The Gospel According to Jesus

[Revmitchell]

Does God require them to have sins dealt with before the Cross, or else get cleansed by his blood?

God requires that they understand their sin is what put Him on the cross and their life is no longer their own.

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm not really sure it's the best place to start a discussion about the book, but the two prefaces seem to keep nagging at me, particularly one phrase - mental assent.

On page ix, (Packer's preface), I read:

God has joined faith and repentance as the two facets of response to the Savior and make it clear that turning to Christ means turning from sin and letting ungodliness go (paragraph 1, sentence 3)

Simple assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith, and less that saving, and to elicit only assent of this kind would be to secure only false converts (par 2, sen 6)

So what is in question is the nature of faith (par 1, sen 8) - I would agree with this statement, by the way. This should be a question as to the nature of faith.

Looking at those sentences in my book of which I highlighted (thanks for the tip). I think the point that Packer is trying to make here is that God grants faith and repentance and those truly saved will show fruit of a true conversion. Bye the way I like Packer and have two of his books. Like Mac a great person to read.

Then on page xi (Boice's preface), I read:

Did I say weakness? It is more. It is a tragic error. It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent, and then assures them of their eternal security when they may very well not be born again. (par 4, sen 1-2)

What I see in both of these prefaces is that both of these men equate faith with mental assent to some facts, or "the barest intellectual assent"

Thats partly true however I think you missed this line by Boice (another great author whom has some great books) It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then this line by Packer Simple assent to the gospel divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith...

Here is Packer again:

"faith and repentance as the two facets of response"

Then he goes on to define (or describe) what these two facets are:

"Simple assent to the gospel, transforming commitment"

Thats correct. If one has no commitment but claims Christ they have a false faith.

And now Boice again:

"It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent"

Neither of these men define or describe faith as full assurance, personal conviction, trust, expectant hope.

How complex a topic like Faith cannot be fully explained in 2 page forward by both men can it?

By their insistence that a removal of commitment leaves only a "simple assent" or "barest assent", they are, in essence, saying that faith = intellectual assent.

I disagree. They clearly state that saving faith also involves a transforming commitment and fruits.

So they have posited a view that assent to facts is not enough, but that this assent to facts must be coupled with a commitment to follow. We can therefore conclude that their idea of "saving faith" would be the following two components:

facts + following

Well yes even the devils know the facts (James 2:19) but do they have a real faith? You know when Christ walked the earth the only persons that believed in him was the devils! Everyone else, even his own disciples doubted who he was! The devils knew the facts but they have a false faith. Knowing the facts is not enough as one must show their fruit.

In Hard to believe page 10 Mac writes

Following Jesus is not about you and me. Being a Christian is not about us, its about our being sick of our sin and our desperation for forgiveness. It is about seeing Christ as the priceless savior from sin and death and hell, so that we willingly give up as much as it takes even if it costs us our families, our marriages, and whatever else we cherish and possess.

Mac goes on to say later on the page that the Lord may take your life, your money, your family, your spouse and your job. I take this to mean that being a Christian is not about my self-fulfillment nor self-esteem. Also I take this to mean that being a christian may entail one get into financial problems and that God may or may not bail you out. This is contrary to the message of the modern church which states that God will and is obligated to bail us out of large debts and financial problems. God may or may not do this. Also I take what he says (and he provides much scripture to back up everything he says) to mean that I must preach hard on sin and hell, so that people are desperate for Christ. This is one reason why I prefer The Way of the Master because it hits hard on sin.


PS- Looking forward to your next reply James. Oh and I would ignore the people posting in this thread unless they have a honest question or have read the book. Most have not and still reject LS so I ignore what they say. If they can't read the book, then they should read Hard to Believe a easier to read version.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'll check my editions in the morning and try and reply tomorrow.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hey! Maybe when everyone gets their editions checked an actual conversation will take place.

 

[JamesL]

Hey! Maybe when everyone gets their editions checked an actual conversation will take place.

Go start your text own thread.

Troll

 

[JamesL]

John,
I think I may have used some terminology that didn't resonate. I'll try to use phrases which convey my point from the Lordship mindset.

In the eyes of a Lordship proponent, there is a distinction between "faith" and "saving faith"

And saving faith has several synonyms - genuine faith, real faith, true faith, and maybe others.


In the eyes of Boice and Packer (And Mac), faith is a bare intellectual assent to facts. Then, when coupled together with a commitment, the sum is "saving faith"


You wrote:

Thats partly true however I think you missed this line by Boice (another great author whom has some great books) It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then this line by Packer Simple assent to the gospel divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith...

I didn't miss it, I was trying to highlight the nature of faith, which Packer had already stated is the heart of the issue, with which I agree.

Here is a quote from me:

Here is Packer again:

"faith and repentance as the two facets of response"

Then he goes on to define (or describe) what these two facets are:

"Simple assent to the gospel, transforming commitment"

To which you responded:

Thats correct. If one has no commitment but claims Christ they have a false faith.

You agreed with them that "faith" is a mere intellectual assent. But that intellectual assent becomes "saving" when it is coupled with works.

That boils down to a view that facts + works = saving faith

But faith is not adherence to facts, even if it is coupled with works


Facts, even if coupled with a commitment, do not save. Facts are facts. There are certainly facts about Christ, but knowing the facts, and trusting HIM are not the same thing

 

[Yeshua1]

Looking at those sentences in my book of which I highlighted (thanks for the tip). I think the point that Packer is trying to make here is that God grants faith and repentance and those truly saved will show fruit of a true conversion. Bye the way I like Packer and have two of his books. Like Mac a great person to read.



Thats partly true however I think you missed this line by Boice (another great author whom has some great books) It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then this line by Packer Simple assent to the gospel divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith...



Thats correct. If one has no commitment but claims Christ they have a false faith.


How complex a topic like Faith cannot be fully explained in 2 page forward by both men can it?



I disagree. They clearly state that saving faith also involves a transforming commitment and fruits.




Well yes even the devils know the facts (James 2:19) but do they have a real faith? You know when Christ walked the earth the only persons that believed in him was the devils! Everyone else, even his own disciples doubted who he was! The devils knew the facts but they have a false faith. Knowing the facts is not enough as one must show their fruit.

In Hard to believe page 10 Mac writes


Mac goes on to say later on the page that the Lord may take your life, your money, your family, your spouse and your job. I take this to mean that being a Christian is not about my self-fulfillment nor self-esteem. Also I take this to mean that being a christian may entail one get into financial problems and that God may or may not bail you out. This is contrary to the message of the modern church which states that God will and is obligated to bail us out of large debts and financial problems. God may or may not do this. Also I take what he says (and he provides much scripture to back up everything he says) to mean that I must preach hard on sin and hell, so that people are desperate for Christ. This is one reason why I prefer The Way of the Master because it hits hard on sin.


PS- Looking forward to your next reply James. Oh and I would ignore the people posting in this thread unless they have a honest question or have read the book. Most have not and still reject LS so I ignore what they say. If they can't read the book, then they should read Hard to Believe a easier to read version.

Those who do not hold to LDS salvation would also agree that a Christian needs to become a follower/disciple of Christ in order to be in the will of God for their lives, and to keep on growing and maturing, but that we still can at times been choosing the foolish way, and try to still run our own lives, and that will bring disciple/chaistisement from God, but does NOT mean that we were never saved!
LEARLY teachesthat as inner ONLY must place faith unto jesus, look to him to get saved, and after that, we must start the process of continued growing/discipleship, due to us already now saved!

 

[JamesL]

John,
I forgot to add...

The reason I started with the two Forewords (I think i mistakenly referred to them as Prefaces) is that they both offer a summary of the issue at hand.

I know they're not exhaustive, but they both used the same verbiage to convey their idea of what faith is or is not. And they agreed with Mac.

This is the foundation of the entire debate, and must be addressed first

 

[evangelist6589]

Those who do not hold to LDS salvation would also agree that a Christian needs to become a follower/disciple of Christ in order to be in the will of God for their lives, and to keep on growing and maturing, but that we still can at times been choosing the foolish way, and try to still run our own lives, and that will bring disciple/chaistisement from God, but does NOT mean that we were never saved!

LEARLY teachesthat as inner ONLY must place faith unto jesus, look to him to get saved, and after that, we must start the process of continued growing/discipleship, due to us already now saved!

Have you read the book? Do you have the book? If not buy a copy and let's chat.

 

[evangelist6589]

John,

I forgot to add...



The reason I started with the two Forewords (I think i mistakenly referred to them as Prefaces) is that they both offer a summary of the issue at hand.



I know they're not exhaustive, but they both used the same verbiage to convey their idea of what faith is or is not. And they agreed with Mac.



This is the foundation of the entire debate, and must be addressed first

I will address your comments when get home to my Mac and the book so stay tuned. Also do not worry about Mitchell and others whom post and do not have the book.

 

[SolaSaint]

Ok guy's, I'm already lost. My edition (2008) is lacking the forwards by Packer & Boice. This makes no sense. We are using The Gospel According to Jesus correct? My copy has three Prefaces all my MacArthur, which are very good reads by the way.

I'm very interested in this discussion, so please let me know if I'm supposed to be using Hard to Believe instead. Thanks

 

[JamesL]

SolaSaint,
We are using "The Gospel According to Jesus"

The '88 edition has two Forewords, which I erroneously referred to as Prefaces. If you want, I can post both full Forewords tonight, so that you can read them.

 

[SolaSaint]

SolaSaint,
We are using "The Gospel According to Jesus"

The '88 edition has two Forewords, which I erroneously referred to as Prefaces. If you want, I can post both full Forewords tonight, so that you can read them.

Sounds good

 

[JamesL]

Foreword by J.I. Packer

That man should not separate what God has joined is a truth about more than marriage. God has joined the three offices of prophet (teacher), priest, and king in the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ, and directs us in the Bible to relate positively to them all. God has joined faith and repentance as the two facets of response to the Savior and made it clear that turning to Christ means turning from sin and letting ungodliness go. Biblical teaching on faith joins credence, commitment, and communion; it exhibits Christian believing as not only knowing facts about Christ, but also coming to Him in personal trust to worship, love, and serve him. If we fail to keep together these things that God has joined together, our Christianity will be distorted.

"Lordship Salvation" is a name for the view that upholds these unities. The name sounds esoteric and slightly uncouth, and its novelty would naturally suggest that the view labeled by it is a novel product, manufactured only recently. But in fact it is no more, just as it is no less, than the mainstream Protestant consensus on the nature of justifying faith, and the real novelty is the position of those who coined this name for the view they reject and who break these unities in their own teaching. That teaching reinvents the maimed account of faith given by Scottish Sandemanianism two centuries ago, well described by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones in his book The Puritans. Like Sandemanians, those who reject "lordship salvation" choose to keep works out of justification. To this end, like Sandemanians again, they represent faith as simple assent to the truth about Jesus' saving role, and thus their teaching becomes vulnerable to the criticism that it exalts faith in a way that destroys faith. Simple assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith, and less than saving, and to elicit only assent of this kind would be to secure only false conversions. So the gospel really is at stake in this discussion, though not in a way that the opponents of "lordship salvation" think. What is in question is the nature of faith.

Dr. MacArthur has written this book in order to show from the records of Christ's own ministry what saving faith in him actually amounts to. I find his demonstration conclusive, and I thank God for it. It is a fine book - clear, cogent, and edifying - doing for us what is nowhere else done so well, and that is very much needed at this time. I wish it a wide circulation and a thoughtful readership. It will render the Christian world great service. I commend it enthusiastically.

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks James, so are you in agreement with Packer and Mac? Do you feel a truly saved man will show his faith by works? Can simple mental assent save anyone? By the way I feel we have many filling the pews today that fit that description (mental assent only) or as Hank Hanagraff states as a Said Faith.

Have you ever seen Ray Comfort's DVD called True and False Conversions?

 

[JamesL]

Foreword by James Montgomery Boice

I have always had great admiration for John MacArthur. He has given himself to the arduous task of pastoring a large and growing congregation. He has done so for a long period of time. Moreover, he has based his ministry on careful Bible exposition, modeling much of what is best in faithful verse-by-verse teaching of large portions of the Word of God. Since I am a pastor myself, I very much respect these qualities and achievements.

But my admiration for John MacArthur grew by quantum leaps as I read The Gospel According to Jesus. This is because the book reveals a man whose conscience is clearly taken captive by the Word of God. It reveals one who knows how to read the Bible for what it actually says (without filtering it through his or anyone else's prejudiced theological or cultural grid), and who is then fearless in proclaiming that Word to our wicked and needy generation.

Even more! In The Gospel According to Jesus, MacArthur is not dealing with some issue or issues external to the faith, but with the central issue of all, namely, What does it mean to be a Christian? His answers address themselves to what I consider to be the greatest weakness of contemporary evangelical Christianity in America.

Did I say weakness? It is more. It is tragic error. It is the idea - where did it ever come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires of sinners only that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent, and then assures them of their eternal security when they may very well no be born again. This view bends faith beyond recognition - at least for those who know what the Bible actually says about faith - and promises a false peace to thousands who have given verbal assent to this reductionist Christianity but are not truly in God's family.

How did this happen? No doubt the motives of those who have fallen into this profound error have been good. They want to preserve in its purity the gospel of justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They know that adding works to faith is a false gospel, and they rightly want to avoid that heresy. But preserving the gospel is precisely what they have not done. They have warped and in some cases utterly destroyed it.

These scholars, pastors, and Bible teachers need to learn:

- that there is no justification without regeneration. It was Jesus who said, "You must be born again" (John 3:7).

- that faith without works is a dead faith and that no one will ever be saved by a dead faith. James said, "Faith without works is useless" (James 2:20).

- that the mark of true justification is a perseverance in righteousness - to the very end. Jesus told His disciples, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22).

- that faith in a Jesus who is Savior but not Lord is faith in a Jesus of one's own devising. The Jesus who saves is Lord - there is no other - and it was He who said "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46).

- that if anyone wants to serve Christ, "he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow [Him]" (Luke 9:23).

- that "without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).​

Well, that is the problem MacArthur tackles in this book, and those are the answers he gives. He gives them very well indeed. Besides, he does this charitably. Those who distort the gospel in the way I have described are not always charitable to those of us who insist on Christ's lordship. We are accused of teaching "lordship salvation," a term we do not use ourselves. And we are often called heretics. I am not aware that John MacArthur has called any of his opponents heretics; nor have I. But they are mistaken - dreadfully mistaken in my opinion - and they need to be shown their error from Scripture, which is what this book does. They also need to be shown that their view has never been the view of any major Bible teacher or theologian in the church until our own weak times. MacArthur shows this in the book's second and very valuable appendix.

Why is today's church so weak? Why are we able to claim many conversions and enroll many church members but have less and less impact on our culture? Why are Christians indistinguishable from the world? Is it not that many are calling people Christians who are actually unregenerate? Is it not that many are settling for a "form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5)?

If MacArthur's book succeeds in turning many from this weak gospel and false confidence, as I believe it will, The Gospel According to Jesus may be one of the most significant books of the decade.

 

[JamesL]

Thanks James, so are you in agreement with Packer and Mac? Do you feel a truly saved man will show his faith by works? Can simple mental assent save anyone? By the way I feel we have many filling the pews today that fit that description (mental assent only) or as Hank Hanagraff states as a Said Faith.

Have you ever seen Ray Comfort's DVD called True and False Conversions?

I have not seen Comfort's DVD.

As for "simple mental assent", that is what I was addressing in post #14, then John responded in pose #22, then I responded in posts #26 & 28

But as you can read in both these Forewords, the same verbiage is used, such as "bare" (or naked) mental assent. The natural implication is that this "mental assent" needs to be joined together with commitment.

But that is nothing but facts and works, neither of which save.

If faith minus works is equivalent to bare mental assent, then *true* faith would necessarily amount to mental assent coupled with works.

I do not believe a mental assent - whether it is coupled with works or not - amounts to faith.

I agree that many are filling the pews with a mental assent to some facts, but it is not works they are missing, it is hope in Christ. They are missing full assurance of God's promise, found in His Son. They are missing confidence in His finished work.

 

[evangelist6589]

Tomorrow I will look at the book an reply. Today I was reading the Gospel According to the Apostles which was a real feast and I looked up many verses as Mac nailed the coffin that LS is completely biblical.

 

[SolaSaint]

I have not seen Comfort's DVD.

As for "simple mental assent", that is what I was addressing in post #14, then John responded in pose #22, then I responded in posts #26 & 28

But as you can read in both these Forewords, the same verbiage is used, such as "bare" (or naked) mental assent. The natural implication is that this "mental assent" needs to be joined together with commitment.

But that is nothing but facts and works, neither of which save.

If faith minus works is equivalent to bare mental assent, then *true* faith would necessarily amount to mental assent coupled with works.

I do not believe a mental assent - whether it is coupled with works or not - amounts to faith.

I agree that many are filling the pews with a mental assent to some facts, but it is not works they are missing, it is hope in Christ. They are missing full assurance of God's promise, found in His Son. They are missing confidence in His finished work.

I would agree with you here. I don't feel Packer or Boice either one is representing what you have said though. Do you agree? Boice is more clear on his intro, but I have read much of Packer and in no way would he believe in simple mental assent plus a commitment to represent true saving faith.

 

[evangelist6589]

John,
I think I may have used some terminology that didn't resonate. I'll try to use phrases which convey my point from the Lordship mindset.

In the eyes of a Lordship proponent, there is a distinction between "faith" and "saving faith"

Oh yes because those whom hold to the Free-Grace position have redefined Faith, and believe. Mac explains this perhaps in more detail in the Gospel According to the the Apostles which I was reading yesterday. But no question about it they have not done as good of a study on the terms as Mac.

And saving faith has several synonyms - genuine faith, real faith, true faith, and maybe others.

In the eyes of Boice and Packer (And Mac), faith is a bare intellectual assent to facts. Then, when coupled together with a commitment, the sum is "saving faith"

Faith is not just an intellectual assent of the facts. Faith leads to repentance and of which has deeds that prove that faith is real. No one is saved by their works, but they do show evidence of a true conversion. Just look at what the Bible teaches on this subject.

Acts 26:20b(NIV,1984)
I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Also it is God whom grants repentance.

Acts 11:18b (NIV,1984)
So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.

You wrote:
I didn't miss it, I was trying to highlight the nature of faith, which Packer had already stated is the heart of the issue, with which I agree.

Here is a quote from me:


To which you responded:



You agreed with them that "faith" is a mere intellectual assent. But that intellectual assent becomes "saving" when it is coupled with works.

That boils down to a view that facts + works = saving faith

I don't think so as God grants repentance as the verse above indicated, and repentance is indicated by deeds, but deeds do not save anyone. Repentance just shows fruit in deeds.

But faith is not adherence to facts, even if it is coupled with works

Facts, even if coupled with a commitment, do not save. Facts are facts. There are certainly facts about Christ, but knowing the facts, and trusting HIM are not the same thing

Yes I agree as even the devils know the facts but they are not saved. Turn to page 28 of your book and look under the heading The Abandonment of Jesus's Gospel and look at what the first paragraph says. I can type out the whole paragraph but I want your view on this paragraph. Since I am using the 1991 version of the book perhaps your version has this on another page but just try and find the heading.