MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues



Message

lmartuneac -> MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/18/2007 10:45:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

I believe intellectual honesty demands that we look at the teachings of MacArthur and others in the light of Scripture, and clearly identify thier errors.

I have read some of the interviews of MacArthur with those who question his doctrine, and it appears that MacArthur is often on shaky ground, and unable to use Scripture to clearly support his position.

For example, his use of James chapter 4 as a Gospel message is purely imaginary, since James is addressing Christians (possessors and professors).

Also, his idea of using repentance as an "exchange" for eternal life is not supported by Scripture. The sinner can give nothing in exchange for his soul, and it is only because of the merits of Christ and His finished work of redemption that we receive the gift of eternal life. At the same time, repentance toward God and faith otward our Lord Jesus Christ are the conditions for salvation (Acts 20:21).

The lesson in all this is to examine the teachings of all teachers and accept only that which is clearly supported by Scripture. Neither MacArthur nor any other preacher or teacher is beyond correction or rebuke.

Nonetheless, Christ must be preached as both Lord and Christ to all who hear the Gospel.

Ezra:

It appears you have done the reading in the IFCA transcripts that I linked earlier. I linked to those articles and issues because they are crucial to getting at the answers to the way in which MacArthur arrives at his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel.

See the IFCA Meeting & Interview with John MacArthur: Part 1 & Part 2

The IFCA statement and interviews with John MacArthur are very revealing.

In MacArthur's books, if folks will take the time to study instead of simply read them, one finds numerous doctrinal problems and misinterpretations of Scripture. The James 4:7-10 issue, which you have noted, is just one example. The reason this kind of departure from orthodoxy is missed by many is because they do not read carefully, and with a discerning eye to study and test, against the Bible, what is being taught.

John MacArthur has never edited, explained or eliminated these polarizing statements. They run like a theme through his major works on LS.


LM



Ezra -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/18/2007 11:54:51 PM)

quote:

I believe that there is sense in which you could say Christ was always the Son in anticipation. But He didn't enter the role of Sonship, which was a role of submission, until His incarnation. And He didn't enjoy the benefits of Sonship until His resurrection and He inherited the nations that God had promised to Him. The designation Son refers to two things: submission and inheritance.
-- John MacArthur from his IFCA interview.

Lou and others:

I did read the IFCA interviews, and frankly, I am shocked at MacArthur's false teachings.

The eternal Sonship of Christ is a fundamental Gospel truth, since "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life". Yet this quote from MacArthur reveals that he does not really believe that Christ is the eternal Son of God. This will have a bearing on all his teaching.

1. "You could say Christ was always the Son in anticipation" is patently false, since the Son is also the Word, and not only was the Word always the Son, but He was always with God (John 1:1,2).

2. "He didn't enter the role of Sonship, which was a role of submission, until His incarnation" is also patently false, since the Word is also "the only begotten Son" who was "in the bosom of the Father" eternally, and continues there (John 1:14,18).

3. "He didn't enjoy the benefits of Sonship until His resurrection" is also patently false, since the Word was the Creator, the Life, and the Light of the world from eternity past (John 1:3-10).

Looks to me like John MacArthur is a false teacher from his own words. His teaching on the blood of Christ is also rather questionable.



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 12:54:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra



quote:

I believe that there is sense in which you could say Christ was always the Son in anticipation. But He didn't enter the role of Sonship, which was a role of submission, until His incarnation. And He didn't enjoy the benefits of Sonship until His resurrection and He inherited the nations that God had promised to Him. The designation Son refers to two things: submission and inheritance.
-- John MacArthur from his IFCA interview.

Lou and others:

I did read the IFCA interviews, and frankly, I am shocked at MacArthur's false teachings.

The eternal Sonship of Christ is a fundamental Gospel truth, since "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life". Yet this quote from MacArthur reveals that he does not really believe that Christ is the eternal Son of God. This will have a bearing on all his teaching.

1. "You could say Christ was always the Son in anticipation" is patently false, since the Son is also the Word, and not only was the Word always the Son, but He was always with God (John 1:1,2).

2. "He didn't enter the role of Sonship, which was a role of submission, until His incarnation" is also patently false, since the Word is also "the only begotten Son" who was "in the bosom of the Father" eternally, and continues there (John 1:14,18).

3. "He didn't enjoy the benefits of Sonship until His resurrection" is also patently false, since the Word was the Creator, the Life, and the Light of the world from eternity past (John 1:3-10).

Looks to me like John MacArthur is a false teacher from his own words. His teaching on the blood of Christ is also rather questionable.

Ezra:

Many are shocked when they begin to read with discernment what MacArthur is teaching on several fronts, the Gospel especially.

Since the 1989 IFCA interviews MacArthur has retracted and acknowledged he made a serious error on the "eternal Son ship" issue. I did read his personally written retraction a few years ago.

The "blood of Christ" issue was another debate entirely. I have heard it was settled, but I am not sure how and what the result was.

In any event, he has gone into gross error on the Gospel with his Lordship Salvation interpretation. That is a fact and no amount of twisting the Scriptures to justify this egregious error can change, dilute or mask what is plainly a false, works based gospel.

What is sad is that because of his popularity many have bought into the LS position, primarily because of the general trust people have for MacArthur and his very subtle methods of introducing the teaching. He routinely uses the false dilemma to demonize those who do not accept his position. He refuses to acknowledge or concede that there is a balanced position on the Gospel, which is far removed from the so-called Easy-Believism message.

MacArthur often couches the errors of Lordship in otherwise orthodox terms. The Lordship error is not easily detected because it is so often introduced through subtle means. You may have noted that GG is using Calvinistic terms to pave the way for introducing and legitimizing Lordship Salvation. This is almost 100% universally done by LS advocates.

When you begin to dig and ask questions you soon find that his gospel is NOT The Gospel According to Jesus. He manipulates passages meant for the born again disciple of Christ and twists them into evangelistic appeals to the lost. MacArthur's referring to James 4:7-10 as an "invitation to salvation," is one of the most glaring examples, among many, of his misuses of Scripture.

There is much more, but make no mistake about it, Lordship Salvation is a false gospel and has made serious inroads into a wide sphere of evangelical circles to the dismay of some Bible-believing pastors/teachers and the misfortune of many unsuspecting believers.


LM



Nesher -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 3:04:19 AM)

How is it a false Gospel? He teaches that works prove our faith, it proves the faith exists, and that if we do not have works then we have not been sanctified. He is not teaching salvation by works, but instead salvation proved by works. How is this a false Gospel? That is exactly what Jesus, and later James, taught.



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 7:09:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nesher

How is it a false Gospel? He teaches that works prove our faith, it proves the faith exists, and that if we do not have works then we have not been sanctified. He is not teaching salvation by works, but instead salvation proved by works. How is this a false Gospel? That is exactly what Jesus, and later James, taught.

Hi Nesher:

Thanks for asking.

Representing the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel, John MacArthur demands a lost man make an upfront "whole-hearted commitment to self-denial, cross-bearing, following, full surrender, and a willingness to die for Jesus' sake" in "exchange" for the reception of eternal salvation.

A genuine conversion, should evidence itself in genuine results (Eph. 2:10). MacArthur, however, is taking decisions for discipleship that belong to the born again child of God and changing those into conditions a lost man must agree to for the reception of eternal life.

This is key to understading the crux of the debate. You can get a more complete understanding by reading: John MacArthur's Discipleship Gospel.

You will note MacArthur is quoted repeatedly so that there is no question over what his position is.


LM



Gloryandgrace -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 11:29:57 AM)

Dont be deceived by LM,

John M is reformed and LM and his company hate reformed doctrine. This topic is about Lordship salvation and its moorings are safely connected to reformed doctrine, its not off topic since IM the OP and its perfectly relevant to John's teachings.

LM is entrenched in his own arminianism which is also clearly presented in his positions, it doesnt take a theologian to spot it.

Whenever LM is cornered he comes out swinging against everyone with his lies against Macarthur and wild accusations of false hood about the reformed faith. But let him prove any of it, he cannot and will never be able to overcome the truth of the reformed faith embedded in scripture. LS is wholly connected to it, not because its formed by men, but because the scripture has a consistent message and LS is part of the scripture message.

John



Nesher -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 1:28:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

Dont be deceived by LM,

John M is reformed and LM and his company hate reformed doctrine. This topic is about Lordship salvation and its moorings are safely connected to reformed doctrine, its not off topic since IM the OP and its perfectly relevant to John's teachings.

LM is entrenched in his own arminianism which is also clearly presented in his positions, it doesnt take a theologian to spot it.

Whenever LM is cornered he comes out swinging against everyone with his lies against Macarthur and wild accusations of false hood about the reformed faith. But let him prove any of it, he cannot and will never be able to overcome the truth of the reformed faith embedded in scripture. LS is wholly connected to it, not because its formed by men, but because the scripture has a consistent message and LS is part of the scripture message.

John



Ah, well that makes sense then. I never understood why people are so anti-reformed, considering reformed theology is what kept the Church alive during the Roman Catholic period (325-1517).

Thanks for the heads up though, anyone who wastes their time attacking MacArthur or reformed theology, to me, has their priorities in the wrong place.



lmartuneac -> His Emotions Are Showijg (8/19/2007 3:27:43 PM)

GG's emotions are showing.

“...Lies, wild accusations and falsehoods,” these are statements from someone who is frustrated and has to lash out with reckless anger. His emotions are showing and it is unfortunate he can't calmly address the issues that concern MacArthur's false teaching on the Gospel without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I challenge GG to demonstrate one lie I have told about MacArthur or his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. He can't because I have simply repeated what MacArthur writes in his own books and cite the references. Very sad, that GG can’t address the doctrinal issue, and the many pitfalls that I have drawn attention to, but instead opts for reckless personal comments such as the outburst above.

To reiterate: GG can't produce any evidence of a lie, because I quote JM liberally so that it is MacArthur’s own words that reveal what he believes about the Gospel. Many others and I have documented MacArthur thoroughly and accurately from his own books.

GG’s outburst is what many in the LS camp resort to when their egregious doctrine and personal favorite is under fire; they turn doctrinal debates into a personal attack and personality contest.

GG also goes reckless claming I am Arminian, as many who know me would verify I am not Arminian or Calvinistic. Because of his belief system there are only two possible positions (Calvinism or Arminianism) he assumes I must be the opposite of Calvinists. That is another example of the "false dilemma," Unable or unwilling to see that there may be a balanced position between two extremes.

In the following post I will give GG and any who care, a chance to deal with another article on Lordship Salvation’s false interpretation of the Gospel.

I trust GG will calm himself and address the substance in the following article by Pastor George Zeller.


LM



lmartuneac -> Lordship or Legalism (8/19/2007 3:31:55 PM)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD’S GRACE AND LORDSHIP LEGALISM
by
Pastor George Zeller


This brings us to a teaching of our day, common in Reformed circles, popularly known as LORDSHIP SALVATION.

Essentially Lordship salvation teaches that simple faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation. Something else is needed. A solid commitment to Christ as Lord is needed. A person needs to surrender to the Lordship of Christ. A willingness to obey Christ’s commands is necessary. Also the sinner must fulfill the demands of discipleship or be willing to fulfill them. This includes loving Christ supremely, forsaking possessions, etc. (see Luke 14:25-33).

What do Lordship teachers do with Acts 16:30-31? [“And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”] This verse teaches that the sinner must do the believing and that God must do the saving. It teaches that faith and faith alone is necessary for salvation. It does not say, “Believe and surrender to Christ’s Lordship and fulfill the terms of discipleship and thou shalt be saved.” It simply says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” What does it mean to believe? The hymn-writer has explained it in very simple terms, “Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His Word, just to rest upon His promise, just to know THUS SAITH THE LORD!”

Those who teach Lordship salvation are forced to redefine saving faith. It means more than just simple, childlike faith in Jesus Christ. They might say something like this: “We believe in Acts 16:31 just as much as you do, but you need to understand what the word ‘believe’ really means. ‘Believe’ means more than just believe. Saving faith involves much more.” What does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Lordship salvation teachers would say that it involves the following: It means surrendering to His Lordship. It means turning from sin. It means submitting to His authority and to His Word. It means obeying His commands, or at least having a willingness to obey. It means fully accepting all the terms of discipleship.

Consider this last statement. Does saving faith really involve accepting all the terms of discipleship? Does saving faith really include such requirements as loving Christ supremely, forsaking all that one has, denying self, etc. (Luke 14:25-33, etc.)? A saved person should do all of these things, but he does not do these things in order to be saved. He is saved because he throws himself upon the mercy of a loving Saviour who died for him. One reason why he needs to be saved is because he does not love Christ supremely. He is guilty of breaking the greatest commandment! It is not our COMMITMENT that saves us, it is our CHRIST who saves us! It is not our SURRENDER that saves us, it is our SAVIOUR who does! It is not what I do for God; it’s what God has done for me.

Avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the RESULT of salvation and making it the REQUIREMENT of salvation: It is because I am saved that I surrender to His Lordship (Rom. 12:1-2). It is because I am saved that I turn from sin and begin to learn what it means to live unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). It is because I am saved that I follow Him in willing obedience (1 John 2:3-5). It is because I am saved that I agree to the terms of discipleship and begin to learn all that discipleship involves (Luke chapter 14).

It is because I am saved that I submit to His authority over every area of my life (Rom. 6:13). I do these things because I am saved by the grace of God, not in order to be saved. Do not turn the results into requirements! Don’t turn the grace of God into legalism [adding unbiblical requirements to the gospel message].

Don’t confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. Don’t confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith but they are not the essence of saving faith. Don’t confuse the fruit with the root. Before you can “come after” Christ in discipleship (Luke 9:23; Matt. 11:29-30), you must “come unto” Christ for salvation (Matthew 11:28). Discipleship is not a requirement for salvation; discipleship is the obligation of every saved person.

Salvation involves Christ loving me (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 2:20); discipleship involves me loving Christ (Matthew 10:37). Because we are justified freely by His grace we measure up to the full demands of God’s righteousness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Because we are frail we often fail to measure up to the full demands of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33). The requirements of discipleship are many; the requirement for salvation is simple faith and trust in the Saviour.



Nesher -> RE: His Emotions Are Showijg (8/19/2007 3:37:14 PM)

I still fail to see how this doctrine is false. It teaches that if you are a disciple it will show in your works. This, of course, is highly Biblical. It has nothing to do with soteriology and how we're saved, but the effects of "post-salvation" if you will.

The idea that we will produce works after salvation as a sign of our salvation being a false doctrine is a new one to me.



Aphobos -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 5:31:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nesher

...anyone who wastes their time attacking MacArthur or reformed theology, to me, has their priorities in the wrong place.



Amen, Nesher. Well said.

~Aphobos



Gloryandgrace -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 8:27:49 PM)

LMartuneac:

No emotional response only a yawn from me about the challenge. Should I whip out the
"I have no obligation to respond card". When I addressed you with scripture thats all I got was
a link to some blog.

The lies are in the form of calling John M a false teacher, he is not a false teacher. I dont agree with him on eternal sonship either, but from what I understand he has recanted that view so its mute. The lies are in the form that the reformed faith is false such as you mentioned concerning its views on grace. The lies are in the form of John teaching a false gospel, that is completely in error. Your quoting Pastor Zeller is no proof to me, Pastor Zeller no doubt has you believing in a middle ground between armin and calvin which is only a form of error which you prescribe and not anything of a solution to either side. In fact you would only be considered a 'twister of the issues' such as youve done here.

Take your time LM and address the texts I gave you from the outset, if you cant shall we expect more rantings from you making unfounded claims?

Its true LM that I think little of the way youve handled the issue, but personally I am not interested in attacking you. Youve been doing this attack on LS for sometime now and have become a professional at never answering directly any challenge as well as sending everyone to read sermons that present your point of view but dont allow any critical exchange of ideas.
Your blog-linking is cleaver but its also only a propoganda and not a faithful submission to exchange views after you make all sorts of outlandish statements about John M's false teaching and whatever else you dont like. I suppose a mormon could come here and do the same and make the same allegations youve made and post link after link with attack after attack and suppose himself to be submitting to one another in honest dialog. Its all just a ruse.

Your foundations which you have adopted have created a hatred for John M and his teachings, the teachings of the reformed faith, LS and if I probed deeper probably more could be found.

Finally Pastor Zeller has presented his view, thats fine, I dont agree.
quote:

discipleship involves me loving Christ (Matthew 10:37). Because we are justified freely by His grace we measure up to the full demands of God’s righteousness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Because we are frail we often fail to measure up to the full demands of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33). The requirements of discipleship are many; the requirement for salvation is simple faith and trust in the Saviour.


Pastor Zeller has neglected to mention that Jesus taught the requirements of discipleship are the requirments of salvation. He made no differentiation between being a believer and being a disciple. That is something Zeller and yourself have concocted to suit your own paradigms.
What this amounts to is a false division between being a believer and being a disciple.
Thereby creating all this afterward repentance, discipleship, cross carrying etc. In your eagerness to avoid the law youve also avoided the truth as well.

Jesus was letting people know what was involved in being a disciple and what believing in Jesus really meant. Your position attempts to hide that fact until afterwards. Kinda like a bait and switch.

I will say again, the real issue is that you and Pastor Zeller believe man is able to believe according to his own will. Whatever semi-pelagian position you hold or whatever invention you have labeled it the bottom line is man must decide and God must wait. Man is in charge and God is not stepping over any line. Your grace is redefined as a mans-grace toward God, to give God a chance and to offer God something he lacks and that is your consent to save him.
Whatever kind of grace this is, its surely not biblical grace and surely not God given grace.

In the end LM it is not I that has redefined saving faith its you and your company. After all that
linking and posting you want people to believe you based on allegations made against John M that he is false to gospel grace when in fact you and Pastor Zeller and all those who deny the sovereignty of God place man in the center of the gospel and not Christ. All those texts quoted and all those articles written and in the end your grace is a man-grace toward God.
Yes God saves but after youve given him permission.
Yes God reconciles but after youve decided to allow it.
Yes God justifies but after youve approved of it.

And you wonder why LS seeks to present all the gospel message? Its because Jesus is not asking permission from men to save them. Jesus is teaching us that believing in God is a gift of God a 'being taught by God' that leads a person to seek forgiveness and offer repentance in the place of rebellion. Your perspective is from mans mind, the mind of a man that thinks he does God a favor to believe upon him. How could it not be a favor? Dont you believe man has final say in whether he will believe or not?

John



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 10:20:55 PM)

GG:

MacArthur is a teacher of a false gospel, and that is a very widely held belief in a wide cross-section of fundamental and evangelical circles. So, your charge of lieing is quite disengenuos.

I believe and am convinced that LS is a false gospel. Any one including you or MacArthur who teaches that system is a teacher of a false gospel. Tell me: How expressing my opinion is that a lie. I have xpressed my firmly held opinion, and I am convinced of it from the Bible and the LS men's own writing. How is that a lei for me to believe LS is a false gospel?

You have made reckless unfounded, unsubstantiated charges, but if you have no sense of wrong-doing in that I can't help it.

quote:

Pastor Zeller has neglected to mention that Jesus taught the requirements of discipleship are the requirments of salvation.

One of the keys to understanding the errors of LS, which create the works based message, is that LS advocates confuse discipeship with salvation. Requiring upfront decisions for discipleship as upfront requirements for salvation is exactly one of the works based errors of LS. For example:

John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation.


LM



Nesher -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 10:27:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmartuneac

GG:

You have made reckless unfounded, unsubstantiated charges, but if you have no sense of wrong-doing I can't help that.

MacArthur is a teacher of a false gospel, and that is a very widely held belief in a wide cross-section of evangelical circles. So, you charge of lieing is quite disengenuos.

quote:

Pastor Zeller has neglected to mention that Jesus taught the requirements of discipleship are the requirments of salvation.

One of the keys to understanding the errors of LS, which create the works based message, is that LS advocates confuse discipeship with salvation. Requiring upfront decisions for discipleship as upfront requirements for salvation is exactly one of the works based errors of LS. For example:

John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation.



LM



You're accusing Calvinists of having a works based salvation belief?



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 10:58:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NesherYou're accusing Calvinists of having a works based salvation belief?

This is the kind of "reckless" talk I am referring to.

LM



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/19/2007 11:08:30 PM)

GG wrote,
quote:

"...you and Pastor Zeller and all those who deny the sovereignty of God..."

More reckless, unsubstantiated talk.

I am a staunch defender and advocate of the Sovereignty of God and have written on the subject. The same is true of Brother Zeller.

I mean the following in all sincerity: You need to reign yourself in. If you are going to make reckless claims like the latest one above, you had better be able to document it.

Your emotions are getting the best of you, and adversely affecting your personal testimony.


LM



Ezra -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/20/2007 1:34:14 AM)

John F. MacArthur has published his four sermons on Lordship Salvation on his website www.ondoctrine.com, so anyone who seeks the truth can certainly examine his teachings for himself.

MacArthur is trying to integrate discipleship with salvation, and not doing it very well. He teaches that the Gospel call includes a call to discipleship, and while this is true, MacArthur makes it sound as though the price of salvation is one's commitment to being a disciple. That is patently false.

Here is a quote from him:
quote:

You know, all those those calls to discipleship, calls to death, calls to sacrifice, calls to laying your life down,calls to obedience, calls to submission, they[those who do not teach what he teaches] say all of those are Jesus calling already redeemed people to the second step. So they take the whole ministry of Jesus and instead of it being evangelism, it becomes calls to people who are already saved to come to the second level.
-- Lordship Salvation: The Lordship of Christ (Part 1 of 4), page. 4.

MacArthur is teaching that calls to discipleship are strictly evangelistic, which is not the case, as we note on the Day of Pentecost and later in the home of Cornelius there were no calls to discipleship.

While I agree with MacArthur that the Gospel must proclaim Christ as both Lord and Savior, and that the Gospel must also proclaim repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, MacArthur is mistaken in claiming that all of Christ's ministry was "evangelism", and every call to discipleship was a Gospel invitation. That is not what the Gospels reveal.

After Christ healed the man born blind from birth, He confronted him later in this manner (Jn. 9:35-38):
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is He Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord I believe, and he worshipped Him.

We should note carefully that there was no call to discipleship at this point, but a call to faith in the Son of God, which is the essence of evangelism. As John writes (Jn. 20:31), believing that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, we have life through His name. Genuine faith includes repentance and is followed by obedience to God and discipleship to Christ.

Evidently, this is not enough for MacArthur. As to his Calvinistic theology, it does affect his interpretation of certain Scriptures, and not all will agree with those interpretations (this writer included).



GrahamCracker -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/20/2007 7:01:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

MacArthur is trying to integrate discipleship with salvation, and not doing it very well. He teaches that the Gospel call includes a call to discipleship, and while this is true, MacArthur makes it sound as though the price of salvation is one's commitment to being a disciple. That is patently false.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It's not so much that MacArthur believes in works salvation, but parts of his theology (which aren't works theology salvation) are incompatible with other parts that are works theology salvation..



lmartuneac -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/20/2007 7:38:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

John F. MacArthur has published his four sermons on Lordship Salvation on his website www.ondoctrine.com, so anyone who seeks the truth can certainly examine his teachings for himself.

MacArthur is trying to integrate discipleship with salvation, and not doing it very well. He teaches that the Gospel call includes a call to discipleship, and while this is true, MacArthur makes it sound as though the price of salvation is one's commitment to being a disciple. That is patently false.

Here is a quote from him:
quote:

You know, all those those calls to discipleship, calls to death, calls to sacrifice, calls to laying your life down,calls to obedience, calls to submission, they[those who do not teach what he teaches] say all of those are Jesus calling already redeemed people to the second step. So they take the whole ministry of Jesus and instead of it being evangelism, it becomes calls to people who are already saved to come to the second level.
-- Lordship Salvation: The Lordship of Christ (Part 1 of 4), page. 4.

MacArthur is teaching that calls to discipleship are strictly evangelistic, which is not the case, as we note on the Day of Pentecost and later in the home of Cornelius there were no calls to discipleship.

While I agree with MacArthur that the Gospel must proclaim Christ as both Lord and Savior, and that the Gospel must also proclaim repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, MacArthur is mistaken in claiming that all of Christ's ministry was "evangelism", and every call to discipleship was a Gospel invitation. That is not what the Gospels reveal.

After Christ healed the man born blind from birth, He confronted him later in this manner (Jn. 9:35-38):
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is He Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord I believe, and he worshipped Him.

We should note carefully that there was no call to discipleship at this point, but a call to faith in the Son of God, which is the essence of evangelism. As John writes (Jn. 20:31), believing that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, we have life through His name. Genuine faith includes repentance and is followed by obedience to God and discipleship to Christ.

Evidently, this is not enough for MacArthur. As to his Calvinistic theology, it does affect his interpretation of certain Scriptures, and not all will agree with those interpretations (this writer included).

Ezra:

Excellent posting. You have docmented, and correctly interpreted MacAthur's Lordship errors.

This portion is right on and succintly defines one of the core misinterpretations and misuses of Scripture coming from the Lordship camp.

quote:

"MacArthur is trying to integrate discipleship with salvation, and not doing it very well. He teaches that the Gospel call includes a call to discipleship, and while this is true, MacArthur makes it sound as though the price of salvation is one's commitment to being a disciple. That is patently false."


Again, well done.


LM



crankius -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/20/2007 9:50:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra


We should note carefully that there was no call to discipleship at this point, but a call to faith in the Son of God, which is the essence of evangelism. As John writes (Jn. 20:31), believing that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, we have life through His name. Genuine faith includes repentance and is followed by obedience to God and discipleship to Christ.



Yesterday I was looking over Ephesians 2 again, and noting the difference between those who are children of wrath and those who are made alive in Christ--there is no way a son of disobedience can truly show discipleship (which we all were prior to salvation). It takes the washing and renewing of the Holy Spirit to produce in us the change (from death to life) so that we can obey and truly become disciples. We are created for good works--our good works do not produce a salvific change in us.

If my obedience plays any role in my salvation, I could then boast in my salvation.

A dead person just can't produce the obedience of the heart that Lordship Salvation is asking for.



crankius -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/20/2007 10:04:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmartuneac

Since the 1989 IFCA interviews MacArthur has retracted and acknowledged he made a serious error on the "eternal Son ship" issue. I did read his personally written retraction a few years ago.

The "blood of Christ" issue was another debate entirely. I have heard it was settled, but I am not sure how and what the result was.


I do remember the blood of Christ issue.

Here is a link to MacArthur answering a question about the Blood of Christ.


Here is another link defending MacArthur on that point. This includes a letter MacArthur wrote to his church.



crankius -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/20/2007 10:24:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmartuneac

If you were given unvarnished terms you are being told that Calvinism is exclusive truth, which includes the extreme and extra-biblical regeneration before faith position. There is also a very vague reference to Calvinism's Irresistible Grace, another unscriptural extreme. This is crucial to understanding how the works based LS doctrine is arrived at.



I understand reformed theology. I found your post interesting, because I have always thought that Lordship Salvation was incompatible with reformed theology.



Gloryandgrace -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/20/2007 12:27:56 PM)

LM you need to get over yourself.

I will stand with John M and his preaching, his doctrines of faith and evangelism. These attacks on him and his preaching dont show any real discerning on your part but an inward hatred of John and his ministry.

You are being rash and unjustly condemning John M.
Whatever charges you have laid upon me are for what? Because I disagee with you? Because I think your interpretations are in error? Whatever labeling you fasten to me you fasten to yourself by your own reasonings.

Calling John M a false teacher is an egregious error itself, calling the reformed faith error and false is again another error. Making the statements that I or John is preaching works based salvation is completely false and a ridiculous claim. Nothing stops you, there is no
reigning yourself in when it comes to attacking John M. Youve got a Crusade to defame John M and to discredit his ministry and teaching, this myfriend is an incredible spot upon your personal testimony.

You claim to believe in Sovereignty but you dont address my statements with corrective POV you simply say Im wrong and walk away.

In the end of all your postings we wall walk away with more allegations and never any personal accountability of your own teachings on this thread. You opt out, and in doing so opt of credibility. I dont consider the links as anything more than propoganda, you wont give your readers your own one on one answers, I think because your glass house will shatter. Youve used this thread to spread propoganda, when questioned your offended and opt out of proving yourself. This is a dishonest way of treating this thread and your dissenters.

Ive not done this to you, I have given you plenty of ammunition to fire away at me from my own personal interpretations, you on the other hand cannot answer the simplest question on the end of post 286

John



Ezra -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/21/2007 12:06:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

MacArthur is trying to integrate discipleship with salvation, and not doing it very well. He teaches that the Gospel call includes a call to discipleship, and while this is true, MacArthur makes it sound as though the price of salvation is one's commitment to being a disciple. That is patently false.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It's not so much that MacArthur believes in works salvation, but parts of his theology (which aren't works theology salvation) are incompatible with other parts that are works theology salvation..


Larry:

Please accept my apologies for not accepting your analysis earlier. I believe we agree more on Gospel truth than may appear on the surface.



lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 1:50:42 AM)

quote:

These attacks on him and his preaching dont show any real discerning on your part but an inward hatred of John and his ministry.

GG:

"inward hatred of John..." Shame on you! I should have continued ignoring you. I won't make the mistake of acknowledging you again.


LM



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI