Do the Reading
Bob Alkire said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if anyone wants to see if there is any truth to what Lou is saying, why not order the tape?
I just ordered a book by a pastor to see if I was correct or the other guy. I read the book and found out I was wrong and the other guy was correct about the pastor. Do I still like the pastor, Yes, but disagree with him on the subject that caused me to buy the book.
Bob:
Good words. The article
John MacArthur & Dispensationalism: And Our Response is transcribed, but I also suggest men order the tape.
You’d be surprised how many people in the Lordship Salvation discussions have NEVER read any of the major works by the major figures in the Lordship debate. They do not like to hear this, but what many of them “
like” a certain personality, and refuse to consider that the person they “
like” and trust, might possibly be wrong on the Gospel.
This is what canadyjd is going through, and I have seen it numerous times in the past. He has not, and refuses to read MacArthur’s books as a study. He thinks reading a few non-descript paragraphs at a web site is all he needs to read to understand John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation (LS). IMO, jd has already seen some things that have concerned him and this is why he will not answer even the most basic question in a clear, unvarnished way.
I have always agreed that John MacArthur has made valuable contributions that all of us can be grateful for. His LS interpretation of the Gospel, however, is a departure from the faith once delivered (
Jude 3). He has a good reputation, well thought of by many, so when the LS issue arises, people who “
like” him, just do not want to dig too deeply because it may reveal something they do not want to come to grips with. I commend TCGreek, he did the work and found that there are areas in JM’s interpretation of the Gospel that are of concern to him. At first he would not even consider the possibility.
In my book I note how MacArthur tells of a man who refused to read because he saw that he might have to choose sides. That is part of jd’s problem, only worse because he has chosen sides without understanding what he has chosen to side with. I had the exact same experience as MacArthur with an American missionary in South Africa. Here is the excerpt from my book,
In 1997, while serving as a missionary in South Africa, I was speaking to a fellow American missionary. This missionary did not know what the fuss between area missionaries over Lordship Salvation was all about. He was not happy that men were divided over the issue and said that he did not even know what the Lordship gospel was. I explained to him that Lordship Salvation is a serious deviation of the gospel, a serious doctrinal issue, other American missionaries were spreading it to South African national pastors, and I encouraged him to study the matter out for himself.
His closest ministerial friend in South Africa had been irrefutably identified as the leading advocate of Lordship Salvation among American born Baptist preachers in the Johannesburg area. Therefore, he decided to begin reading on the subject. This missionary began by reading John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus. After reading a very little of that book, he sent me an e-mail. He said that what he was reading was, in his opinion, a contradiction of earlier works by John MacArthur, which he had read in years past. He expressed concern about what he was reading in The Gospel According to Jesus. We met at a pastor’s fellowship a short time later, and there he told me that he stopped reading MacArthur’s book, and he was not interested in reading anything more on Lordship Salvation, pro or con.
What happened in this case was that this man had just begun to identify problems with Lordship Salvation, which, in his case, meant that he might have to confront the fact that his friend in the ministry had adopted, and was propagating a false interpretation of the gospel. Rather than coming to a conclusion and personal conviction through personal study, he opted to steer clear of the Lordship issue altogether. John MacArthur wrote about an experience similar to mine, “One very well known Christian leader told me that he had purposely avoided reading any books on the matter; he didn’t want to be forced to take sides.” (The Gospel According to the Apostles, p. 22.)
A long time ago I thought I could understand a man’s theology by doing a cursory read. I was wrong. My initial review of JM's
The Gospel According to Jesus (
TGATJ) in 1988 showed me some danger signs. I read some men who objected to LS. It was not until later, when I was thrust into the middle of the debate, that I did the hard work of buying and reading all of MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. (I did the same with Zane Hodges over his “Crossless” gospel) What I found was even more disturbing than what my initial read uncovered. MacArthur's
unorthodox viewing of James 4:7-10 as an “
invitation to salvation” is buried in one of his appendices.
I have ordered taped sermons preached by various men and transcribed them verbatim, word-for-word, so that I could study their message and give a fair analysis. After drawing some conclusions I phoned them to discuss what I heard and transcribed. I told them I wanted to be fair in my book, it was non-threatening. One would not discuss any of it, one was defensive, but gave honest answers, the third had an explosion within 30 seconds of my call: shouting and ranting. I had to politely say goodbye, and hung up. I can tell of pastors meeting to discuss this and the lead LS man in that meeting having verbal explosions, stomping around the room, and making crazy accusations against two of the men in the room.
My experience has shown a pattern among many men in the LS camp. If you question their LS interpretation of the Gospel, sincere doctrinal questions, they bristle and take offense that they are even being asked to explain what they believe. In my book I tell of a missionary saying to me that to question his pastor friend’s view of Lordship Salvation is to, “
question the Lord’s anointed.”
If MacArthur was clear and orthodox on the Gospel, why do you suppose the IFCA called MacArthur for an open interview to discuss what he had written? They questioned his stand in regard to dispensationalism. They were shaken by a number of his polarizing statements in
TGATJ. Two of his Master's Seminary faculty members expressed concern with
TGATJ. (See
IFCA Interview & Report)
Over the years a number of men have resigned from the IFCA over various doctrinal issues with JM. MacArthur’s, now recanted, views on the eternal sonship of Jesus, raised a huge flap in the IFCA. Year after year, JM signs agreement to the IFCA doctrinal statement. The problem is that he signs that statement and it is widely known that while MacArthur signs, but does not agree with portions of it.
To reiterate: men like jd do not want to dig too deep, do not want to read MacArthur’s LS books because it may force them to make a decision they do not want to make. It is bad enough for them to defend a personality and his doctrine that they do not understand, it is worse to be propagating a works based, non-saving Lordship message to unsuspecting believers and not even realize it.
LM
PS: I may create a new thread on this subject.
raying: