MacArthur's 3rd Distinctive...

[skypair]

" In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."

John clearly sets up a strawman that looks relatively puny compared to his LS. To be sure, Calvies love to do the same with Arminianism declaring that, if one is not Calvinist, then one must be Arminian.

Unfortunately for John, more than half of evangelicals are born again believers who gave their lives to Christ at the point of repentance and conversion. They testified that they understood this by their baptism by immersion.

They also testfy that there are different parts of the body of Christ, not all worshipping as John would have them to.

The also testify the real truth of the parable of the sower --- that their faith may be shallow or their cares in this world choking them but they, nonetheless, they were born of the incorruptible seed that liveth and abideth forever. It is NOT heloful that John "excises" them for their frailties instead of helping the weaker (1Cor 15:22-27, "that there be no schism in the body").

skypair

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

nonetheless, they were born of the incorruptible seed that liveth and abideth forever.
skypair

Jesus never indicates they were born again.

 

[canadyjd]

" In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."

Unfortunately for John, more than half of evangelicals are born again believers who gave their lives to Christ at the point of repentance and conversion. They testified that they understood this by their baptism by immersion.

They also testfy that there are different parts of the body of Christ, not all worshipping as John would have them to.

The also testify the real truth of the parable of the sower --- that their faith may be shallow or their cares in this world choking them but they, nonetheless, they were born of the incorruptible seed that liveth and abideth forever. It is NOT heloful that John "excises" them for their frailties instead of helping the weaker (1Cor 15:22-27, "that there be no schism in the body").

skypair

Ok, if we are going to discuss the 3rd distinctive, let's post all of it. You can find it at:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

Do you disagree with the 3rd distinctive, skypair? Is the object of our faith the person of Jesus Christ. Since the object of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, true "faith" must involve a commitment to the person who is the object of the faith. Or... is the object of our faith "a creed or promise" which may or may not include a commitment to the creed or promise?

What J.Mac is referring to is a long identified heresy known as "sandemanism", which says salvation is granted to those who give simple "mental assent" to a certain set of facts concerning the gospel.

One of my profs even had a song for it. Sung to the tune of "Mr. Sandman" it goes:

"Mr. San-de-man...give me a dream..
tell me I'm saved when I only agree...."

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

Jesus never indicates they were born again.

The seed went down. It was "received with joy." (13:20) It "forthwith sprung up." (13:5) What do you see?

I see incorruptible seed received in "whosoever" earth and springing forth to life -- just like in 1Cor 15:37. Part you -- part God (the "life-giving" incorruptible part).

The interesting part is that the OT saints were this exactly! They are "planted" in their graves right now waiting to "spring forth" from "good soil" to life that you and I have right now! Lucky us! Or unlucky? We can sprout in shallow soil or among briars (I just got the "Texas lesson" on real briars -- they are ubiquitous, cover and kill the trees hereabouts, and are tough to get rid of!) and be done with this earthly life. But think of them sprouting forth into the MK where there is still sin and death!!

skypair

 

[webdog]

Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

Does JM really understand what faith is?!? Faith does NOT require a "personal commitment to the person of Jesus Christ". Does this faith also require a "personal commitment to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ", too? How about the "personal commitment to the Lambship of Jesus Christ"?

We all KNOW what faith consists of. It requires hearing (understanding) and an object of that faith (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God)...and that's it! That's what faith is!
At any rate, if faith is given as a magical gift to use, and does not originate from within man, we use what we were given, and if God doesn't give us the "personal commitment to the person of Christ", it's on Him and not us anyway....nothing we can do about it.

 

[skypair]

Do you disagree with the 3rd distinctive, skypair? Is the object of our faith the person of Jesus Christ. Since the object of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, true "faith" must involve a commitment to the person who is the object of the faith. Or... is the object of our faith "a creed or promise" which may or may not include a commitment to the creed or promise?

I don't disagree about the Object -- I disagree whether JM has that as the obect. Let's bypass that he believes that salvation depends on our "election" by God. Let's consider that, like good Calvies, he suggests we follow Jesus before we determine whether we are "elect" in Christ.

Let me explain. He says "Lordship" is the "end all" but like the "rich man," he hasn't considered what we must give up first. Yeah, it sounds great to follow Jesus -- but are we doing this for earthly reward or eternal reward? Do we want people to believe we are saved or do we want to really be saved? See, JM is stressing the "we want others to think we are saved." People will do that, jd. But the "rich young ruler" didn't want to give up his life (like in John 12:24). I mean -- don't worry about livin' His life till you LOSE YOURS! And not just your sins -- your wretched, self-serving life!

What J.Mac is referring to is a long identified heresy known as "sandemanism", which says salvation is granted to those who give simple "mental assent" to a certain set of facts concerning the gospel.

I will acknowledge that. There are factions of Christianity like Rick Warrens, I think, whom he might be referring to. But I think it best he get his own theology right before he starts doing his critiques on others.

One of my profs even had a song for it. Sung to the tune of "Mr. Sandman" it goes:

"Mr. San-de-man...give me a dream.. tell me I'm saved when I only agree...."

It's true. "Mental assent" is only one of the steps in conversion. How did I describe it before from "Great Doctrines of the Bible?" Knowledge, assent, appropriation. What "easy believism" and Calvinism are missing, IMO, is APPROPRIATION. Did they OBEY according to their knowledge and assent?

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

How did I describe it before from "Great Doctrines of the Bible?" Knowledge, assent, appropriation. What "easy believism" and Calvinism are missing, IMO, is APPROPRIATION. Did they OBEY according to their knowledge and assent?

What does "appropriation" look like?

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Does JM really understand what faith is?!? Faith does NOT require a "personal commitment to the person of Jesus Christ". Does this faith also require a "personal commitment to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ", too? How about the "personal commitment to the Lambship of Jesus Christ"?

Web:

What the MacArthur apologist(s) can't see, don’t understand, or will not openly acknowledge is that in this third point, MacArthur's definition of “saving faith,” the kind of faith that he (JM) says is required for the reception of eternal life, MUST include “a personal (whole-hearted) commitment to the Lordship of Christ.”

Easy-Believism is wrong and I have joined the debate to refute that non-saving message.

The answer to Easy-Believism is not found in changing the terms of the Gospel, which is exactly what JM has done in his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. LS is a non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:20).

Demanding up-front personal commitments to the Lordship of Christ will not make the problem of carnal Christians go away.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Skypair:

You made some good points.

When JM and LS men use the term “mental assent” they are coming from the Calvinistic presupposition of Total Inability. That is why they have taken the extra-biblical regeneration (born again) before faith position. For the LS Calvinist, lost men can't receive the Lord, can't hear or respond to the Gospel, or call upon the name of the Lord (Rom. 10:13) until he (the lost man) has first been regenerated, born again.

Second, they add to faith in the Jesus (the object of faith) a personal up front commitment to live in obedience to the Lord for the reception of eternal life.


LM

 

[Jarthur001]

Web:

What the MacArthur apologist(s) can't see, don’t understand, or will not openly acknowledge is that in this third point, MacArthur's definition of “saving faith,” the kind of faith that he (JM) says is required for the reception of eternal life, MUST include “a personal (whole-hearted) commitment to the Lordship of Christ.”

I understand it...and I happen to agree. Believing is not knowing the facts about something. The devil knows more "about" God then any of us. The Devil therefore believes in God, as far as this low level believing goes. The devil also knows Christ died on the cross. He knows the reason for this death is for the sins of His people. This does not make the devil a "believer" in the way in which the Bible uses it. What the easy-believer apologist can't see, don't understand, or will not openly acknowlege is that faith..just another word for believe....is more then just knowing the facts about something.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To Reiterate for JA and Others:

Easy-Believism is wrong and I have joined the debate to refute that non-saving message.

The answer to Easy-Believism is not found in changing the terms of the Gospel, which is exactly what JM has done in his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. LS is a non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:20).

Demanding up-front personal commitments to the Lordship of Christ will not make the problem of carnal Christians go away.


LM

 

[skypair]

What does "appropriation" look like?

In appropriation, you take God's word (read or heard) and, knowing that it can apply to you, you pray God for it in the name of Christ. It is not dictating to God --- it is taking God at His word on your personal level.

As ae believer, God's promises often require our cooperation, especially Bible reading -- looking into the image darkly and becoming more like Him.

skypair

 

[Allan]

What the easy-believer apologist can't see, don't understand, or will not openly acknowlege is that faith..just another word for believe....is more then just knowing the facts about something.

I just wanted to I agree with this portion.

I just finished preaching a sermon I call 'Your Gift' refering to what christmas gift are you going to give Christ and what makes an appropreit gift before a Holy God. Rom 12:1-2

You can look at the story of the wise men and Herod as a good example.
Herod knew the truth, that the King of the Jews was born in Bethlahem.
He was (1) convinced of the truth and thus he told the wise men to go and seek diligently for the child.
But he was not (2) convicted by the truth or in other words were humbled and brought unto the obedience of the truth.

#2 has 2 main subpoints that always follow.
.......a. Abandonment for the truth - The wise men left all they were had and were to find this king but Herod would not even leave his house.

.......b. Devotion to the truth - the wise men were devoted to the truth as they understood it to pay homage to the King of the Jews. It can be presumed they had been many months or even as long as two years in accordance with Luk 2:16b. Herod had no such devotion and instead sent the wise to look the child for him.

You can see the same thing regarding the shepards

And can even see the same thing regarding God.

The whole world can be convinced of the truth but that does not change anything.
But if the whole world be convicted of the truth the change emcompasses everything.

 

[Jarthur001]

To Reiterate for JA and Others:

Easy-Believism is wrong and I have joined the debate to refute that non-saving message.

The answer to Easy-Believism is not found in changing the terms of the Gospel, which is exactly what JM has done in his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. LS is a non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:20).

Demanding up-front personal commitments to the Lordship of Christ will not make the problem of carnal Christians go away.


LM

I see nothing between your view and Easy-Believism. If there be, please share with me the black and white difference.

 

[canadyjd]

At any rate, if faith is given as a magical gift to use, and does not originate from within man, we use what we were given, and if God doesn't give us the "personal commitment to the person of Christ", it's on Him and not us anyway....nothing we can do about it.

First, it is not a "magical" gift, it is a supernatural gift of grace through Holy Spirit, (Eph. 2)

Second, Romans 1 makes it clear that it is not "on God" that men do not believe. God has revealed Himself to man in His creation. Man is so consumed by sin that he loved the darkness of sin, rather than the light of revelation. God could rightly condemn all men to hell and maintain His divine attributes. That He chooses to save some (His elect, Sheep, chosen people, Children) on the basis of His mercy and after the counsel of His own will alone demonstrates His great compassion and love for us.

Thirdly, as MacArthur says, God would not give a gift that was defective in any way. Since God requires a commitment to His Son, through faith, He would not give a faith as a gift that lacked commitment.

peace to youraying: