November 28, 2010
Phil Johnson vs. The Gospel
Phil Johnson is an associate of John MacArthur, and executive director of MacArthur’s ministry, Grace To You. He also has his own website, featuring some of his own essays, and writings by prominent Calvinists like Charles Spurgeon, and R.L. Dabney (Outside The Camp is also listed on his site, on the “Really Bad Theology” page, though inexplicably, not on the “Really, Really, Bad Theology page.) Johnson is also famous for his “Hall of Church History” page, but today I’m going to be looking at an article of his, entitled “The Nature of the Atonement”. In it, Johnson puts forth the following view of the Atonement:
If Christ’s dying means that the whole [sic], the judgment of the whole world is
postponed, than unregenerate people reap the blessings and the benefits of that
delay. They reap the benefits and the blessings of common grace through the
atonement. And if that’s the case than that is exactly what God designed. It
didn’t happen by accident. And for that very reason it is my position and the
position of most Calvinists throughout history that some benefits of the
atonement are universal and some benefits of the atonement are particular and
limited to the elect alone.
I have already written several posts on the view of Common Grace put forth by John MacArthur, but in the quotes I cited from MacArthur, he never linked the doctrine of Common Grace to the atoning death of Christ. Here, Johnson asserts that those for whom Christ did not die “reap the benefits and the blessings of common grace through the atonement”.
Those for whom Christ did not die certainly reap the benefit of God’s delayed judgement on the world, but is that a blessing? As I have already written:
Contrary to this nonsense, the Bible teaches that all the good things that God provides for people in this life are a blessing only to the elect (Rom 8:28-32). To the reprobate, they are only a curse (Psa 73:11-20, Pro 16:4-5, Jn 15:22). More importantly, the Bible teaches that all things God sends to his people, good and bad, are a blessing, a blessing that flows from the righteousness of Christ alone (Eph 1:3-6). … an infinitely holy God cannot bless sinful man without the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. To insist that he can is to oppose the standard of absolute holiness that God reveals in the Gospel.
Like MacArthur, Johnson also teaches that Common Grace is evidence of God’s love toward all people, even those for whom Christ did not die:
Common grace is the grace that permits all sinners to
live and enjoy life under a temporary reprieve from just judgment and justice
even though they’re worthy of instant damnation. Common grace delays that.
Common grace is also the grace that pleads tenderly and earnestly with sinners
to repent and to be reconciled to God, even though they’re hearts are set against
Him. And according to Matthew 5:44-45, these common grace blessings are
tokens of God’s genuine love. Scripture does not hesitate to apply the
expression “love” here.
But inconsistently, Johnson goes on to write:
Now in what sense did Christ purchase
the Church? In Ephesians 5 Paul uses language that evokes the imagery of a
marriage price. Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands love your wives just as Christ also
loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” Not for her enemies, but for
her. So Christ bought the Church with His own blood. For what reason,
Ephesians 5:26-27, “that He might sanctify her and having cleansed her by the
washing of water with the Word, that He might present to Himself the Church
and all her glory having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she should be
holy and blameless.”Those for whom Christ died He loves with the highest and purest kind of love.
It is a particular love. Its closest earthly parallel is the love of a husband for his
wife. And it’s a special love. It’s not dispensed indiscriminately to everyone
alike. It’s reserved only for the bride, this love. In fact what do we call a man
who shares conjugal love with his neighbor and does not reserve it exclusively
for his wife? We call him an adulterer. What would you call someone who
indiscriminately showed every woman the intense ardent affection men reserve
only for their wives? We would call him a philanderer. Christ’s love for His
Church is pure. It’s more tender, more personal, and an infinitely greater love
than the love of a husband for his wife.
This is utterly repulsive. While Johnson is speaking out of one side of his mouth about the precious love of Christ for his bride, and how it is only given to those for whom Christ died, out of the other side of his mouth Johnson is prattling about God’s universal love for all men without exception — exactly the kind of cheap love he opposes in the two paragraphs above. As I have written before:
The doctrine of God’s Universal Love is a lie that cheapens the love that he has for his beloved bride. Imagine a man who tells his wife that he certainly loves her, and is willing to lay down his life for her, but just happens to have a similar, though totally ineffective, love for all the women in the world. Should she be pleased with such a pathetic, offensive expression of marital love? Yet this is exactly the kind of love that people like MacArthur ascribe to Jesus Christ.
For more on this topic, please see the articles Common Grace?, and Christ Crucified: God’s Love Manifested, by Marc D. Carpenter.
Christopher Adams.
September 26, 2010
John MacArthur vs. the Gospel, pt. 7
Last week I discussed MacArthur’s list of “The Fruit/Proofs of Authentic/True Christianity“ (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA162) (which is taken from “The MacArthur Study Bible”, p. 2190), posted on his website under the title, “How can we know if our faith is real?” I noted that MacArthur had put forth a false standard of judging saved and lost, because “there is absolutely nothing here about belief of the Gospel, the person of Christ, the work of Christ, or indeed any doctrine at all”.
Given that MacArthur has such a superficial, non-doctrinal standard of judging saved and lost, it should not be surprising that is unable to clearly warn his listeners and readers regarding others who believe in blatantly Gospel-denying doctrines. Take for example his confused judgement regarding the Promise Keeper’s movement:
There’s no denying that the Promise Keepers (PK) movement has been instrumental in turning unbelievers to Christ and stirring Christian men out of spiritual lethargy. Many men who have participated testify that they have found a new excitement about their responsibilities in the family. Wives have given equally enthusiastic testimony of the change in their husbands and their homes. We are grateful to God for whatever eternal fruit has resulted from Promise Keepers and the rallies the movement has sponsored.
We also believe there is a legitimate place for men’s gatherings. Men need to be challenged spiritually as men, to be faithful in the headship of home and church. This is particularly crucial in a culture such as ours, which is overtly hostile to biblical standards of masculinity.
Nonetheless, some aspects of Promise Keepers are troubling. Chief among our concerns would be the overt ecumenicism of the movement.
(http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA63_What-is-your-opinion-of-the-Promise-Keepers-movement)
Some aspects of Promise Keepers are troubling? Seriously? In his article Is Christian Psychology Christian?, Marc Carpenter has this to say about a book that was endorsed by the PK movement:
In a book entitled The Masculine Journey, which is endorsed by Promise Keepers and was handed out to all Promise Keepers attendees, Robert Hicks uses his “stages of manhood” theory to condone sin and even to blaspheme. One of the stages he puts forth is the Zakar stage, which is a phallic stage. He says, “The phallus has always been the symbol of religious devotion and dedication” [referring to pagan sexual rites] and that every man has “the deep compulsion to worship with our phallus.” He says that a teenager’s first sexual sin should be thought of as a “rite of passage” and says that “we usually give the teenagers in our churches such a massive dose of condemnation regarding their first experiences with sin that I sometimes wonder how any of them ever recover. … I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men.”
This isn’t merely troubling, it is blasphemous, and revolting. Yet MacArthur is “grateful to God for whatever eternal fruit has resulted from Promise Keepers”. This is about as uncertain a sound as a trumpet can make. And yet, it all comes back to the fact that MacArthur is unwilling or unable to condemn Promise Keeper’s on the basis of doctrine.
For more on this topic see:
Christopher Adams.
September 19, 2010
John MacArthur vs. The Gospel, pt. 6
Previously, I have looked at John MacArthur’s redefinition of the doctrine of Faith. Today I want to look at his standard for judging saved and lost.
The necessity of judging saved and lost is discussed in section V.C.1-3 of the Christian Confession of Faith:
1. God requires of His people that they love and fellowship with each other. Love of the brothers in Jesus Christ is an inevitable fruit of salvation. [Psa 101:6; Psa 133:1; Joh 13:34-35; Joh 17:20-21; Gal 6:10; Phi 1:27; Phi 2:2-4; Phi 3:16; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 2:9-11; 1Jo 3:11,14-16,23; 1Jo 4:7,11,20-21; 1Jo 5:1]
2. One of the main proofs that believers love their brothers in Jesus Christ is that they do not speak peace to their brothers’ enemies. They obey God’s command to separate themselves from the world and false Christians. [Exo 34:15-16; Deu 13:1-3; Psa 1:1; Psa 26:4-5; Psa 101:3-8; Pro 4:14-15; Pro 9:6; Joh 15:19; Rom 16:17-18; 1Co 5:11; 1Co 10:21; 2Co 6:14-18; Eph 5:7-12; 1Ti 6:3-5; 2Ti 3:5; 1Jo 2:15-16; 2Jo 10-11; Rev 18:4]
3. For these reasons, as well as to witness the gospel to the lost, it is necessary for believers to make judgments concerning who is unregenerate (including who are false Christians) and who is regenerate. The standard by which believers are to make these judgments is whether or not the person being considered believes the gospel. [Isa 8:20; Isa 45:20; Mat 7:15-20; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:43-45; Joh 7:24; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 5:11-12; Ga1 1:8-9; 1Jo 4:1,6; 2Jo 1:9]
Note that making judgements regarding who is a true Christian, and who is a false Christian, is a necessary fruit of regeneration. Those who refuse to do it are disobeying God, and showing hatred towards Christians. Also note that Christians are not free to choose any standard they want for making these judgements; the standard is belief of the Gospel.
In The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 2190 (reproduced on his website), John MacArthur gives us a very different standard for judging whether a person is truly a Christian:
The Fruit/Proofs of Authentic/True Christianity:
- Love for God: Psalm 42:1ff; 73:25; Luke 10:27; Romans 8:7
- Repentance from Sin: Psalm 32:5; Proverbs 28:13; Romans 7:14ff; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 1 John 1:8-10
- Genuine Humility: Psalm 51:17; Matthew 5:1-12; James 4:6, 9ff.
- Devotion to God’s Glory: Psalm 105:3; 115:1; Isaiah 43:7, 48:10ff.; Jeremiah 9:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 10:31
- Continual Prayer: Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18ff.; Philippians 4:6ff.; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; James 5:16-18
- Selfless Love: 1 John 2:9ff, 3:14; 4:7ff.
- Separation from the World: 1 Corinthians 2:12; James 4:4ff.; 1 John 2:15-17, 5:5
- Spiritual Growth: Luke 8:15; John 15:1-6; Ephesians 4:12-16
- Obedient Living: Matthew 7:21; John 15:14ff.; Romans 16:26; 1 Peter 1:2, 22; 1 John 2:3-5
The standards that MacArthur has listed here definitely qualify as fruit of genuine faith. But they cannot be adequate proof of genuine faith for two reasons. First, some of these “Fruit/Proofs”, such as “Genuine Humility”, are impossible to verify objectively, making true judgements of saved and lost impossible. But more importantly, note that there is absolutely nothing here about belief of the Gospel, the person of Christ, the work of Christ, or indeed any doctrine at all. In fact, there are multitudes of people who appear to meet every standard on this list, all while believing blatantly heretical doctrines.
In Romans 10:3, the apostle Paul said of the Jews:
For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=romans+10%3A3§ion=0&translation=lit&oq=&sr=1
Sure they were zealous, devoted to God’s glory, and continually in prayer. And obedient to a fault. But they were missing something specific: knowledge. And the specific kind of knowledge they were missing was the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel (Romans 3:21).
Contrary to MacArthur’s pseudo-spiritual judgement based on various forms of works, Paul was willing to judge these Jews, his kinsman, to be lost, based on the fact that they didn’t believe the Gospel. For a Christian, there is no other standard.
For more on the necessity and standard of judging, please see:
The Pride and Deception of Experience-Based Religion
Christopher Adams.
September 12, 2010
John MacArthur vs. the Gospel, pt. 5
Previously, I have written about John MacArthur’s denial of the Gospel. Today, Lord willing, I’ll be looking at a sermon that MacArthur preached on Romans 9:19-24. This is a classic passage on the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. God’s sovereignty is crucially important to the doctrine of the Gospel, as shown by this section of the Christian Confession of Faith:
God absolutely controls all actions and events; nothing at all happens by chance or merely by His permission. All actions and events happen because of His sovereign decree, including the sins of men and angels. Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine does not attribute sin to God; instead, it provides great comfort for believers. [Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; Deu 2:30; 32:39; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:6-8,25; 2Sa 17:14; 2Ch 10:15; 11:4; 25:20; 36:22; Job 12:14-25; 23:13-14; 26:7-12; Psa 105:25; 115:3; 135:5-7; Pro16:4,33; 21:1; Isa 40:23-26; 42:9; 43:13; 45:6-7; 46:9-11; Jer 18:6; 52:3; Eze 17:24; Hab 1:6,12; Joh 19:11; Act 2:23; 4:27-28; Eph 1:11; Rev 17:17] CCF II.C.3
Because God sovereignly orders all things, He is able to keep all His promises. Because God is the God of truth, He is faithful to keep all His promises. [Deu 7:8-10; Jos 21:44-45; 23:14; 2Sa 23:3-5; Psa 89:24-37; 132:11; Isa 45:23; 46:9-11; 54:9-10; Jer 33:20-21,25-26; Act 13:32-33; Rom 15:8-9; 2Co 1:19-20; 1Th 5:24; Tit 1:1-3; Heb 6:13-20; 2Pe 3:9-13] CCF II.C.4
If God is not in absolute control of all things, then his plans could be thwarted by anything that is outside of his control. And it is typical of the sinful, depraved nature of mankind that people can clearly understand this principle when it comes to God’s sovereignty over the natural world, such as the sun, moon, and stars, the winds, and the waves. Depraved man can even be at peace with the idea that God is in total control of the angels, demons, and even Satan himself. But suggest that God is even sovereign over the sinful actions of men and women, and suddenly the God-haters are filled with objections and competing theories.
In his sermon on Romans 9:19-24, MacArthur is ready and waiting with just such an objection:
Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Vessels of wrath so called because they will receive the anger of holy God. Vessels of wrath so called because they are objects of God’s fiery judgment, they are fitted to destruction, passive participle. They are prepared…katartizo is a Greek word, it means to prepare. They’re prepared for that.
Now the agent who prepared them is unnamed. It’s passive. The vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. But the agent must be God because that’s the whole context. It isn’t that God made them sinners. It’s that they’re sinners, God to display His holy wrath fits them for destruction. God is not seen specifically as preordaining the destruction there, it’s passive as I say, but it can be no other than God in the context.
And then verse 23, the other side, “And what if that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He…and now it’s active…He had before prepared unto glory?” It’s almost as if God says, “Yes, I prepared them unto glory.” But he wants to back away and say, “They were fitted for destruction.” He wants to be the agent in the preparation for glory. He wants not to be in them being fitted for destruction. It is He that brings them to destruction but He didn’t make them that way. He left them that way, if you will.
(http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/45-73_Is-Israels-Unbelief-Inconsistent-with-Gods-Plan–Part-3)
MacArthur’s fashionable Calvinism will simply not allow him to see God as the potter who has the right to do whatever he wills with the pottery (including actively fit that pottery to be a vessel for destruction). Instead he must put forth the bizarre theory that God is active and sovereign in saving his people, but passively renounces some of his sovereignty in the damnation of the reprobate.
To see the utter absurdity of MacArthur’s position, think of how his doctrine could have destroyed the very foundation of the Gospel. If it were really true that the God passively allows the vessels to fit themselves for destruction, as MacArthur suggests, then the most sinful act of all time, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, might never have happened. Pilate could sinfully have chosen to have Jesus beheaded instead of crucified, thereby negating the Gospel promises (eg. Psa 22:16-18, Psa 34:20). Even worse, Pilate, Herod, Judas, Caiaphas, or anyone else involved in the murder of Christ could have had a change of heart (ie. the vessel refused to harden itself), and Christ would never have been executed at all!
That last possibility is what really gets at the heart of the matter. This doctrine of God’s passive hardening of the reprobate is really just a disguised form of free will. It is a back door attempt to take just a tiny fraction of God’s sovereignty and place it in the hands of the sinner.
Praise God that he never leaves a single part of his glory in the hands of sinners. He has shown us in his word that he is absolutely sovereign over every action and event in the universe, and he will not give his glory to another. Nothing can thwart even the tiniest detail of his plans, and nothing can take away even a shred of his glory in the salvation of his people, or the damnation of the reprobate.
For more on this issue, please see:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans78.htm
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans79.htm
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans80.htm
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans81.htm
June 22, 2010
John MacArthur vs. the Gospel, pt. 4
Yesterday, I went over John MacArthur’s promotion of a universal love of God for the reprobate. Today, I’ll go over his arguments for this view.
MacArthur quotes the writings of Errol Hulse to support his view:
Yet Hulse realizes that if we take Scripture at face value, there is no escaping the conclusion that God’s love extends even to sinners whom He ultimately will condemn. “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms,” Hulse writes. “He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked” (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). Hulse also cites Matthew 23:37, where Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem, then says, “We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.” (Ibid., 21–22) (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA193 , June 12, 2010)
Ezekiel indeed says that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Even so, we are never told that this is because of any love that God has for the wicked. Inserting a universal love of God here is conjecture, at best.
And while Jesus certainly wept over Jerusalem, and expressed a frequent desire to gather her children, Scripture does not say that that desire was because of any love that he had toward Jerusalem. On the contrary, the love he expresses is toward her children. His complaint is not towards a group of people whom he loved, but who spurned and refused his love; his complaint is towards the leaders of Jerusalem who refused to tolerate his presence and preaching. They would not allow him to enter Jerusalem and gather his beloved children.
MacArthur also cites the story of the rich young ruler:
Mark 10 relates a familiar story that illustrates God’s love for the lost. It is the account of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and began asking Him a great question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” … That is the last we ever see of this man in the New Testament. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he remained in unbelief. But notice this significant phrase, tucked away in Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him. (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA193 , June 12, 2010)
We aren’t told anything more about that rich young ruler, but we do know this: God saves those whom he loves. Consequently, this man had to have been saved later in life. We cannot assume that Jesus is here expressing a helpless, ineffectual love for that man, simply because we hope it is true.
The doctrine of God’s Universal Love is a lie that cheapens the love that he has for his beloved bride. Imagine a man who tells his wife that he certainly loves her, and is willing to lay down his life for her, but just happens to have a similar, though totally ineffective, love for all the women in the world. Should she be pleased with such a pathetic, offensive expression of marital love? Yet this is exactly the kind of love that people like MacArthur ascribe to Jesus Christ.
Finally, if God has a universal love for all mankind, what happens to that love when a person goes to Hell? Does it change into hatred? Or is God eternally sad that someone he loves went to Hell?
Praise God that his love never changes; it is as eternal and unchangeable as he is himself. After all, if his “love” for the non-elect could change, then his love for the elect could change as well; but he has promised us that that is impossible.
And praise God that he saves everyone whom he loves, not one of them can be lost. Since the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every one of God’s people in time, their salvation is as sure and certain as the crucifixion. “He shall see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.” (Isa 53:11)
For more on this topic, please see the articles Common Grace?, and Christ Crucified: God’s Love Manifested, by Marc D. Carpenter.
Permalink Comments off
