"It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming."
Don Johnson responds to Northland President Matt Olson’s “Open Letter to Friends in Ministry” addressing recent pulpit and classroom invitations
- 70 views
To JC
Jay C. The LS Gospel has been discussed on here endlessly. What you may need is not further discussion but repentance from endorsing a gospel with serious errors and endless unintended consequence.
Jay C. The LS Gospel has been discussed on here endlessly. What you may need is not further discussion but repentance from endorsing a gospel with serious errors and endless unintended consequence.
[Bob T.] 1. The Fundamentals have little to do with the early Fundamentalists in that many who endorsed the doctrines set forth in the Fundamentals stayed in the denominations and continued in ministry association with those who did not.
2. The Fundamentalists separated.
3. Some were reformed, some were non reformed Calvinists.
OK, I’m with you so far.
4. Most all Fundamental Baptists did not hold to the post Dort Calvinism that advocated regeneration preceding faith.
So this boils down to an debate over Ordo Salutis? Really?
5. The issue here is not Calvinism or Reformed theology but having an associate of John MacArthur speak in a Fundamental Baptist school chapel which appears to give endorsement to that speakers views and to the well known ministry of John MacArthur.
And as I said before, I don’t have a problem with it. NIU is it’s own institution, and they chose to invite these people for reasons that are acceptable to me and most other people.
8. Perhaps you consider yourself a Fundamentalist but the basic problem here on SI is that many post who are not presently practicing Fundamentalists. They are like Phil Johnson and willing to claim the label or position but never really have practiced Fundamentalist convictions. Some who have posted here are in ministries in churches that are moderate evangelical and even a type of new evangelical. They are churches with minimalist doctrine yet they post on here claiming some sort of Fundamentalism. The issue of the NIU chapel speaker is regarding a Fundamental school. All sorts of posts here desire to get off the topic and related evidence.I didn’t know that I needed approval from others to be a Fundamentalist. Here I was thinking that that a desire to hold to the Fundamental doctrines and do battle for them made one a Fundamentalist. I’m in full agreement with the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] Comment Policy , http://sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement] Doctrinal Statement , and the http://sharperiron.org/leadership-doctrinal-distinctives] Admin Team DS . Is there another criteria I need to affirm? I agree with the http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html 1689 London Baptist Confession too, if that helps anyone who is still confused or worried.
Should I send dues to you as well? Do I get an official Fundy card when I do? ;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
That’s the problem, Jay- who gets to define what. Fundamentalism means different things to different people, as does separation, militancy, convictions, fellowship…
One the one hand, there is the idea of only separating over ‘vital’ doctrines. Then there is separation over vital doctrines and what should be accompanying practices, including those of morality and ethics. But then there is that indefinable area of separating according to one’s conscience.
But even if I ‘separate’ from someone because I’m being led by my conscience to do so, degrees of separation come into play. Separation doesn’t mean I am not courteous, or that I won’t enter a building in which Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass has also entered- but to some, that is exactly what it means not to fellowship with someone. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t read Dr. Snodgrass’s books or listen to his sermons. What it will probably mean (on a case by case basis), is that I will be careful in to whom and how and when I recommend Dr. Snodgrass’s materials, if I recommend them at all. And if I can’t recommend him or befriend him, even if it is because of my conscience, I still need to have a clear Biblical reason for my actions.
I think the purpose and functions of a university differ drastically from that of a church, so it follows IMO that there will be more leeway as to how differing beliefs and ideas are presented and considered.
By the way, SI does not limit registration and participation by whether or not someone considers themselves a Fundamentalist, but by their agreement with the Doctrinal Statement and Comment Policy. If someone wants to call that a compromise, then they obviously don’t understand the purpose of this forum.
One the one hand, there is the idea of only separating over ‘vital’ doctrines. Then there is separation over vital doctrines and what should be accompanying practices, including those of morality and ethics. But then there is that indefinable area of separating according to one’s conscience.
But even if I ‘separate’ from someone because I’m being led by my conscience to do so, degrees of separation come into play. Separation doesn’t mean I am not courteous, or that I won’t enter a building in which Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass has also entered- but to some, that is exactly what it means not to fellowship with someone. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t read Dr. Snodgrass’s books or listen to his sermons. What it will probably mean (on a case by case basis), is that I will be careful in to whom and how and when I recommend Dr. Snodgrass’s materials, if I recommend them at all. And if I can’t recommend him or befriend him, even if it is because of my conscience, I still need to have a clear Biblical reason for my actions.
I think the purpose and functions of a university differ drastically from that of a church, so it follows IMO that there will be more leeway as to how differing beliefs and ideas are presented and considered.
By the way, SI does not limit registration and participation by whether or not someone considers themselves a Fundamentalist, but by their agreement with the Doctrinal Statement and Comment Policy. If someone wants to call that a compromise, then they obviously don’t understand the purpose of this forum.
Jay C., what church are you involved in ? Is it forthrightly Fundamentalist?Sure it is - it’s an IFCA church. Would you like to see our doctrinal statement? It’s posted below:
THE STATEMENT OF FAITH OF GRACE BIBLE CHURCHContinued next post
SECTION A. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
We believe the Holy Scriptures, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, to be the verbally and plenary inspired Word of God, His only special revelation to man, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God-breathed (John 16:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18).
SECTION B: THE TRUE GOD.
THE TRINITY: We believe there is one and only one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), co-eternal in being, co-identical in nature, co-equal in power and glory, co-equal in every divine perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great work of redemption. Among the attributes of the Triune God: He is infinite, immutable, all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present, inexpressibly glorious in holiness. He is worthy of all possible honor, confidence and love (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:21-22; 64:8; Psalm 90:2; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Chronicles 29:11-12; Romans 11:33-36; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Matthew 19:26; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:20; Psalm 139:7-10; Psalm 29:2; Deuteronomy 6:5; Revelation 4:11).
1. GOD THE FATHER. We believe in God the Father, an infinite Spirit, the Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth, and the Recipient of all our prayers (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; 1 Corinthians 2:11-12; Matthew 6:6-13; Philippians 4:6).
2. GOD THE SON.
a. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful men (John 1:1-2,14; Luke 1:26-35).
b. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished our eternal redemption through the shedding of His blood in death on the cross as our representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice, and that our justification is made sure by His literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Romans 3:24-25; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 2:24; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
c. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, and is now exalted at the right hand of God, where, as our High Priest, He fulfills the ministry of representative, intercessor, and advocate (Acts 1:9-10; Hebrews 9:24; 7:25; Romans 8:34; 1 John 2:1-2).
3. GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT.
a. We believe that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, equal with God the Father and God the Son, and of the same nature, who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment; that He is the supernatural Agent in the regeneration Who baptizes all believers into the body of Christ and indwells and seals them unto the day of redemption (John 16:8-11; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13-14).
b. We believe that He is the divine Teacher who guides believers into all truth; and that it is the privilege and duty of all the saved to be filled with the Spirit (John 16:13; 1 John 2:20,27; Ephesians 5:18).
SECTION C. THE SATAN (THE DEVIL).
We believe in the reality and personality of Satan (the Devil), who is the author of sin, and the cause of the fall; that he was created by God as an angel, but through pride and rebellion became the declared enemy of his Creator and man, the accuser of the brethren, the unholy god of this age, the ruler of all the powers of darkness; that he is destined to the judgment of an eternal justice in the lake of fire (Isaiah 14:12-17; Ezekiel 28:11-19; Matthew 4:1-11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 12:7-12; 20:10).
SECTION D. THE CREATION AND FALL OF MAN.
1. We believe the Biblical account of the creation of the physical universe, angels, and man; that this account is neither allegory nor myth, but a literal, historical account of the direct, immediate, creative acts of God in six solar days without any evolutionary process; that man was created by a direct work of God and not from previously existing forms of life; and that all men are descended from the historical Adam and Eve, the first parents of the entire human race (Genesis 1;2; Colossians 1:16-17; John 1:3).
2. We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God under the law of his Maker, but, by voluntary transgression, Adam fell from his innocent state and all men sinned in him. The consequences of this act are that all men are totally depraved, are partakers of Adam’s fallen nature, are sinners by nature and by conduct and, therefore, are under just condemnation without defense or excuse and are, of themselves, utterly unable to remedy their lost condition (Genesis 1:26-27; 3:1-6; Romans 1:18,32; 3:10-23; 5:12,19; Ephesians 2:1-3,12).
SECTION E. THE GRACE OF GOD.
1. We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious blood was shed on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins. Once a person is saved, he is a new creation in Christ Jesus: This new birth is instantaneous and not a process (Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:12; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19).
2. We believe that justification is that judicial act of God whereby He declares the believer righteous upon the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s shed blood (Romans 3:24; 4:5; 5:1,9; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9).
3. We believe that sanctification is the divine setting-apart of the believer unto God, accomplished in a threefold manner: first, an eternal act of God, based upon redemption in Christ, establishing the believer in a position of holiness at the moment he trusts the Savior; second, a continuing process in the saint as the Holy Spirit applies the Word of God to the life; and, third, the final accomplishment of this process at the Lord’s return (Hebrews 10:10-14; John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; 5:23-24; 1 John 3:2; Jude 24-25).
4. We believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural (Romans 6:13; 8:12-13; Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:14-16; 1 John 3:5-9).
5. We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; Romans 8:38-39; 1 Corinthians 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5).
6. We believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God’s Word; however, Scripture clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the flesh (Romans 13:13-14; Galatians 5:13; Titus 2:11-15).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Aaron had to break that previous post into two - I’m just cleaning up formatting.
SECTION F. THE CHURCH.
1. We believe that the Church, which is the body and the espoused bride of Christ, is a spiritual organism made up entirely of born-again people of this present age. The Lord Jesus Christ, Who is glorified in Heaven, is its Head, and the Holy Spirit on earth is the active agent of the God-Head, Who seeks to bring about within the church obedience to the Word of God and the Will of God. This one body unites believers to each other, and all to Christ, and its chief purpose of existence is to glorify God through the evangelization of the world and the building up of its members into maturity and Christ-likeness (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; Acts 2; 15:14; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 12:12-18; Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23,27; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11-16).
2. We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts 14:27; 20:17,28-32; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11).
3. We believe in the autonomy of the local church, free of any external authority or control (Acts 13:1-4; 15:19-31; 20:28; Romans 16:1,4; 1 Corinthians 3:9,16; 5:4-7,13; 1 Peter 5:1-4).
ORDINANCES:
1. We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem our identification with the crucified, buried and risen Savior, through Whom we died to sin and rose to a new life; that baptism is to be performed under the authority of the local church; and that it is a prerequisite to church membership (Acts 8:36-39; John 3:23; Romans 6:3-5; Matthew 3:16; Colossians 2:12; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:41-42).(See: Baptism)
2. We believe that the Lord’s Supper is the commemoration of His death until He comes, and should always be preceded by solemn self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). (See: Communion)
MINISTRY AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS:
1. We believe members of the church should meet regularly for worship, exhortation, and fellowship (Hebrews 10:25).
2. We believe that the desire to give one’s time and material wealth to Christ is an attitude prompted by the Word and the Holy Spirit. One’s giving should be an expression of gratitude and thanksgiving to God. It is an external expression of an internal spiritual condition. Our giving should be personal, proportional as God has prospered, not grudgingly or of necessity. A Spirit-led believer will exhibit generosity, regularity, and cheerfulness in his giving, and in giving he will neither seek nor desire the acclaim of men or self. Examples of such Spirit-led giving include Abraham, who gave 10%, and the widow who gave all she had. Those who give sacrificially are commended by God (Genesis 14:18-20; Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 21:1-4; Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9; 9:7; Hebrews 7:1-2; 1 John 3:11-17).
3. We believe that we should carry out the great commission of the Lord in spreading the Gospel message and making disciples of the Lord to “the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:19-20).
4. We believe that God is sovereign in the bestowment of His gifts and that, today, evangelists, Pastors, and teachers are sufficient for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, to the building up the body of Christ; that speaking in tongues and the working of sign-miracles gradually ceased as the New Testament Scriptures were completed and their authority became established (I Corinthians 12-14; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:7-12).
5. We believe that God does hear and answer the prayer offered in faith, in accord with His own will for the sick and afflicted (John 15:7; 1 John 5:14-15; James 5:13-16).
SEPARATION:
We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach non-conformity to the world for every believer; that born-again people should be separated from the world unto Christ; that it is clearly commanded by God that all believers should lives separated from all religious apostasy, worldly and sinful practices; and should be holy as He is holy (John 17:9-20; Romans 6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:11,19-20; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 6:14-17; 7:1; Galatians 5:16-26; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 1:13; 3:1-4; Titus 2:11-12,14; Hebrews 10:14; 1 Peter 1:14-16).
CIVIL GOVERNMENT:
We believe that civil government is of divine appointment for the interests and good order of human society, and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed, except in those things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the coming King of Kings (Romans 13:1-7; Acts 23:5; Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29; 4:19-20; Daniel 3:17-18).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
SECTION G. THE RAPTURE.So if you have any other questions about my doctrine, please feel free to ask.
1. We believe in the pre-millennial return of Christ, an event which can occur at any moment, and that at that moment, the dead in Christ shall be raised in glorified bodies, the living in Christ shall be given glorified bodies without tasting death, and all of them shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air before the seven years of the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians15:42-44, 51-54; Philippians 3:20-21).
2. We believe that the tribulation, which follows the rapture of the church, will be culminated by the revelation of Christ in power and great glory to sit upon the throne of David and to establish the millennial kingdom (Daniel 9:25-27; Matthew 24:5-31; Luke 1:30-33; Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-9; Acts 2:29-30; Revelation 20:1-4,6).
SECTION H. ISRAEL.
We believe in the sovereign selection of Israel as God’s eternal covenant people, that she is now dispersed because of her disobedience and rejection of Christ, that she will be regathered in the Holy Land and, after the completion of the church, will be saved as a nation at the second advent of Christ (Genesis 13:14-17; Romans 11:1-32; Ezekiel 37).
SECTION I. THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED.
We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and wicked; that only such as are justified through faith in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Spirit of our God, are truly righteous in His esteem while all who continue in impenitence and unbelief are in His sight wicked and under the curse and, therefore, stand condemned before God. This distinction holds among men both in and after death, in the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting conscious suffering of the lost (Malachi 3:18; Genesis 18:23; Romans 6:17-18; Proverbs 11:31; Romans 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Acts 10:34-35; 1 John 2:29; Romans 6:16; Galatians 3:10; Romans 6:23; Proverbs 14:32; Luke 16:25; Matthew 25:34,41; Matthew 7:13-14).
SECTION J. THE RESURRECTION.
We believe in the bodily resurrection of all men: the saved to eternal life and the unsaved to judgment and everlasting punishment. The souls of the redeemed at death are absent from the body and present with the Lord, where in conscious bliss they await the first resurrection, when spirit, soul and body are reunited to be forever glorified with the Lord. The souls of the unbelievers, after death, remain in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when with spirit, soul and body reunited they shall appear before the Great White Throne Judgment and shall be cast into the lake of fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (Luke 16:19-26; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28-29; 11:25-26; Philippians 1:23; 3:21; 2 Corinthians 5:8,10; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Revelation 20:4-6, 12-13).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Quote:
J
Thank you for your admission to be involved with “IFCA International.”
First, they are a Conservative Evangelical organization with a few Fundamentalists and a few New Evangelicals. There are really no Fundamentalists in the IFCA West coast regionals. I offered some evidence regarding the IFCA actual positions and practices on a prior post.
Second, they are to be commended for initiating a study committee in 1990 in response to the MacArthur Lordship Gospel as set forth in his 1988 book. They are to be commended for adopting the statement of the committee titled “The Nature of Saving Faith” This was a rebuke of the Lordship Gospel of MacArthur and of some others.
i do essentially agree with that statement.
You wanted to discuss the LS gospel further. Why? Do you differ with the IFCA position?
MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE GOSPEL AND THE DANGERS OF THE LS MACARTHUR GOSPEL.
One book I recommend on the Gospel is “Getting The Gospel Right” by C. Gordon Olson, Global Gospel Publishers, originally published 1981. Last revision 2005. I have used this as required reading in theology classes.
As to repentance in the NT. I have counted 7 different nuanced views by published theologians. In the NT Repent appears 34 times and Repentance 22 times. I see the word used as a call to turn and believe, as a fact occurring in the believer subsequent to regeneration and justification, and used as a call to believers. It is used in connection with sin but 9 times. It is used more of believers than unbelievers. It is involved in salvation but not as a condition of salvation. It is most often used as a call to those who already believe.
The only book in the NT evidently specifically designed to give the historic basis of salvation and the requirement for obtaining it is the Gospel of John. It does not once use the words repent or repentance. The one book designed to teach the theology of salvation and its application is the book of Romans. It uses the word repent one time at 2:4 where the issue is not the Gospel but a call to mankind contained in the common Grace of God. It does not use repentance with regard to the Gospel. A second teaching book on the Gospel is Galatians. It appears designed to deal with the place of the Mosaic law of the theocracy with regard to the Gospel which is based on the Death of Christ. It does not used the words repent or repentance one time.
The NT teaches that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Greek verb Pistuo appears 234 times in the NT and is translated as believe or believing. The noun Pistis appears also exactly 234 times and is translated faith. Why the difference in English words for the noun and verb? The explanation is sometime set forth that the KJ translators, not knowing there was even such a thing as Koine Greek, were somewhat confused as to nuances of the meaning. They were in a classical Greek orientation trying to translate the evolved Koine Greek. In actuality we now know both the Noun and the verb are best translated as “believe.” The personal nature of the belief is seen in the prepositions used and context. When one believes on, or in, they do know, assent, and trust in. Such reliance will implicitly acknowledges that Christ is Lord over sin and death and salvation. Belief involves knowing enough but often not very much. The word believe (faith) appears in the NT with regard to salvation 150 times without repentance or repent being mentioned. We are saved by believing. The one believing will then repent. Such repentance may manifest itself in various degrees and ways and vary from convert to convert.
Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin saw believe (faith) as involving knowledge, assent, and trust (or reliance upon). The later Calvinists, especially the English Puritans, added the volitional aspect. This emphasis of will brought about the view that merely a convicting work of the Spirit was not enough and unregenerate man must first be regenerated or transformed and then he is given faith and thus converted. Man’s will is therefor exercised by God and it is all of Grace. Believing became Intellect, sensibilities, and volition. MacArthur has a believing that is Knowledge, assent, submit, and sacrificially follow.
MacArthur has taken the Puritan Gospel and taken it further by emphasizing a “willingness” to be submissive to the full Lordship of Christ. He then defines submission as a “willingness” to follow Christ. He then defines following Christ as a willingness to take up the cross and follow him and a willingness to give up everything. We then have believing (faith) that is filled with making a commitment to works. Is a willingness to do works what believing is? Believing is focused on the works of Christ. The simple reliance upon Christ alone for the gift of salvation must be our focus not an examination of ourselves and our estimation of our willingness as the necessary condition of knowing we are saved. Other statements made make this a man focused gospel with coverup of the so called Reformed Doctrines of Grace. Salvation may be stated as Christ alone, faith alone, Grace alone. But those phrases are modified by definitions which import a call to follow in life and service as the necessary definitions involved. The Gospel of John MacArthur is not just the Lordship Gospel of Reformed soteriology but a Hyper Lordship Gospel built upon bad exegeses, wrong application of statements in the synoptic Gospels, and attacking straw men of the so called Non Lordship Gospel. It is possible for the Gospel to be presented and followed up in such a way as bring about a decision but not real belief. The assent is accepted without emphasis on personal trust. That most often has little to do with Lordship v. Non Lordship. The one Gospel can be presented in a wrong context and emphasis.
On the Mark Cameron TV program John MacArthur was asked the simple question; what is the Gospel? He replied by referring to the words of Matt. 16: 24-27 and stating that is the Gospel. His explanation centered on the willingness to follow Christ sacrificially instead of reliance on Him and his death,burial, and resurrection.
First: Matthew 16 are words to OT saints and disciples to follow sacrificially but are not the Gospel that saves the soul. If it is then we must discard Romans. I was shocked at the reply. At that moment MacArthur went from mere error of the Gospel to heresy. However, I do not call him a heretic. He just had a lapse of heresy.
An understanding of the MacArthur Gospel emphasis is part of why any appearance of approval or association may be detrimental to students at a Christian school.
It is no trivial thing for a school to seek association with John MacArthur. His LS Gospel emphasis is dangerous to a proper understanding of the Gospel. Also, one needs to take a very close look at Masters College and Masters Seminary to get a proper understanding of the ministry consequences.
J
ay C., what church are you involved in ? Is it forthrightly Fundamentalist?
Sure it is - it’s an IFCA church. Would you like to see our doctrinal statement? It’s posted below:
Thank you for your admission to be involved with “IFCA International.”
First, they are a Conservative Evangelical organization with a few Fundamentalists and a few New Evangelicals. There are really no Fundamentalists in the IFCA West coast regionals. I offered some evidence regarding the IFCA actual positions and practices on a prior post.
Second, they are to be commended for initiating a study committee in 1990 in response to the MacArthur Lordship Gospel as set forth in his 1988 book. They are to be commended for adopting the statement of the committee titled “The Nature of Saving Faith” This was a rebuke of the Lordship Gospel of MacArthur and of some others.
i do essentially agree with that statement.
You wanted to discuss the LS gospel further. Why? Do you differ with the IFCA position?
MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE GOSPEL AND THE DANGERS OF THE LS MACARTHUR GOSPEL.
One book I recommend on the Gospel is “Getting The Gospel Right” by C. Gordon Olson, Global Gospel Publishers, originally published 1981. Last revision 2005. I have used this as required reading in theology classes.
As to repentance in the NT. I have counted 7 different nuanced views by published theologians. In the NT Repent appears 34 times and Repentance 22 times. I see the word used as a call to turn and believe, as a fact occurring in the believer subsequent to regeneration and justification, and used as a call to believers. It is used in connection with sin but 9 times. It is used more of believers than unbelievers. It is involved in salvation but not as a condition of salvation. It is most often used as a call to those who already believe.
The only book in the NT evidently specifically designed to give the historic basis of salvation and the requirement for obtaining it is the Gospel of John. It does not once use the words repent or repentance. The one book designed to teach the theology of salvation and its application is the book of Romans. It uses the word repent one time at 2:4 where the issue is not the Gospel but a call to mankind contained in the common Grace of God. It does not use repentance with regard to the Gospel. A second teaching book on the Gospel is Galatians. It appears designed to deal with the place of the Mosaic law of the theocracy with regard to the Gospel which is based on the Death of Christ. It does not used the words repent or repentance one time.
The NT teaches that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Greek verb Pistuo appears 234 times in the NT and is translated as believe or believing. The noun Pistis appears also exactly 234 times and is translated faith. Why the difference in English words for the noun and verb? The explanation is sometime set forth that the KJ translators, not knowing there was even such a thing as Koine Greek, were somewhat confused as to nuances of the meaning. They were in a classical Greek orientation trying to translate the evolved Koine Greek. In actuality we now know both the Noun and the verb are best translated as “believe.” The personal nature of the belief is seen in the prepositions used and context. When one believes on, or in, they do know, assent, and trust in. Such reliance will implicitly acknowledges that Christ is Lord over sin and death and salvation. Belief involves knowing enough but often not very much. The word believe (faith) appears in the NT with regard to salvation 150 times without repentance or repent being mentioned. We are saved by believing. The one believing will then repent. Such repentance may manifest itself in various degrees and ways and vary from convert to convert.
Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin saw believe (faith) as involving knowledge, assent, and trust (or reliance upon). The later Calvinists, especially the English Puritans, added the volitional aspect. This emphasis of will brought about the view that merely a convicting work of the Spirit was not enough and unregenerate man must first be regenerated or transformed and then he is given faith and thus converted. Man’s will is therefor exercised by God and it is all of Grace. Believing became Intellect, sensibilities, and volition. MacArthur has a believing that is Knowledge, assent, submit, and sacrificially follow.
MacArthur has taken the Puritan Gospel and taken it further by emphasizing a “willingness” to be submissive to the full Lordship of Christ. He then defines submission as a “willingness” to follow Christ. He then defines following Christ as a willingness to take up the cross and follow him and a willingness to give up everything. We then have believing (faith) that is filled with making a commitment to works. Is a willingness to do works what believing is? Believing is focused on the works of Christ. The simple reliance upon Christ alone for the gift of salvation must be our focus not an examination of ourselves and our estimation of our willingness as the necessary condition of knowing we are saved. Other statements made make this a man focused gospel with coverup of the so called Reformed Doctrines of Grace. Salvation may be stated as Christ alone, faith alone, Grace alone. But those phrases are modified by definitions which import a call to follow in life and service as the necessary definitions involved. The Gospel of John MacArthur is not just the Lordship Gospel of Reformed soteriology but a Hyper Lordship Gospel built upon bad exegeses, wrong application of statements in the synoptic Gospels, and attacking straw men of the so called Non Lordship Gospel. It is possible for the Gospel to be presented and followed up in such a way as bring about a decision but not real belief. The assent is accepted without emphasis on personal trust. That most often has little to do with Lordship v. Non Lordship. The one Gospel can be presented in a wrong context and emphasis.
On the Mark Cameron TV program John MacArthur was asked the simple question; what is the Gospel? He replied by referring to the words of Matt. 16: 24-27 and stating that is the Gospel. His explanation centered on the willingness to follow Christ sacrificially instead of reliance on Him and his death,burial, and resurrection.
First: Matthew 16 are words to OT saints and disciples to follow sacrificially but are not the Gospel that saves the soul. If it is then we must discard Romans. I was shocked at the reply. At that moment MacArthur went from mere error of the Gospel to heresy. However, I do not call him a heretic. He just had a lapse of heresy.
An understanding of the MacArthur Gospel emphasis is part of why any appearance of approval or association may be detrimental to students at a Christian school.
It is no trivial thing for a school to seek association with John MacArthur. His LS Gospel emphasis is dangerous to a proper understanding of the Gospel. Also, one needs to take a very close look at Masters College and Masters Seminary to get a proper understanding of the ministry consequences.
[Bob T.] Quote:Where do you disagree with Jay’s church’s doctrinal statement?
Jay C., what church are you involved in ? Is it forthrightly Fundamentalist?
Sure it is - it’s an IFCA church. Would you like to see our doctrinal statement? It’s posted below:
Thank you for your admission to be involved with “IFCA International.”
First, they are a Conservative Evangelical organization with a few Fundamentalists and a few New Evangelicals. There are really no Fundamentalists in the IFCA West coast regionals. I offered some evidence regarding the IFCA actual positions and practices on a prior post.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Bob T.] MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE GOSPEL AND THE DANGERS OF THE LS MACARTHUR GOSPEL.I’m not sure why this is relevant?
[…]
As to repentance in the NT. I have counted 7 different nuanced views by published theologians.
[Bob T.] In the NT Repent appears 34 times and Repentance 22 times. I see the word used as a call to turn and believe, as a fact occurring in the believer subsequent to regeneration and justification, and used as a call to believers. It is used in connection with sin but 9 times. It is used more of believers than unbelievers. It is involved in salvation but not as a condition of salvation. It is most often used as a call to those who already believe.Jesus disagrees with you, Bob, about the importance of repentance.
The only book in the NT evidently specifically designed to give the historic basis of salvation and the requirement for obtaining it is the Gospel of John. It does not once use the words repent or repentance. The one book designed to teach the theology of salvation and its application is the book of Romans. It uses the word repent one time at 2:4 where the issue is not the Gospel but a call to mankind contained in the common Grace of God. It does not use repentance with regard to the Gospel. A second teaching book on the Gospel is Galatians. It appears designed to deal with the place of the Mosaic law of the theocracy with regard to the Gospel which is based on the Death of Christ. It does not used the words repent or repentance one time.
The NT teaches that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Greek verb Pistuo appears 234 times in the NT and is translated as believe or believing. The noun Pistis appears also exactly 234 times and is translated faith. Why the difference in English words for the noun and verb? The explanation is sometime set forth that the KJ translators, not knowing there was even such a thing as Koine Greek, were somewhat confused as to nuances of the meaning. They were in a classical Greek orientation trying to translate the evolved Koine Greek. In actuality we now know both the Noun and the verb are best translated as “believe.” The personal nature of the belief is seen in the prepositions used and context. When one believes on, or in, they do know, assent, and trust in. Such reliance will implicitly acknowledges that Christ is Lord over sin and death and salvation. Belief involves knowing enough but often not very much. The word believe (faith) appears in the NT with regard to salvation 150 times without repentance or repent being mentioned. We are saved by believing. The one believing will then repent. Such repentance may manifest itself in various degrees and ways and vary from convert to convert.
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)
“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32)
1 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)
“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7)Jesus commanded the apostles to include repentance as an essential part of their Gospel message:
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:45-49)The apostles obeyed Jesus’ command and included the call to repentance as an essential part of their preaching.
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.” (Acts 2:38)
[Peter said,] 17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.” (Acts 3:17-21)
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:29-32)
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)
[Paul said,] 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)
[Paul said,] “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:18-22)
[Paul said,] 19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.” (Acts 26:19-21)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Bob T.] Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin saw believe (faith) as involving knowledge, assent, and trust (or reliance upon). The later Calvinists, especially the English Puritans, added the volitional aspect. This emphasis of will brought about the view that merely a convicting work of the Spirit was not enough and unregenerate man must first be regenerated or transformed and then he is given faith and thus converted. Man’s will is therefor exercised by God and it is all of Grace. Believing became Intellect, sensibilities, and volition. MacArthur has a believing that is Knowledge, assent, submit, and sacrificially follow.I don’t believe the Bible is clear that regeneration logically and necessarily precedes faith, but my study of Scripture leads me to believe that saving faith involves repentance, which is more than just mental assent but also involves a turning of the will.
[Bob T.] MacArthur has taken the Puritan Gospel and taken it further by emphasizing a “willingness” to be submissive to the full Lordship of Christ. He then defines submission as a “willingness” to follow Christ. He then defines following Christ as a willingness to take up the cross and follow him and a willingness to give up everything. We then have believing (faith) that is filled with making a commitment to works. Is a willingness to do works what believing is? Believing is focused on the works of Christ. The simple reliance upon Christ alone for the gift of salvation must be our focus not an examination of ourselves and our estimation of our willingness as the necessary condition of knowing we are saved. Other statements made make this a man focused gospel with coverup of the so called Reformed Doctrines of Grace. Salvation may be stated as Christ alone, faith alone, Grace alone. But those phrases are modified by definitions which import a call to follow in life and service as the necessary definitions involved. The Gospel of John MacArthur is not just the Lordship Gospel of Reformed soteriology but a Hyper Lordship Gospel built upon bad exegeses, wrong application of statements in the synoptic Gospels, and attacking straw men of the so called Non Lordship Gospel. It is possible for the Gospel to be presented and followed up in such a way as bring about a decision but not real belief. The assent is accepted without emphasis on personal trust. That most often has little to do with Lordship v. Non Lordship. The one Gospel can be presented in a wrong context and emphasis.I don’t believe repentance is a work anymore than faith is a work. Repentance (a change of the heart, mind, will, etc.) must be separated from the fruits of repentance (works).
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Gregg, I do not mean to brush you off but time use makes me do so. I have posted on this thread regarding issues and did bring in theology to give reasons behind my position on this issue. Hoewever, I have stopped really debating theology online ,for the most part. Too timr consuming and just asserting evidence already made by many. This is exactly why I think it fruitless to debate the full issues of the LSG on some online thread. You are citing verses and making statements that have been very extensivly spoken to. IMO your definition of repentance is without lexical support. May I suggest the book I mentioned before; Getting the Gospel Right by C. Gordon Olson. Although I may disagree with him somewhat on repentance, cannot remember. But was very impressed with the book overall. Also, I believe the Doctoral Dissertation of Charlie Bing PHD on” Lordship Salvation” is still available online. He appears to adequatly handle the definition of Repentance, Faith, etc. He has whole chapters on each word. He handles the passages you cite. He has his doctorate from Dallas.
Also, Jays church doctrinal statement was never an issue. I had mentioned some posters who have associations that would indicate they are not now practicing Fundamentalists. When i was teaching at Talbot of Biola I fell into that trap. I have repented and have sought to be careful in ministry associations. Note that is ministry associations not personal fellowship or being students at schools. Jay responded with his doctrinal statement and also mentioned his church associations which were IFCA. I had mentioned the IFCA on prior posts. I left fellowship with them about 1985 because they were not practicing Fundamentalists. They are past Fundamentalists with good past resolutions on paper but few really stand by those today. Their own book on history gives the story of the declines.
There are indeed those who post here who are on the staff of churches that give little or no consideration to the issues requiring separation and are in reality moderate Evangelical ministries seeking to appeal to the largest possible evangelical Christian audience. The issue is not Doctrinal statements but philosophy of ministry and the practicing of the admonitions of Acts 20:17-35. This may not be contrary to SI policy. Nor should it necessarily be. But it does bring illumination to some discussions to know where some posters may be coming from.
Hope you can obtain Bing’s dissertation. Let me know if you have a problem by just Googeling it.
Also, Jays church doctrinal statement was never an issue. I had mentioned some posters who have associations that would indicate they are not now practicing Fundamentalists. When i was teaching at Talbot of Biola I fell into that trap. I have repented and have sought to be careful in ministry associations. Note that is ministry associations not personal fellowship or being students at schools. Jay responded with his doctrinal statement and also mentioned his church associations which were IFCA. I had mentioned the IFCA on prior posts. I left fellowship with them about 1985 because they were not practicing Fundamentalists. They are past Fundamentalists with good past resolutions on paper but few really stand by those today. Their own book on history gives the story of the declines.
There are indeed those who post here who are on the staff of churches that give little or no consideration to the issues requiring separation and are in reality moderate Evangelical ministries seeking to appeal to the largest possible evangelical Christian audience. The issue is not Doctrinal statements but philosophy of ministry and the practicing of the admonitions of Acts 20:17-35. This may not be contrary to SI policy. Nor should it necessarily be. But it does bring illumination to some discussions to know where some posters may be coming from.
Hope you can obtain Bing’s dissertation. Let me know if you have a problem by just Googeling it.
I largely agree with Bob T.’s breakdown on saving faith and repentance.
When it comes down to MacArthur, however, you also have to keep in mind that he has stated publicly on more than one occasion that he cannot remember a time when he himself did not believe. He does not point to such a time of surrender as the moment of saving faith for himself.
He is also preaching to an anti-Biblical, pagan southern California culture.
I also factor in the concept that MacArthur sometimes overstates his case as a sort of homiletical device, and also seems to like to say things for shock value on occasion.
Thus, I am willing to cut him some slack and try to understand his words in context. I do wish that sometimes he would be clearer about the simplicity of the gospel, and I do know that some of his students take things a step further than he does.
When it comes down to MacArthur, however, you also have to keep in mind that he has stated publicly on more than one occasion that he cannot remember a time when he himself did not believe. He does not point to such a time of surrender as the moment of saving faith for himself.
He is also preaching to an anti-Biblical, pagan southern California culture.
I also factor in the concept that MacArthur sometimes overstates his case as a sort of homiletical device, and also seems to like to say things for shock value on occasion.
Thus, I am willing to cut him some slack and try to understand his words in context. I do wish that sometimes he would be clearer about the simplicity of the gospel, and I do know that some of his students take things a step further than he does.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
@Don Johnson
how do you stretch credulity to a breaking point? did you mean to say credibility?
you have called Matt Olson a liar, and a despicable one. for you say he is doing exactly what he said he is not doing: playing politics. where is the evidence?
you are Matt Olson’s adversary and accuser, yet you ask: “are we still friends?” unbelievable!
yes, Don, you are a fighter. I’m just not sure whose side you are on.
how do you stretch credulity to a breaking point? did you mean to say credibility?
you have called Matt Olson a liar, and a despicable one. for you say he is doing exactly what he said he is not doing: playing politics. where is the evidence?
you are Matt Olson’s adversary and accuser, yet you ask: “are we still friends?” unbelievable!
yes, Don, you are a fighter. I’m just not sure whose side you are on.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
[Alex K.] @Don JohnsonWell, I have to confess to being something of a walking cliche… No, I mean credulity. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:
how do you stretch credulity to a breaking point? did you mean to say credibility?
readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidenceThe usage is found in sentences like this one, found on a http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/2007/12/unbelievable-simply-unbe… blog about Canadian politics:
Mulroney is stretching credulity to the breaking point to claim that this question pertained to Airbus.It is a way of saying that you find something unbelievable, incredible, can’t possibly be true.
[Alex K.] you have called Matt Olson a liar, and a despicable one. for you say he is doing exactly what he said he is not doing: playing politics. where is the evidence?Well, in my defense, I would not say that I am calling Matt a liar. I just think that what he is saying is not believable. He may be entirely sincere in what he is saying. Knowing him a bit, I would say that he probably is sincere.
you are Matt Olson’s adversary and accuser, yet you ask: “are we still friends?” unbelievable!
But that doesn’t make his statements believable or even true.
I do think it is playing politics. That is my opinion. If you can’t see it, I don’t know what I can say to explain it any further to you.
Finally, I wouldn’t say I am Matt’s adversary (let alone accuser), we have been friendly in the past. I would say that we seem to have some strong differences lately. I don’t think the way he is leading Northland is right or wise, but he doesn’t answer to me.
However, what he does in public is fair game for criticism. You may not agree with me, but that’s your privilege also.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]@Don:
I do think it is playing politics. That is my opinion. If you can’t see it, I don’t know what I can say to explain it any further to you.
Finally, I wouldn’t say I am Matt’s adversary (let alone accuser), we have been friendly in the past. I would say that we seem to have some strong differences lately. I don’t think the way he is leading Northland is right or wise, but he doesn’t answer to me.
However, what he does in public is fair game for criticism. You may not agree with me, but that’s your privilege also.
how can you say you are not his accuser or adversary? deny all you want, you are not kidding me, maybe yourself, but not me.
yes, i very much disagree with you in the way you are criticising Olson. i asked for evidence, you provided none. i don’t know Matt Olson at all, you do, but have not provided any thing substantial.
to believe your analysis would be credulity.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
Discussion