Can You Be a Christian and Not Follow Jesus?
October 11th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
In a previous post, we asked, “Can you be a Christian and not love Jesus?”
Here, we are asking an equally important (and intimately related) question. Can a person be rightly regarded as truly redeemed whose life is not characterized by willing submission to the commands of Christ? Or put more directly, Can you be a Christian and not follow Jesus? This question, again, is at the heart of the lordship debate.
For non-lordship proponents, the answer is “yes.” In fact, at least from the Free Grace perspective, being a Christian (or believer) and being a follower (or disciple) are two different things altogether. Trusting in Jesus for salvation (which brings eternal life) and submitting to Jesus as Lord (which may or may not happen at some point after salvation) are carefully kept separate.
The lordship camp, on the other hand, teaches that true belief is more than just mental assent to gospel tenets, more than mere lipservice to the person and work of Christ. True belief always results in action. It is never static or inert, because true faith includes a change of heart. That change of heart is called repentance, and the fruit of that change is obedience. (People can profess Christ, but if their life is one of hostility towards Him, then their claims are empty. As the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words.)
To be clear, once again, the change of heart that Christians experience at the moment of salvation is not something they initiate or accomplish. As those who were dead in their sins, it is the power of God that makes them spiritually alive. He is the One who implants new desires within sinners. He is the One who gives them a new heart. He is the One who enables them to love Him. It is wholly, in every aspect, a work of God. Those who have been born again are new creatures in Christ; they are the products of grace, not the achievers of it in any way, shape, or form. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, not by human works or human merit of any kind or to any degree (Eph. 2:8, 9). And yet, we are saved unto good works, as Ephesians 2:10 makes so abundantly clear. And the ability to do these good works is the result of the washing and renewing work of the Spirit within us (Titus 3:5). That cleansing work (called regeneration) is also a work of transformation. If we have been truly transformed on the inside, it will affect our outside lives as well.
Thus, all who genuinely believe in Christ manifest obedience to Him in their lives. They will follow Him on the outside because He has changed them from the inside. On this point, Scripture is explicit.
One of the clearest passages on this subject (though many could be cited) is John 10:26–27. Here, Jesus plainly says to his unbelieving listeners: “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”
Though much could be said, I believe these verses make two points undeniably clear.
1. Those who do not believe are not Jesus’ sheep. Unbelievers are outside of Christ’s flock. On the flip side, those who do believe are part of the flock of God. The passage is unmistakable on this point. And, to my knowledge, the Free Grace camp agrees that this is the correct interpretation.
2. Jesus’ sheep hear Him and follow Him. While we could discuss the active element of hearing, I would like to concentrate simply on the idea of following.
The word used here for “follow” is akoloutheo. Whenever it is used in a religious context in the New Testament, it refers to discipleship. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says this about the term:
The distinctive statistical evidence shows that the special [meaning religious] use of akolouthein is strictly limited to discipleship of Christ; apart from a single reference in Revelation it is found exclusively in the four Gospels. … The disciple leaves everything to go after Jesus (Mk. 10:28; cf. 1:18; Lk. 5:11). This implies, however, that akolouthein signifies self-commitment in a sense which breaks all other ties (Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:61 f.). … The exclusiveness of the NT use arises from the fact that for primitive Christianity there is only one discipleship and therefore only one following, namely, the relationship to Jesus. The demand akolouthei moi in Mk. 2:14 and par. is a Messianic demand (–> sunakoloutheo). Because it signifies following the Messiah, this discipleship is essentially a religious gift. Akoulouthein means participation in the salvation offered in Jesus. (Gerhard Kittel, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 213–14; Greek terms transliterated).
So Jesus’ Himself uses a term for discipleship to refer to the characteristics of His sheep (true believers). Those who have true faith (and thus are part of His flock) will follow their shepherd in obedience.
If you do not follow Jesus, then you are not one of His sheep. And if you are not one of His sheep, then you demonstrate that you do not truly believe. And if you do not believe, then you are not saved.
That is the straightforward understanding of what Jesus is saying in these verses. It is also the essence of lordship salvation.
*****
For those who find this a difficult way to understand Christ’s statement, I offer the following. The testimony of many others could be added to this list. The point is that the overwhelming majority of evangelical commentators (both in the present and throughout church history) agree with the lordship interpretation of this text.
Gerald Borchert, John 1-11, NAC, p.339 — The reintroduction of the shepherd motif serves an important function here. Not only do the sheep hear and obey him (10:3, 27), but in their relationship with Jesus as the shepherd his sheep find their security (10:9,28) …. The biblical view of salvation is clarified by John in the first epistle when he tells us how we can determine if a person is a true Christian. John’s rationale is that a true believer remains faithful to commitments, whereas the opposite is true for pseudobelievers….
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT, p. 463 — Christ’s sheep hear his voice, an aspect of the sheep-shepherd relationship that has been stressed in this chapter (vv. 3, 4, 5, and 16). One might have expected “and they know me,” but the proposition is reversed. It is the knowledge Christ has for his sheep that is important, and accordingly it is this that receives the emphasis. The result of this knowledge is that they follow him, the present tense denoting a habitual following.
R.C.H. Lenski, The Gospel of St. John, p. 754 — Hearing the shepherd’s voice is an inward act, following the shepherd is both inward and outward. The time of the verb is plural, as in v. 14…. “They follow me.” I call, they come; I choose the path, they trust and come after; I lead, they are safe in my care; I command in love, they respond in obedience and love. If this at times means the cross, they do not waver. One cannot hear without following, nor follow except he hear. It is all so simple and natural–just as in the case of sheep and their shepherd.
George Turner and Julius Mantey, The Gospel of John, TEC, 221: Commenting on “hear” and “follow” in verse 27 they write, “Both verbs in Greek are in the present tense and therefore denote continued action…. In ancient times herds of sheep were usually small, and they followed the shepherd wherever he went. There is no difficulty in believing in the “eternal security”: of believers if they are consistent in obeying and following Christ.
Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, p. 361 (commenting on John 10:14): Here again we enounter an absolute “I am” saying, this one centered in the reciprocal knowledge of Jesus and his own. Although this knowledge is illustrated from the relationship of trust between the shepherd and his sheep (cf. also vvs. 3, 4, and 27), it is something deeper. The imagery has a background in the Old Testament usage, specifically in descriptions of the relationship of God and his people. God’s knowledge means that he adopts people into his fellowship, cares about their lot, chooses them as his own, enters into a personal relationship with them, and calls them to his service. The people’s knowledge of God means that they know him as their God and themselves as adopted and called by him and, accordingly, that they act in faith, in the consciousness of being called, in obedience.
William Hendrickson, John, p. 123: What is stated here, accordingly, amounts in brief to this: “My sheep—having become such because they were given to me by my Father (10:29)—put foth an effort to catch the sound of my voice. They do this constantly. They eagerly obey me, placing their full confidence in me. I know them, acknowledging them as my very own. The follow me, but turn away from strangers….”
Charles Spurgeon, “The Sheep and the Shepherd”: Christ has marked his sheep on their feet as well as their ears. They follow him: they are gently led, not harshly driven. They follow him as the Captain of their salvation; they trust in the power of his arm to clear the way for them. … They follow him as their teacher; they call no man “Rabbi” under heaven, but Christ alone. … And the sheep of Christ follow him as their example; they desire to be in this world as he was. It is one of their marks, that to a greater or less degree they have a Christ-like spirit; and if they could they would be altogether like their Lord. They follow him, too, as their Commander, and Lawgiver, and Prince.
F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 231: In the prologue to the Gospel, when the eternal Word came to his own home, his own people (or those who might have been expected to be his own people) gave him no welcome. Some, however, did welcome him, and thus proved to be his own people in deed and not merely in word. By virtue of their faith in him they became members of the family of God, children of the second birth (John 1:11-13). Here they are described as the good shepherd’s own sheep, who instinctively recognize his voice and follow him. Those who neither believe nor follow him show by that very fact that they do not belong to his own sheep.
John Henry Bernard, The Gospel According to St. John, ICC, p. 345 — The reason the Jews did not realise at once that He was the Messiah was that they were not His true “sheep.” Were they His sheep, they would recognise His voice as that of their Shepherd, and would follow Him unhesitatingly (v. 27)
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC, p. 383 (on John 10:4-5): Unlike Western shepherds who drive the sheep, often using a sheep dog, the shepherds of the Near East, both now and in Jesus’ day, lead their flocks their voice calling them on. That such a shepherd goes ahead of his sheep adn draws them constitues an admirable picture of the master/discple relationship. [Later on p. 393 regarding v. 27, Carson writes:] It is not just that his own sheep do hear his voice, that he knows them, and that they follow him (points made in vv. 1-18 and here repeated), but that those who are not his sheep do not hear his voice, that he does not know them, and that therefore they do not follow him.
John Wesley, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, &c. - Our Lord still alludes to the discourse he had before this festival. As if he had said, My sheep are they who, 1) Hear my voice by faith; 2) Are known (that is, approved) by me, as loving me; and 3) Follow me, keep my commandments, with a believing, loving heart. And to those who, Truly believe (observe three promises annexed to three conditions) I give eternal life. He does not say, I will, but I give. For he that believeth hath everlasting life….
Anticipating the Response:
If you are like me, you are probably wondering–How can Free Grace advocates deny what Jesus Himself says so clearly?
Bob Wilkin, in “Is Following Christ a Condition of Eternal Life?,” writes:
And Zane Hodges, in The Gospel Under Siege, adds: “That is to say, they [the sheep] commit their safety and well-being to the Shepherd who has summoned them to do so” (p. 44).
In both cases, Hodges and Wilkin stress their belief that “following” here is a picture of simple trust, not discipleship.
But there are some key problems with the Free Grace attempt to take the act of following out of the word “follow.”
1. First, there remains the fact that (as Kittel points out) akolouthein, when used in a religious context, is only used in the New Testament to speak of discipleship. The context here is clearly religious. The concepts of belief (vv. 25–26), eternal life (v. 28), and eternal security (vv. 28–29) pervade this passage. So why would this one use of “follow” be different, especially when it makes sense without being reinterpreted? In any case, the burden of proof is on the Free Grace position to demonstrate that this use of “follow” is different. (The theological backdrop of the OT, which repeatedly pictures the people of God as a flock, underscores the fact that Jesus’ words here cannot simply be explained away as “allegorical.”)
2. The fact that the verb “follow” is in the present tense, as several of the commentators above made mention, indicates that the characteristic of “following” is a continual (present-tense) action on the part of the sheep. Grammatically, then, Christ indicates that His sheep follow Him in a continual pattern.
3. Third, while “sheep” is a figure of speech (referring to true Christians), such does not demand that the word “follow” be redefined (to mean something other than “follow.”) After all, the word “believe” means “believe.” The word “hear” means “hear.” The word “know” means “know.” So why would the word “follow” mean anything other than “follow”? To explain it away is inconsistent.
What makes more sense, if the word picture is to be pressed, is to consider the reason why literal sheep follow a literal shepherd. They follow him because they trust him. It is an evidence of the fact that they hear his voice, know him, and love him. It proves that they are his sheep, and that he is their shepherd. It is a response to their trust, not simply a synonym for it.
In the same way, true believers evidence the fact that they really are members of Christ’s flock by following the Shepherd. This is what lordship salvation teaches. True faith will be evidenced by a life of obedience. If there is no following, it indicates that true faith is not present. Or as James said it, “Faith without works is dead.”
Amen!
Well said!
And I was wondering that.
Very well explained, Nate. A true “sheep” is one who “follows.” Could you expand a little on what a “life of obedience” means? Since we all stumble, it’s not perfectionism. I’ve always taken it as an inward attitude toward sin. If we are truly committed (which leads to action) to obedience, we will not be complacent about our sin. But at what level of obedience can we have assurance of our being part of the flock?
As I’m following this debate, it seems the FG side bases assurance on the most minimal of assent, made in a single second of time. This lasts, then, for all time, no matter the degree of obedience to follow. This seems entirely too weak.
For Lordship, a true, saving commitment results in a life marked by a certain level of obedience. But perfect obedience would be entirely too strong an expectation. I guess I’d like more insight on what “level” this ought to be for the true Christian, and how we can tell.
Many thanks for the deep discussion.
I once had a professor that said this about church discipline. I’m paraphrasing from memory but I think it fits the topic:
The way to tell between a sheep and a goat is that the sheep, when removed from the flock, bleets to be let back in, while the goat will wander off, as it never really was a part of the flock to begin with.
Should have added this to my last post:
The sheep desires fellowship with the shepherd and the other sheep. Anything that separates the sheep from these causes the sheep anguish.
The goat desires to be fed but does not care at all for the shepherd or the other sheep. A goat never follows, only goes where it wants.
Nathan’s passage trades on an unfortunate verse division between verse 27 and 28 which clouds the chronological feature of the Lord’s words. His whole thought actually fills 5 clauses, each clause joined by the word and:
My sheep hear My voice,
and I know them,
and they follow Me
and I give them eternal life,
and they shall never perish.
It could be written with periods as well:
My sheep hear My voice.
And I know them.
And they follow Me.
And I give them eternal life.
And they shall never perish.
Or with semicolons:
My sheep hear My voice; and I know them.
And they follow Me; And I give them eternal life.
And they shall never perish.
Other options of punctuation could be chosen, but leaving out the phrase about the giving of eternal life and never perishing dramatically collapses the chronological aspect of the five clauses.
Nathan’s arguments against this view are weak. But saying that “follow” always has the same meaning in the NT is an embarrassment. The NT writers, and the Lord Himself, were privy to normal language not a Bible code.
In fact, anyone reading through the Bible for the first time would easily be able to see that the majority of each generation rarely comprehends even the large strokes of God’s will for them. Therefore trusting in the majority of historical and contemporary scholarship may appear humble and wise but is really foolish and dangerous, especially regarding a passage that is as obvious as this one. Man’s opinion is “clearly” wrong in this case.
Jodie writes: “But saying that ‘follow’ always has the same meaning in the NT is an embarrassment. The NT writers, and the Lord Himself, were privy to normal language not a Bible code.” Jodie, to help us to determine the meaning of “normal language” in this case, perhaps you could list out the various places in the NT where you think the word “follow” carries the meaning “to believe.”
To fill in the blanks concerning this passage, the Lord is speaking not just in metaphorical language, but the type of metaphor that is difficult for his listeners to comprehend…
“ Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.”
“Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. And many of them said, “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?”
This means that he was speaking in challenging metaphor. (While the simple metaphor of “following” rabbis itself had more meaning than simply trotting behind the teacher, they were copying his lifestyle and his theology, this was not a common, much traveled metaphor. If he was simply picturing sheep following their shepherd as a picture of disciples following their messianic Rabbi, this wouldn’t have been seen as challenging teaching.
About the main theme of chapter 10, the catalyst of this teaching is the comical exchange between the man born blind, the Pharisees, and the Lord, found in chapter 9. At the end of this narrative, Jesus asks the man born blind if he believes, and he says he does. The Lord responds: “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” He intermingles the concept of sight with belief. The Lord’s reference to judgment is to the working out of election and sovereign drawing that is happening behind the scenes of the Lord’s ministry.
Next, he uses other metaphors to further describe the belief/salvation relationship. He compares Himself to a Shepherd that enters through a door (which is the Father’s will). “But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice”
Immediately after, He dramatically shifts the metaphor so that He, in fact, is the Door. “If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved” This shows He is still talking about belief / salvation relationship.
Next, He returns the metaphor to the Shepherd. “I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” These are people that the Lord sovereignly knows will believe and be added to the church, His body, or “flock”.
Next, and this is the immediate context of Nathan’s passage, Jesus walks into Solomon’s porch and the very Pharisees that he had been in dialogue with challenge him, “If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” The Lord’s response is: “I told you, and you do not believe.”
Jesus continues his admonition by bringing back the Shepherd/sheep metaphor: “The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” The Father’s soverignty is what is both a threat to those who don’t believe and an eternal security comfort to those who do.
Again:
My sheep hear My voice; and I know them.
And they follow Me; And I give them eternal life.
And they shall never perish.
The verb “follow” is being treated here as a step of faith, otherwise it ruins your own theology, because eternal life would be given on the basis of following. To treat this passage as a great proof of your assumed premise shows its wobbliness.
Note: At some point you should stop saying that Free Grace believes there can be a decision to believe. This idea has been denied at every turn and you still are saying we believe that. You say “from the Free Grace perspective… (t)he decision to believe (which brings eternal life) and the decision to follow Christ (which may or may not happen at some point after salvation) are carefully kept separate.” It is irrational to consider belief a choice or decision. The decision to follow, on the other hand, is of course just that.
Blessings.
Jodie
Yes, Matt, I assume this is the only place the word is used, not as the common metaphor for immitating one’s Rabbi, but as a metaphor for belief. The idea that this somehow indicates an unlikely scenario marks the simplicity of your intellectual environment. Language is subtle. Uncommon meanings are used all the time in everyday speech without anyone even noticing. Metaphorical language is particularly fluid. This is another example where context leans heavily toward the Hodges model. And yet because you and your readers are used to the less contextually supported explanation, you find the more contextual to be “reaching” !
Jodie,
To look at any sentence that contains a list where the objects or actions in that list are linked by the word “and”, and conclude that this is a list of chronological events is insane. Anyone who took English 101 would know better. The way this sentence is constructed allows for even the reordering of the list!! For example:
My sheep hear My voice,
and I give them eternal life,
and they follow Me
and I know them,
and they shall never perish.
It makes absolutely no logical difference what order those objects/actions are arranged, because Jesus is simply giving attributes to His sheep. Jesus’ sheep are characterized by the following attributes: they hear His voice, they are known by Him, they follow Him, they are granted eternal life by Him, and they shall never perish.
BUT, since you insist on twisting the english language, by your own logic, you just put the word “following” before “and I give them eternal life”. Now THAT is works-salvation!
The truth that is so clear in this passage is that when we are turned into a sheep in Jesus’ flock through faith, we have ALL of those attributes, which, to the demise of FG theology, includes following Jesus.
Call me a simpleton if you like, Jodie, but yes, I do think it is highly unlikely that the word “follow” in John 10:27 means “believe” if you can’t produce a single example of the word being used in this way. The standard way to ascertain the meaning of a given word in a given context is to (a) determine the range of meanings of the word itself, and (b) determine which nuance of meaning best fits the context. If the meaning “believe” is not in the range of meanings of “follow” to begin with, then no amount of fiddling with the context can change that. (Keep in mind that we’re talking about a word that is used more than 90x in the NT.) There is a signficant difference between an uncommon use of a word and an unprecedented one. But perhaps that’s just the simplicity of my intellectual environment talking.
Matt and Nathan,
Good job answering this! You both have done your homework.
Hayden
Hayden,
Just for the sake of clarification, there are two Matts commenting here: “Matt Waymeyer” (me) and “Matt.” And no, I’m not using two different titles to try to scare Jodie into thinking there are more of us out here!
Jodie,
It is somewhat difficult for me to know exactly how to respond to your comments. This is not because I find them overwhelmingly compelling, but because I am not sure exactly what your argument is.
You’ve implied that my presentation of the evidence is simplistic, foolish, and utterly incorrect.
You have stated that that the straightforward understanding of the word “follow” (as it is used everywhere else in the gospels) is not how it should be understood here.
You note that I did not emphasize verse 28, in which Jesus says, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand.” What a wonderful verse! I’m sorry I did not emphasize it more in my post.
It seems to me (and I am not alone in this understanding) that verse 27 gives us two marks of true sheep–they hear the Savior (present tense, continued action) and they follow the Shepherd (present tense, continued action). Those who are so marked can be confident that the Shepherd knows them (v. 27), and that they have been given eternal life (v. 28), and thus will never perish (v. 28). There is no conflict here for the lordship understanding of this text.
Lexically and grammatically then, the lordship interpretation has the definite edge. The word “follow” always refers to discipleship, and the present tense of the verb indicates a continual characteristic.
You keep arguing context, and yet the context actually undermines the Free Grace understanding of the passage. Verse 3 pictures the Shepherd leading His sheep. Verse 4 echoes the idea of following the Shepherd, and verse 5 makes it clear that true sheep will not follow a false shepherd. (Living a life of sin is an indication that someone other than the true shepherd is being followed.)
None other than Augustine, saw the going “in and out” through Christ (in v. 9) as a picture of an obedient life… the result of being part of Christ’s flock.
Verse 14 says that the sheep know the Shepherd. Though I know you interpret this differently, the apostle John picks up on this theme of knowing in 1 John. There he says that an obedient life is indicative of a true knowledge of Christ. Finally, the active element of hearing (which is found in verse 27) is also picked up in vv. 3, 16, and 27.
So then, the lordship view has the lexical, grammatical, and contextual advantage in this passage. Moreover, the theological import of the word picture (which was one commonly used in the OT) also argues in favor of the lordship position. There is no reason to read the text differently unless you are forcing the text to fit your presuppositions.
Perhaps this is why so many commentators see this as the straightforward understanding of the text. And it is not just modern commentators as you imply. Below are the words of both Augustine and Chrysostom on John 10.
Augustine on John 10: The voice [of Christ], when it was heard, changed them, and out of wolves transformed them into sheep; and so, when they became sheep, they heard, and found the Shepherd, and followed Him. They built their hopes on the Shepherd’s promises, because they obeyed His precepts. … Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith, to enter by Christ is to give ourselves to thought in accordance with that faith; but to go out by Christ is, in accordance also with that same faith, to take to outside works, that is to say, in the presence of others. Hence, also, we read in a psalm, “Man goeth forth to his work;” and the Lord Himself saith, “Let your works shine before men.”
Chrysostom on John 10: The first difference [between the true Shepherd and false shepherds is that] is His teaching from the Scriptures; for He by means of these led men to Him, but the others did not from these draw men after them. The second is, the obedience of the sheep; for on Him they all believed, not only while He lived, but when He had died; … Here He declareth Himself to be Master even as the Father, if so be that He is the Shepherd, and the sheep are His. … Wherefore, I beseech you, let us remain pasturing beneath this Shepherd; and we shall remain, if we obey Him, if we hear His voice, if we follow not a stranger. … Observe how in renouncing He exciteth them to follow Him. “Ye hear Me not,” He saith, “for neither are ye sheep, but they who follow, these are of the flock.” This He said, that they might strive to become sheep.
Matt Waymeyer,
You are ignoring that the word was being used as a metaphor (v6 “Figure of speach” ESV or “illustration” NKJV).
If I look at the word eat in the dictionary, it won’t say “beleive” but that is what I think Jesus meant by “eat of my flesh”. Even if you interpret that differently, talking about range of meaning when the word is being used to illustrate another concept (that is metaphorically) is missing the boat.
Blessings
Where are Lou M. and Antonio on this question? I haven’t seen them in this thread? (there is no sarcasm implied)
Matt Waymeyer,
Thanks for the clarification. As I look at the thread I realize there are two different Matt’s now. I was interpreting all the comments as yours.
By the way, great comment on word usage. You stole some of my thunder, though stated it much better than I could have (you simpleton
), so all I can say is “atta boy!” (If you are a simpleton when it comes to Greek and English, boy, I am really in trouble)
Hayden
Jodie,
The range of meanings of a given word will also include the metaphorical uses of a word. In fact, the word translated “follow” literally means to physically move behind someone in the same direction as that person. Its use in reference to discipleship is actually a figurative meaning that plays off of the literal meaning, and you will find this figurative use listed as a possible nuance of meaning in any good Greek lexicon. Are you aware of any Greek lexicons which list “believe” as a possible nuance of meaning for the Greek word translated “follow”?
Sorry for the “Matt” confusion, I’ll try to make it more obvious, thanks for pointing that out.
One thing I have noticed over the past few months is that ’spinning’ Scripture the way the Free Grace advocates do and in fact must do requires a lot of words.
Matt W,
It seems like you’re not even reading my remarks. I’ve said in two different comments that the “following” of a rabbi meant more than trotting along behind them, it meant the immiation of the life and ideas and that it was a commonly used metaphor.
The challenging metaphor/illustration that is referred to in v 6 couldn’t have been the comparison of a Shepherd to a traveling Rabbi. There’s nothing challenging about that.
About metaphors being in the Greek lexicon, Matt, are you saying all possible metaphorical uses of each word are listed, or the commonly used ones? At least in English, the use of metaphor is wide open.
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar,
Across the moon like a prison bar.
-longfellow
Was first century Greek different? Did first c. “Greeks” know that they could only use certain words metaphorically to allude to certain concepts? Or is your use of the lexicon listing assuming that today’s theology is just a mopping up excercise?
Matt, you are very educated within the “box” you are confident is the Truth. You’re specialized, like many professionals today. But I’m perplexed that an educated person would think that all possible metaphors would be found listed in a lexicon.
Jodie,
It is often said by FG proponents that the teaching of Scripture always overrules any historical or modern viewpoints on the issue. I agree with this principle. Scripture rightly interpreted must decide the issue. That said, I also respect the fact that Christ has graciously given His church teachers and theologians who have walked this path before, and I find it wise to consult them on their interpretation of Scripture.
Jodie you made this comment:
“Therefore trusting in the majority of historical and contemporary scholarship may appear humble and wise but is really foolish and dangerous, especially regarding a passage that is as obvious as this one. Man’s opinion is “clearly” wrong in this case.”
I’ve been pastoring and preaching for more than 25 years. In my study of Scripture, especially in matters of soteriology, I have discovered that in the vast majority of cases, when my interpretation of Scripture disagreed with the Reformers and the Puritans on their understanding of some aspect of soteriology, I was proven to be wrong after further study and prayer, not them. The depth of their understanding of theology has humbled me, and still continues to do so.
Therefore, I do not consider it foolish and dangerous to seriously consider their views on the issues relating to this discussion. Couple that with the clear teaching of John 10:26-27 as Nathan has outlined it, and I feel I’m standing on ground made of granite!
Jodie, does it not greatly concern you that the overwhelming majority of the most learned theologians and Bible expositors of the past and present do not support the FG interpretation regarding the key issues of the lordship debate? If I found myself on the other side of the fence from these men on an issue of soteriology, it would surely give me pause and drive me to reevaluate my interpretation of Scripture! At the very least, it would prevent me from writing them off as you seem to do with such finality.
Nathan’s understanding of this passage is the correct one, and the clear one as far as I can see. After checking with the finest commentators both past and present, I find them in agreement. The “wise” and “safe” conslusion is that his interpretation is the correct one.
Respecfully,
Steve Lamm
Jazzy,
I don’t like making such lengthy comments, but since ours are two very different paradigms, I find it is often necessary to attempt to provide context or clarity.
Hayden,
Antonio is out of the country.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your cautioning of my certainty and remarks about the value of the commentary traditon. You’re right on both counts and admit I don’t always rise to my best in the heatedness of blogging. The commentaries are valuable, and represent God’s teaching gifts, just not authoritative.
In general, I would jump ship and embrace the Puritan tradition if I were convinced the Scriptures taught it. But I find that in places like James, 1 John, and 2 Peter there seems to be an assumption that the Scriptures don’t quite say what it meant to say. I won’t back that up for now.
Mr Lamm, or Pastor Lamm, what would you say is the difficult figurative language or illustartive language referred to in v6 that the legalistic listeners of that culture would have been ill prepared to understand? -Jodie
Nathan:
I am 100% against the Easy-Believism, “Mental Assent” and “lip service” that is found in some circles.
I am 100% with any man who believes a genuinely born again man should evidence the results of the new nature. There will, of course, be varying degrees of growth, and some Christians will back slide. We have ample examples of these in our churches. Lord willing the back slider, who has grieved the Holy Spirit, will come under conviction, repent, have his fellowship restored with Christ and set out to live for Him again. I have little patience for the man who professes to be a Christian, but continually lives the Devil.
With that said: I would contextualize believer and disciple this way- once man becomes a believer he can then set out to grow as a disciple of Christ. Man does not follow to get saved; he follows once he is saved. One way in which I illustrate this is from the conversion/healing of Bartimeus.
Luke 18:38-39 And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Notice the chronological sequence: the blind man calls on his Messiah, and then he is brought near.
Luke 18:40-42 And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
The Lord says, “Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.” It was his faith in Jesus Christ that saved him. He was “saved” spiritually because of his belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah. He had placed his faith in Christ and expressed it in his heartfelt cry for mercy from the Lord. That was saving faith! His faith was rewarded, and from that point he followed Christ as a seeing man, giving God glory for the miracle.
The order of events here upsets the Lordship gospel demands for upfront commitment, surrender, and promised obedience in order to be saved.
This blind man acknowledged Christ as Messiah and his faith, according to Jesus, saved him. Only after he was saved by faith alone in his Messiah did he follow Christ as a committed disciple.
Luke 18:43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.
His sight is restored because of his faith, not in “exchange” for promises of obedience and submission. Bartimeus is following because he has been saved; he is not following to get saved! His faith in the Savior resulted in his becoming a follower, a disciple.
My greatest concern with Lordship Salvation is: Presenting verses meant for the disciple of Christ (Luke 9:23-24; 14:26-27, 33) as though they are gospel appeals to a lost man.
Discipleship and salvation are separate and distinct doctrines in regard to how a man receives eternal life.
LM
Jodie,
Thank you for your response. That’s not quite what I intended to communicate, but I don’t suspect that further clarification will be any more convincing to you. Blessings.
Thank you Nathan for the article today. It was well researched and articulated, a real blessing.
Lou,
Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that you see repentance as a human work, whereas the lordship camp views repentance as a gift from God that He grants to the sinner (2 Tim. 2:25). It is the change of heart that God enacts at the moment of salvation; the transforming renewal of regeneration (Titus 3:5).
God commands sinners to repent (Acts 17:30). But they cannot do that on their own because they are dead in their sin (Eph. 2:1-3). They must be made alive by the Spirit of God. And the new life that He gives them is one that frees them from sin and makes them slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:22; 8:2).
If a man’s life is not characterized by righteousness, it demonstrates that his profession of faith is false. Works do not save people. But saved people will bear fruit in keeping with the Spirit (James 2:26).
As Paul said, “If you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Rom. 8:13-14)
You note that a genuinely born again man should evidence the results of the new nature.
But Scripture goes beyond this, and says that a genuinely born again man will evidence the results of the new nature, as a characteristic of his life. This does not mean that Christians never sin. But it does mean that the general pattern of a true believer’s life is one of obedience born from a heart that loves Christ and thus submits to Him (John 14:15).
As the apostle John wrote in 1 John 2:3-4, “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
Those who persist in “backsliding” call into serious question whether or not they were ever truly born again.
Thanks for your comment,
NB
Jodie,
Per your earlier comment about our use of the word “decision,” I changed that sentence in my article to read as follows: “[In the Free Grace paradigm] Trusting in Jesus for salvation (which brings eternal life) and submitting to Jesus as Lord (which may or may not happen at some point after salvation) are carefully kept separate.”
I hope this more accurately reflects the Free Grace position. I apologize if I misrepresented your views by using the word “decision.” I did not want my unintentional misrepresentation to distract from the point of my article.
Thanks,
Nate B.
Nathan:
Bottomline, you are saying regeneration must precede faith and repentance. Is that correct?
I trust you noted I distinguished between back sliding and the man who continually lives like the Devil?
LM
Lou,
Are you asking if I see regeneration logically preceding faith and repentance, as in the ordo salutis?
Or are you asking if I see regeneration chronologically preceding faith and repentance, as though there is a gap of time between them?
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
The main thrust of my post was the following,
“His (Bartimeus) sight is restored because of his faith, not in ‘exchange’ for promises of obedience and submission. Bartimeus is following because he has been saved; he is not following to get saved! His faith in the Savior resulted in his becoming a follower, a disciple.”
“My greatest concern with Lordship Salvation is: Presenting verses meant for the disciple of Christ (Luke 9:23-24; 14:26-27, 33) as though they are gospel appeals to a lost man”
In the Lordship debate I am more interested in the reception of salvation. In my book this statement appears, “Luke 14:26-27, 33 are directed to those who are already saved to instruct them in how to follow Christ as a disciple. In the passage the Lord requires of the disciple that: his love for Jesus ought to make any other kind of love seem like hate; he must bear the cross and come after Christ; and he must forsake all. This passage does not deal with salvation; this is discipleship; and there is a distinct biblical difference between them.”
I contend Lordship Salvation as Dr. MacArthur presents it, places demands on the sinner that the Scriptures do not.
Dr. MacArthur: It is wrong to present verses intended for discipleship as salvation verses. Obtaining promises of cross bearing and following from lost men does not save anybody; they are acts of a disciple. We come to Christ for salvation; we come after Christ in discipleship.
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “Or are you asking if I see regeneration chronologically preceding faith and repentance, as though there is a gap of time between them?”
I am asking if you believe man cannot respond to the gospel in faith and repentance unless he is first regenerated.
LM
Nathan,
I really appreciate your making the change. It’s a huge difference in my mind. Thanks.
Lou,
I see regeneration, saving faith, and the transforming work of the Spirit in changing the heart (repentance) as simultaneous in salvation.
And so does John MacArthur.
And so does historic reformed soteriology.
You seem to think that lordship teaches a gap of time between regeneration and faith or between regeneration and repentance. But that is not what we believe. Nor is it what Scripture teaches.
If that is the premise of your beef with lordship salvation, then you have simply misunderstood the lordship position.
Thanks,
NB
Matt W,
Maybe you could expand on that. I have clarrified my position. Could you respond to my questions.
Nate,
You say,
Lexically and grammatically then, the lordship interpretation has the definite edge. The word “follow” always refers to discipleship, and the present tense of the verb indicates a continual characteristic.
You keep arguing context, and yet the context actually undermines the Free Grace understanding of the passage
I hope I am up to your challenge. Maybe the first step if for you to respind to the issue I brought up with Matt Waymeyer, and explain more about the challenging metaphor/illustration that is referred to in v 6. It couldn’t have been the comparison of a Shepherd to a traveling Rabbi. There’s nothing challenging about that. And this isn’t just a “hard” saying.
Blessings.
Jodie
Nathan:
The main issue (”beef”) for me with Lordship Salvation is the use of verses meant for discipleship as though they are gospel messages directed to the lost. I will post my concern again in a follwing post for you and Dr. MacArthur to address specifically.
Regeneration before faith, which is a form of extreme Calvinism, is a side bar issue for me in the Lordship debate. However, here is a statement written by John Piper. Would you be agreeable with his statement?
“The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore conversion involves a miracle of new birth. Thus new birth precedes and enables faith and repentance…. And so when we hear the gospel we will never respond positively unless God performs the miracle of regeneration. Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does his work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration…. New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion.” (Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, pp. 65-66
Would you and Dr. MacArthur be in agreement with what Piper says here?
LM
Lou,
I do not know if Dr. Piper allows for a temporal gap between regeneration and faith.
I do know that the standard reformed position is to see regeneration as standing in causal priority to faith (logically within the ordo salutis), but as chronologically simultaneous to faith (in that it all takes place at the same moment in time).
In The Gospel According to the Apostles, John MacArthur states plainly that he believes regeneration, conversion, repentance, faith, justification, and the beginning of the sanctification process all occur simultaneously at the moment of salvation. He writes, “Obviously, the part of the sequence from regeneration through sanctification is logical, not chronological. These events all happen in the same moment” (”Ordo Salutis,” Glossary of Terms).
If you (or any of our other readers) would like to know more about the reformed understanding of the ordo salutis, I would recommend this site.
Thanks,
NB
Still seeking an answer on how we assess the “level of obedience” for the Lordship side (which I’m on). Not getting clarity here is causing some questioning on my part. I’m thinking perhaps that a “life of obedience” is a bit too obscure. If someone wants to know if they possess saving faith, what do we say?
Jodie,
Based on the OT imagery of the people of Israel as God’s flock, the Jewish leaders thought they were the true shepherds of Israel. So, when Jesus started talking about thieves and robbers (in v.1), the true sheep (of vv. 2-4), and the strangers (of v. 5), they couldn’t understand who he was talking about. They thought they were all the true sheep. They thought they were all true shepherds.
So Jesus proceeded, in verse 7 and following, to clarify his illustration so that they would not be confused.
As Augustine says about verse 6: “Thus far, however, the Lord Jesus speaks in covert language; not as yet is He understood. He names the door, He names the sheepfold, He names the sheep: all this He sets forth, but does not yet explain. Let us read on then, for He is coming to those words, wherein He may think proper to give us some explanation of what He has said; from the explanation of which He will perhaps enable us to understand also what He has not explained.”
Verse 6 then, refers back to verses 1-5. Verses 7-18 provide us with a further explanation on Jesus’ part, in response to the fact that his listeners didn’t understand. Verses 25-30, which are actually a separate (though related) discourse, build on Christ’s explanations in verses 7-18.
Perhaps in concluding this comment, it would be helpful to summarize some of the “challenging” parts of Jesus’ words.
1. The Jewish leaders thought they were the true shepherds, but Jesus tells them they are false shepherds.
2. The Jews all thought they were God’s sheep, but Jesus tells them that only those who truly believe in Him are God’s sheep.
[That’s in the first 5 verses. But even in Jesus’ elaboration, He includes a couple more “challenging” ideas.]
3. Jesus tells the Jews that, as the Good Shepherd, He will give His life for the sheep. And that in giving His life, He will take it back up.
4. Then, in vv. 28-29, Jesus makes Himself equal to God the Father.
All of those things would have been radically new ideas to His Jewish audience. The idea of following Him was not what was radical. The idea that He was God, that He would die for His own, that many of the Jews were not part of God’s flock, and that the Jewish leaders were false shepherds… that was what was so radical.
Anyway, hope that helps explain.
Thanks,
NB
JSB,
Thanks for your patience with us in answering your question.
Tomorrow, John MacArthur will be posting the first-part of some “Common Questions and Answers” related to the lordship issue.
I think much of what he says will help answer the question you are asking. If not, please reintroduce your question into tomorrow’s thread so that we can explore it more thoroughly.
Thanks,
NB
Jodie,
You can call me Steve or Steve L. to distinguish me from others of like name. You certainly don’t have to call me Pastor, but I appreaciate your respectful tone.
It is difficult to speak to such important issues in a blog setting. Too many things to say and too little space. Also, we cannot see each other or hear a voice, and so misunderstanding is all-too easy.
You asked me a question: “what would you say is the difficult figurative language or illustartive language referred to in v6 that the legalistic listeners of that culture would have been ill prepared to understand? -Jodie”
I don’t wish to drag the topic to far from what Nathan wrote about today, and I’m not certain I understand the focus of your question. But I understand Jesus to mean that He is the true shepherd in contrast to his antagonists who are not. I suspect that He has in mind a comparison of the Pharisees and their allies to the false shepherds of Ezekiel 34. I’m sure that was far from their minds as a description of themselves! Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He enters through the proper entrance because His intentions are good - He wishes to minister to the sheep and lead them to eternal life. The false shepherds do not enter the proper way because their intentions are evil.
I also believe Jesus is refering in vs3-4 to those in Israel who would follow Him in salvation. They are sheep which already belong to Him because His Father has given them to Him. I see the doctrine of election throughout this passage.
There is much more, but I agree with you that His words are cryptic especially to the false shepherds because they refuse to look at themselves as God does. This was true of many of Jesus’ parables which He explained only to His disciples. Of course, we have the rest of John’s Gospel the NT to help us in our interpretation.
Returning to Nathan’s point from his article. As I see it, he is addressing the nature of the new birth and its effect on the believer. If a person truly believes with a saving type of faith (however one defines it) such faith inevitably leads to a changed life that is manifest in some way, however imperfectly, because of the nature of the new birth (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the truth that the great men of the past and present helped me to see from Scripture. As a Pastor who preaches to some who do not manifest any visible fruit, you can see my concern not only for their “reward” but their very souls! I suspect (as Phil Johnson explains on his blog today) so many make claims to have “accepted Jesus” yet they still resemble those who deny Him! This greatly disturbs me for the sake of God’s glory but also for their souls!
So, my present personal study has been in the area of progressive sanctification and the perseverance of the saints. I am gratified to see Dr. MacArthur and Nathan addressing this issue. Both seem to be points of disagreement between the two sides in the Lordship debate. My own understanding is that the nature of God’s saving work guarantees that a genuine believer will show some progress in godliness. If a believer is disobedient to God’s sanctifying work, God disciplines him to set him back on the path (Hebrews 12).
I also do not believe the Scriptures support the idea that a redeemed person can permanently apostasize in this life. I was frankly surprized years ago to learn that some modern theologians who do not embrace Arminianism believe this is possible. Thus my introduction to the “lordship” controversy!
God bless,
Steve Lamm
Nate:
We are addressing whether or not regeneration must precede faith.
Piper wrote, “New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion.” According to Piper, 1. Regenerated, new birth. 2. Repentance and faith follows.
You would have to agree that Piper is designating a chronological order. Do you support that?
Dr. MacArthur 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.)
That statement can also, but not as definitively as Piper’s, be interpreted as demanding regeneration (transformation) before saving faith.
LM
Are you guys still talking about this? New topic! It’s been almost two weeks and other kids want to play!
Nathan:
Below is my, as you put it, “beef” with Lordship theology, but first a comment.
Dr. MacArthur wrote, “Ultimately, the best forum in which to air this kind of doctrinal dispute is through careful, biblically reasoned dialogue, preferably in written form.” (The Gospel According to the Apostles, p. 14.) I agree with that statement and produced In Defense of the Gospel to air the dispute I have primarily with Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship theology. This week I decided to engage Dr. MacArthur in this written forum.
I have already addressed several concerns to Dr. MacArthur specifically on this site. He is the author of the posts, which I have responded to with specific comments and questions for Dr. MacArthur. Thus far he has not responded, but I trust he intends to. This thread, however, does follow the article you wrote.
Earlier I made the point that man does not follow to get saved, but will follow once he is saved. When I first read the title of Dr. MacArthur’s book in 1988 I had immediate concerns. What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, Follow me: The Gospel According to Jesus. Even before one reads the book you can see he is conditioning salvation on following. Dr. MacArthur is not talking about the results of salvation. Specifically he demands an upfront commitment to follow Jesus, even to the point of being willing to die for Him in “exchange” for salvation.
This kind of message is the result of one of the most significant errors with Lordship Salvation, which is: Confusing of passages meant for the born again disciple of Christ (such as Luke 9:23-24, 14:25-33; Matthew 5-7) and presenting them as though they are gospel messages directed to the lost. I believe it is from this error, which the whole of Lordship Salvation flows.
This error leads to a faulty definition of faith, redefines the role of biblical repentance in salvation, both of which result in a gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Following are four examples of how John MacArthur’s discipleship gospel redefines the faith that saves:
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . 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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 27, 142.)
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)
“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation….” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221).
“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of salvation on what should be the natural results of salvation.
Discipleship comes at a cost, salvation does not! Lordship Salvation requires much more than a faith that acknowledges one’s sin, a pending judgment for sin, and one’s need of the Savior. The Lordship position does not depend solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur above, is a barter system, an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ to receive His free gift of salvation. To imply that receiving the free gift of God requires that man “pay the ultimate price” is a gospel of faith plus works.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Nathan,
I appreciate your clear reply, especially the point that v 6 would refer back to 1-5. Good observation. I’ll ponder your point.
It’s hard to see how Christ’s adversaries at this stage would have been surprised that he was calling them false Shephaerds, however, maybe earlier in John but by chapter 10 it seems to me that couldn’t have been the hard to understand element.
I still find your reading on 26-28 to be less convincing than Hodges.
Blessings.
Lou,
Your wrote:
We are addressing whether or not regeneration must precede faith.
Piper wrote, “New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion.” According to Piper, 1. Regenerated, new birth. 2. Repentance and faith follows.
You would have to agree that Piper is designating a chronological order. Do you support that?
***
My response:
Again, I do not know whether or not Dr. Piper would allow for a time gap between regeneration and faith. The quote you give does not necessarily indicate a time gap (or a chronological sequence). It is possible to talk of things being first or second in terms of logical order, while at the same time believing that those things all occur simultaneously in time.
This, in fact, is the standard reformed view of the ordo salutis… logical sequence but chronological concurrence.
***
You also wrote:
Dr. MacArthur 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.)
That statement can also, but not as definitively as Piper’s, be interpreted as demanding regeneration (transformation) before saving faith.
***
My response:
Dr. MacArthur is saying that, in terms of the logical order of the ordo salutis, regeneration has causal priority over faith. This is to emphasize that salvation is initiated by God, not by man.
But he is definitely not saying that a temporal or chronological gap exists between the two. As I stated earlier, and as Dr. MacArthur himself has clearly written, he sees regeneration, faith, and conversion all occuring simultaneously at the moment of salvation. In so doing, he is in keeping with the historic reformed understanding of salvation.
***
In a later comment, you wrote:
I have already addressed several concerns to Dr. MacArthur specifically on this site. He is the author of the posts, which I have responded to with specific comments and questions for Dr. MacArthur. Thus far he has not responded, but I trust he intends to. This thread, however, does follow the article you wrote.
***
My response:
Because Dr. MacArthur does not use a computer, we actually post his articles for him on the site. All of this is explained on the “About Us” page, under “Frequently Asked Questions.”
I mention this only because I would not want anyone to misinterpret Dr. MacArthur’s non-response (to comments) as either indifference or uncertainty. As the active editors on the site, Phil Johnson and I generally respond on behalf of Dr. MacArthur.
In the rest of that comment, you mentioned several issues that you have with Dr. MacArthur’s position on lordship.
Unfortunately, I will need to wait until tomorrow to give an appropriate response.
Out of curiosity, since I have not yet had opportunity to read your book, where would you see your views most closely lining up… Hodges, Ryrie, Geisler, or ???? I ask only because it would be helpful to know more of what camp you are coming from when you make the arguments you make.
Thanks,
NB
Steve,
Thanks for your thorough reply. I appreciate hearing your view of the passage. I agree with much of what you are saying. I’m not sure I expect to see so much innocense on the part of Christs adversaries by chapter 10.
About 1 Cor 5:17 I hope you some day look into the Hodges/GES view on the miracle of new birth. Hodges’ book on “Six Secrets of the Christian Life” is, in my opinion, very much common ground regarding this debate and is a very beautifully observed small book on living and growing in Christ. He doesn’t give short shrift to what you would call the new creation, and expects new Christians to exibit change. In fact, he has said if they don’t he suspects they may not have been converted and need more evengelism. So his criticisms have been misunderstood.
One thing I think this series, plus the one at Pyro, has taught me is that there has been a small case free grace that has nothing to do with the Free Grace promoted by Bob Wilkin and Hodges. The latter is appropriately self-examiniation oriented, the former perhaps led to the Piper/MacArthur movement.
About “a redeemed person who can permanently apostasize in this life”, I think there are many references to that in the Bible, but I’ll leave off for now.
God bless.
Armchair,
Have patience, my brother! We will switch topics soon enough.
NB
Found a relevant clip from R. A. Torrey:
“We are justified simply upon faith, but it must be a real faith. We are justified by faith without works, but we are not justified by a faith that is without works. The faith which God sees and upon which He justifies, leads inevitably to works which man can see. God saw the faith of Abraham and counted it to him for righteousness, but the faith God saw was real and led Abraham to works that all could see and which proved his faith. The proof to us of the faith is the works, and we know that he that does not work has not justifying faith.
We must not lose sight of the truth which Paul emphasizes against legalism on the one side—that we are justified on the simple condition of a real faith in Christ. We must not lose sight of the truth which James emphasizes against antinomianism on the other side—that it is only the faith that proves its genuineness by works, that justifies. To the legalist, who is seeking to do something to merit justification, we must say “stop working and believe on Him that justifieth the ungodly.” (Rom. 4:5.) To the antinomian, who is boasting that he has faith and is justified by it, but who does not show his faith by his works, we must say “what doth it profit, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save him. (Jas. 2:14, R. V.) We are justified by faith alone, but we are justified by that faith alone that works.”
[Torrey, R. A. 1898. What the Bible Teaches, Fleming H. Revell company: New York, Chicago]
Matt-no-W,
Bob Wilkin has said conserning the clause order isse of Chapter 10:
“Both English and Greek definitely do often use word order at times for emphasis. First words and last words are often emphatic. If [not] then any comments on the ordering of words or phrases would be false.
As a case in point, in John 10:28 the Greek word order is as follows: “And I eternal life I give to them…” Clearly eternal life (zwen aiwnion) is put first in the sentence for emphasis. The English translation could and should reflect this (“And eternal life I give to them…”).
The same is true with phrases and clauses. While sometimes the order is not significant, often it is and the context must be consulted to decide.
In this passage if “they follow Me” is a synonym for believing in Jesus, as I suggest, then it clearly is intended to preceed “And I give eternal life to them.” If, as I think MacArthur suggests, this refers to the perseverance that all “true believers” will manifest, then it would seem that they follow Me is put out of logical order for emphasis. Frankly that would seem a very odd use of emphasis. The argument that following the Good Shepherd precedes the giving of life to convey cause and effect is more impressive to me.
Matt, I don’t think treating this passage as a silver bullet seems warranted.
Jodie
Nathan:
You asked, “Out of curiosity, since I have not yet had opportunity to read your book, where would you see your views most closely lining up… Hodges, Ryrie, Geisler, or ???? I ask only because it would be helpful to know more of what camp you are coming from when you make the arguments you make.”
My desire is to simply stand where the Bible stands, whether or not that identifies me with a particular system of theology or “camp.”
If you read my Introduction post on my blog site, you will have a better idea of where I am coming from.
LM
Let’s see, we have a topic that’s been running for about a week and a half, and a comment thread which now has over 50 post’s - chances are good that whatever I have to say will just be beating a dead horse.
Will someone please hand me a baseball bat?
There are several observations that can be made from John 10:26-28 (I’ll throw in 28 just for good measure). For example, all the sheep which belong to the Shepherd believe in the Shepherd. There are no sheep that belong to the Shepherd who do not believe in the Shepherd. We can also see that all the sheep which belong to the Shepherd follow the Shepherd. There are no sheep that belong to the Shepherd who do not follow the Shepherd. Additionally all the sheep which belong to the Shepherd are give the gift of eternal life (a gift which cannot be returned, revoked, or removed). There are no sheep that belong to the Shepherd who are not eternally secure.
From these initial observations we can then argue that there are no sheep who believe in the Shepherd who do not also follow the Shepherd. We can also argue that there are no sheep who either do not believe in or do not follow the Shepherd who have been given eternal life (this does not imply that their acts of believing and following are the source of their eternal life).
For the sake the topic of the article being commented on the only real question that needs to be answered is, “what does ‘follow’ mean?” The two options that are on the table are ‘to have faith in the Shepherd,’ or ‘to be a disciple of the Shepherd.’ Nate in the main article gives more that sufficient support for follow, being used in a context such as John 10:26-28, meaning ‘to be a disciple.” So, I guess the next question that would have to be answered is, “is it possible that Christ, through the normal use of language, chose to make follow mean ‘to have faith in,’ instead of ‘to be a disciple of?’”
It appears that we would all have to allow for the possibility. However, possibility is no the same as probability. In my humble opinion it is highly unlikely that John would quote Christ where He chose to define a word in a discourse as important as the one in John 10 in a way that is different from how He defined it almost every other time He used that word (especially in the Gospel of John)? I don’t believe that follow can be define any differently here that it can every other time it is used in a religious context for the simple fact that when John wrote his gospel he strove for clarity not confusion because he was writing so that people might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 20:31).
Paul
Lou - you state that Luke 9:23-24 [take up your cross] is a discipleship passage only directed to those who already believe and has no bearing on salvation.
Consider the parallel in Mark 8:34-38
v. 34 - ‘He summoned the multitude with His disciples’
i.e.- this is a general call addressed to a crowd
If this were a call to go to the next level - we probably should expect Jesus to state that so the crowd would not get confused as to what He was talking about. He makes no distinction.
Then He gives the call to self denial and taking up one’s cross
Does this have any bearing on salvation?
According to Jesus it does
Mk. 8:36 - ‘What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and forfeit his soul [psuche]?
i.e. - if you don’t turn [repent] from your natural tendency to worship self - you will forfeit your soul
It seems absurd to me to hear people accuse LS of confusing Jesus’s calls to discipleship with calls to salvation. We are only confused if Jesus was.
The real problem is that the no lordship / FG position takes the words of Jesus and forces them into a theological grid that does not allow Jesus the natural force of His comments. He knew how to use language and communicated what He wanted to say.
Listen to J.C. Ryle on Luke 9:23, 24:
“The command of our master is clear and plain: ‘If any man will come after Me let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.’
“Now what do we know of all this? Surely this is a question which ought to be asked. A little formal church going, and a decent attendance at a place of worship, can never be the Christianity of which Christ speaks in this place. Where is our self-denial? Where is our daily carrying of the cross? Where is our following of Christ? Without a religion of this kind we shall never be saved. A crucified Savior will never be content to have a self-pleasing, self-indulging, worldly minded people. No self-denial - no real Grace!” [Expository Thoughts on the Gospels - Luke vol. 1, p. 310]
A 2nd level call to discipleship after salvation cannot be sustained in the Scriptures and is not a part of historic orthodoxy in dealing with the gospels. It is a novel view that lacks any exegetical support.
The word disciple [mathetes] referred to a learner, follower, student, apprentice
It had no deeper connotation than that
Acts 11:26 - ‘The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.’
Jerry:
I am going to give you some notes on the Mark 8 passage, but I may post them on my blog site. They would consume too much space on this site.
By the way, my book thoroughly addresses your questions above.
LM
Thanks Lou - I will take a look at them.
Matt,
Back to the order of the clauses, Jeremy Myers at GES has drawn a comparison between 27-28 and Romans 8:29-30, saying:
“Nearly everyone agrees that there is a progression taking place here[in Romans]. I doubt very much that any Calvinist would want to argue that we can shuffle the order of this list so that foreknowledge and calling comes after justification.”
Every translation I’ve looked at has the same order in John 10.
I do see how if you are right, it would be true that the “attributes” could be reordered. But since i see the list as being at least a progression if not a chronological one, I see the order found in the translations to suffice.
God bless.