True Faith and True Grace
September 29th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship. This dichotomy, like that of the carnal/spiritual Christian, sets up two classes of Christians: believers only and true disciples. Most who hold this position discard the evangelistic intent of virtually every recorded invitation of Jesus, saying those apply to discipleship, not to salvation.
But this arbitrary distinction has done so much to undermine the authority of Jesus’ message. Are we to believe that when Jesus told the multitudes to deny themselves (Luke 14:26), to take up a cross (v. 27), and to forsake all and follow Him (v. 33), His words had no meaning whatsoever for the unsaved people in the crowd? How could that be true of One who said He came not to call the righteous but sinners? (Matt. 9:13).
James M. Boice, in his book, Christ’s Call to Discipleship, writes with insight about the salvation/discipleship dichotomy, which he frankly describes as “defective theology”:
This theology separates faith from discipleship and grace from obedience. It teaches that Jesus can be received as one’s Savior without being received as one’s Lord.
This is a common defect in times of prosperity. In days of hardship, particularly persecution, those who are in the process of becoming Christians count the cost of discipleship carefully before taking up the cross of the Nazarene. Preachers do not beguile them with false promises of an easy life or indulgence of sins. But in good times, the cost does not seem so high, and people take the name of Christ without undergoing the radical transformation of life that true conversion implies. (p. 14)
The call to Calvary must be recognized for what it is: a call to discipleship under the lordship of Jesus Christ. To respond to that call is to become a believer. Anything less is simply unbelief.
Jesus’ gospel invitation explicitly and unequivocally rules out any type of superficial belief. To make all of our Lord’s difficult demands apply only to a higher class of Christians blunts the force of His entire message. It makes room for a cheap and meaningless faith—a faith that has absolutely no effect on the fleshly life of sin. That is not saving faith.
By Grace Through Faith
Salvation is solely by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). That truth is the biblical watershed for all we teach. But it means nothing if we begin with a misunderstanding of grace or a faulty definition of faith.
God’s grace is not a static attribute whereby He passively accepts hardened, unrepentant sinners. Grace does not change a person’s standing before God yet leave His character untouched. Real grace does not include, as Chafer claimed, “the Christian’s liberty to do precisely as he chooses.” True grace, according to Scripture, teaches us “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12). Grace is the power of God to fulfill our New Covenant duties (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19), however inconsistently we obey at times. Clearly, grace does not grant permission to live in the flesh; it supplies power to live in the Spirit (cf. Rom. 6:1-2).
Faith, like grace, is not static. Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing. It is inseparable from repentance, surrender, and a supernatural longing to obey. None of those responses can be classified exclusively as a human work, any more than believing itself is solely a human effort.
Misunderstanding on that key point is at the heart of the error of those who reject lordship salvation. They assume that because Scripture contrasts faith and works, faith must be incompatible with works. They set faith in opposition to submission, yieldedness, or turning from sin, and they categorize all the practical fruits of salvation as human works. They stumble over the twin truths that salvation is a gift, yet it costs everything.
Those ideas are paradoxical, but they are not mutually exclusive. The same dissonance is seen in Jesus’ own words, “I will give you rest,” followed by “take My yoke upon you” (Matt. 11:28–29). The rest we enter into by faith is not a rest of inactivity.
Salvation is a gift, but it is appropriated through a faith that goes beyond merely understanding and assenting to the truth. Demons have that kind of “faith” (James 2:19). True believers are characterized by faith that is as repulsed by the life of sin as it is attracted to the mercy of the Savior. Drawn to Christ, they are drawn away from everything else. Jesus described genuine believers as “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). They are like the repentant tax-gatherer, so broken he could not even look heavenward. He could only beat his breast and plead, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” (Luke 18:13).
That man’s desperate prayer is one of the clearest pictures of genuine, God-wrought repentance in all of Scripture. His plea was not in any sense a human work or an attempt at earning righteousness. On the contrary, it represented his total abandonment of confidence in religious works. As if to prove it he stood “some distance away” from the praying Pharisee. He understood that the only way he could ever be saved was by God’s merciful grace. On that basis, having first come to the end of himself, he received salvation as a gift. Jesus said that man “went down to his house justified” (v. 14).
Our Lord’s point in relating that account was to demonstrate that repentance is at the core of saving faith. The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means “to think after.” It implies a change of mind, and some who oppose lordship salvation have tried to limit its meaning to that. But a definition of repentance cannot be drawn solely from the etymology of the Greek word.
Repentance as Jesus characterized it in this incident involves a recognition of one’s utter sinfulness and a turning from self and sin to God (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9). Far from being a human work, it is the inevitable result of God’s work in a human heart. And it always represents the end of any human attempt to earn God’s favor. It is much more than a mere change of mind—it involves a complete change of heart, attitude, interest, and direction. It is a conversion in every sense of the word.
The Bible does not recognize “conversion” that lacks this radical change of direction (Luke 3:7–8). A true believer cannot remain rebellious—or even indifferent. Genuine faith will inevitably provoke some degree of obedience. In fact, Scripture often equates faith with obedience (John 3:36; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:8). “By faith Abraham [the father of true faith] … obeyed” (Heb. 11:8). That is the heart of the message of Hebrews 11, the great treatise on faith.
Faith and works are not incompatible. Jesus even calls the act of believing a work (John 6:29)—not merely a human work, but a gracious work of God in us. He brings us to faith, then enables and empowers us to believe unto obedience (cf. Rom. 16:26).
We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God. Biblically it is defined by what it produces, not by what one does to get it. Works are not necessary to earn salvation. But true salvation wrought by God will not fail to produce the good works that are its fruit (cf. Matt. 7:17). No aspect of salvation is merited by human works, but it is all the work of God (Titus 3:5–7). Thus salvation cannot be defective in any dimension. “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing these elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.
If we are truly born of God, we have a faith that cannot fail to overcome the world (1 John 5:4). We may sin (1 John 2:1)—we will sin—but the process of sanctification can never stall completely. God is at work in us (Phil. 2:13), and He will continue to perfect us until the day of Christ (Rom. 8:29-30; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23–24).
In fact, isn’t it obvious that collapsing discipleship into the faith alone construct diminishes its stark power. Wanting to inject “faith alone” with some pizzaz, your team necessarily clobbers the call to discipleship with the free and without cost message of Isaiah, Revelation and John.
How can you argue that discipleship isn’t just as appeased as belief is fortified?
“Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship.”
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
I find it interesting that Jesus did not say go and make converts. He simply said go and make disciples. A disciple must submit to his master. There is no other option if he wants to learn from him. He must declare that his way is right and better than his own way. That is what we are to do.
Lukes account is very interesting also: Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He 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. “You are witnesses of these things. “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
There is no mention here of offering them a better life, though that is certainly an effect of salvation, there is simply repentance and forgiveness. One must realize that their own sin is offensive and repulsive to a Holy God. They must be reborn or “born again” as Jesus said in His account with Nicodemus. A life with no spiritual fruit is not legitimately a disciple of Jesus Christ.
God Bless!
“Wanting to inject ‘faith alone’ with some pizzaz..” Hmmm. I wonder if a better way to say it is that repentance is just naturally germane to the NT understanding of faith. That seems to be the norm with the many encounters Jesus has with unbelievers in His earthly ministry.
It’s hard to find anywhere in NT, an example of someone genuinely receiving Christ via faith, only to capitulate to their old lifestyle of disobedience (THAT seems to be a modern-day injection if you ask me).
In the case of Peter, though he has a bumpy transformation, he never outright remains in some gross sin.
In the case of carnal Corinth (1 Cor. 3:3) they are later warned to examine themselves to see if they are truly in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). Ouch.
Finally, just in case there’s ANY confusion about how repentance was for all this time being taken as germane to saving faith, Jesus Christ comes back on the scene in Revelation 2-3 with a plethora of warnings about how perseverance (i.e. obedience) was being taken as a must for all this time. I never see an exception clause in Rev. 2-3 where Christ says, “for all you baby-Christians, disregard the ‘abide in Me’ part.”
That final word from Revelation does it for me.
I find it hard to argue that repentance is not a part of salvation when Peter, giving the first sermon to the church on the day of pentecost, associated repentance with salvation.
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Acts 2:37-39
I’d point out that the people had just heard the truth about Jesus, but they did not know what to do. Peter did not say just beleive. He told them to repent.
Chuck,
I appreciate your excellent comment. I can’t emphasize enough that what you are saying here is a point of agreement between the two sides of the lordship debate. The almost exclusive focus on conversion (and dread “decisionism”) of the modern church in 70’s and 80’s was a garbling of the NT and I would even respetfully suggest that it caused the overreaction that in my opinion is represented by Piper and MacArthur and their incredible popularity.
Agreed that the Apostles were not overfocused on conversion. They were making disciples. We know that the receiving of eternal life is far from an end in itself but a means. It is a means to know the Father and Christ.
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
And to know the Father and Christ is to obey Christ’s commands in a loving way.
It’s one thing to say the the church of the 70’s and 80’s was free grace in a general sort of way, but to equate that type of sloppiness with the bonafide Free Grace Theology articulated by Zane Hodges uses the informal logical falacy called straw man. Hodges and Wilkins and emphasize self-examination and fully embrace the warnings of the NT as crucial to understanding John, Romans, Galatians and every other portion of the NT.
God bless.
Jodie
Shazaz,
On our side of the aisle we would argue that if you always read into faith an assumption of repentance you’ll have an innaccuart understanding. By keeping with what is explicitly taught both sides of this debate may find more commonality.
You wonder if there are any examples of “someone genuinely receiving Christ via faith, only to capitulate” I would say that what seems to happen is that they even become worse than before. I see OT saints as regenerate, so when I look the end of regenerate Solomon’s life I’m disgusted by his worship of every false god in the region.
Also Paul writes:
(1) That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 1 Cor. 11:30 (referring to the Corinthians you mentioned)
(2)holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim. 1: 19-20 (that was 1 Timothy, now to go on to 2 Timothy…)
(3)Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 2 Tim. 2: 17-18
I see this as Paul speaking forthrightly of apostasy.
In Revelation, Jesus is warning the churches of the consequences of drifitng from Him. That is the message our church needs today.
Do you take His warning as hyperbolic when He says ‘or I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life’, or do you have another interpretation of that verse. I see the Lord as warning of the importance of being commended rather than humiliated at His judgment seat, by wearing the “garments” that are the righteous deeds of the saints:
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
God bless.
Jim~
I see what you’re saying but going back to Chuck’s point, this is a clear place where the last thing Peter was focusing on was “conversions”! By not always assuming the Apostles were trying to “convert” people so they would not go to Hell, we can see that his topic is elsewhere.
He’s preaching repentance! What more can I say.
Repentance, in the FG view, is the message of God’s active here and now wrath that is either coming in the (perhaps very near) future, or is already present.
We agree with Reformed commentators who focus on the Roman Jewish War as having been prophesied about in the NT and as having fulfilled some of the NT prophesies. (We of course don’t take it as far as some!) But FG people see…
(1) John the Baptist
(2) Jesus
(3) Peter and
(4) Stephen
…as prophets of that event. They warned the people to repent in order to avoid that horrible time, which was a great travesty, where perhaps 60,000 Jewish lives were lost. Had they repented, it would not have happened.
“Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Lk 13:4
Hodges has a very helpful tape series on Acts. Even though this reading is far from the reformed view, or general evangelical view, try to judge it on its relationship with the context(s) of each passage!
God bless.
[…] I really wish I’d come up with that tag…it’s catchy! La Shawn Barber has two great posts up that I particularly took a shine to, one spotlighting Black families that homeschool and the other showing the problem with government sponsored racism…Op-Ed pieces critical of Islam cause yet another furor and Michelle Malkin has the translations…Slice of Laodicea has a very surprising statement from singer Amy Grant, Lawsuits between Christians, and how Christ transforms us inside and out…The Pyromaniacs say do it whether it feels good or not, and they’re right…Do you have to repent to be saved? Ask John MacArthur…Al Mohler discusses the downhill slide of university and Interfaith Club…Stacy Hawkins Adams reminds us of the value of the journey…Coolcatalyst has started a food blog, and with her excellent photography (and love of food ha ha!) this should be great! […]
To Jodie (cf. your 10am reply),
Thanks for your observations/questions.
In the case of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5 ff), I do see it as a gross sin to get into idolatry. However it would seem to be a sin that is quickly staved off by God who delivers a chastening-type judgment (1 Kings 11:11, ff) to Israel’s king. God here is being entirely consistent with the Old Testament Law (see blessings and cursings of Deut. 28) combined with the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12 and 1 Kings 11:12).
I believe the NT changes things a bit. In the NT context, believers are expected to exhibit a life that is filled with the Holy Spirit (see the UNIQUE new covenant of Jer. 31:33 with expectations of 1 Cor. 6:19/Gal. 5 and the present-day reality of that new covenant in Luke 22:20 & Heb. 8:6-13). All to say, the situation of Solomon (Samson even, oy!) is not the exact same situation of our present A.D. context.
Now, as for 1 Cor. 11:30, 1 Tim. 1:19-20 and 2 Tim. 2:17-18 related passages that ARE of the NT…
I believe throughout the NT there is dichotomy that needs to be made between 1.) one who is a “Judas” whose judgment comes by way of God’s declaration of his profession of faith as being altogether false (null and void - see “Son of Perdition”, John 17:12) and 2.)the “weak” Christian who is going to meet a judgment of chastening if things for him/her continue to get worse.
I believe Hymenaeus was like Judas - he just kept going from bad to worse. In his case it was a wholesale capitulation for which even Paul’s act of church discipline (handing him over to Satan) had no effect. Like the energizer bunny he just kept going and going. Thus, he was not of the true vine of Christ after all (self-deception IS possible for even the most sincere would-be ‘converts’).
The members of the church of Corinth who are making a mockery of the Lord’s Table I believe were in the second category of weak Christians who were kept from a gross capituation (or shipwreck) by being chastened to death. God only chastens those whom He loves (Heb. 12:7) so I’d say whatever was left of their genuine testimony for the Lord was preserved by their lives being cut short.
I believe that in Revelation 2-3 you have churchgoers from both categories being addressed. God will, as it were, “blot out” (3:5) the names of so-called believers who do not, finally, “overcome.” That could be “hyperbolic” in this sense: their names are either permanently there or permanently missing (the Lord doesn’t change His mind/capitulate, cf. Romans 8:38). I think the EFFECT of the warning is what’s important here — Rev. 2-3 prods us with, as it were, “are you so willing to be in the ‘weak’ category that you are later found out to be in the ‘Judas’ category? This feels us out (and the 7 churches) for immediate action for getting with it in perseverance.
Jodie,
Thank you for your comments, but I must respectfully disagree. I find no sound principle of hermeneutics that allows me to understand that the sermon Peter was giving had anything to do with the coming destruction of Jerusalem. It points very clearly to the work of Christ on the cross.
Are you saying that Peter, although was describing what Christ had done, was actually warning them about the coming destruction of Jerusalem instead? Why did he not just say that then? That seems rather paltry a message to give in light of eternal fellowship with God, however.
Is it your claim that the people who listened to Peter’s (Holy Spirit’s!) sermon on the day of pentecost were already saved? If they were already saved, then why did Peter have to instruct them in receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit? (i.e repent and be baptized)
If Peter was telling them to repent or face the destruction of Jerusalem, then why did Jerusalem get destroyed anyway? In the text it claims on that day 3000 people repented and that more were added daily. Jerusalem was the heart of the church until the death of James. Was James’ martyrdom due to his lack of repentance? He apparantly did not escape physical judgment.
I’m sorry but I cannot accept that Peter was offering anything other than eternal salvation through the blood of Christ on the day of pentecost. The people had to repent because they were wicked just as everyone is. You cannot ‘hear His voice’ and not at the same time. They heard the Holy Spirit, they were drawn to the message, and they were told to repent.
John MacArthur asserts:
———-
The word disciple is used consistently as a synonym for believer throughout the book of Acts.
———-
The Gospel According to Jesus pg 196
(I will not dispute that). On this basis, he concludes:
———-
Any distinction between the two words is purely artificial.
———-
Ibid. pg 196
But then he appears to contradict himself (a Calvinist? no!) and says:
———-
It is apparant that not every disciple is necessarily a true Christian.
———-
Ibid. pg 196
Did anyone catch the contradiction? Apparantly, John MacArthur has concluded that a distinction between the words is not purely artificial after all but grounded in the New Testament itself. But if the words “disciple” and “believer” are synonomous, then every disciple is a true Christian, and if they are not synonymous, then every true Christian is not necessarily a disciple. It is clear, as even John MacArthur is forced to admit, that they are not synonymous!
Now if being a disciple is not necessarily the same as being a Christian, then it is not logically or exegetically consistent to select passages that refer to discipleship and assume that they refer to the conditions for becoming a Christian or to the characteristics of all who are truly born again.
Many writers commit the illegitimate totality transfer. They gather the passages in Acts in which “mathetes” (disciple) is used of Christians and passages in the Gospels where certain characteristics or conditions of being a disciple are enumerated, and then they import these contextual nuances into the semantic value of the word itself. This now pregnant term is carried back into various passages of the New Testament in service of a particular doctrine of Lordship Salvation and perseverance. This is illegitimate totality transfer.
The meaning of a word is determined by context. The usage elsewhere helps establish the range of possible meanings but not the meaning in the particular passage under consideration.
Joseph and Nicodemus were saved, but they were secret disciples (Jn. 19:38-39). They feared the Jews and would not publicly declare themselves disciples of Christ. Nevertheless, John acknowledges them as secret believers.
Many disciples left Jesus (John 6:66). If they were not really Christians, then the Traditionalists must acknowledge that being a disciple is not the same thing as being a Christian (or else give up their doctrine of perseverance of the saints!), and if they were Christians, then being a Christian does not inevitably result in a life of following Christ.
When Paul and Barnabus went to Antioch, they encouraged the disciples to remain true to the faith. It must be possible for them not to remain true or there would be no point in taking this trip (Acts 14:22). In fact, disciples can be drawn away from the truth (Acts 20:30).
If being a disciple is a condition for becoming a Christian in the first place, why does Jesus exhort those who are already Christians to become disciples (John 8:31-32)?
Shazaz and Jim, Goatta run but I’ll reply later this evening. Thanks for the high caliber interaction.
Acts 11:26 - ‘the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.’
Antonio - a definition of mathetes - a disciple is a learner, a follower, a student, an apprentice
i.e. you had disciples of John the Baptist, the Pharisees, etc.
We began with disciples or followers of Christ in the gospels and they eventually came to be called Christians in the church.
That explains why the term ‘disciple’ is pretty much absent from the epistles.
According to FG theology - there ought to be many admonitions in the epistles to converts to now become disciples - but we don’t find such an idea even hinted at.
On John 6:66
The fact that some disciples no longer followed - demonstrates that oftentimes some followers or disciples do prove to be spurious
After all Judas was considered a disciple - just not genuine
Antonio:
Saying that every true Christian is a “disciple” (that is that every true Christian is “a follower of Christ in an outwardly observable way” and conversely no true Christian is someone who “often mock[s] and ridicule[s] the Christian faith,” as one false teacher has claimed Christians sometimes do) is not the same as saying every person who appears to follow Christ in an outwardly observable way is a true Christian. Take Judas for example. He was a false disciple, a son of perdition destined for destruction. So Pastor MacArthur’s assertion that every Christian is a disciple does not necessarily contradict his statement that “not every disciple is necessarily a true Christian.”
-Andrew
Although Michael Horton is no friend to Free Grace theology, as he is in the Lordship Salvation ‘camp’, he does make some interesting comments about John MacArthur’s teaching:
“MacArthur adds W. E. Vine’s definition of faith as including even “conduct inspired by such surrender” (173-74). If we are justified by faith and if faith is surrender, obedience, and conduct inspired by such surrender, then we are justified by works. The logic seems unavoidable:
We are justified by faith alone.
Faith is surrender, obedience, and conduct inspired by such surrender.
Therefore, we are justified by surrender, obedience, and conduct inspired by such obedience” (Michael Horton, Christ the Lord, pg 44, His references to John MacArthur are to The Gospel According to Jesus).
Horton uses logic to assess MacArthur’s position, and comes to the same conclusion we all should: MacArthur’s position teaches works-salvation.
Horton goes so far as to charge MacArthur with teaching an essentially Roman Catholic view of justification:
“MacArthur, it seems, is so disturbed by the antinomianism of his opponents that, in order to make what he calls easy-believism more untenable, he insists that the believer is justified by knowledge, assent, and obedience (or, at least, ‘the determination of the will to obey truth’), rather than by knowledge, assent, and trust. Granted, the formulation is different from official Roman Catholic teaching, but it merely moves the element of works into the definition of faith itself. This leaves the impression that, if a believer is repeating the same sin, he or she must not be justified yet, since ‘repentance is a critical element of genuine faith’ (p. 172) and ‘faith is not complete unless it is obedient’ (p. 173)” (Horton, Christ the Lord pg 40/ References to MacArthur are from TGATJ).
Horton later adds:
“Not only does MacArthur seem here to repeat the Roman Catholic confusion of justification and sanctification; he actually makes the forensic declaration depend on a real moral change in the person’s behavior. First, the robe is ‘the reality of a changed life’ not the declaration of a changed status, as the Reformers would have understood it. Second, ‘the son cannot receive all the blessedness of the father’s table until he is robed in the right robe. And so there must be more than a declaration involved.’ In other words, God cannot declare one righteous before there is moral change. The legal declaration depends on moral transformation in MacArthur’s statements here, just as surely as in Trent’s [i.e., Roman Catholic position]” (Horton, 42-43)
Horton not only considers MacArthur’s view of justification to be essentially Roman, he states that MacArthur’s position critically wounds Christian assurance:
“While MacArthur may not intend for readers to come away from his remarks prepared to conclude that they are not Christians because they find themselves committing the same sins repeatedly, I do not think this is an unwarranted conclusion based on his comments” (Horton, pg, 50).
Shortly thereafter he adds:
“MacArthur, as we have seen, not only takes the focus for our assurance off of the finished work of Christ, but even raises questions about the focus for faith itself. Is faith resting in Christ’s life and death or in ours? We must be careful not to react to the antinomian threat by driving the sheep back to themselves, away from Christ” (Horton, pg 51).
A Roman Catholic Apologist has this to say about MacArthur’s teaching:
“MacArthur spent almost all of his 300-page work [TGAJ] exegeting passages from the Gospels, systematically going through many of the teachings of Jesus which specified that works indeed play a large part in our standing and relationship with God. This is not surprising. Catholic theology has always maintained that the Gospels deny faith alone theology most emphatically” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, pg. 597).
“Entrance into the kingdom requires earnest endeavor, untiring energy, and utmost exertion, because Satan is mighty, his demons are powerful, and sin holds us fast” (John MacArthur, Hard to Believe, 149).
How is this not works-salvation?
He states that entering the kingdom is conditioned on earnest endeavor, untiring energy and utmost exertion! Clearly the endeavor, energy, and exertion are not point-in-time events. They must occur over time. It is also important to see that even commitment is not enough! Only the fully committed over the course of their whole life will make it into the Kingdom.
Antonio da Rosa
The merger of these terms, disciple and believer, has often given birth to a theology of legalism, doubt, and harsh judgmental attitudes which has virtually eliminated the grace of God as a basis for personal fellowship with Christ. All depends on the person’s willingness or intent to abandon all, yield in every point, submit totally, and the like. Instead of the wonderful freedom of grace, a burdensome introspection has resulted which has made assurance of salvation impossible. In addition, the terms of the gospel offer itself have been severely compromised. Non-Christians are virtually being asked to bevcome holy as a condition of becoming Christians.
But, most importantly, the conditions for becomeing a disciple are different form those for becoming a Christian. One becomes a Christian, according to Jesus, on the basis of faith alone (John 3:16; 6:47). We are justified “freely” (Rom 3:24) and receive regenerate life “without cost” (Rev 22:17). But to become a disciple, something in additin to faith is needed: works. A disciple is one who does the will of God (Mt 12:49), who denies himself, and in the case of those living at the time of Jesus (with an application for us today), leaves his family, and follows Jesus around Paelstine (Mk 8:34). A disciple must love Jesus more than his own wife, hardly a requirement ever stated anywhere for becoming a Christian (Lk 14:26)! The condition for discipleship is to forsake all and follow Christ (Lk 14:33). Consider Jesus’ words:
Luke 14:26-27
26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
NKJV
Luke 14:33
33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
NKJV
Now if being a disciple and being a regenerate believer are the same thing, as Lordship Salvation proponents maintain, then are they not introducing a serious heresy into the gospel? In order to be saved, one must not only believe in Christ but he must also:
1) hate his father, mother, wife, children, and his own life (love Jesus supremely)
2) carry his cross (the hard works of discipleship, which can include martyrdom)
3) follow Jesus around Palestine (or the present-day application)
4) Give up everything (imagine the cost of this!)
Can any amount of theological sophistry equate these four conditions with the simple offer of a free gift on the basis of believing? The terms for discipleship must not be equated with the free offer of eternal life! If we are justified “freely”, how can the enormous costs of being a disciple be imposed as a condition for justification?
The most famous discipleship passage in the New Testament makes it quite clear that becoming a disciple and becoming a Christian are two separate things. The Great Commission is to “make disciples”. In explaining how this is to be done, three activities are specified: going, baptizing, and teaching. “Going” means to go to them and explain the gospel. “Baptizing” identifies those who have responded publicly as new converts. “Teaching” is simply instruction in the Christian life. So there are three things involved in the production of a discipleL
1) The man must believe into Jesus Christ
2) he must be baptized
3) he must be taught to obey akk that Christ taught
If being a disciple is the same as becoming a Christian, then in order to be saved, we must trust Christ, be baptized, and must obey the commands of Christ. In other words, salvation is by works.
[Credit to this post must go to Joseph C. Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings, 154-155]
Antonio,
Since you brought up logic in reference to works-salvation, we need to clarify what method of logic we are all using, and from who’s perspective we are looking at the issue.
First, from God’s perspective, I think everyone would agree with this equation:
faith = justification
Those whom God has given the gift of faith are justified, and there is obviously no confusion from His perspective who those people are.
Secondly, we are told to “test the spirits, to see if they are of God” along with other mandates to try our best to figure out who is wearing which jersey. We need to know who is unsaved because EVANGILISM DEPENDS ON IT. We are commanded to evangilize, but who do we evangilize? We evangilize the lost. Well, how do we know who’s lost? We will know them by their fruits. Therefore, we come to the next bit of logic:
IF {faith (or justified)}
THEN {works, fruit, evidence, etc.}
Notice the difference in the logical operator, this is a cause and effect relationship, NOT an equation like the last one. That means that the two terms cannot be exchanged for one another. MacArthur and the rest of us Lorship people are saying just that. Also note that this is absolutely necessary from the human perspective.
Now, since the only thing we can see in people’s lives are their works, because we cannot actually see faith, that is all we have to work from. There is always some degree of mystery when we are evaluating a person’s drive, but that is all we have to work from because God is the only one that gets to see the heart.
Nobody would argue that saving faith ALWAYS preceeds genuine works. It is definately not the position of MacArthur or the rest of the Lordship side that we have the power to produce good works apart from saving faith. You cannot take the statement “conduct inspired by such surrender” and therefore say that “faith is surrender”. That is simply a logical fallacy because you are switching the operator from an “if -> then” statement to an equation, and this leads to a misrepresentation of the Lordship view.
Sir,
with all the respect I can muster up,
When one equates “faith” with “obeying, surrender, commitment” IOW, works, the logic would go:
We are saved by faith
faith = obedience, surrender, commitment, giving up all, etc.
———-
We are saved by obedience, surrender, commitment, giving up all, etc.
It is beneficial to note that one of the problems of the Lordship Salvation theology, evidenced by the teachings of John MacArthur, is the radical redefinition of “faith” to include works. Reformed writer Michael Horton showed quite aptly that MacArthur’s insistance that faith = obedience equals works salvation, as I have shown in my second to last comment.
John MacArthur’s teaching has strayed quite far away from the Bible’s definition of faith:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).
His teachings are furthermore at variance with the Reformers’ definitions of faith, such as John Calvin:
“…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.” (John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, 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” (Institutes 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” (Institutes, II, ii, 7)
These definitions of faith by John Calvin are light years away from those held in Lordship 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 inspired 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)
Not one of these statements of John MacArthur is a true reflection of the biblical doctrine of saving faith. What these claims in fact reveal is a deep-seated fear of the total freeness of God’s saving grace, as though that freeness subverted morality. On the contrary, it is precisely the wonderous unconditional love of God as expressed in the free gift of eternal life that is the root and cause of all New Testament holiness.
Shazazz,
About our discussion of Solomon. In what sense was the sin “quickly staved off”? V 12 says that God delayed Judgment until after Solomon’s death, meaning Solomon died in his sin!
It sounds like in your model, things are very, very different in the NT: “In the NT context, believers are expected to exhibit a life that is filled with the Holy Spirit” So are you saying that because of those “expectations” God doesn’t tend to judge His people quite as much?? Becuase it would be unnecessary?? That seems to cinch Reformed thought. God’s chastising wrath is placed anywhere but in the lives of His people. I would respectfully suggest this may be leading to a leniency that isn’t warranted scripturally. Reformed theology tends to unnecessarily gild the redeemed.
You say you see a dichotomy between “judgments “on Judas types vs “chastisement” on weak but authentic Christians, with Hymenaeus being in the former category. Can you find any evidence in the text for that categorization, or even for the categories themselves?
Paul warns Timothy about the need of “holding on to faith and a good conscience” and then warns Timothy that “some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith” How could Hymenaeus have shipwrecked his faith if he never had any? I would suggest that your theology is always going to force you to do eisegesis on passages like this. In 2 Tim Paul says the Hymenaeus has “wandered away form the truth”! I have a theology that allows me to take that at face value.
I’m glad you take a merciful view of the Corinthians who misused the Lord’s supper: “God only chastens those whom He loves (Heb. 12:7) so I’d say whatever was left of their genuine testimony for the Lord was preserved by their lives being cut short” But why not include Hymenaeus in your mercy? And if a Christian is so disobedient that the Lord takes him home, I would call that apostasy.
You theology seems to rule the text. You claim:
Rev. 2-3 prods us with, as it were, “are you so willing to be in the ‘weak’ category that you are later found out to be in the ‘Judas’ category? This feels us out (and the 7 churches) for immediate action for getting with it in perseverance.
I’m afraid I don’t think your 2 categories are based on the text of Scripture, but on your theology. The Bible shows a God who expresses his wrath on sin, especially on the sin of His people, and even more particularly on those individuals who draw near to Him (Among those who approach me I will show myself holy Lev 10:3)
God bless.
Jodie
Jim,
Thanks for your comments and critique.
In my view, the message of repentance is based on Jesus being the Lord and Judge, which was proved with His resurrection from the dead. So the resurrection is a proof of not just his Messiahship but his Lordship as well. When Peter preached Christ to this particular set of people, he wasn’t talking about someone who died of natural causes:
Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
To call this message good news is ludicrous! It is anything but good news.
Keeping in mind that in the previous chapter of Acts we learned that Jesus refused to tell the Apostles when He would set up His Kingdom, Peter quotes Joel concerning the Day of the Lord:
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord
His listeners clearly believed Peter as he preached(v 37). They believed that He was the Christ and the Lord and Judge. At the instant that they believed He was the Christ, they were born again. But they asked him a very desperate and telling question. What should we do? This is a very different question than the Philippian jailer’s. They knew they were in danger of facing God’s wrath in the Old Testament manner about a monumental sin against God’s will. Peter told them to repent.
If they hadn’t believed Jesus was the Christ they would not have asked what should we do? So they were already saved at least by the time Peter finished his sermon.
By the way, those people did escape the wrath of the destruction of Jerusalem because they were scattered at the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen. The nation as a whole did not repent. Had they repented they would have been spared that destruction.
Also, James was a martyr. There are several reasons people suffer besides God’s judgments on them!! Job proves that!
God bless.
Jodie
If a Death Row prisoner is pardoned by the governor, and as a condition of his release must sign a waiver wherein he swears to obey the laws, no one would describe this as a “work.” It is merely a condition of his release. If he refuses to sign, the authorities would be wise not to let him out. Indeed, to do so would be dereliction of duty.
The release is not conditioned upon obedience, as the prisoner is not out yet. Only his acceptance of the term.
This is what it means to receive Jesus as Lord. To do away with this condition is not only to give a false sense of security to someone; it is to unleash possible harm upon the church.
The FG view, IMO, so undervalues repentance from sin that many think they have walked out of prison, and have not. The grave danger is that they are still under the sentence of death and don’t know it.
jodie,
This stuff is gold, great treatment!:
———-
His listeners clearly believed Peter as he preached(v 37). They believed that He was the Christ and the Lord and Judge. At the instant that they believed He was the Christ, they were born again. But they asked him a very desperate and telling question. What should we do? This is a very different question than the Philippian jailer’s. They knew they were in danger of facing God’s wrath in the Old Testament manner about a monumental sin against God’s will. Peter told them to repent.
If they hadn’t believed Jesus was the Christ they would not have asked what should we do? So they were already saved at least by the time Peter finished his sermon.
By the way, those people did escape the wrath of the destruction of Jerusalem because they were scattered at the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen. The nation as a whole did not repent. Had they repented they would have been spared that destruction.
———-
Thanks Antonio, Isn’t it cool how that tape series on Acts of Hodges lets the whole Free Grace paradigm, with his incredible contributions, just shine. I mean usually Acts has so many loose ends that they’re a given, but Hodges Acts commentary has all its details in line. ~js
————————
Also, while we’re bragging on Hodges, I better steal his punch line, which is that that great Lordship- Legend about the pardoned man (see above)is too funny for words. In Central Asia, maybe, but here in North America, when governors pardon people they absolutely don’t get lethaled, even if they don’t sign that legendary “waiver”, though I’m still not clear on the exact matter he is waiving, even in Texas…
Sorry for ovedoing my attitude and underdoing my respect on my above comment.
The comment should have made me weep…
“If a Death Row prisoner is pardoned by the governor, and as a condition of his release must sign a waiver wherein he swears to obey the laws, no one would describe this as a “work.” It is merely a condition of his release. If he refuses to sign, the authorities would be wise not to let him out. Indeed, to do so would be dereliction of duty.”
I hope both sides of this crucial debate can be teachable in the sense of sticking with reason and searching diligently God’s authoritative Word.
Antonio,
It is shocking to me that you have misunderstood MacArthur’s teaching so much so that you actually equate his position as one of embracing a works salvation when in fact he has consistently stated all along that faith is a gift and that the bible simply calls/commands us to obedience, discipleship, belief, repentance, in the same way it exhorts us to abide, hope, love, trust, walk, pary without ceasing, etc. and that is “to give evidence of the hope that is within us”, “that we should walk in them”, to “become holy and blameless” “in order that they may see your good works and give glory to God”.
As I stated in a previous discussion, this is about God’s glory. You mistake the call to obedience as a work when the bible teaches it is a gift. Do you believe the disciples were obeying their master when they preached and were jailed and beaten. Yet their response was to count it as joy to have been found worthy to suffer for Christ by giving evidence of their faith. Their persecution was the assurance that they were getting the message out correctly and that their faith was real, alive, obedient, and glorfying to God. Jesus promised that men would hate them for His sake.
You wrote: ———————————
Not one of these statements of John MacArthur is a true reflection of the biblical doctrine of saving faith. What these claims in fact reveal is a deep-seated fear of the total freeness of God’s saving grace, as though that freeness subverted morality. On the contrary, it is precisely the wonderous unconditional love of God as expressed in the free gift of eternal life that is the root and cause of all New Testament holiness
———————–
MacArthur’s fear is not of the freeness of God’s saving
grace, but rather of the danger of those who profess to believe and yet give evidence to the contrary and therefore blaspheme God’s name and his glory.
Three examples of God’s emphasis on obedience.
Adam and Eve.
Moses and the rock.
Jesus simple yet powerful “go and sin no more”
Peter’s denial caused Jesus to call into question Peter’s love. Is there evidence that Peter obeyed after the “feed my sheep” lecture?
Thank you for carrying out these discussions with grace. Bless you.
Dan
“I hope both sides of this crucial debate can be teachable in the sense of sticking with reason and searching diligently God’s authoritative Word.”
Well said, Jodie. On the “reason” side, it is a great mistake to hold that repentance is a “work.” The Bible never expresses it so. The analogy of the prisoner is an illustration of the biblical teaching. Reasonable minds can differ on the Lordship debate, but not on what the Bible says about repentance. A “work” in the NT is that which MERITS (earns) a return. Repentance is never said to do that. Not even in the OT, in fact.
In Jonah 3:4 We read, “And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!’” In 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
In Psalm 78
32In spite of all this, they still sinned;
despite his wonders, they did not believe.
33So he made their days vanish like a breath,
and their years in terror.
34When he killed them, they sought him;
they repented and sought God earnestly.
35They remembered that God was their rock,
the Most High God their redeemer.
36But they flattered him with their mouths;
they lied to him with their tongues.
37Their heart was not steadfast toward him;
they were not faithful to his covenant.
38Yet he, being compassionate,
atoned for their iniquity
and did not destroy them;
he restrained his anger often
and did not stir up all his wrath.
The return (or result) for repenting is God stilling his here and now chastisement (sometimes severe chastisement) upon the people that have repented, sometimes even if the repentance is wobbly.
God bless.
~~sorry for the runaway bold fonts! -js
(there!)
I give up, guy, I’m not sure how to stop the bold emphasis…
Jodie,
We took the bold out of your earlier comment (4 up) to stop the open code (which was causing the continued bold font).
Otherwise, we did not change the content of your post.
Thanks, sorry for not ending the code correctly.
Dr. MacArthur:
In this post you wrote, “We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God…. As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing these elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.”
In The Gospel According to Jesus you wrote, “Thus conversion is not simply a sinner’s decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 114.)
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged,” (John 16:9-10).
The Holy Spirit is come to convict the world of “sin” (note singular). What is the “sin” that the Holy Spirit will reprove the world over? That “sin” is explained in verse 10, which is the sin of “unbelief.”
The lost man needs to be confronted with the Law to bring him/her to know the need for forgiveness through Christ. The book of Galatians is very helpful in this matter. The sin that is damning the lost man to hell is “unbelief” and the only act that will result in salvation is “belief” (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).
When you demand a commitment to discipleship (i.e. “take up your cross, losing your life for my sake, etc.”) you are requiring a decision from a lost man, which is impossible for him to make (John 15:5). This kind of gospel message frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). The Holy Spirit does not indwell this lost man, he is not regenerated. He cannot make a decision of surrender to the Lord because he does not yet know the Lord.
Thus when I read your quotes above I understand why you must come to an extra-biblical, a rational view of the order of salvation: regeneration before profession of faith rather than simultaneous to it.
After repenting of the sin of “unbelief” the newborn child of God enters into the life of sanctification and begins to repent of his “SINS” (1 John 1, etc.).
LM