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.
May 21, 2010
The Definition of the Gospel, pt. 3
Previously, I had given a definition of the Gospel, taken from the Christian Confession of Faith. In my last post, I wrote about how the person of Jesus Christ is at the heart of the Gospel. Today, let’s look at the work of Jesus Christ, and how it is also at the heart of the Gospel.
Here is how the Christian Confession of Faith defines the work of Jesus Christ:
The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]
The key thing to bear in mind about the work of Christ is that it was effectual. It actually secured and guaranteed that all for whom Christ died would have their sins washed away. The work of Christ does not merely make his people saveable, it saves them. It does not have the potential to save, it actually saves.
The vast majority of religion that comes in the name of Christ denies this, of course. They teach that the work of Christ has the potential to save, but that it doesn’t do anything in and of itself. They make the blood of Christ to be worthless and valueless, and then go on to condition salvation on the work or the will of the sinner (cf. Rom 9:17) This is the very definition of “trampling the blood of Christ underfoot.” (Heb 10:29) It is sheer blasphemy, spitting in the face of Jesus Christ. And it clearly shows that these people are enemies of the Gospel.
Again, if you have never heard the Gospel formulated this way, I urge you to take some time to consider the Scripture verses referred to here. And for more information on the effectual work of Jesus Christ, be sure to read the articles Christ Crucified:God’s Love Manifested, The Atonement, Gospel Resurrection, The Satisfaction, and the sermon True and False Gospel, all by Marc D. Carpenter.
May 18, 2010
The Definition of the Gospel, pt. 2
At the heart of the Gospel is the person and work of Jesus Christ. Today, we’ll take a look at the doctrine of Christ’s person (who he is), and tomorrow, Lord willing, we’ll examine the doctrine of his work (what he did). As we do, keep in mind how important these doctrines are to the full definition of the Gospel we looked at yesterday.
Jesus Christ is the God-Man mediator; he is fully God, and fully Man. The Christian Confession of Faith has this to say about the nature of Christ:
Jesus of Nazareth is really and truly God as well as really and truly human. He is the only descendant of Adam with two natures, human and divine. These two natures are continually without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Scripture rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was merely human and not fully divine. It likewise rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being but not fully human. [Deu 18:15; Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 9:6; Luk 2:7; Joh 1:1,14,18; 3:16,18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; Act 20:28; Rom 1:3; 1Co 15:47; Gal 4:4; Phi 2:6-8; Col 1:15; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-5; 5:5; 1Jo 4:9,15; Rev 1:17-18]
Note that in this section, the Confession firmly rejects two prominent errors regarding the nature of Christ. The first error is that he was merely human, and not also divine, and the second error is that he was merely divine, and not also human. Both errors are to be rejected, because both are destructive to the Gospel: if Jesus did not partake of both the nature of man and the nature of God, then he could not be an effective mediator, because he could not “lay his hand” upon both God and Man (Job 9:33). If Jesus were not really and truly man, then he could not sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb 4:15), and if he were not really and truly God, then his sacrifice of himself on the cross would not have been of infinite value, and thus could not have atoned for the sins of his people (Heb 9:11-12). Therefore, Jesus Christ had to be God, in order to fulfil God’s promise to remove the sins of his people (Psa 130:7-8) by the work of the coming Messiah (Isa 53:1-12).
A correct doctrine of the nature of Christ is therefore foundational to the doctrine of the Gospel. Without it, there is no Gospel. For more information on this vital doctrine, please see An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s Witness, and A Christian View of the Messiah.
I’ll end this post with an excellent quote from the first article:
God is an infinite God and an infinitely righteous God. Therefore, all sin is an infinite offense to him (Exodus 20:5, Habakkuk 1:13). Therefore, any sacrifice that is intended to atone for sin must be an infinite sacrifice. Anything less would be insufficient to turn away God’s wrath against the sins of his people. It is only as Jesus Christ partakes of the two natures, human and divine, that he is able to become the Mediator between God and Man (Job 9:33; Hebrews 2:17), able to “lay his hand” upon both at once. Therefore, the Gospel absolutely requires that Jesus Christ not only be a real human being but also be God incarnate, God in the flesh.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
May 17, 2010
The Definition of the Gospel, pt. 1
Before we can expose the enemies of the Gospel, we need to have a definition of the Gospel. This definition will serve as a standard for judging if, and when, a doctrine (and anyone who defends it) is in opposition to the Gospel (Isa 28:17).
I subscribe to the Christian Confession of Faith, and it defines the Gospel this way:
The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts. It reveals the righteousness of God – how God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. The gospel is not merely the fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, considered apart from the purpose of these truths, which were accomplished to establish a righteousness for all whom Jesus represented. [Gen 15:5-6; Psa 103:2-12; 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; 45:21-25; Jer 33:14-16; Mat 1:21; Joh 3:16; Act 13:32-39; Rom 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:5-8,13-25; 10:4,15; 1Co 15:1-8; 2Co 1:20; 5:21; Eph 1:3-2:22; 3:6; Col 1:5; 2Ti 1:1,9-10; Heb 10:4-17]
Obviously, there are a lot of implications to this definition of the Gospel, and the rest of the Confession goes over them in great detail. If this is a definition of the Gospel that you have never seen before, I strongly encourage you to take some time to study the Scripture references, and read the rest of the Confession. For more information on specific parts of this definition, please see the article Essential Gospel Doctrine, which is a compilation of sermons preached be Marc D. Carpenter.
