The Gospel According to Jesus

[ReformedBaptist]

Hello BB,

I am sure everyone has been anxiously awaiting another thread on the LS topic. :lol: I am writing because I received my copy today of JM's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith" Revised and Expanded Anniversary Edition. I have just read the preface to the anniversary edition and wanted to make mention of two things.

1. Lou, any indication that I have given that this subject has been too much discussed or debated I retract. Sorry about that. Being a neophite to the subject I saw it as a shibboleth and not for what it really is: a debate over the Gospel itself. This cannot be overdone or defended too much.

2. I want to share a somewhat lengthy section of the preface. As most of you know, the preface of a book seeks to set in the reader's mind what the book is about and why the author wrote it. MacArthur seeks to do this. It is interesting to note that the book was written by him after he has preached verse by verse through the book of Matthew. Some 226 messages were delivered to Grace Community and the book followed. It took him seven years to preach through the Gospel of Matthew. Why do I mention this? Because theologically it sets our topic square upon biblical soteriology and points us to where JM drew his motivation for writing this book and why.

But the part I want to share from the book helps set the content of the book. The book is polemical (or so it seems so far). The main subject is the Gospel itself. And this is no small matter. So what is JM writing for and what is he writing against?

"People have been trying to domesticate Jesus' message for many years. Long before The Gospel According to Jesus was first published, it was popular in certain circles to exclude any mention of Jesus' lordship from the gospel message. The idea, apparently, was that declaring Jesus' lordship was tantamount to preaching works--because lordship implicitly demands obdeidence, and obedience per se was automatically portrayed as a work. Some argued that even to encourage an attitude of obedience (like the simple, submissive heart of the theif on the cross or Zaccheus's intention to make restitution) was to preach a works-based religion. Ostensibly trying to keep the gospel as untainted as possible from works-religion, some evangelical leaders became insistent that no gospel appeal to unbelievers ever ought to include the truth that Jesus is Lord of all. Unconverted sinners were not to be urged to repent. The cost of discipleship; the need to hate one's own sin; Christ's call to self-denial; His command to follow Him; and (especially) every mention of submission to Him as Lord were systematically expunged from the message Christians proclaimed to unbelievers. Sanctification became wholly optional. A whole new category--"carnal Christians"--was invented to explain how someone could be converted to Christ and given eternal life but left totally unchanged in heart and lifestyle by such a transaction.

In the minds and methodologies of most evangelicals, the entire gospel was finally reduced to one easy idea: that Jesus is a kind Savior who patiently waits for sinners to "accept" Him (or invited Him into their hearts), and that He offers eternal life--no strings attached--in exchange for anyone's decision to do so.

The Gospel According to Jesus made one simple (and to my mind undeniable) point: Jesus proclaimed no such message. p.10-11, GATJ:AE

Any typos are mine.

The LS controversy is not a controversy over what JM teaches. The controversy is about the Gospel itself. It is a controversy over the doctrine of salvation. And it is a controversy concerning how the Gospel is being presented in our society.

 

[JustChristian]

Hello BB,

I am sure everyone has been anxiously awaiting another thread on the LS topic. :lol: I am writing because I received my copy today of JM's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith" Revised and Expanded Anniversary Edition. I have just read the preface to the anniversary edition and wanted to make mention of two things.

1. Lou, any indication that I have given that this subject has been too much discussed or debated I retract. Sorry about that. Being a neophite to the subject I saw it as a shibboleth and not for what it really is: a debate over the Gospel itself. This cannot be overdone or defended too much.

2. I want to share a somewhat lengthy section of the preface. As most of you know, the preface of a book seeks to set in the reader's mind what the book is about and why the author wrote it. MacArthur seeks to do this. It is interesting to note that the book was written by him after he has preached verse by verse through the book of Matthew. Some 226 messages were delivered to Grace Community and the book followed. It took him seven years to preach through the Gospel of Matthew. Why do I mention this? Because theologically it sets our topic square upon biblical soteriology and points us to where JM drew his motivation for writing this book and why.

But the part I want to share from the book helps set the content of the book. The book is polemical (or so it seems so far). The main subject is the Gospel itself. And this is no small matter. So what is JM writing for and what is he writing against?



Any typos are mine.

The LS controversy is not a controversy over what JM teaches. The controversy is about the Gospel itself. It is a controversy over the doctrine of salvation. And it is a controversy concerning how the Gospel is being presented in our society.

I agree. We try to make being a Christian too easy, too comfortable. I visited some newcomers to our church one time who were both from India. The wife had been raised as a Catholic but the husband was a Hindu and converted to Christianity. He told me that ever since his conversion his life had been continually threated because of his faith. He said that his Christianity was much weaker since he had come to the United States because his faith was now socially acceptable and he no longer was putting everything on the line because of his decision to follow Jesus.

There is no real personal risk associated with being a Christian in America. Oh there might be some embarrassment or harassment from other Christians if you don't belong to the right political party or support the current war but that's nothing compared to what this couple had faced. Easy faith, no commitment, social acceptance, a theology that even discourages standing up for your faith. These are the things that are killing real Christianity in the U.S.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I agree. We try to make being a Christian too easy, too comfortable. I visited some newcomers to our church one time who were both from India. The wife had been raised as a Catholic but the husband was a Hindu and converted to Christianity. He told me that ever since his conversion his life had been continually threated because of his faith. He said that his Christianity was much weaker since he had come to the United States because his faith was now socially acceptable and he no longer was putting everything on the line because of his decision to follow Jesus.

There is no real personal risk associated with being a Christian in America. Oh there might be some embarrassment or harassment from other Christians if you don't belong to the right political party or support the current war but that's nothing compared to what this couple had faced. Easy faith, no commitment, social acceptance, a theology that even discourages standing up for your faith. These are the things that are killing real Christianity in the U.S.

Well said. I will be posting more on the book as I read through it and see something I feel is worth sharing publically. Lou has, in my opinion, greatly misrepresented JM, twisted his meaning and his own explainations of LS, and is teaching a Gospel different from that of Christ and the Apostles. This is my impression so far. I hope I am wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

Well said. I will be posting more on the book as I read through it and see something I feel is worth sharing publically. Lou has, in my opinion, greatly misrepresented JM, twisted his meaning and his own explainations of LS, and is teaching a Gospel different from that of Christ and the Apostles. This is my impression so far. I hope I am wrong.

:wavey: Keep on :type:

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The LS controversy is not a controversy over what JM teaches. The controversy is about the Gospel itself. It is a controversy over the doctrine of salvation. And it is a controversy concerning how the Gospel is being presented in our society.

John MacArthur's LS interpretation of the Gospel is the crux of the LS controversy.

MacArthur has redefined the terms of the Gospel. In so doing, MacArthur has corrupted the Gospel from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote,

"John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel."

It IS the teaching of MacArthur and all men who teach and promote Lordship's peculiar interpretation of the Gospel that has introduced “divisions and offenses” into the body of Christ.

It is exactly the teaching of men like MacArthur that must be biblically resisted. The Bible mandates our course of action when the Gospel is under assault such as it is by the teaching of Lordship Salvation.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.,” (Romans 16:17).

Finally, I want to reiterate that MacArthur’s character is not under question, his teaching is because his teaching on the Gospel is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I encourage any one who has TGATJ, the 20th Anniversary edition to turn to page 250. There you will find a stark example of the works based teaching of John MacArthur's Lordship Salvation.

If you do not have a copy, for details see, Summary of Lordship Salvation for documentation from the book.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

John MacArthur's LS interpretation of the Gospel is the crux of the LS controversy.

MacArthur has redefined the terms of the Gospel. In so doing, MacArthur has corrupted the Gospel from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote, It IS the teaching of MacArthur and all men who teach and promote Lordship's peculiar interpretation of the Gospel that has introduced “divisions and offenses” into the body of Christ.

It is exactly the teaching of men like MacArthur that must be biblically resisted. The Bible mandates our course of action when the Gospel is under assault such as it is by the teaching of Lordship Salvation.


Finally, I want to reiterate that MacArthur’s character is not under question, his teaching is because his teaching on the Gospel is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).


LM

LM,

I thought you were not dealing with MacArthur, but the issues? So now it is about MacArthur? In my post here I dealt with the issues, and the main issue in this whole controvery is the Gospel. I think you need to include the follow, as Ernest Reisinger ponted out...

"...such men as Charles H. Spurgeon, John Bunyan, John Gill, John A. Broadus, B. H. Carroll, all Baptists who embrace the 1689 Confession, all Presbyterians who hold to the Westminster Confession and all Christian Reformed men who hold to the Heidelburg Catechism come "under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel."

 

[TCGreek]

The LS controversy is not a controversy over what JM teaches. The controversy is about the Gospel itself. It is a controversy over the doctrine of salvation. And it is a controversy concerning how the Gospel is being presented in our society.

One way or the other.

 

[MB]

I encourage any one who has TGATJ, the 20th Anniversary edition to turn to page 250. There you will find a stark example of the works based teaching of John MacArthur's Lordship Salvation.

If you do not have a copy, for details see, Summary of Lordship Salvation for documentation from the book.


LM

I haven't a clue what TGATJ is.
In matt 19 there is a rich man who asked Christ about how to obtain eternal life. Christ told him if he wanted to be perfect to sell all he had and give it to the poor. He went away because he couldn't do that. The disciples asked then who could be saved. Christ told them that with men it was impossible but with God all things are possible.

Was that rich young man saved or not?
Or was he so in love with his possessions that he had no room left in his heart for Christ?

The biggest fear in many hearts is " What am I going to have to give up for this Salvation ?" When I was saved I had nothing to posses but my sin. Did I give it all up?. Obviously not because I still sin. At the time I was convinced that I wouldn't ever sin again. It all seems silly now that I thought such a thing. I just hadn't been fully educated yet.

Everything I have is really God's. Even my children and wife. I think maybe what is missing in Christianity today is the realization that Christ deserves to be first in our lives. It is truly rare to meat someone who is totally devoted to Christ, so rare in fact, that I doubt that there is anyone really that devoted. I'd like to be able to make such a claim but, when I examine myself I know better. No one is perfect but Christ with this I can agree. Yet perfection is what being Christ like is all about isn't it?

Being a Christian is to seek to be like Him. Isn't Lord ship over our lives allowing Him to live His life through us?.

I’d really like to know, can anyone be saved who will not surrender to His righteousness? If you hold back one thing is it really a complete surrender?
MB

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I haven't a clue what TGATJ is.

MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus (TGATJ), now in its 3rd edition.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

One way or the other.

If it is the other than it is a false accusation against the man, if it is the one way, then the non-lordship advocates are teaching false doctrine.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

MB:

You wrote, "What am I going to have to give up for this Salvation?" Answering that question as though the lost have to give something up FOR salvation is how LS can be identified as a WORKS message. MacArthur's answer is, "Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." (TGATJ).

Be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation; forsake everything to become a Christian?

I read one man equate this to a pledge drive. A promise for a promsie, an exchange, a barter system. Pledge the willingness to forsake everything and in return you receive the gift of eternal life. This is Lordship Salvation!


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23). http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

That is a proper exposition of the biblical Gospel.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

That is is JM's own words. I would like to see folks interact with that.

 

[TCGreek]

That is is JM's own words. I would like to see folks interact with that.

RB, Wake up!

That that has always been the issue is obvious from the numerous debates.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB, Wake up!

That that has always been the issue is obvious from the numerous debates.

I am quite awake. Had my starbucks this morning. :wavey:

Actually, LM has made up the statement "Lordship FOR salvation" and defined it as pre-works must be done in order to inherit salvation. I can't find anywhere on record where JM or LS teaches that. Can you?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

RB, Wake up! That that has always been the issue is obvious from the numerous debates.

TC:

RB wrote,

"Actually, LM has made up the statement "Lordship FOR salvation" and defined it as pre-works must be done in order to inherit salvation. I can't find anywhere on record where JM or LS teaches that. Can you?"

RB not only needs to wake up about the words with which MacArthur uses to teach his LS, but he also needs to wake up and understand that I have not argued about what works a man must perform, what he must DO to become a Christian.

My argument with LS is over what LS insists a lost man must promise, make a commitment to DO to become a Christian.

LS is wrong because it is a message instructing the lost man that he must be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation, FOR the reception of eternal life.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

TC:

RB wrote,
RB not only needs to wake up about the words with which MacArthur uses to teach his LS, but he also needs to wake up and understand that I have not argued about what works a man must perform, what he must DO to become a Christian.

My argument with LS is over what LS insists a lost man must promise, make a commitment to DO to become a Christian.

LS is wrong because it is a message instructing the lost man that he must be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation, FOR the reception of eternal life.


LM

Lou needs to deal with me directly if he is going to respond to me.

 

[MB]

MB:

You wrote, "What am I going to have to give up for this Salvation?" Answering that question as though the lost have to give something up FOR salvation is how LS can be identified as a WORKS message. MacArthur's answer is, "Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." (TGATJ).

Be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation; forsake everything to become a Christian?

I read one man equate this to a pledge drive. A promise for a promsie, an exchange, a barter system. Pledge the willingness to forsake everything and in return you receive the gift of eternal life. This is Lordship Salvation!


LM

Thank you for answering my post;
Salvation is a gift we couldn't earn, even if we had to.
My salvation depends on submission or, surrender to Him. When we submit or surrender aren't we giving something up? Aren't we turning over our will over to Him?. If Jesus is Lord of our lives isn't He our ruler?.
If when we see something we really want and we take off after it leaving all else behind. Are we giving up on what we left behind?. Or is it just taking second place to the attraction . Leaving it behind. Does it insure that we will obtain what ever the object of our attraction may be.

The disciples left everything behind to seek after the one and only God in the flesh. Were they buying Salvation? I don't think they were. They were just so drawn. Every word Christ spoke to them must have rang like huge bells in there heads. They instantly became attracted to Christ and inside I think they already knew who He was.
In matt. 19, the disciples admit that they had given up everything to follow Christ. I for one am glad they did.
Christ said;
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
In other words give up your own life...
This isn't talking about a murderous type of hate but, an abandoning type. Can we be saved and not follow Christ? If we follow Him, we most certainly are giving up something, even if it's just our freewill. Some of the disciples left there wives behind, some left businesses. All of them gave up everything with the exception to Judas of course.
JM's statement;"Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." For some reason I don’t think that JM is suggesting that we can buy Salvation. I’ve heard the man preach and I don’t think buying Salvation is what he meant. It's an explanation of what happens when men see the answer to life right in front of them. With their attention is focused on Christ. Everything else becomes unimportant because of there focus on Christ. Money, relatives, all possessions, all fade, in comparison to Christ. Nothing absolutely nothing is more important. At least not to me.

I don’t usually defend Calvinist I do not believe as they do. However they do believe in Christ the same way I do. I consider them brothers and sisters in Christ. None of us agree totally on matters of doctrine even in my own church.

JM has a lot of controversy surrounding him. I don't agree with everything he says, but there is a good chance here that you've misunderstood what he was trying to say. I haven't read the book so obviously you know more about what he said than I do this is just my opinion.

You stated this is what JM believes and teaches, in his book;

“...submit yourself to God (salvation); resist the devil (transferring allegiance); draw near to God (intimacy of relationship); cleanse your hands (repentance); purify your hearts (confession); be miserable, mourn, weep and let your laughter and joy be turned to gloom (sorrow). The final imperative summarizes the mentality of those who are converted: ‘Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord’.”​

If MacArthur’s statement was shared as instruction to Christians on how they should live wisely as born again disciples of Jesus Christ that would be a fair application of what he wrote. He is, however, stating what he believes are the necessary conditions of saving faith that results in a lost man becoming a Christian.

What we have in this single page (250) of The Gospel According to Jesus is the Lordship’s classic error of failing to distinguish between the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. Lordship Salvation frontloads faith with commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) one would expect of a mature born again Christian.

I say amen to what JM says here. There is no difference between the Jew and the greek we all have to go through Jesus to have eternal life. You should know that submission is not a work but is simply giving up.
MB

 

[TCGreek]

I am quite awake. Had my starbucks this morning. :wavey:

Actually, LM has made up the statement "Lordship FOR salvation" and defined it as pre-works must be done in order to inherit salvation. I can't find anywhere on record where JM or LS teaches that. Can you?

RB,

Have you read MacArthur's take on James 4:7-10? If so, Do you agree with him?