Is This an "Invitation to Salvation?"

1. While I'm not out to defend MacArthur, I wish to give the above quote a little more context to work with:

"While James directs most of his epistle to genuine believers, it is also evident that he is concerned about those who are not genuine. He wants no one to be deceived regarding true salvation, so he calls for a real, living, saving faith that is distinct from the dead faith of chapter 2. ...

"The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved--guilty, wicked hearers of the Word who are not doers (cf. 1:21-22),..." (The Gospel According to Jesus, revised, p. 252).

2. While I do not see much to disagree with MacArthur at this point, I will be hard-pressed not to take those who are not geniune believers into consideration.

3. V.7 begins with the Greek conjunction oun, "therefore," linking it to the previous paragraph as an appeal to correct their lifestyle. He calls them "adultresses."

4. Contextually, I would have to agree with you that this is really not a genuine invitation to salvation to the unregenerate, for he calls his addressees "adultresses," signifying an affair.

 

Please, respect my decision not to vote in your poll.

 

He is speaking to believers.

 

I will agree with James.

 

I will also agree it's written to believers.

 

It's written to saved individuals.

 

1. I will grant that Dr. MacArthur should have done a better job with this text.

2. But the principles of what a person must do to be saved are there: Salvation is submitting to God, fleeing the devil, drawing near to God, cleansing your hands of sin, purifying your hearts, being miserable and mourning and weeping and letting your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom.

3. I know of no one who has been truly saved who would doubt that all these elements were not included in their coming to God through Christ (Repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ, Acts 20:21; explore those two words and you will get those elements).

4. But to take one passage from Dr. MacArthur's book to prove that the entirety of Lordship salvation has fallen is misleading.

5. I admit that Dr. MacArthur should have done better with this passage and make his point clearer.

6. If you can present 100 more quotes like that, then you are on to something. But one quote is insufficient.

7. I wonder if your book is exegetically sound at all points.

***Edited.

 

1. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your first question, but here you are again, trying to prove to all of us how unbalanced the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel is.

2. The guys at Pulpitmagazine are more adept at defending MacArthur's work. Maybe you should present your questions there.

3. Bring 100 more quote from MacArthur's work and not just one quote. You can do better than that.

 

Boy! We have to do lots of works to get saved! Or do we only have to do them to stay saved? Or to prove that we're saved?

Or perhaps this passage isn't talking about getting saved.

 

1. From other exchange, it is clear that when you and I talk about being saved we are talking about two different things.

2. A person is saved by grace through faith and not by works (Eph. 2:8).

3. If you reread my post carefully, you will see that I am in no way overthrowing what Paul says, not only here, but elsewhere.

 

1. If there's not a brokenness over one's sin, then how in the world would a person come to Jesus as Savior and Lord.

2. I believe James 4:7-10 illustrates that brokenness and coming to the Lord.

3. But James 4:7-10 is not an evangelistic appeal.

4. When has it become wrong to use another Scripture as an illustration?

5. The operative word is Illustration. I wish not to be pedagogical, but I must keep misunderstanding at bay.

 

Lou,

TC is doing a much better job in this thread than I would, so I don't want to get involved. But I just wanted to point out that I've been fighting, off and on, tooth and nail against a horde of kingdom salvation/millenial exclusionists who are perverting the grace of God to preach an anti-gospel of works.

And who am I? I'm not only a Calvinist, I would say I'm supralapsarian in my views. So if I say to you that I can't understand why you think works-based salvation (Lordship Salvation) stems from Calvinism, I hope you believe me. I'm not saying there aren't Calvinists who make that error, but here I am on the side of grace, and I'll bet that most of the KS/ME horde are free-willers.

Okay, it's just one data point (maybe 2, since I believe TC is a Calvinist), but I hope you don't ignore it.