The following
message was delivered by John MacArthur
Jr., of Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 90-37,
titled “I. F. C. A. Meeting (6-26-89)” Part 2.
A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box
4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.
I have made every effort to ensure that an accurate
transcription of the original tape was made.
Please note that at times sentence structure may appear to vary from
accepted English conventions. This is
due primarily to the techniques involved in preaching and the obvious choices I
had to make in placing the correct punctuation in the article.
It is my intent and prayer that the Holy Spirit will
use this transcription to strengthen and encourage the true Church of Jesus
Christ.
Tony Capoccia
Independent Fundamental
Churches of America (I.F.C.A.) Meeting
Part 2
by
John MacArthur Jr.
Copyright 1989
All Rights Reserved
Board
Member: On the two natures…and this
writer asked for a yes or no answer only. [Audience Laughter] Is Romans 7
dealing with the struggles of the believer or a non-believer?
John
MacArthur: Believer.
[Audience Laughter].
Board
Member: All right, then this question: there is a
rather lengthy quote here from your commentary on Ephesians. The quote is as follows: “Biblical
terminology then does not say that the Christian has two different natures; he
has but one nature: the new nature in Christ.
The old self dies and the new self lives. They do not coexist.
There’s not a remaining old nature, but the remaining garment of sinful
flesh that causes Christians to sin.
The Christian is a single, new person, a totally new creation not a
spiritual schizophrenic.” In light of
this statement, which you have published, how can you be in full agreement and
heartily sign the I.F.C.A. doctrinal statement, which says we believe that
every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of
the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy
Spirit, and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life
are unscriptural? Would you say that
your writings on Ephesians along this line of thinking are confusing, if not
contrary to the I.F.C.A. position on the two natures?
John
MacArthur: No, the reason I can sign the doctrinal statement is
because I know what you mean by that.
When you say the believer has two natures—I know what you mean to say by
that. The only difference that I make
is that those are not biblical terms and that’s the only issue. I believe in the struggle of Romans, chapter
7, as the normal struggle for every believer.
But, I chose to use biblical terminology. Again, it rises out of a study of Romans 6 and 7. Any of you who would want to know the answer
to where I stand on this, I have a little book called Freedom From Sin on Romans 6 and 7.
I
can sign the doctrinal statement, let me say it that way, because I believe the
intent of everything that is said there; I simply would not use the term “two
natures.” I’ll give you an exegetical
reason: those are not used in the Bible.
I’ll give you a theological reason.
You got a epistemological problem or a problem in terminology.
If
I say, that I have an old nature, O.K.?
What do I mean by that? I’m
what?—not saved. If I say when I got
saved I got a new nature—how have I just described salvation? What is it?
Addition. It isn’t
addition. It is what?—it’s
transformation. That is why I don’t
like the idea . . . you know old deal that you’ve got two dogs, a black dog and
a white dog, who wins? the one you say “sick ‘em” to—you know, that kind of
theology. I don’t like to think of my
salvation as: here I am, this wretched, corrupt person and now somewhere in the
midst of my wretched, corrupt nature, God stuck a new nature. That doesn’t transform me; that is
inconsistent with Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ.” What is crucifixion an emblem of? Death.
I died. What died? My old ego.
“Nevertheless, I live, a new [ego].”
I
am a new creation in Christ, but that new creation is incarcerated in
unredeemed flesh. That’s why, in Romans
8, he’s crying out saying, “We wait for the redemption of our,” what?—“of our
body,” and by “body” he doesn’t just mean the physical body—all of the bodily
appetites that are in your mind and your emotions and your will—all unredeemed
humanness, in which is incarcerated the new creation…and there is the
conflict. The new creation which is a
transformed inner person…that’s why Paul says in Romans 7, “In the inner man, I
delight in the law of God,” right?—“but, I have this principle in me of sin.”
I
see that, but I just don’t like to call it “two natures” because it makes
salvation look like addition rather than transformation and it forces people to
deal with terms they can’t find in the Bible.
So, when I teach my people, I try to always use biblical terms. In Romans 8, what would it say—it would have
to read like this, “We wait for the elimination of our old nature.” It doesn’t say that. “We wait for the transformation of our body
to match the transformation of that inner part of us.” Now, I don’t want to get too technical in
splitting that all up because it gets real deep and it’s way beyond me. The new birth is still a mystery, but I just
like to use biblical terms.
So,
I don’t have any problems signing that because what the statement intends to
say is that you have a principle of new life, a principle of sin, at war with
each other in the believer. It’s just
what you call them and I would rather use biblical terms as I try to, carefully
going through Romans 6 and 7, than to just simply call them “two natures.” That’s O.K. and Renny Showers (sp.) has a
good little book in which he redefines natures in such a way that I can accept
that. But, I’d rather stick with the
biblical terminology. I think he calls
nature a “predisposition” and that’s fine.
I don’t have any problem with that, but I’d rather talk about sin that
is in me—where?—that is in my flesh, my unredeemed humanness. Just use Paul’s terms, then when people go
back to the Bible and they read it, they say, “Oh yeah, I remember that. That fits what I heard.” So, it’s just terminology.
Board
Member:
Any question from the panel on the two natures? Ah, Harold Freeman.
Harold
Freeman: John, are you familiar with
Buswell’s [James O. Buswell, Jr.] definition of nature?
John
MacArthur:
I’m not sure . . . James Buswell?
Harold
Freeman: Yes, he calls nature a “complex of attributes.”
John
MacArthur:
Yes, that’s good.
Harold
Freeman: If you use nature in that
way, you would be right at home with the word “nature,” because now, just a
word that is Biblical, you’re not uncomfortable with “Trinity”?
John
MacArthur:
Right.
Harold
Freeman:
You use that, but that’s not Biblical, but it’s Biblical truth. So, with regard to the nature, if a nature
is truly a complex of attributes, we have the attributes of humanness.
John
MacArthur: I have no problem with that.
Harold
Freeman:
—that’s struggling with Romans 7, right?
John
MacArthur:
Thank you for helping me. That’s
good. As a complex of attributes or, as
I mentioned earlier, a disposition which is composed of all those…sure. I have no problem with that at all. I would believe that.
Board
Member:
George.
George: I have a question that may
be helpful to me—would be, I’m sure you’re familiar with the book Birthright by David Needham. Would you be comfortable with his position.
In the light of the book, could the book join the I.F.C.A. comfortably?
John
MacArthur: [Laughter by MacArthur] Needham’s book is
really just a sort of a regripping of Martin Lloyd Jones’ view, which is pretty
much a historic view. I don’t know
whether he could join the I.F.C.A.; I guess I’m trying to find that out today,
you know, in my own case, [Laughter by John and Audience] but I’m not sure what
you all would tolerate in terms of terminology, but I—the book goes a little
too far for me. Just in general, I’m a
little uncomfortable with some of the implications of making the division too
strong. I think he fragments the
believer into too clear a division. I’m a little uncomfortable with that, but
I’m certain that both he and Martin Lloyd Jones, from whom he drew most of that
material, would affirm the sinfulness of the believer, that there is a real
entity of sin within the life of the believer.
But, I think he goes a little far in making the division a distinction.
Board
Member: OK, thank you. Now we move into the final category, which we want to spend the
rest of our time, on salvation. The
first question, John, is could you explain your motive and intent behind
writing the book The Gospel According to
Jesus?
John
MacArthur: Well, that’s a hard question to answer
without sounding a little self-serving or pious, but I have to tell you I felt
like a man under compulsion. It’s hard
to access the motive, you know I’d like to think all my motives were pure; I
don’t think it was financial. Patricia
and I devoted all that God has given us from that book back into the Lord’s work
so it hasn’t brought any money to us. I
don’t think I was trying to confuse the church, but I wrote that book . . . Let
me give you just a brief statement of background.
When
I was in high school I had a very dear friend—played on our baseball team, played
on our football team, we were buddies, he played first base, I played short
stop, he played a backup quarterback position, I was a tailback—and we were
close. His father was real active in a
church group and, of course, my father was a pastor and we did a lot of
personal evangelism in those days, we’d go down to the Pershing Square in LA
and witness. Ralph went away to
Redlands University—I saw him after his second year, after I’d been away to
college, and I was so glad to see him and he said, “John, something’s
changed.” I said, “What?” He said, “I’m an atheist.” I was shocked. I said, “What do you mean ‘you’re an atheist’?” He said, “I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe any of that “blankety-blank”
stuff in the Bible.” I just didn’t have
a category in my theology to put him in at that point.
I
went away to college. I had a very,
very similar experience with a number of guys that I knew, who named the name
of Christ at one point in time, and who abandoned Christ. The guy that sticks in my mind most of all—I
was in my senior year at college. He
was my running mate in the backfield; he was a great football player. We had great times together. He was a youth pastor on the weekends; he
taught the College Sunday school class in a Presbyterian church, and I taught
the College Sunday school class for my dad—we always compared notes. He graduated. I went on to seminary. He
went on to get a Ph.D. in Psychology; he went to teach at Cal. State University
in Long Beach, and I picked up the Times one day to find out that he had
brought nude students into the classroom and was demonstrating sexual stuff in
front of the whole class. He was
defrocked—kicked out of the school…found out he was selling drugs on the
side…he wound up with a seven-year prison sentence. You know, when you play football with a guy for three years, you
get close. He was the student body
president, I was vice president; his father was a pastor, a good friend of my
dad’s; to this day he denies Christ.
I
went away to seminary—the son of the Dean of my seminary married a Buddhist and
set up a Buddhist altar in his house after graduating from Talbot
Seminary. I struggled through a lot of
that kind of stuff. Then, I went to a
church and I baptized a guy who was a porno film maker and within 2 months, he
was back making porno films.
As
a pastor, I have seen them come and go and come and go and come and go…and
trying in my own heart to access the nature of true conversion was very much a
personal struggle with me, not a theological one. Then, I began to study the gospel of Matthew and I preached in
Matthew for 8 years at our church and in that process of going through Matthew,
I began to come to grips with the whole gospel record, because I was doing a
study of the synoptics and John at the same time. I began to fix on how Jesus evangelized and what he called for
and so forth and born out of that, I began to look at the church at large.
I
began to look, for one thing, at the Charismatic movement, which I say this
with compassion in my heart, has been, without question, the most disruptive
disastrous thing that has happened to the church in the last 50 years. It has devastated the church in America in a
number of ways. I wish I had time to go
in to them. And then coming behind it,
this psychological salvation stuff. The
combination of this has created the illusion of salvation in our society.
I’m
not trying to make people insecure; I’m just trying to make sure there aren’t
some people thinking they’re on their way to heaven, who are going to wake in
hell, and fulfill Matthew 7:21-23 and say, “Lord! Lord! What about
us?” That, to me, is the most frightening
passage in all of Scripture. It’d be
one thing to go to hell and know you were going there, it’d be one thing to go
to hell and not expect anything different; it’d be another thing to go to hell
and wonder why you got there when you thought you were a Christian. I just don’t want any responsibility in my
life or any of your responsibility with regard to that doctrine.
So,
that’s really what motivated me through the years, just going over that and
trying to deal with the reality of that issue and then watching people who name
the name of Christ, but their life is the same. One very moving experience—I was with the president of a seminary
and we were driving along and we passed a liquor store. It was all glass and it was lit on the
inside with lights in the middle that shot through all the liquor and through
the windows too at night. It looked
like a diamond.
I
said, “That is unbelievable. Look at
all that liquor.”
He
said, “Well, yes, there’s a lot of those stores in our city and they’re owned
by a guy in my Sunday school class”—I think I mentioned that in the book.
I said, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”
He
said, “No, he’s in the class.”
I said,
“Has he been there a long time?”
He
said, “Yes, he’s been there several years.”
I
said, “Is this guy a Christian?”
He
said, “Yes, he’s a Christian. He owns
these stores all around the city.”
I
said, “Well, doesn’t anybody confront him about this.”
He
said, “No.”
I
said, “Well, has it ever entered your mind that this guy might not be a
Christian?”
And
to which he replied, “Well, I remember the day he walked the aisle.”
And
then he said to me, this rather pensively, “Yeah, there’s one thing that
bothers me about him though. He’s been
living with this girl who is not his wife, for about two years.”
This
is a seminary president. I’m saying,
“Wait a minute.” “If any man be in
Christ, he is a new creation,” that’s got to mean something. I’m not legalistic, but I do believe in
transformation so that was really what was behind it. That conversation overwhelmed me and I just felt like maybe I
need to put some of this stuff together.
I didn’t know I’d get in so much trouble, to be honest with you. I don’t have a martyr complex, but I believe
passionately in what I wrote in that book.
In fact, I’m right in the process of writing a sequel The Gospel According to the Apostles
because it’s identical. [Audience laughter] As you would expect.
Board
Member: Another question here then, John. If I were an unsaved man coming to you today
in desperate need of salvation, and were to ask you, how I can receive eternal
life, what would you tell me? How much would
I have to understand concerning Christ, to get saved? Please give the Scripture you would use.
John
MacArthur: Well, you’d have to understand who Christ
is—I mean, you can’t believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved unless you
know who the Lord Jesus Christ is. You
would have to understand that He is God in human flesh who came into the world
to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin and that He accomplished the atonement
on the cross, paying the penalty for your sins and thus allowing God to grant
forgiveness to those who put their faith in Him.
So,
you’d have to explain Christ and then it would be a question of believing in
Him. The issue is what do we mean by belief?
Do you believe that Jesus came into the world, God in human flesh? Yes.
Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again the third
day? Yes. Do you believe Jesus died as a substitute for your sins? Yes.
Is
he saved? Not necessarily. I believe all that; so do the devils…James
2, “…they tremble…” There’s something
else. There’s got to be some content in
this believing. Jesus said, you know,
He didn’t commit Himself to people who believed in him. Many believed on Him, but “He didn’t commit
himself to them because He knew what was in their hearts,” remember that?
So,
the first question I try to ask in the book is: what is the nature of saving
faith? What is it that sets saving
faith apart from non-saving faith? I am
sure that every person in this room would affirm that there is such a thing as
a non-saving kind of belief, right? The
Catholics will sign on the dotted line, everything in the life of Christ, His
death, His resurrection…That doesn’t save them. What does? Well, somehow,
saving faith has to have some component.
Let me suggest the components to you.
Component #1—Saving faith forsakes all
human means of salvation.
Listen
to the apostle Paul. Acts 9 was the
history of his conversion; Philippians
3 is his heart attitude. You want to
know what Paul was feeling on the Damascus road? Read Philippians 3. What
does he say there? He says, “I was
circumcised the eighth day. I was of
the nation Israel. I was of the tribe
of Benjamin. I was a Hebrew of the
Hebrews. As to the law, a
Pharisee. As to zeal, persecuting the
church. As to the righteousness which
is contained in the law, I was,” what?, “blameless.” I mean, that’s some heavy-duty credentials.
What
was all that stuff to him? That was all
of his asset column; that was all profit.
“These things I counted as gain,” first. Right? This was my
assets. Why? Because his hope of salvation was in those. Salvation by race; salvation by ritual
(circumcision); salvation by rank (tribe of Benjamin—one of the highest ranking
of all tribes. I mean, they got the
territory in which Jerusalem existed; they were the only son born in the
promise land, and on and on it goes).
And
then he says, “I was a Hebrew of the Hebrews.”
What do you mean? I’m a Hebrew
son…Hebrew parents. I kept the
tradition. I kept the language. I kept the customs. I got it all. When it comes to zeal, do you want to see a sincere believer in
God?! I killed the opponents of the old
covenant. I killed the opponents of
salvation as I understood it. That’s
how zealous and sincere I am. The guy
had it all. As to the law: blameless,
from the human viewpoint. They couldn’t
hold anything on me. I kept the law; I
was a Pharisee: strict, loyal.”
6,000
Pharisees—that’s all there were at that time; he was one of those—that small
little elite group. So, he says, “That’s
all in my asset column and I hoped in my salvation for that and then I met
Christ on the Damascus road.” And, you
can believe this: he already knew the facts of Christ, right? And he already knew what the gospel
preachers were preaching—that’s why he was persecuting them. But, all of a sudden, he met Jesus Christ
and what he saw was skubalon, rubbish, excrement…and he trashed
it.
And
what does that say? That says that
salvation comes to someone who turns his back on any confidence in the flesh whatsoever. Paul says, “I counted it rubbish. It was gain to me—I counted it as loss.” He doesn’t say, “Well, it was nice, but it
wasn’t adequate.” He says, “It was excrement.” That’s the word skubalon. “Why?” you say, “to be a Jew, to be from Benjamin’s tribe,…why
was it such a vile thing?” I’ll tell
you why. Not because in itself it’s
wicked, but because when you trust in it for salvation, it’ll damn your soul. That’s the issue. So, he says, “I counted it all loss in order that I might gain Christ. And what did I gain? The knowledge of Christ, the righteousness
of Christ, the power of Christ, the fellowship of Christ in His sufferings, and
the glory of Christ in the resurrection to come.” That’s the exchange.
You
say, is that taught in the gospels?
Absolutely. What did Jesus say
in Matthew 16, “What will a man give in exchange for his,” what? You see, Paul had to make an exchange. He had to give up all of the stuff he was
trusting to trust only in Christ.
That’s exactly what Jesus meant in the parable of the treasure and the
pearl. When the guy found the treasure,
he sold everything he had and took the treasure. When he found the pearl, he sold everything he had and took the
pearl. It is an exchange of all that I
have trusted in for my salvation, for Christ.
It’s all rubbish.
So,
the first thing about saving faith is it has no confidence in the flesh. It is by pure grace, through faith, plus or
minus nothing.
Now, let me say this. I believe that you are turning from all confidence in the flesh, you are turning from sin to a Savior who can forgive your sin, and you are committing your life to the care of a sovereign Lord. Now, let me say this. I do not believe that at the moment of salvation, you or anybody else, fully understands all the implications of that kind of a thing. I’ll tell you right now, you may not understand it a few years after your salvation because it’s an ever-increasing awareness of what that meant.
“But, ah,” you say, “well, is that a human work, to turn from your flesh?” No. “Is it a human work to repent?” No. “Is it a human work to submit?” No. That is the divine work. It’s God who produces the loss of confidence in the flesh. It’s God who produces the repentance. It’s God who grants repentance; it says in the book of Acts, “God granted the Gentiles repentance.”
Are you willing to turn from anything you’re trusting for your salvation and trust only in Jesus Christ? Are you willing to turn from your sin—commit it to Him—ask Him to cleanse your life…and, are you willing to follow Him? What did Jesus say, “Make a decision for me”? No, He said, “Follow Me.” Continuity—that’s the way I would give the message. I don’t think everybody understands the full implications of it.
The second thing I tried to point out in the book—the first is the nature of saving faith—the second is the nature of conversion. What I’m trying to discuss in the book is, what is conversion? If you tell me conversion is where you get saved but don’t change, I got a problem because I don’t understand that that’s what the Bible teaches. So, maybe we need to talk about that…that’ll probably come up.
Board Member: O.K., the second question here…Does not your book The Gospel According to Jesus add to the essence of the pure gospel, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, in the same way as those believing in baptismal regeneration do when they say you must be baptized. If we’re going to add discipleship, why not baptism as an additional condition because the Scripture says, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”?
John
MacArthur: Well, for one thing, repent comes
before…but, obviously not. I believe in
salvation by grace through faith. The
issue is what does God do in the person when He saves him? Listen.
My doctrine of salvation is as simple as this: you can’t save yourself,
nobody can save you, only God can save you.
You cannot turn from the flesh; you are dead in trespasses and sin. You cannot repent. You cannot believe. You
cannot submit. You cannot follow. You cannot do anything—only God can do that
and God has to save you. You say,
“Well, isn’t my will involved?” Yeah,
because He changes your will.
So, we’re not talking about some human work here, folks. We’re all on our way to the pit forever if God doesn’t reach down in sovereign grace and redeem us—pick up us—how the mystery of the human will fits in is God’s to understand. But, I know this: that were it not for a sovereign, gracious God who reached down and, not only gave me faith and repentance and a willing heart, but jerked me out of my sin, I would never be saved. It has nothing to do with anything I would do; it’s totally the sovereign, gracious work of Almighty God. So, I believe in salvation by grace plus, minus, absolutely nothing; even faith is a gift from God.
Board
Member:
Would you give us your definition of the
following terms—I think you already have some of these—and state their
relationship to saving faith…Would you also put them in the chronological order
as they relate to your salvation theology: repentance, faith, believe, and
discipleship.
John
MacArthur: Well, repentance, faith, and believe—that’s
a package. Repentance is an element of
saving faith. Faith and belief is the
same thing; discipleship is the result.
What
is “disciple”? “Mathetes.” What did Jesus tell us to do? Go into all the world and do what? Make disciples. I mean, what are we arguing about? What does “mathetes” mean? “Learner”—that’s all it means. Don’t get into some big grandiose deal about what a disciple is…It just means a
“learner.” But, I’ll tell you something
right now. If you tried to go back to
the gospels and take the term “disciple” and say that all Christians aren’t
disciples (for example, like Zane Hodges would do) and put discipleship in some
second level category, you’ve got major problems.
But,
that’s what they have to do if they want us to hold that other view, because
when Jesus called disciples to himself, he said, “You know, if you’re not
willing to leave your father and mother and so forth and so on and take up your
cross and follow me, you can’t be My disciple,” He called for pretty strong
commitment. If people get nervous and
say, “Oh, that’s too much work”…Don’t you understand? He called for it and He produced it. Don’t you understand that they couldn’t do that either. That’s sovereignty. What He called for, only He could
produce. So, what’s the difference in
what He called for?
But,
the point is…discipleship, if you say that Jesus was calling already believing
people to higher levels of commitment, now you have totally transformed the
whole ministry of Jesus. He is not an
evangelist. He is not come to seek and
to save that which was lost. He is a “Kessick”
(sp.) [laughter] speaker and His entire role in the world is to find carnal
Christians and elevate them. That is
not what Jesus came to do; He came to make disciples. Look at John 4, what does the Father seek? “True,” what?, “worshippers.” Is that any different than a learner or
disciple? No. Is that second level too?
Are we saved and then somewhere along the line we learn to worship
God? Are we saved and then somewhere
along the line we learn to love God?
It’s
a package deal. Whatever the Lord does
is complete, and so He produces the repentance mixed in with the faith…I’m not
into this, “You know, don’t get me into the “sublapsararian and
infralapsararian and supralapsararian and superlapsarian Labrador retriever”
controversy [laughter] because I don’t even want to get into that. I don’t know what comes first; I just know
that there’s a package there and what comes out of the producing of faith and salvation is a heart that desires
God. I read a book this week on the
flight and in it, it said, “At the heart of every Christian is a person angry
with God.” What kind of a statement is
that? I don’t know what in the world
he’s talking about—I’m not angry with God.
At the heart of every Christian is somebody who wants to love God, because
that’s what God produces so he becomes a learner—that’s all a disciple is.
But,
there’s a willingness, I think, initially to commit our life. We don’t understand the full implications
and our flesh gets in the way…I’ll leave it at that.
By
the way, do you have this little thing called This We Believe? That’s an
I.F.C.A. thing, revised by Wright Van Clu (sp.), Robert Minierd (sp.), Roger
Campbell, L. Samuel March, and George Zeller and in it, it says—I know Wright
Van Clu (sp.)—it says, “Not everyone who professes Christ, actually possesses
Christ. Some people profess Christ, but
by their works, they deny Him. Some
name the name of Christ, but they do not depart from iniquity. With their lips, they say they know Christ,
but they’re found to be liars. It is
therefore needful for each professing believer to examine himself to see
whether or not he has truly believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t think I’m too far off where all you
people are! [Audience applause]
Board
Member: Now, please, I asked for no displays of
disapproval or approval with this question.
John
MacArthur:
I appreciate it; thank you very much. [Audience laughter] The Bible clearly
reveals certain marks which should characterize every child of God. Some of these are as follows:
One, the true believer believes
the word of God.
Two, hungers for the Word of
God.
Three, loves the brethren.
Four, obeys God’s commands.
Five, performs good works (and
it gives Scripture to support that.)
Six, does not continue in sin,
but lives a righteous life.
That’s
all I’m saying. If it isn’t there, you
have every reason to ask whether the person is a true Christian. I’m not trying to take somebody’s assurance
away, I’m trying to take somebody’s false assurance away.
Board
Member:
Two questions here that…In your
understanding, what is the difference of salvation and sanctification? Along with that, what is the relationship or
contribution of obedience to justification and sanctification?
John
MacArthur: Well, obedience makes no contribution to
justification except the obedience of faith…Paul talks about [in] Romans 1, the
obedience of faith. That’s the only
element in justification, but in sanctification obedience is the catalyst in
the process of spiritual growth. Again,
I believe that obedience is prompted by the Spirit of God. The first part of that question was,
“Distinguish between salvation and sanctification?”
Board
Member: Yes.
John
MacArthur: Well, I think salvation, as a term, embodies
sanctification. There are three kinds
of sanctification. We could say there
is instantaneous sanctification, when you are set apart unto God at the moment
of salvation; there is progressive sanctification, when you grow to be more
like Jesus Christ, pursuing the prize; and there is ultimate sanctification,
when you are, in total, made like Christ, in the future.
I
don’t think that salvation can be even discussed without discussing the whole
process of salvation from beginning to its completion. Remember in Romans 13, where Paul say, “Now,
is your salvation nearer than when you believed.” What was he talking about?
You mean there is a salvation that we’re still waiting for and getting
nearer to? Yes, because salvation is
not complete. My salvation is not
complete; is yours? I’m waiting for the
redemption of my body; then it will be complete. So, you can’t even talk about salvation without talking about
progressive sanctification and ultimate sanctification. That’s why in Romans, when Paul starts talking about salvation, in chapter 3,
he has to talk about sanctification in chapters 6, 7, and 8 because the package
comes together.
So,
yes, I believe in the sanctification as an inherent part of it; I do not believe in justification apart from
sanctification. I do not believe that
God has the power to save you, but can’t make you grow for some reason or can’t
transform you inside.
Board
Member: Back to a previous question…To ask your
definition—you talked about the term “disciple,” but the term that they wanted
was “discipleship.”
John
MacArthur: Well, you just want me to define that? That’s just the process of learning, the
process of developing from the point of salvation toward Christ-likeness, being
a learner—and who’s the teacher? It
says it, “Go and make disciples.” How
do you do that? “Baptizing and teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded.” That’s discipling. Win somebody to Christ, teach them everything Jesus wanted them
to know—that’s discipleship.
If
you want to talk about the process of discipleship, from my standpoint as a
person, I would say when you disciple someone you simply win the person to
Christ and then teach them how to live a godly life…And, you don’t do it with
books and articles and curriculum, you do it by getting along side of them and
building a deeply spiritual friendship in which they learn to follow the way
you respond to life in a godly fashion.
That’s true discipleship: it’s walking through the world holding their spiritual
hand and showing them how to confront life in a way that will honor
Christ…teaching them spiritual living.
Board
Member: This question: In your reaction to easy
believism, why do you accuse the fundamentalist of our day of preaching a
gospel which does not require a permanent transformation of life?
John
MacArthur: Because I believe that many people are
preaching that kind of gospel. Again, I
would say that if you don’t think that, then you haven’t been listening to the
charismatic preachers on TV. You have
to wonder whether they’ve experienced any kind of real transformation. I think we’ve gotten into this
invitationalism.
Just
go back and read Finney—go back and read Charles G. Finney. Don’t just take, you know, good
illustrations out of a book that somebody quoted Finney. Go back and read Finney if you want to know
where this stuff starts in our culture and find out where he’s coming from with
this invitationalism and the “anxious bench,” as he called it. At the end of his life, he says, “It seems
to have been my lot in life to have produced many temporary converts.” That’s what he said about his life because he was into a method.
That’s
very dangerous today? Because, as
Marshall McCluen (sp.) said, “The medium has become the message and we are fast
producing in the church the exercise of methods without content.” Just proclaiming the truth clearly . . . All I want to do, you
know . . . I remember the apostle Paul
when he went and he met that lady, Lydia.
It says, “When he preached the truth, God opened her heart,”…”whose
heart the Lord opened.” All I want to
do is preach the simple, powerful truth of the Word and let God open the
hearts.
But,
I think if you just manipulate people—I think that comes right out of Finney,
there’s some fascinating stuff on him if you read it carefully—and we got into
an invationalistic kind of system today where we get people to do things on the
outside because of one kind of pressure or another or intimidation or emotion,
and they haven’t really carefully accessed on the inside what’s going on. God may not be producing what is
happening. You have to be very
careful.
You
know, Jonathan Edwards read his sermons in a monotone? He did that because he was afraid that
someone might respond to his technique rather than to truth. They said, in the Great Awakening, that
halfway through his messages, people were crying for mercy from God. Why?
Because they lived in a cognitive age.
They lived in an age when they responded to thought.
We
live in an age when people respond to feeling.
Do you understand the difference between a typographic printed page
communication age and a telegraphic, photographic communication age? Read the little book, Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neal Postman—it’ll change your
ministry. Neal Postman, he’s not a Christian,
but he says we were a typographic age and we read, and print freezes thoughts
and as soon as you freeze a thought, you can analyze it, you can compare it,
you can evaluate it, you can think about it…and that’s why we could think.
That’s
why in the Lincoln/Douglas debates for the presidency, two men stood toe to toe
for seven hours before a huge crowd and debated socio-, economic, and political
theory. Compare that with the
Bush/Dukakis campaign. You don’t
remember if anybody knew anything about anything theoretical or political; all
you know is that somebody gunked up Boston Harbor and you didn’t vote for
him. That was a thirty second
commercial, you saw a picture of crud in a corner of a harbor and it wasn’t
designed to appeal to your mind.
I
haven’t seen a candidate in years who was designed to appeal to anybody’s mind;
you can’t get elected doing that. You
appeal to their emotion. Why? Because we live in a telegraphic,
photographic society where people don’t read—they watch a tube and they see
pictures and none of it is designed to make them think—it’s all designed to
make them feel. Look at the news,
even. You think those people are great
social theorists? You’re kidding me,
they’re “talking-hairdo’s.” They’re on
there for one reason: they can read a script, look believable, and smile at the
same time. Nothing lasts more that
thirty seconds and it just goes flying by and you just get emotionally jerked
from one thing to the next. You get
that thing in your hand and you just keep jerking that thing around…Your
emotions are flying in every direction.
It’s
that kind of culture we live in and if we don’t be careful, we’re going to fall
into the trap of appealing to people’s emotion rather than having them think
carefully and deeply about the things of God.
It’s a tough one today; I’ll tell you right now it’s tough. I’m in southern California—big
entertainment, right? I come in there
on Sunday, “Open your Bibles,” and I stand trying to keep the attention of
these people who’ve been blasted from pillar to post emotionally by the
television and entertainment all week long.
How are they going to think?
It’s very difficult. So, I think
we’re in a very dangerous age, more dangerous than even Finney’s age because
we’re more susceptible to the emotional kind of things and I think we have to
hold out for clear presentation of the Truth.
That was a long answer to a short question.
Board
Member: The writer of this question apparently feels
that you have accused fundamentalists, those that sign the same doctrinal
statement you sign, that believe the same thing that you believe of preaching a
gospel which does not require a permanent transformation.
John
MacArthur: I don’t accuse anybody of doing that in the
book; I just say it’s being done. You know it’s being done, I know it’s being
done. You know as well as I do that
there are grossly inadequate presentations of the gospel being made. Can I give you an encouraging thought? Do you realize that even an incomplete
presentation of the gospel will not keep the elect from getting saved? Do you realize that? God’s going to save His people; you just
don’t to make the non-elect think they are or the people who aren’t yet saved
think they are. You say, “Why?” Because it’s so disastrous for the church
and for Christian testimony. It’s a
reproach on Christ. But, I don’t accuse
any individuals; I don’t blanket anything.
Some preach the true and faithful gospel and some, I think, preach a
shallow gospel.
Board
Member: All right, the next question then: you state
several times in your book The Gospel
According to Jesus, that saving faith is in exchange of all that we are for
all that Christ is. Such wording seems
contrary to the Bible’s emphasis that salvation is a free gift of God, not something
involving an exchange of anything.
Please comment.
John
MacArthur: Matthew 16:26, “What will a man give in
exchange for soul?” You’d better
exchange all of you for all of Him.
What can I say? Jesus said
that. “What will you give in exchange
for your soul?” “What does it profit
you if gain,” what?, “the whole world”…and what? You better give up the whole world. What does Paul say, “I counted it all gain once, then I saw
Christ…it’s trash”…He trashed it all.
All that means is that I give up all my confidence in myself and my own
human resources and I embrace Christ.
Isn’t that what salvation is?
My
favorite definition of a Christian is Philippians 3:3. I don’t know if anybody else sees that as a
definition of a Christian; it’s my favorite one. He says, “We are the true circumcision,” that’s the circumcised
at heart, and here are the three things that distinguish us. “We worship in the Spirit of God, we glory (kauchaomai,
rejoice, boast) in Christ Jesus alone, and we put no confidence,” what? Isn’t that good? How can you tell a true Christian? I’ll tell you. He
worships God, puts all his trust in Christ, and has no confidence in his
flesh. That’s it.
Board
Member: The next question then: In your chapter, he
challenges an “eager seeker,” which you claim is a significant salvation
passage. It indicates that a person
must be willing to give up everything before he can be saved. In the parable of the good Samaritan, Luke
10:25, a similar question was asked, but this time a different answer was
given. It speaks of a love for God and
love for man. What is the gospel: a
willingness to give up possessions or a love for God and man or now both? So, we add three conditions if we add
faith.
John
MacArthur: No, it’s a submission to Christ
and it’s a willingness to submit to Christ whatever He asks. That’s all.
It’s a willingness to give up all your confidence in your flesh, all
your confidence in your own resources.
You see, that was the issue with the rich, young ruler. The point wasn’t Jesus says if you give away
all your money, you can be saved; the point is you’ve got to be willing to
relinquish everything in which you place your trust, and place your trust only
in Christ.
Folks,
that is the mission. You’re literally
trashing everything you have hoped in and nakedly saying, “I take Christ.” That’s an exchange; that’s got to be an
exchange. That’s really what I’m trying
to say.
Board
Member: O.K, the next question: Why is it that the
gospel of John speaks of saving faith in the context of only believing, while
discipleship and Lordship are left out completely. There are several references here: John 1:12, 3:16. 3:36,….
John
MacArthur: Well, the way to answer that is that you
have to ask the question: what is believing (we already did that)? Believing, true faith has some components in
it. Read that question again, just from
the beginning.
Board
Member: Why is it that the gospel of John speaks of
saving faith in the context of only believing—
John
MacArthur: O.K., stop at that point. Saving faith is only believing. Well, let me turn to whoever asked that
question and say, “O.K., you tell what that believing means,” and you will have
to give that believing some definition, right?
It can’t be the same as James 2:19 believing—the devils; it can’t be the
same as believing and ‘Jesus didn’t commit Himself to them’ kind of
believing. So, what kind of believing
is it?
It’s
got to have some components in it.
Since it’s a gift of God, not of works, even the faith is a gift of
God. Then, let’s look and see what
components God gives to one who believes.
I believe he grants repentance and He grants a submissive heart and one
that has no confidence in the flesh.
It’s the components of that believing.
Board
Member: The latter part of this question, John, was
why is it that Paul identifies the gospel he preached apart from the inclusion
of any reference to discipleship, (I Corinthians 15:1-4 and Ephesians 2:8, 9)?
John
MacArthur: Well, he’s just talking about the gospel
from a factual viewpoint. He’s not
talking about the believer in addition to that. I mean, that particular issue of discipleship is not in focus
when you look at the work of Christ. If
you were to go beyond the gospel, say, in I Corinthians 15 and look at the
product of the gospel: the person, then you would get into the discipleship
aspect. But, the bottom line is every
single epistle Paul wrote was geared to discipleship—every one of them. By the way, we’ve talked about the fact that
I Corinthians 15, you can’t necessarily make that an all inclusive statement;
it doesn’t mention the blood of Christ there either. There are some other features in the work of Christ that are not mentioned there that you
certainly don’t want to argue from the standpoint of silence.
Board
Member: This final question, then we’ll open it up
to the panel…Can children get saved with no knowledge of Christ’s Lordship?
John
MacArthur: Nobody can be saved with no knowledge of
Christ’s Lordship, if you mean by that: do they have to know He’s Lord…You have
to understand who Christ is to be saved, right, and He’s Lord. You can’t say, “Well, I take Him as Savior,
but not as Lord.” You don’t have that
right. You’re not redefining Him; He is
who He is. Now, if you’re saying, by
the question: can a child be saved if they don’t understand the full
implications of that Lordship on their life?
Yes, because I don’t think any of us understood the full implications.
But,
I think—I know with my own four little—I have four children who all love Christ
and they are a joy to my heart; I praise God every day for the fact that they
have, to this day, been obedient to the Savior all through their lives. In leading these little ones to Christ, there
was always the sense of sinfulness, there was always the sense of wanting to
follow Jesus and be obedient, there was always the sense that “I haven’t been
living right” and “things aren’t right in my heart and I want to be right and I
want to obey God”…It was always there.
Whatever point of understanding a child is, if they can understand who
Jesus was, what He did, and that they’re turning from sin to follow Christ in
obedience—that’s the simple truth any child can understand. They don’t understand the full implications
of that, as I said, but they can understand the idea and the basic thought.
Board
Member: I’m sorry, there was one more question. If a person would accept Christ as his
Savior and not as his Lord, could he go to heaven?
John
MacArthur: That question doesn’t even make sense
because you can’t accept Christ as Savior without accepting Him as Lord because
that’s who He is. Roman 10:9,10, “If
thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as
Lord, thou shall be saved.” The
argument is not with me. As Bob Jones
used to say, “If you don’t like that thought, call up heaven. I didn’t invent it.” Confessing Jesus as Lord is what you have to
do to be saved. You can’t separate that
out. I think people, in fairness to
some who asked these questions, I think people are loading—are pre-loading this
concept of Lord, with too much baggage.
It simply means “I turned from my sin, I turned from my confidence, I
want my sin forgiven, and I’m willing to follow You.” That’s what we’re talking about.
It seems those are all terms that are used in the New Testament.
So,
don’t load the Lordship concept up too much.
I think there is a sorrow over sin and a willingness to follow Christ,
and boy, He made it as strong as He could make it: He said, “If you’re not
willing to leave father, mother, take up your cross, follow me, you can’t be My
disciple.” That’s pretty strong
language. So, when it comes to
adulthood—by the way, there’s no illustration at all in the New Testament of
any childhood conversion, ever, so you have no basic text to go to on a child’s
situation, but with adults, He made it strong.
He made it strong because He wanted the people to clearly understand
that it was a break with the old and it was a walk in the new…And, what was
involved, they needed to understand.
Board
Member: Any questions from the panel on salvation?
Panel
Member: I have a question and a comment.
First of all, John, personally I want to thank you for your gracious
spirit and your thoughtful ministry over the years and for coming today. Secondly, it’s interesting, this last
comment. I had written down some
things—I was saved as a child. I think
probably the majority of the people that are born again are born again in their
earlier years and do not understand a great deal about anything. But, I know when I was saved, I feared hell
and I knew I needed salvation. And, as
you’ve just explained, my experience was—it was very vivid—it was turning from
sin to the one who is my Savior. I knew
little about Lordship. If somebody
would have used the term, I would have been lost. Now, I know the Bible’s written to adults, but, as you’ve already
expressed, it seems as though, as we get into the Word, we begin to understand
more fully. Probably a great deal of
our concern is involved in the clichés that developed: Lordship,
salvation…doesn’t make sense.
John
MacArthur: I don’t like that term. I never use that term.
Panel
Member: Now, it’s a poor term.
John
MacArthur: It’s a terrible term.
Panel
Member: Now, I would like for you to—my comment is, would you comment on
John 8:31. I know you have, it’s in
your writings with all the rest, but it ties in with the discipleship and the
believing aspect.
John
MacArthur: Well, he says in John 8:31, 32, “Many
believed on His name, but He said to them, ‘If you continue in my Word, then
you are my (mathetes alethos) you
are My real disciple.” What He was
simply saying there is that if true salvation has occurred as a result of true
faith, “you’ll continue in the Word—you’ll continue to walk following Me, doing
the things that I commanded.” Not
perfectly—please note this: that becomes the direction of your life, not the
perfection of your life. I think that’s
what he’s saying right there. Of
course, what was their reaction? They
say, “Well, we’ve never, you know, been servant to any man and…” He says, “Boy, you’ve got a short memory,”
and reminded them of their past.
But, the point there was that true disciples are those who continue in the Word and I think that’s a salvation point—I think that’s the whole idea. That’s exactly what John is saying, “If you’re really the child of God, you’re not going to continue in the same, unbroken pattern of sin.”
I
understand that somebody’s coming out with a new book called Can A Carnal Christian Go To Heaven?. Did you see that advertised? Was it advertised in Moody or
something? Can a Carnal Christian Go To Heaven?
Any Christian can go to heaven; there are only two kinds: carnal and
spiritual. But, I don’t believe those
are two permanent categories; I think there’s simply two different elements of
everyone’s spiritual life. When I walk
in the Spirit, I’m spiritual. When I
feed the flesh, I’m fleshy. People say,
“You deny carnal Christianity.” No, I
don’t. I just don’t think carnal
Christianity is category #1 that you live in permanently because you never
accepted Jesus as Lord, whatever that means.
I think carnal Christianity is when you walk in the flesh, Galatians 5,
and when you walk in the Spirit, that’s spiritual Christianity and the only
time you grow is when you’re spiritual, so your spiritual maturity is the
accumulated result of the moments of your true spirituality.
Board
Member: Any other question from the panel? Dr. Madison….
Dr.
Madison: I would like to ask a question. As you know, John has been with us at
Calvary for an excellent conferencing through the years and we’ve had
tremendous, I think, respect for one another.
We have had great blessings come to men there and I think before our
coming to Calvary, I pastored two churches for eighteen years—I’ve been at
Calvary fifteen years—I’m seeing things from a different perspective now.
As
a pastor, I had quite a few immature sheep, probably most of them, John. Coming to Calvary, I think we have a great
group of students there. Of course, the
best campus, even, it’s better than Masters, but we won’t go into that now…Even
some of the best of those mature ones are quite quick to be the authorities and
they’re coming to me regularly and saying, “Do you know Dr. so-and-so said
this? This is what he believes.” So, this has resulted in having, what we
call ‘faculty meetings’ and discussion times.
They prove very helpful for we cannot have a school and, I think, put a
strait jacket on any man—we must give them liberty to develop the Word of God
in a certain way, but there’re certain bounds they must have.
We
have a doctrinal statement at Calvary, a very detailed one, basically the same
as the I.F.C.A. That doesn’t include
every basic concept taught in every course in theology. So, what we’ll do as the faculty is set a
circle—we’ve done this many times—here’s a circle and we’ll go around the room
and ask those faculty members, “Are you inside this circle? Are you inside these bounds?” The vast majority of the time, they say they
are. We don’t seek to be the one that
determines, “No, you’re not.” If they
consciously say, “I’m inside that circle; I am content in your doctrinal
statement,” we don’t hound them. Nor do
we allow a student who says, “I know who said so-and-so,”—we go to them
personally.
Up
to this point, John, I really appreciate the fact—I think you have very
consciously signed our doctrinal statement.
I look at your church, your influence, and so forth…I really don’t think
you need us. You know you probably
would survive us if we say, “John, we’re not going to keep you here—you
heretic.” So, my only question to this:
rather than going through this repeatedly, year after year, and all these five
questions, John, if you would continue to have an open heart to your fellow
faculty members, which, I would say, be our N.E.D. and our executive committee,
and carefully examine your conscious and your heart to say, “I know I stand where they do,” and don’t
routinely do it. It seems to me that
there ought to be room in our organizations for you if you’ll tolerate the way
we nitpicked you. So, John, you have
been so gracious up till now and I do know—well, I didn’t mean it that
way! I do know though, that we do change
from time to time.
What
I am trusting, you know, as you read the reformers or of the danger of going to
covenant theologies—there’s a danger of going to limited atonement…There’s a
danger in moving out of our circles. We
had a faculty member who came and says I moved out of that circle. My only question to you, is, John, will you
continue to very carefully keep the heartbeat, as say the executive committee,
N.E.D., and honesty say, “Men, we really are moving apart and therefore, I
think it’s time for us to realize we’re going in different directions.” My question to you is John, I know you well
and I know your heart, but this is my only counsel to you—and who am I to give
you counsel—is, let’s maintain that level we have in the past.
I
do not want to, in any way say, that any of our membership are like my students
out there, but I think that the face-to-face, new discussions for hours, we’ve
had together has helped me have a real confidence in you—a real trust in
you. I would hope that the vast
majority of the men that are here (the women too) would look to Doctor Gregory…executive
committee…and say, “Have you thoroughly discussed this with John?” as our
students come to us and say, “Have you thoroughly discussed this fact?” and I
said, “Yes, we have and we think they’re orthodox.” Therefore, my word to you was, let’s keep these lines of
communication open and I say to you folk, let’s put more trust in the faculty,
in those discussions in depth, and have trust for one another and God will keep
us moving forward with a group that’s not out there seeking to divide and devour. We need you John and thank you. [applause].
Board
Member: Well, we do appreciate and on behalf of the
I.F.C.A., I do want to thank you, Doctor MacArthur, for coming and being on the
hot seat here for a couple of hours.
Transcribed and Provided by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 314
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986