Let's be reasonable with one another, shall we?

Friday, October 20, 2006

A Little Booklet on Lordship Salvation
Part 6

Here is the sixth of 7 major points from Dr. MacArthur's book and Dr. Pickering's review and comments on these points. (See my October 12 post for background on what I am posting here.)

Dr. Earnest Pickering sums up of MacArthur's points (large green italic #6) and offers comment: _______________________________________________________

6. Opponents of the concept of "lordship salvation" are antinomian.

While mentioned earlier, we return for further comments. The term "antinomian" may mean different things to different people. Historically it has often been used to describe persons who repudiate any necessity for adherence to moral standards on the part of a child of God. MacArthur declares, "The teaching that Christians are freed from ob­serving any moral law is rampant in today's evangelical community" (p. 190). We believe our brother again has overstepped himself in his zeal to correct what he feels are excesses or weaknesses in Bible-believing churches. He has made a very exaggerated statement.

Certainly most strong fundamental gospel preachers believe that there are high moral standards incumbent upon the believer. Perhaps behind this statement lies the notion, forwarded strongly by those of Reformed persuasion, that because dispen­sationalists teach that a believer is not under the authority and requirements of the Mosaic law, they therefore are advocating, in effect, a complete freedom from all moral requirements. Such is definitely not the case. Because believers are free from the burden of observing the Mosaic law, this does not give them the freedom to observe no rules.God's grace teaches us that we are to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts" and are to live "soberly, righteously and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). We do not have to enslave New Testament believers again to the Mosaic law in order to have righteous­ness produced in them. Righteousness is produced in the believer by grace, not by law (Rom. 8:3-6).
_______________________________________________________

What do you think?
more to come ...

25 Comments:

  • Yes, I agree with that.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/20/2006 3:37 PM  

  • Amen! Well put Dr Pickering. I am noticing more and more that Puritan based teaching and many reformed theologians like to hinge on those exaggerated comments to stir themselves.

    I once read over at the Pyro site a post where one preacher said he needed to read "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" to keep himself stirred.

    ?

    Anyway as one guy put it...when you use the law again to threaten and stir the believer you give place to that Puritan based teaching that calls you back into the basement with that labratory of inventions to stir the soul to righteousness and back out of a slothful condition. It is actually an insult to the grace of God and is basically telling God...Lord, your grace is not suffecient for me to be obedient to you.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at 10/20/2006 4:13 PM  

  • So he doesn't like the word "rampant"?

    By Blogger Jonathan Moorhead, at 10/20/2006 7:28 PM  

  • I think he is saying that what MacArthur says is rampant ... and what MacArthur is reacting to ... is not rampant, but rare.

    Maybe he feels the overstatement is used to justify false view of the law's place in the life of the believer, which would be more serious than just taking issue with the word "rampant."

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/20/2006 9:33 PM  

  • Thanks Brian. I remember that comment at Pyro. I thought it was strange as well. I really enjoyed reading your comment - it was so poetic.

    Matthew,
    The man of few words is back. I notice a pattern. :~) ;~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/20/2006 9:34 PM  

  • Thanks Rose,

    What I think is rampant is the Billy Graham way of thinking. He advised Nixon to enrich and make deals with China in order to bring about freedom of enterprise and religion. This is his theory with dealing with the Catholic Church as well. It is a tried and failed method. You think we would learn from History. What always happens is partial freedoms and partial obedience. A halfway point and many evangelicals today be they strongly conservative or moderate are enriching the disease of compromise whether they realize it or not. The answer is not more threats...but a simple answer to the call on seperation and implimentation of loving church discipline. You see wickedness increases when we don't hold it accountable as brethren and that is what has happened. New Evangelicalism made the wrong seem right and the right seem wrong and we have been riding this tiger ever since. We need to get off of it. This problem is what is rampant>The infiltration doctrine. And it is killing us all slowly.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at 10/20/2006 10:20 PM  

  • Rose~, maybe you need to post more things I disagree with.

    How about a series defending Pre-Tribulationalism?

    Brian, I think we should be cautitous about comparing how a government deals with an hostile power and we as Christians deal with a Satanic religious system. Not that I am necessarilly defending Nixon's policies.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/21/2006 10:42 AM  

  • >Brian, I think we should be cautitous about comparing how a government deals with an hostile power and we as Christians deal with a Satanic religious system. Not that I am necessarilly defending Nixon's policies.<

    Read that again Matthew. Your placing the blame on me. That was Billy Grahams influence on Nixon's politics and it revealed how he was using his politics in Satans religious system. You are essentially making my point. This is what Neo Evangelicalism is and what I am trying to say is that even those that consider themselves to be fundamentalists as well as followers of Charles Spurgeon are not doing what Spurgeon did in the call to seperation but are instead doing what Billy is doing...albeit at a higher conservative level. Put it is still playing politics and an attempt to sanctify Satans church. There will be day at the judgment were these christians will finally see how they have erred and all their well intended works will burn away...but they will still be saved by fire in the finished work of Christ in spite of their disobedience. While I don't buy into Zane Hodges theory of outer darkness I do believe that there will be a day of eternal reckoning in this. Look what the living Lord Jesus Christ says to his faithful church in Philedelphia:

    "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not but lie- indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and will know that I have loved you" Revelation 3:9

    One day they will discover that they are not truly perservering but only talking big and in reality compromising. One day the cold hard steel of reality will hit them and their hearts will be greived.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at 10/21/2006 11:26 AM  

  • I think we need to totally repudiate the wicked system of Rome.

    On the other hand, I think how the American government deals with the wicked Chinese government is altogether a different question.

    One cannot compare pears with hazelnuts.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/21/2006 11:59 AM  

  • Rose,

    "antinomian"?

    What would a good theological debate be without overzealously misappropriating a good juicy durogatory label here or there?

    Probably a much more fruitful thing.

    By Blogger Todd, at 10/21/2006 12:00 PM  

  • Hi Todd,
    Yes, I only learned the word "antimnomian" about two years ago. Antonio likes to say it is a theological cuss-word. That makes me chuckle.

    Good to see you!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/21/2006 12:29 PM  

  • I love that following the law is no longer about an external obedience to a written list of rules. I love that our new beautiful regenerated heart can lead the way - if only we could get our theology out of the way.

    This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Hebrews 8:10)

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/21/2006 4:25 PM  

  • Good post!

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 10/23/2006 6:57 AM  

  • Hi Kansas Bob,
    Thanks for visiting. While I totaly agree with and appreciate your comment, I am not sure that what we have in the church is a fulfillment of the Hebrews passage you quote.

    Have a great week!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/23/2006 8:57 AM  

  • I agree that "what we have in the church is a fulfillment of the Hebrews passage you quote" because the new covenant is not with the church.

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/23/2006 10:10 AM  

  • Hi Bob,
    Thanks for coming back.

    Did you mean to say that you agree that what we have in the church is NOT a fulfillment of the Hebrews passage?

    If so, then I understand your comment.

    I agree, the new covenant is not with the church. All we have to do is look at the passage and see that "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel..."

    Is that what you were meaning?

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/23/2006 11:23 AM  

  • Guess is forgot the word 'not' :)

    Do you think that the new covenant applies exclusively to Israel? If so, I'd like to hear more about what you are thinking.

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/23/2006 3:01 PM  

  • Kansas Bob, the majority of Dispensationalists these days take the view that the New Covenant has its main application in Israel and a mystery spiritual application in the Church.

    Some disagree. Some follow L.S. Chafer in asserting that there are two New Covenants, the one in Jeremiah and another (2 Cor 3:6,Hebrews 13:20) which is very similar to the Reformed idea of the Covenant of Redemption.

    A minority follow J.N. Darby in holding that the New Covenant is founded upon Christ's shed blood, as is the Church, but the Church is in no way a party to the New Covenant.

    I tend to go with the Chafer view. I see no problem with two New Covenants.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/23/2006 3:35 PM  

  • Hi Matthew,

    Hmmm ... two New Covenants? Seems that this idea exalts an Israeli covenant over the one promised to Abraham ... don't think that I can get there.

    Either way the essence of Hebrews 8:10 is one where law becomes personal and internal ... written on hearts and minds - applicable to regenerated Israelites or gentiles.

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/23/2006 4:28 PM  

  • No we do not have the law written on our hearts!

    We are indwellt by the Holy Spirit, something never promised to Israel.

    We are not under the law. We are called to walk in the spirit.

    Let us not trade the blessings of our heavenly position for the earthly covenants of Israel.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/24/2006 5:22 AM  

  • Hi Again Matthew,

    I think that the problem with ...

    "We are indwellt by the Holy Spirit, something never promised to Israel."

    ... is that the promise of the Holy Spirit was promised to everyone regardless of nationality or ancestry.

    That said, I think that having God's laws written on our heart is another way to say having the Holy Spirit indwelling our heart. The beauty of this is that our hearts are no longer evil and at a core level we are good ... we are no longer schizophrenic beings not knowing what to do.

    I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on a post that I wrote about Control.

    Blessings, Bob

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/24/2006 8:42 AM  

  • KB, how can you possibly compare having one's law written on one's heart with being indwellt by the Holy Spirit? What can possibly lead to that conclusion?

    And do you thus think that Christians are to keep the law?

    The personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in all believers is unitque to the experience of believers in the Church Age.

    The Church is a supranational body composed of both Jews and Gentiles. She is nver mentioned in the Old Testament. Her formation is a mystery that was unrevealed until after the ascension of Christ and the acceptance of the Gentiles into the body.

    Such an idea is absent from the Old Testament.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/24/2006 11:31 AM  

  • Hi Matthew,

    I believe that when it says "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts" it is refering to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Believers are no longer dependent on external laws to guide them because "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (Romans 8:2)

    From this I conclude that:

    (1) believers are no longer subject to external law;

    (2) the law described in Romans 8:2 is a liberating internal one where the Holy Spirit instructs us as we go and

    (3) this internal law is not an embodiment of learned precepts but a dynamic interaction with God the Spirit.

    I hope I am not being too obtuse ... I agree with much of what you are writing and think that we are just approaching this from different perspectives.

    Thanks for checking out my Control post.

    Blessings, Bob

    By Anonymous Kansas Bob, at 10/24/2006 12:08 PM  

  • Hi Bob,
    I am sorry that it took me days to get back to this. Yesterday I only had time to post and leave one comment and I was pushing my schedule just doing that.

    You asked:
    Do you think that the new covenant applies exclusively to Israel?
    I would say - but not real dogmatically - Yes.
    I think that when that verse says the law, it is not talking about what we have as Christians. We have the Holy Spirit and He leads and guides us. Does He guide us to keep the Mosaic law?

    I am not solid in opinion or understnading on any one of these three options:
    *the two new covenants,
    *the new covenant with Israel and a mystery application to the church
    *the detachment from the new covenant of the church

    I am sure that this option is not acceptable:
    *The new covenant is for the church and not for national Israel.

    I have more reading to do on this subject.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 10/25/2006 11:04 AM  

  • Of course, the Progressive Dispensationalists, like our Bobby Grow go to town on the New Covenant, arguing for major revision of the Dispensational position on the basis of the involvement of the Church in the New Covenant.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 10/25/2006 11:39 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

Who Links Here