinists hold the trigger is regeneration followed by faith, repentance, conversion, and justification. As I noted this is a system that is born from logic and reason. The Bible order of the events has faith as the trigger. The Bible teaches faith and belief result in regeneration. John 3:16; Eph 2:8-9;
Lou: I hope you'll forgive my asking, but how exactly does the unregenerate heart of one who is an enemy of God respond in faith? Or stated slightly differently, how does a dead man respond at all, unless he is first made alive?
Good one, Gummby. Imagine Lazarus trying to shuffle out of that tomb and respond to the call of Christ while he was yet dead.
"You cannot say, 'No Lord' and mean both words; one annuls the other. If you say no to Him, then He is not your Lord" --Dr. D. James Kennedy
"...how exactly does the unregenerate heart of one who is an enemy of God respond in faith? Or stated slightly differently, how does a dead man respond at all, unless he is first made alive?"
See John 16:7-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16. I do not want to violate rules, but please read the lengthly article at my blog. I can't reproduce it all here. More later, family time now.
LM
Phil, you switched your offer. I was waiting for you to finish on James over at Pulpit.
In the NT period, the format of the diatribe (where an imaginary countering voice temporarily entered a prepared discourse) was rather strict for obvious reasons. That is, the listener of the speech had to be confident as to when the main voice reentered the discourse after the "objector's" statements. The main speaker's "re-entry" statement was therefore (1)always sharp and (2)often included a direct address. (Please see 1 Cor 15:35-36 and Romans 9:19-20)
This format proves that the demons remark was part of what was being mocked by the Apostle James.
Therefore, the demons remark should never be quoted by you or your theological teammates because it is not what James himself was exhorting. He was mocking it.
Blessings.
Jodie
It isn't about a percentage of works or how many sins, or quality or quantity at all...
We claim Him as Lord, we cannot and we don't follow every rule He gives us, we don't even realize that we are doing some things wrong (Psalm 19:12-14)...
None have or ever will walk the perfect path perfectly except Jesus. But we can follow Him on that road by faith. We will not walk it perfectly, but His walk not our walk is what saves us. That is the gospel and out of gratitude for it and love for Him we attempt to walk that same path, knowing that our walk will be imperfect and that we will stumble and fall, but that God will pick us up and if we will get up and want to walk again He will empower us to do so.
Someone who is saved does not presume upon the goodness of God, they act in accordance with it. Just because you know the truth doesn’t mean you are trusting in it. Those that do not walk the path at all are saying that they have no faith.
There is a traditional threefold definition of faith as
1. Understanding – knowledge
2. Assent – belief
3. Trust - faithfulness.
Not a degree of, but a want to at all. A person who doesn't persevere, in that they do not continue to claim the name of Christ, that person wouldn't care anyway, so why is this an issue at all.
Why is it that non-Lordship "believers" insist on treating Jesus like an a la cart buffet?
"I'll have a heapin' helpin' of forgiveness, blessing, and peace, but whoa! that Lordship is just too rich for me."
Jesus is Savior and Lord. Refusing to submit to the indivisible Savior and Lord is nothing less than a form of redaction directed at the person of Jesus Christ Himself.
Since these spaces are filling up, I will continue with your 400 spots in mind.
The analogy that closes the section in James 2 on works and faith is a comparison of two pairs. If I were comparing faith and works to a spirit and a body, I would compare the visible and more tangible things, works to body, and also compare faith to spirit, since these are hidden things.
But, Phil, James is linking a body with faith. And he is observing the similarities between a spirit and works. For James, works are needed because they animate faith. This supports the idea that the faith in question is a faith in the here and now power of God which easily becomes a platitude-heavy dead-orthodoxy, far better than it supports the idea that it is saving faith that is the topic at hand.
Blessings.
Lou Martuneac: "The Bible order of the events has faith as the trigger."
I don't think it's as simple as you portray it. The verse I cited above, Acts 16:14 would be one counter-example. The text that clinches it for me is John 1:13, which seems to aim at making the point as clear as possible. James 1:18 is another example, as is a Peter 1:3. Even John 3:3 seems to suggest the new birth precedes our ability to see and grasp the truths of the kingdom. Certainly John 6:44, 65 teach that faith is prompted by God's work in our life, rather than vice versa. And the truth of Romans 8:7-8 does seem to make God's work in the unregenerate heart a necessary prerequisite to the exercise of faith. If you acknowledge that much, even if you don't want to call God's prior work in the sinner's heart "regeneration," you have more or less conceded the main idea anyway.
"Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?"
Nope. Even faith, strictly speaking, is not so much a "condition" as the instrumental means of our justification. See what Vincent Cheung has to say about this. I would say, however, that Luke 9:23-24, Jesus' own call to discipleship, reveals the character of true faith.
Paul Doutell: "You're on Pacific time, I think. What's your over/under on the hour you hit 400 comments?"
1:30 pm Sunday PST
H K Flynn: "Therefore, the demons remark should never be quoted by you or your theological teammates because it is not what James himself was exhorting. He was mocking it."
I'm not expert in ancient literature, but the problem with your statement is that I cannot find a single credible Bible scholar who agrees with Zane Hodges about that. And I can cite thousands who agree with the historic understanding of the text. Hodges argument looks to me like the very thinnest nearly-invisible gossamer strand—so thin that an intense look at it still doesn't make clear if it's real or an illusion. Yet he's trying to use it to hold up his entire theology.
If that's the best no-lordship doctrine has, it would take a fool to abandon the historic understanding of James in favor of Hodges' view—especially when Hodges himself virtually acknowledges that no one in the history of the church has ever understood James that way before.
Even So: "It isn't about a percentage of works or how many sins, or quality or quantity at all... We claim Him as Lord."
Precisely.
Impacted Wisdom Truth: "Why is it that non-Lordship "believers" insist on treating Jesus like an a la cart buffet?"
"I'll have a heapin' helpin' of forgiveness, blessing, and peace, but whoa! that Lordship is just too rich for me."
Bingo.
H K Flynn: "This supports the idea that the faith in question is a faith in the here and now power of God which easily becomes a platitude-heavy dead-orthodoxy, far better than it supports the idea that it is saving faith that is the topic at hand."
Actually, that's only true if you bring no-lordship presuppositions to the text. Hundreds of years of Reformed commentators have established the fact that James's statements are perfectly understandable and perfectly compatible with the principle of sola fide, so it's not necessary to speculate that he is suddenly taking about temporal "salvation" from the trials nd difficulties of this life.
Jerry:
You said, “If your argument rests mainly on your understanding of the order of salvation, you are in trouble.”
I point up the regeneration before faith issue because it is an extra-biblical presupposition that most Lordship advocates come to Lordship Salvation with. My main issue is with the Lordship gospel that calls on a lost man for commitments that are impossible for him to make, and thereby by frustrates grace.
As this thread winds down I decided to hone in on Dr. MacArthur's use of verses meant for discipleship as though they are gospel messages to the lost. This is one of the most grievous errors in the Lordship system.
Here are just two more examples of Dr. MacArthur's demands for a lost man to make decisions, for the reception of eternal life, that belong to a born again believer. He is writing on the encounter with the Rich Young Ruler.
“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According To Jesus, p. 78.)
“And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.” (Hard to Believe, p. 9.)
I chose quotes on the same incident from MacArthur’s original TGATJ and the most recent book Hard to Believe. Phil claims the controversial portions of the original were explained and cleared up in later editions. This is just one more example of, as I have said all along, that commitment, surrender, forsaking are presented by Dr. MacArthur as requirements for salvation and runs like a thread through his lordship books.
Conditioning the reception of eternal life on decisions that belong to a born again child of God, a disciple, is what we read in the quotes above. Lordship advocates are quick to counter by saying, Jesus is only asking for the willingness to obey. Any message, which conditions salvation on any type of upfront promise or commitment or willingness to do or be something, immediately becomes a man-centered gospel, and thereby false through the addition.
I am still hopeful Phil will answer my two simple questions about Luke 9:23-24. They get at the crux of my concern with the discipleship/salvation confusion in the Lordship camp. If he does not I will post them on my blog for his comments.
LM
PS: I want to assure everyone that I am just as committed as the Lordship advocate to a genuine believer setting out to live in submission to the Lordship of Christ. I do not condone or wink at the loose living of professing believers. I detest Easy-Believism and Mental Assent only positions. The answer to these, however, is not found in changing the terms of the gospel to the Lordship view, which good men have done, in reaction to the other extreme. I always warn young people that they need to be careful not to bounce off one extreme into another, which is exactly what we are seeing the results of here.
Phil:
Thanks for the reply on Luke 9. I'll try to get back to you on it.
LM
Lou said: Is it “look and live” or “live and look?” ... Is it “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” ... or “He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?”
Those are really the wrong questions though, there's no debate there. The real issue is *why* do certain ones "look" and why do they believe? What makes a dead man do those things?
I'll add this passage to Phil's list of regen before faith passages:
1 John 5:1 ESV - Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ *has been* (past tense) born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
Some translations don't say it quite like that, so have a look at James White's discussion of the gramatical structure of this passage on this page.
Ouch! I used a Lordship slot. Sorry Phil.
Phil:
“…God's work in the unregenerate heart a necessary prerequisite to the exercise of faith. If you acknowledge that much, even if you don't want to call God's prior work in the sinner's heart "regeneration," you have more or less conceded the main idea anyway.”
I see God’s prior working in the sinner’s heart from the standpoint of John 16:7-11. The Holy Spirit does the convicting and convincing. I do not call that regeneration. Most Lordship advocates do, in fact, believe man must be regenerated (be born again) before and to enable faith, repentance and believing in Jesus Christ.
How radically different from, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, (Rom. 10:13). How very different from John 3:16. How contradictory to Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.”
Yours and my “main idea” on regeneration are very different!
George Zeller wrote, “Please notice that John 1:12 does not say this: ‘But as many as have been regenerated, to them gave He the power to believe on His Name, even to those who have become the children of God.’ Notice also that John 20:31 says, ‘believing ye might have life.’ It does not say, ‘having life ye might believe.’ In his helpless and hopeless condition the sinner is told to LOOK to the Lord Jesus Christ AND LIVE (John 3:14-16; Numbers 21). [We sing the hymn, ‘Look and Live.’ The extreme Calvinist should rename the hymn: ‘Live and Look’.]” (IDOTG, p. 267.)
If you want to concede that the Holy Spirit through the Word of God convinces lost man of his sin and guilt before God, then if he responds in faith and belief in Christ and is thereby regenerated, we are in agreement.
LM
Antonio: In the Pulpit travesty on Lordship Salvation, I questioned the posts because they were only assertions with attached proof texts.
What are "proof texts"? They are verses or Scripture references that support one's theological case.
This intended perjorative is only a true slam if the texts themselves are used incorrectly or taken out-of-context.
On the other hand, if the texts are rightly understood and used within the contextual flow of the argument (such that they are exegetically sound), then "proof texting" can actually be a good thing.
In any case, since I've already been accused of "proof texting," I might as well reiterate some of what I wrote over at Pulpit (since Antonio brought it up).
***
Repentance was preached by:
1. John the Baptist (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:4)
2. Jesus (Matt 4:17; 11:20-24; Mark 1:14-15; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 24:46-47)
3. The Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:5-6; 2 Cor 7:10; Heb 6:1-6; 2 Peter 3:9)
And these are only the passages where the word is used. The concept is reiterated in many other places.
In John 2:22-23, we see that there is a "belief" in Jesus that is false. The books of James and 1 John help us understand what false belief (which is mere lipservice) looks like.
In John 8:42, Jesus said that those who are children of the Father love Him. And in John 14:15, He said that those who love Him will obey Him. In John 10:27, He reiterated that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
Our Lord commanded His apostles to preach a message of "repentance and remission of sins" to the unbelieving nations (Luke 24:46-47).
Peter, of course, reiterated this in his evangelistic sermon on the day of Pentecost (in Acts 2) and again later (in Acts 3).
The apostle Paul, in his evangelistic message on Mars Hill, said that God "commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). (How's that for an evangelistic sermon, no mention of "belief", only "repentance"?)
Paul later said, in his evangelistic sermon to Agrippa, that his evangelistic message to both Jews and Gentiles was "that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance" (Acts 26:20) And he did this because Christ himself had comissioned him to do so, "that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in [Christ]" (v. 18).
Zane Hodges may say that it is not necessary to include repentance in our evangelistic presentations. I think these verses (along with others) plainly demonstrate that God Himself says otherwise.
Post 377
Phil, in light of your rule #7, I think it would be beneficial to the rest of the Pyro blog if you kept the comments open on this post, though it would be completely understandable for you to stop addressing all questions. It seems there is enough interest from others in defending the Lordship view that your devotion to this post need not remain as intense.
On the Lordship topic, Phil, you have encouraged people to examine themselves frequently, even daily to see if they are a true believer. In order to make such an evaluation, must not assurance be at least momentarily extinguished? Is God asking us to frequently (daily? more?) set aside assurance in order to then regain it?
I think I can already guess your response. But first, please just entertain your imagination for a minute and read the previous point with the assumption that all the "examine yourself" passages are written to true believers only about sanctification.
Matt,
Does the Bible ever state that the DOING of works, commandments, etc. RESULTS in entering the kingdom of God, the present possession of eternal life, or justification before the bar of God? No of course not. Salvation unto the sinner is apart from the condition of works of any kind. It is by grace alone, through faith alone, right (two of the solas!)? Don't you agree?
Yet if "do[ing] the will of [the] Father" = obeying His commandments (which means one's works) in Matt 7:21, then we have a problem. Entrance into the kingdom would be conditioned on the performance of God's will, which is obeying, or the doing of works. (but you aren't saying this. you are making a further leap and importation)
Which is the greater leap and importation?
1) the importation of perseverance theology into Matt 7, which would have to make leaps and importations:
a) doing will of Father = doing works ---> resulting in kingdom entrance
b) but in actuality we don't mean it is the actual WORKS that get us into heaven. Jesus was only using a figurative way of saying that believers will obey God's commands, persevering in good works. This was just Jesus' artistic way of saying "ONLY TRUE BELIEVERS (who by the way can be identified by their fruit which is their works, by which they obey the will of God) will enter the kingdom.
or
understanding that the will of God for Kingdom entrance = simple and bare faith into Christ alone for it?
Didn't Christ just get finished saying that only those who enter by the narrow gate are saved? I see that you have not objected to my discourse on what the narrow gate is and how one enters.
The narrow gate = Jesus Christ and entering that gate = faith alone into Him.
It only follows that God's will for people to enter the kingdom would be:
Only by ENTERING throught the NARROW GATE.
Your perseverance theology import into Matthew 7 takes a double leap (as expressed above), whereas, the Free Grace interpretation aligns with the commonplace and attested analogy of faith that kingdom entrance is gained through the (passive) exercise of faith into Jesus Christ for (the purpose of) eternal life.
Which is the greater leap, Matthew?
To understand God's will for entering the kingdom as simple faith into Jesus for it?
or to understand God's will for entering the kingdom as obeying God's commandments, which we actually do by the performance of good works -- but wait.. the good works are not the basis of salvation but the result of it, and Jesus was refering to the result as a way to distinguish true believers from spurious ones?
Jesus says that everyone who doesn't do the Father's will does not enter the kingdom.
What requirement has the Father put on mankind for the express purpose of entering the kingdom?
Is it doing works? If we are talking about works in Matt 7 then as clearly as Jesus can say it, works are the condition for kingdom entrance.
Or is it faith into Christ, as is the well attested analogy of faith indicates?
Furthermore, as clearly as language can put it in John 6:40, Matthew:
God's will is that all who believe into Jesus have eternal life and will be resurrected. God's will is that men will believe so that they will have eternal life. Is God merely passive on this? Or does He actually "desire... all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? (1 Tim 2:4-5)
Earlier I asked, "Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?"
Phil's reply,
Nope. Even faith, strictly speaking, is not so much a "condition" as the instrumental means of our justification.... I would say, however, that Luke 9:23-24, Jesus' own call to discipleship, reveals the character of true faith.
Dear Phil:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me,” (Luke 9:23).
You just said these are not conditions man must satisfy to receive salvation. I understand you mean man does not have to go through some ritual or process of discipleship and eventually become a Christian. I would agree with that. Also, I happen to believe Jesus’ calls to discipleship are directed to those who are already born again disciples of Christ.
I have to point out that you are in contradiction and at odds with Dr. MacArthur. He writes:
“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . When Jesus called disciples, he carefully instructed them about the cost of following him. Half-hearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus he turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price, such as the rich young ruler. He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial--even willingness to die for His sake if necessary: (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221, 222, 226).
Without any doubt, Dr. MacArthur is speaking of what he believes are the requirements for salvation: How to be born again. He interjects discipleship in what otherwise would be a sound way, but the main theme is in regard to the reception of eternal life. Denying self and following are invitations to salvation? The way to be saved is by agreeing to deny self? The rich young ruler, a lost man, was turned away because he would not pay the price? Let’s read more examples:
“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)
Similarly Dr. MacArthur wrote, “That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
Phil- There is no misunderstanding of Dr. MacArthur’s meaning, no other way to spin or redefine it. He is conditioning salvation on upfront commitments to keep commands, pay a price, bear the cross, to follow, unconditional surrender, etc. Dr. MacArthur demands an exchange of these commitments for salvation.
I am going to repeat this important point: Once you enter a commitment of man into the gospel, the message becomes man-centered and no longer the biblical plan of salvation.
There is no spin, no straw man, only a message that clearly frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), and furthermore confuses, clouds and complicates, “the simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).
LM
Phil, my posts are long, but not spammed, they are so that I can answer objections in the remaining post of this dwindling thread.
Nate B.
So repentance was preached! I preach repentance, probably harder and stronger than you do!
That does not prove that it was a binding, contractual requirement for eternal life. This you have not proved. So i say "So what the apostles preached repentance!" They also preached that we should do good works, but do we, by the basis that they preached it, logically maintain that the doing of works was NECESSARY for eternal life? Of course this is non-sequitor.
John 2:22-23
THIS IS YOUR CONTENTION. Have you proved by a well-reasoned treatment of the text that your assertion is correct? I have a strong case that they were INDEED saved. Not even going into great detail: these people believed "into the name" of Jesus Christ. It is the same Greek wording as John 1:12's salvific language that conditions reception and adoption as children on believing "into His name". So again, here you rip scripture out of context.
That Jesus commanded his apostles to preach repentance to the 'unbelieving' nations does not prove that repentance is a necessary condition for eternal life. Jesus told his apostles to preach repentance, no? John, in the only gospel with an explicit, written, purpose for being evangelistic both OMITS and NEGLECTS any preaching of repentance whatsoever. But it is not as if John does not know about repentance. He references it more than any other NT writer other than Luke. John references repentance in Revelation twice as many times as Paul does in the total of the books he writes (13 possibly 14!).
Peter is explicit in 2 Peter 3:9 (as Paul is in Acts 17:30-31) that the universal command to repent is in light of God's patience and mercy upon mankind, not wishing any of them to physically die, but that they all should come to repentance and live. I have a post on this very thing here: Repentance averts temporal calamity
then you continue in prooftexting. Peter in Acts 2 tells people to repent who have already believed that Jesus is the Christ(acts 2:37) (which by the way brings regeneration, 1 John 5:1). He tells them to repent in light of their sin of culpability for crucifying the messiah (Acts 2:36). In Acts 3 Peter is reoofering the kingdom to Jews by their RETURN to God, whom they were already in covenant with.
In John 8:42 Jesus uses the flexible "of my Father". What does that mean? I have already given a very detailed exposition of that passage on Pulpit. If the Jews could claim to a dynamic relationship to the Father, they would love Jesus. I explained this on the thread you posed such an assertion with proof text here Just scroll down and see my comment. One that NATHAN chose not to respond to.
Concerning Acts 17:30-31, I responded with a 7 part article on it. So what? Paul commands universal repentance in light of the temporal calamaties of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He DOES not require repentance for eternal life here!
I missed your treatment of Acts 26 where Paul conditions eternal life on repentance, other than your assertion.
What we have in the Lordship camp as evidenced by Nathan B. is a whole lot of assertion and contention, many references to the biblical text, but not a strand of treatment from the texts arguing their position.
Argument stringing, choir preaching, and rapid fire proof texting.
Nate, you never answered my objectins to your dissapointing treatment of Lordship Salvation. Nor did you answer my indictment of you based upon your own words about providing treatments of texts and exposition of them.
Your Lordship series did not contain anything but assertion with attendent prooftexts, with the notable exception of Matthew Waymeyer's treatment of 1 Cor 6, where I responded with exposition that was left untouched by you, Matt, and Phil.
As this thread draws to a close, a few brief comments from the UK.
First, as far as I'm aware there are no churches, denominations or teachers over here defending the 'no lordship' position. We have our problems but so far, bless God, this is not one of them!
Second, 'Free Grace' is used as a label over here to refer to Calvinistic groups, usually Calvinistic Baptists. All of them would believe submitting to Christ's Lordship is what becoming a Christian is about. It's a surprise to me, therefore, to see the label used in another way.
Third, it's been a disappointment to see, on this comment thread and elsewhere, Spurgeon quoted as if he belonged to the 'no lordship' camp. As one who has been reading CHS for 30 years, I assure you, he didn't. True, no-one preached the gospel more freely than he did, but you must not filter his gospel invitations and proclamations through a no-lordship grid. If you doubt this, please get hold of an unedited volume (very important) of his sermons and read the whole volume consecutively - it will be easy to see what he really believed on any subject you want that way!
For clarity, whenever I say the phrase "Lordship Salvation" I mean this: the doctrine that to receive eternal life from God, you must give your life to God. I've heard other slanted definitions before, but in order for people to say "Yes, that's the thing I agree with" or "Yes, that's the thing I disagree with" we have to have an agreed-upon definition that doesn't have the evaluation built right into the definition. Think of any definition which starts with "that incorrect doctrine that teaches xyz" and you'll understand this attempt.
My personal opinion on why the Lordship Debate "died" -- in terms of the interest of large numbers of people -- is that debates or controversies have a life of their own that often is completely independent of points raised and answered. Non-sequiturs like who it is that believes so-and-so, where they come from, who their associates are, how many people think a certain way ... in short, just about every fallacy has something to do with how informal debates go.
On a secondary note, we are in a wonderful position to democritize debates and "allow" (under phil's rules here) anyone to speak, and hear it, because of commented blogs.
Well, I am very much against "Lordship Salvation" -- the doctrine that to receive eternal life from God, you must give your life to God.
The prima facie case against it is Ephesians 2:8-9, in which all who have been saved have been saved as a gift, and not a result of works. Romans 3:24 also teaches this, and Rev 22:15.
These verses rule out payment, works, and cost, for having received salvation.
Do they rule out impact cost? Of course not. But impact cost is being turned into cost of receiving it in an odd way that we can expose by analogy.
Receiving a Christmas present: some presents have impact cost. If you receive a great piece of clothing one size too small, it very well may "bring with it" a desire to slim down in order to wear it. Receiving it -- more importantly, having received it -- is not dependent upon slimming down.
Salvation brings with it huge impact cost. The obligations of the Christian life are huge, and contrary to many, I must say that all Christians are enrolled at the beginning in that school of obligation and privelege, which we can call discipleship. Dr. Bock at DTS helped me see this, pointing to Romans 6:17.
Notice the passive voice in the verse. Just as we don't tell a first-grader or preschooler, "you must totally commit to whatever the rigors of this school has for you, or you're not a student," but we enroll them ourselves -- God has enrolled all Christians in discipleship of obedience to God, yet He does not necessarily reveal the impact costs (Ac 9:16). He lets us follow the command of the Lord to let the day's trouble be enough for one day. (C.S. Lewis has an insightful comment about how we really often can't handle future joys today any better than we could handle all future suffering today.)
Just as discipleship is a process, so the obedience in Romans 6:17 is a process. "We became obedient from the heart" -- people read total commitment, promises of unending love etc into that, Peter-style (Mt 26:33), to which that verse stands as open rebuke. The promises we ask people to make of never failing Jesus are just so many Peters squawking, before their denials prove it false. And then we try to make people do it as a condition of their salvation.
The twin pillars of Lou's argument seem to have crumbled long ago. The first is a stubborn mischaracterization of one word MacArthur uses, "exchange." It was pointed out to Lou early on in Pulpit that this was not a word of "barter" (Lou's characterization), which includes the notion of merit, or like for like. Nope, that's not the definition MacArthur uses, as he made clear in the rest of TGATJ.
The other pillar of dust is the idea that the condition of commitment so evident in the NT "cannot" be asked of a "lost man." This is just theological sloppiness. For both the Calvinist and the Arminian, the grace of God upon the heart of the sinner precedes everything. Yes, it is easier for the Arminian to talk of conditionality, but in either case it is NOT a "lost" man who is called upon, but a "drawn" man (John 6:44)
The no-Lordship position is Western Carolina. Lordship is Florida.
[In case you haven't heard, the score was 62-0]
Dear Lightpen,
There's nothing in the quotes from Spurgeon that you post that contradict what he says on Antinomianism in Phil's most recent post. If you think there is, then you don't know what the debate is about.
The question is not whether salvation is free, gratis and for nothing; nor whether it is by grace from first to last. Non-lordship advocates are able to claim every sound evangelical of previous days as belonging to them if they interpret thusly!
The question is, rather, whether real spiritual life necessarily affects the character, and therefore the behaviour, of those who have it. And if you want to know what CHS believes about that, read him when he's addressing exactly that issue - as in Phil's most recent post.
Lou: "I have to point out that you are in contradiction and at odds with Dr. MacArthur."
You don't seem to read very well. You had asked whether Jesus' words in Luke 9:23-24 set forth "conditions" for salvation. My reply was that I don't think the word "conditions" is appropriate here. I pointed out that faith is more properly described as the instrument of justification, not a "condition," and then I said that Jesus' call in Luke 9 is describing the character of true faith.
Somehow in your brain, that seems to have translated into "Luke 9:23-24 is a call to discipleship after salvation; not a call to salvation per se." Thus you imagine that I am taking a different position from MacArthur.
No. I believe Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it's still not proper to regard it as a set of "conditions" by which someone can merit salvation. That's all I was saying. Your "point" has no weight. Better find a more potent argument, quick.
To other no-lordshippers: You guys are burning uselessly through the remaining comments. The notion that Spurgeon was a no-lordshipper is utterly ludicrous. The fundamental difference between your view and Spurgeon's is that he understood the true meaning of "grace." Hint: Quoting Spurgeon and arguing that he agreed with Zane Hodges is not going to get a lot of traction in this forum in any case, so I'm not going to eat up the rest of the comments trying to 'splain to you what Spurgeon actually meant. I'll just say this to anyone who might really imagine that Spurgeon held the no-lordship view: "Go and learn..." (cf. Matthew 9:13).
Larry: "For clarity, whenever I say the phrase "Lordship Salvation" I mean this: the doctrine that to receive eternal life from God, you must give your life to God."
That's real nice and everything, but do you know of any serious participant in the debate on the lordship side who would describe his own view in those terms? I don't. I suppose from where you sit, it looks like it might be pretty easy to jump it at the end of a discussion like this and redefine the whole argument with a novel definition that would make us all say, "Eeewww! I don't believe that!"—then declare that you have defeated "lordship salvation" and snatched victory in this debate from the jaws of such an ignominious defeat as your side is currently headed for.
However, straw-man arguments like that 1) aren't really all that impressive, and 2) haven't done the job for the no-lordship side for the past 25 years or more. Why should the tactic sway anyone now?
Antonio:
Nevermind.
Still, you have done a marvelous job of proving my point that it's really hard—well-nigh impossible—to find anyone on the no-lordship side who will defend their pet doctrine soberly and seriously. As a living, technicolor example of why I made that assertion in the first place, you have made a wonderful contribution to this discussion.
All right, I gotta go to church, which leaves the forum in the hands of the teeming hordes of no-lordship "carnal Christians" who don't go to church. So it looks like the thread will pass 400 while I'm away.
Enjoy yourselves. I'll close the thread this afternoon, and if there are any actual arguments from the no-lordshippers (Spurgeon-spam doesn't count), I'll answer them in a final comment.
At least we have demonstrated once and for all why (outside the small circles of hobbyists who have made this their pet issue) the whole debate is well and truly dead.
And well it should be.
Phil:
The quotes by Dr. MacArthur define Lordship Salvation as a message that demands commitment of life for salvation. His quotes define a extra-biblical, false additions to the gospel.
You men continually run back to the post conversion experience to side step the Lordship message of salvation through commitment of life. You redefine what Dr. MacArthur demands for salvation into “the instrument of justification.” Really Phil, if anything has been spun, that is it. I have been amazed at the numerous ways in which you and Nathan attempt to spin into a different direction or definition the very clear and precise position Dr. MacArthur articulates in his books.
“Character of faith” This is another spin when I have all along said the debate is over the reception of eternal life, not the results.
You wrote, "I believe Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it's still not proper to regard it as a set of "conditions" by which someone can merit salvation."
Even in that response you use “to,” when anyone can read that the intent is “for” salvation. This answer above is all anyone needs to know. Lordship Salvation is a gospel based on man meeting or agreeing to conditions that are meant for the born again disciple of Christ. Any attempt to spin or distract what Dr. MacArthur says in the clear definitions I provide from his books falls flat.
My primary goal her has been to provide evidence for lurkers that Lordship Salvation is a gospel based on commitment of life to cross bearing, self-denial and following in addition to faith.
You have provided that additional evidence in your last post to me by substantiating Dr. MacArthur’s (Lordship Salvation’s) doctrinal error of confusing calls to discipleship with requirements for salvation.
LM
Phil:
Faith is not the issue in Luke 9:23; “cross bearing, self-denial and following” in discipleship is the issue.
So, let’s use your “character of true faith” as you see it in Luke 9:23. Therefore, you believe the calls to come after Christ, self-denial, taking up the cross and following is “the instrument of justification.”
You then advocate discipleship as defined in Luke 9:23, which you claim is “a call to salvation,” as the way man is made just (justified) before a holy God.
Again, faith, plus works.
2 Cor. 11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
LM
Phil, regardless of what you think of the quality of Free grace argumentation in this thread, I have to say that the Lordship defeneders who have participated have not made a terribly impressive case for their own position.
Impacted Wisdom Truth said:
"I'll have a heapin' helpin' of forgiveness, blessing, and peace, but whoa! that Lordship is just too rich for me."
Sadly this is very typical of the kind of arguments that are put out against the Free Grace position.
Can I quickly simmarise the case for Free Grace as I see it?
1. The clear teaching in scripture that eternal life is received by faith alone.
2. The absence of any connection in scripture between receiving eternal life and commands to repent, do works or submit to Christ's lordship.
3. The clear teaching in scripture that believers can fail to perservere.
4. The clear teaching in scripture of positive consequences for perserverance and negative consequences for failure to perservere.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew,
#1 I agree
#2 I diagree
#3 I disagree
#4 Not sure what you mean
Question:
Can a believer become an unbelieving believer, as Zane Hodges states.
Also can a believer hate Christ. And that's a hatred that is a deep hatred, and a continuing hatred.
I agree any Christain can have moments fo sin, and even seasons, but God's grace which saved him while he was a slave to sin, will work even mightier now that he is a slave to righteousness. God disciplines His children. Those who are not His He doesn't.
""We are to preach repentance in its perpetuity. Repentance is not a grace which is only to be exercised by us for a week or so at the beginning of our Christian career: it is to attend us all the way to heaven. Faith and repentance are to be inseparable companions throughout our pilgrimage to glory. Repenting of our sin, and trusting in the great Sinbearer, is to be the tenor of our lives; and we are to preach to men that it must be so.
We are to tell them of the source of repentance, namely, that the Lord Jesus Christ is exalted on high to give repentance and remission of sins. Repentance is a plant that never grows on nature's dunghill: the nature must be changed, and repentance must be implanted by the Holy Spirit, or it will never flourish in our hearts. We preach repentance as a fruit of the Spirit, or else we greatly err."
From Charles Spurgeon's sermon "Beginning at Jerusalem"
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: Can I quickly simmarise the case for Free Grace as I see it?
DF: 1. The clear teaching in scripture that eternal life is received by faith alone.
On this lordship agrees. The debate rests on the nature of true faith. The FG insistence that there is no possibility of a false profession of faith in Christ ignores a great number of Scriptures.
Scripture defines true faith as a repentant faith. The Thessalonian believers in 1 Thess. 1:8-9 are one of many examples in this regard.
2. The absence of any connection in scripture between receiving eternal life and commands to repent, do works or submit to Christ's lordship.
So Luke 24:46–47 isn’t enough for you?
And [Jesus] said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (NASB)
Not to mention Paul’s evangelistic message in Acts 17, where neither “belief” or “faith” is mentioned… only God’s command to repent. Or perhaps Paul’s words in Acts 26:18-20, where he directly connects his evangelistic mission (to explain to the Gentiles how they can receive forgiveness of sins) with the content of his evangelistic message (“that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance”).
The absence of any connection is not in Scripture. It is in the logic of FG, which refuses to take these passages (and the many others like them) at face value. If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.
3. The clear teaching in scripture that believers can fail to perservere.
Or that those who profess to believe can fail to persevere. Those who fail to persevere invalidate their profession of faith.
4. The clear teaching in scripture of positive consequences for perserverance and negative consequences for failure to perservere.
Exactly. There are very positive consequences for those who possess true faith. And there are very negative consequences for those who do not.
As Jesus explains in Revelation 21:6-8...
"It is done I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Antonio,
Since John Calvin supposedly agrees with FG, let’s look at his comments on John 2:23:
[From his commentary on John]:
It appears that their faith was not true and genuine, because Christ excludes them from the number. … When we speak generally about faith, let us know that there is a kind of faith which is perceived by the understanding only, and afterwards quickly disappears, because it is not fixed in the heart; and that is the faith which James calls dead; but true faith always depends on the Spirit of regeneration, (James 2:17, 20, 26.)
Or Acts 17:30 – Calvin in his commentary writes: “so oft as the voice of the gospel doth sound in our ears, let us know that God doth exhort us unto repentance.”
His teaching on Acts 26:20 is perhaps most direct:
Because repentance is an inward thing, and placed in the affection of the heart, Paul requireth, in the second place, such works as may make the same known, according to that exhortation of John the Baptist: "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance," (Matthew 3:8). Now, forasmuch as the gospel calleth all those which are Christ's unto repentance, it followeth that all men are naturally corrupt, and that they have need to be changed. In like sort, this place teacheth that these men do unskillfully pervert the gospel which separate the grace of Christ from repentance.
Ouch… that last sentence is a striking indictment against Free Grace.
Anyway, I would be happy to cite any number of the church fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, or ???) or any other historically evangelical source (Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, Ironside, or ???), or any other modern commentator (who is not a card-carrying member of the FG camp) on these passages. Convolute the exegetical data all you want, the exegetical understanding of all of church history stands in direct opposition to your position.
A denial of lordship is not a new error. As Jude wrote his readers: “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4). Free Grace opens the door to this kind of antinomian heresy, as though a sinner could both be reconciled to God and still be in rebellion to Him.
Phil, How 'bout a more serious response to my James challenge?
Lou: I have been amazed at the numerous ways in which you and Nathan attempt to spin into a different direction or definition the very clear and precise position Dr. MacArthur articulates in his books.
Lou, we have been amazed at the numerous ways in which you have refused to accept our repeated explanations of what the lordship position actually teaches.
I do not believe the real problem here is with either Dr. MacArthur's writings or with Phil's explanations. The real problem is that you published your book before you fully (or rightly) understood the lordship position.
Now you have no choice but to keep accusing lordship of promoting something that, in reality, it does not.
Hello Nate B and Phil J--
Nate, you invited me to post on this board. I had not heard of it until yesterday. Are you happy with phil's response to my post? I shall hope for better in our other discussion. Did you know at the time you invited me to this discussion yesterday that it was supposedly about to close by a unilateral decision on phil's part?
Making witty insults is "fun," in a fleshly sense. A very dishonoring-to-Christ fleshly sense. Witty insults such as "He casts out demons by the prince of demons" "Let Him deliver him, if [Hh]e delight in H[h]im." were also used against the Lord Jesus during His life.
Phil, the pressure to say something to everyone must have prevented you from a quality comment in my case. I certainly do forgive you. After all, you have a job to do, to close off discussion, and you can't worry about the standard fallacies: ad hominem impugning motives, attribution of what was not said, bald assertion, red herring, ad populum, and non-sequiturs. Completely understandable. Come over to the moderated discussions, if you like, at bible.org, as the Lord leads.
Paul Doutell said...
"No matter what you do, the horse is . . .
Dead."
It has been dead for so long that there isn't enough left of it to get a dna sample. I had theological wannabe try and engage me in a discussion of this at Calvary Fellowship (Seattle) in the early 90s. I told him this issue was a trivial side show much like pre-tribism back in the mid 70s when I was in graduate school. Serious theology students were not willing to even engage in it since Ryrie/Hodges and their opponents were not on our reading lists.
small qualification:
I think we actually did have one book by Ryrie which were required to read so we would know what dispensationalism in case we encountered it..
HK said: Phil, How 'bout a more serious response to my James challenge?
Do you really think Phil would say anything substantially different than what Frank said back in April on Deabate Blog [all the way to the bottom, then scroll up]?
Dyspraxic said: Can I quickly simmarise [sic] the case for Free Grace as I see it? . . .
Dude, you forgot the most important one. Faith is passive mental assent, which need not produce any results in a person's life.
That's the key, as I see it. The idea that people who show no repentance or change can be rightly considered believers. We can argue ordo solutis until the cows come home (a good Arkie expression), but the problem with whatever you want to call it--Antinomian, No-Lordship, or Free Grace--it's all the same: it's the idea that true faith doesn't need to produce any real fruit.
Hello ImpactedWisdomTruth --
(Love the name you have chosen above.)
Let me address your interest in Matthew 9:2-8 and parallels.
I'm glad you think that His authority to forgive sins is "the central issue," as you said in the comment of "11:46 PM, NOVEMBER 15, 2006". Many of the gospel events are certainly instructive about Christ's authority to do what He promises.
This is also a very important point, which you stated in that same paragraph, well worth discussing the implications of: "If Jesus is not Lord over the unsaved, by what authority can He save them?" [same date, same paragraph]
Romans 14:9 says very near that very thing, that Jesus is Lord over the dead and the living, meaning everyone: "For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."
What do you think then of the authority of Christ to save the non-Christian? Do you think it is greater than the non-Christian's authority to place him- or herself in this or that state?
What kingdom or domain does Christ rescue us from when He saves us? Is it the "kingdom of me" that Christ rescues me from? Is it my own kingdom that Jesus rescues me from, Or is it the domain of darkness?
"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son," Colossians 1:13.
Cf. Eph 2:1ff. and Jn 8:34.
As far as I can reasonably determine, I replied to every question and every point that was posted in favor of no-lordship doctrine in this thread, through comment number 392.
(Sorry to the person who thought I was dominating the discussion, but the whole point was to give no-lordshippers an opportunity to post their best arguments, and I promised to try to reply to them all. I think objective readers can judge well enough which side actually made a good-faith effort to live up to what was promised.)
My last reply before going to church this morning was number 392, I believe. I could likewise reply to the remaining posts, because all of them either 1) simply reiterate points that have already been made and answered or 2) attempt to start back over at the beginning, with a whole new set of definitions and far-fetched arguments. Not once in this long thread did anyone on the no-lordship side seriously answer (as opposed to merely contradicting) any point that was made and work to build a coherent case (either from Scripture or sound logic) for no-lordship evangelism. The best way to describe the way they have conducted the debate is the metaphor I used earlier in the thread: Throw a bunch of garbage at the wall and see if anything sticks.
Even the sharpest of the no-lordship advocates who have posted here have shown an appalling ignorance of many critical parts of the historic literature about this debate. (Though I asked several times, the most prolific participant here declined to confirm whether he had even read John MacArthur's Faith Works—in my view his most definitive treatment of the controversy.)
As for the biblical data, no-lordshippers are reliant on novel interpretations invented by Zane Hodges and some of his acolytes less than 20 years ago.
As for historical theology, note that the no-lordship participants here have made almost pathological use of selective quotations in a desperate attempt to suggest that men like Spurgeon and Calvin were their homeboys. When confronted with proof these men didn't believe what is being imputed to them, they have simply ignored the point.
Invariably,when cornered, they shift quickly to some other already-debunked argument.
I'm not going to reply specifically to any of the remaining posts. Instead, I'm going to highlight a couple of specific examples of the more outrageous things that have been posted just since I left for church this morning, and let them refute themselves:
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist: "The case for Free Grace as I see it [hinges in part on] the absence of any connection in scripture between receiving eternal life and commands to repent, do works or submit to Christ's lordship [and] the clear teaching in scripture that believers can fail to perservere."
lightpen: "The term 'Gospel' (Good News) has always been associated with Salvation (it being free and all that). When you come to Sanctification and Discipleship, its not Good News anymore. . . The question is not whether salvation is free, gratis and for nothing; nor whether it is by grace from first to last."
We'll leave it at that. Thanks to everyone for your participation.
Post a Comment