My “e-friend,” Randy Boswell has posted and made a good observation on John MacArthur’s recent rant against the Young, Restless, & Reformed crowd. I haven’t been in the mood lately to comment on Mac, but I’m glad someone still is:
John MacArthur and the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement
Go over there and give it a read. Unfortunately, I think MacArthur has pretty much framed himself as a guy standing in the corner. Not even fellow 5 pointers are good enough for MacArthur. Beyond doctrinal issues, MacArthur’s gripe against the YRR crowd is the way they dress and talk. I think MacArthur was born in the wrong era, he would’ve been better off in the 17th century Puritan England, or better, America. That way his Lordship salvation, his functional practical syllogism & experimental predestinarianism would not only have legs in Sun Valley, California; but it would also be interwoven into the society and culture at large.
I do believe that holiness is sorely lacking in the American church, but I don’t think that the issue is whether or not someone has holes in their jeans; it is an issue of the heart, and posture toward God and others that the Lord cares about.
I read MacArthur’s messages to the YR&R. I don’t see anything out of the box at all. They are sermon like, remember he is a pastor and one that has been very successful in reaching the masses. I think people just like to pick on his conservative model and of course his Calvinism! And yeah he is older, and this too just punches into the YR&R people & generation. Man-up young people and take ya lumps! π
And btw, I consider anyone below 40 in the younger category! π
I am somewhat kidd’in here, but I will stand with Mac anyday when it comes to challenging the Body of Christ…young, old or just indifferent! Preaching is like firing an arrow, it goes forth.. and hits the mark that God desires!
MacArthur is way out of the box, Fr Robert! He’s not just a pastor, and certainly my gripe against Mac is deeply personal. But of course I think theology is personal, so that would explain that.
I really don’t like the YRR either, theologically, so I find this fight curious; I’m an outsider, watching 5 pointers squabble (it’s not the greatest thing to watch anyone do this, really though).
Ah, it has nothing to do with age, Fr Robert; I know many many many people who think MacArthur is out to lunch, and they’re a lot older than you (my Dad included). He’s a fundy fundy (in many ways). He represents one of the most sectarian models of Christianity in America. He won’t get a pass at this blog.
Yeah, I’ll stand with anyone preaching Christ too; but I don’t see Mac doing that in this instance. He preaches a form of soteriology that places a heavy yoke on the shoulders of the people that no one can really live up to. He hasn’t a clue as to theo-logic; he operates from a de nuda scriptura, and synthesizes that, uncritically, with straight scholasticism. No play here!
I know all about Mac he is an old fundamentalist certainly, but with the modern, to postmodern, to now the emergent church, he is one to not pull punches! If you preach, you gotta love that! But I know, they would perhaps not think much of my Anglican Calvinism? But, the issue should not be based on personality. This is my point! And in reality Biblical Truth should and does cause separation! No, I’m with Mac here, at least by principle!
Bobby,
You quite obviously don’t like Mac, period! I am not sure I could go where you go? But I understand when ya don’t like something. Look what has happened to the once great Anglican Communion! So I get your feeling! Thank God the Gospel of Christ is much greater than any human man and instrument!
I’m sure I would probably like Mac, personally; it’s his theology, and how that affects his theological mode and tone that I can’t stand. I still, of course, consider Mac a brother in Christ; but I would wonder if he would reciprocate … I don’t care on that point.
I’m all for a strong convicted preaching, but if the theology in that preaching is “warmed-over,” then to me its just passionate preaching (like Paul Washer is another one of these).
But no, let’s not imply that I dislike Mac at a personal level; I’ve never met him. My critique of him is his theological method and how that might then affect his personal posture in the office that he holds as pastor.
Bobby,
Your the one that called this “personal”! So how is one to take that? But at your word! And I read your brief over at your mate’s blog. And no body could call Mac’s preaching “warmed-over”! Sorry Bobby I just cannot follow your thinking here!
Fr Robert, no, you said you think that this is just a personal beef I have with Mac over at Randy’s; your sentiment is the same here. You’re right, it is personal, but like I said, only because I see theology in personalist terms. In other words, I don’t disagree with MacArthur because I dislike him personally or something, I dislike the theology he preaches, and the impact it has on people’s spirituality (which is personal).
I never expected you to follow my thinking on Mac.
Bobby,
That’s fine, you and Randy run together, as EC’s. I try to run with my conscience over the Word of God, and there are few, very few Anglican Calvinists today certainly. I met Mac, he’s a good man, believes the Bible.. and preaches certainly a kind of Federal Calvinism. I guess I am just closer to Federal Calvinism – and Mac, than I am to ‘Evangelical Calvinism’. But, it is still a free English-speaking world, so to each his own certainly! π
My problem with Mac is often in the articulation…he sometimes quotes his own sermon illustrations to build a theological construct! So sometimes I find him right for the wrong reasons, or just a poor spokesperson for some theological truths. This was particularly evident in his book on lordship salvation…a concept which is obvious in Scripture, but he made more complicated and divisive with poor arguments. I say obvious because it is apparent that mere oral assent or belief in God is insufficient for salvation…it is a condition of the heart which longs to please the Father, even when the flesh wars with the heart and pleases itself.
Fr Robert,
I’m not trying to dissuade MacArthur, instead alert folks to the danger inherent to his theology. Not you, since you’re convinced of it; but not everyone has had the chance to actually realize the alternatives to the kind of Calv like John Mac teaches, and for those who are dissatisfied EC is waiting here with open arms π .
Marc,
Do I know you? Lordship salvation is a concept that is obvious in Scripture? Hmm . . . I disagree; do you care to try and develop that a bit more?
Pingback: Classic Repost: John MacArthur juxtaposed with English Precisianism (Puritanism) « Mirifica Commutatio
Bobby,
I am hardly a full Mac Calvinist, but I am closer there than the EC certainly! You guys are just too close to Barth to my mind! And again Torrance will always be a something of a Barthian! π
Btw, this link might be useful to the readers?
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/calvins-successors-on-predestination
And this link especially also, by Richard Muller, off of Riddlebarger’s blog..
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
Johnny Mac’s theology ruins lives, families, and churches…
Sorry to put it so bluntly…but its what I believe, what I have seen, and what I have experienced. It is far from a Christian theology. I hope that he and his followers come to their senses.
Torrance is his own man in many ways. His thinking on soteriology is much more Athanasian than Barthian. Barth is postmetaphysical (and thus modern in that sense) in his theological method; TFT is metaphysical still, and thus simply a modified classical guy, really (albeit his theory of revelation is Barthian, and I mean in re. to an ontology of Scripture … I balk a bit with TFT on this, I like John Webster’s constructive work on Scripture in his book “Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch”).
But, I simply refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit quit working in Christ’s church, theologically, in the 16th-17th centuries; and thus I can still appreciate teachers of church, like TFT (and even Barth at points) who I think help provide a healthy grammar for the church.
Brian,
I feel just as strongly as you about Mac. I have seen his Masters Seminary guys come into churches (not just mine in CA), and split and destroy churches (they intentionally do this … to separate the wheat from the chaff, that their method—and of course the chaff are anyone who disagrees with MacArthur’s idiosyncratic version of 5 point Calvinism).
Hey I am not fully defending Mac, I met and chatted with the man..and theologically he is another Reformed Baptist type, but again one MUST respect THE PULPIT of Christian preaching, even with a MacArthur! Indeed the Christian Pulpit is almost sacramental to my mind! But of course I am an Anglican: both Word & Sacrament!
*If some of you Americans could hear what is being preached in the CoE today, it would frost your mind! Nothing is worse than Christless preaching, so-called!
Bobby,
I am one that sees Barth as sort of like a modern Church Father! I have said this many times! But that does mean that his work is always without serious error! His method and mind-set are simply more toward the Hegelian! And, his student TFT is also close here. It is more ontology and science-like for the latter, than theology, to my mind at least. But hey, my friend Alister McGrath loves TFT, and calls him the greatest Theologian ever! But McGrath is also wrong sometimes! π Btw, see Alister’s book on Calvin: A Life of John Calvin! A bit general or light theologically, but nice historically.
*does not
Fr Robert,
There’s a difference between being respectful and critical. We are called to test all things (the Bereans provide a good example). And what I’m doing with MacArthur is no different than what you do with Barth.
What is preached in the CoE is nothing that is done in the corner. I’m well aware of all kinds of aberrant teaching, Fr Robert; btw, as you know, it’s not just the CoE.
I don’t really think Barth and TFT can compared the way you are just because TFT is one of Barth’s students. As McGrath, amongst others notes, TFT is his own theologian. Like I said the postmetaphysical vs. metaphysical one presents a substantial chasm between the two (McCormack and Hunsinger/Molnar represent a contemporary outworking of that chasm even today). Really, though, TFT, as you know took his doctorate in Patristics; and like I said, he is more of an Athanasius fan, theologically. Also, TFT is quite Eastern (orthodox) in orientation (with his Reformed theosis). Anyway, I disagree with you placing Barth and TFT too closely; I know that Barthians would disagree with this coupling. No matter, the issue, to me, isn’t what era truth is articulated in; just that truth is articulated.
Bobby,
I have never been “personally” negative about either Barth or Torrance! They were both good Christian men, though they both departed from the Protestant Reformed doctrine and faith, especially in soteriology. As I have said, I like especially TFT’s book: The Trinitarian Faith, and he was a good Patristic man I admit also. And of course Barth was again like a Church Father in places. I even like his sermon like book: the Humanity of God.
You have a tendency to look at the so-called methodology of theologians, which is fine, but that can often be itself a theological subjective aspect. Note trying to figure out Barth… could be a life’s work itself! And I place Barth and Torrance together, as many do.. mentor to student, etc., which is not a negative thing really. But we need to note too that Torrance took his mentor to task for not connectioning more closely what he believed to be the rationality of grace and that of science together. But this would have left the whole of Barth’s theology in a grave problem with his complete rejection of natural theology, at least to Barth’s mind. So here at least there is a real difference between Barth and TFT. But, even here Torrance does not really deal with the depth of the beauty (supernatual) of theology itself. And here I would place the mystery and sovereign nature of God. But, the most important part would be TFT’s rejection of the classic nature of Reformed dogmatics itself…Justification (forensic), etc. Even Calvin considered this a theological and biblical divine-rhetoric, in God’s accommodation! But again the real issue, for me anyway, is the rejection and movement away from the very classic Reformed Doctrines of Grace! And here I believe I am closer to both Calvin and St. Paul. My conviction and theological reading anyway. π
*connecting
There’s no questioning that looking at theological methodology is subjective; isn’t everything at some level (since we’re subjects). I don’t feel the burden to figure out Barth’s life work, but some have, and it is to them I look and defer on such issues (like McCormack et al). I don’t know what you mean, though, about TFT not dealing with the depth and beauty of theology itself. You know his bent is EO, within a Reformed construct, and you also know that he develops one of the most beautiful aspects of theology better than anyone else; i.e. Trinitarian theology. On the contrary, I would contest that it is those Reformed scholastics who think of God through an Aristotelian monadic lens that mutes the beauty of God’s grandeur. A lens that works its way to Christ instead of starting with Christ as God’s revelation. Have you read TFT’s Edinburgh lectures—Incarnation & Atonement (esp. the latter)—I don’t know how you could say what you say about TFT and the forensic if you had. You know TFT appeals to Calvin’s accommodation as well, right?
Bobby,
Don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that TFT did not speak with great eloquence in his theological position and method, etc. I have read many Roman Catholic writers and theologians who have spoken with great rapture in their theology too, from De Lubac to Von Balthasar, etc. But TFT’s theological position was simply a rejection of the classic Reformed position of Justfication for example. See his work: Karl Barth and the Latin Heresy. In the end, I am always drawn back to the Holy Scripture, and too both Luther and Calvin, and yes a true Reformed Scholasticism. And here btw, see many of the works of Geerhardus Vos on this subject. Vos simply is one of my favorites and mainstays in Reformed doctrine and theology. And too, Herman Bavinck, the latter is heavy reading somewhat, but worth the effort to me. I am myself much more interested in faithful biblical theology, than in subjective, dialectical theological thinking. It would be a stretch to place either Luther or Calvin here!
And btw, have you read Beza or Turretin in any depth?
I have read some of Beza, and more of Turretin’s Elenctic Theology. I have also been reading a bit of Bavinck, but in the end he’s not for me; although interestingly, I know, he had some impact on Barth with his emphasis on Deus dixit.
I am happy to work with TFT, Calvin, Luther et al. I don’t like the scholastics reformed, as you know; this is always our point of departure. But, in my mind, I am only concerned with biblical theology as well; of course what I think that entails is different from the categories that you use to conceive of the same thing. We are just in two different ships, Fr Robert; thankfully, ultimately, they end up in the same living waters of Jesus (at consummation anyway).
See Btw, Ford Lewis Battles book: Interpreting, John Calvin, and the chapter 4: God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity. This whole book is a real gem! (Baker Books, 1996) It is edited by Robert Benedetto, with introductory essays by John Hesselink and Donald McKim.
Bobby,
You are right there..at the Consummation! π
Yes, my position is somewhat affected by both Augustinianism, and a kind of Medieval Reformational history, which must include Catholicism to some degree. And yes, I am one for the whole Reformed Scholasticism! π
“Post-Reformation theolgy soon ended up in scholasticism again. This is unavoidable. It is also good. You cannot live and think only in terms of reform. You cannot continually be in change and dwell in peril. It leaves you dizzy, just like a merry-go-round. Reformation is good, but it is only a moment in the entirety of the tradition. You may not, therefore, only be reform-minded, but must also think in terms of church and catholicity. Then theology unavoidably branches out to scholasticism. . . . In my mind, scholastic method is not a matter of fruitless ingenuity, but the real blossoming of thought..” – Arnold A. Van Ruler
Well we’ll just leave that in Van Ruler’s “mind” then π .
My view is also, undeniably “affected” by Augustinianism, Medieval History, etc. I am much more at home in historical theology than systematic/modern.
Battles is good.
Yeah, I took that quote of Van Ruler from the front of Willem J. Van Asselt’s book: Introduction To Reformed Scholasticism. I really like some of the essays there!
Btw, what do ya think of Carl Trueman? Seems like a balanced young Calvinist, and he’s a Brit!
Van Asselt’s volume does have some good essays in it.
My assessment of Trueman, theologically, is the same as that of Muller. I also have some personal insight with Trueman because one of my former teachers knows him; his assessment of Trueman is not rosy (e.g. the way he received my former teacher at a theological conference because of differences).
Here’s a link with a nice intro on Calvin, note the wee video..
http://www.wts.edu/faculty/profiles/trueman.html
Btw, Trueman is an Englishman, and an English Calvinist can be stuck-up! π
I’ve already seen this vid, thanks.
Yes, indeed.
Btw, I have Trueman’s book on John Owen, and it is very good I think.
Trueman has some okay historical stuff, but he reads through that Perry Miller monolithic lens that he provided for understanding Puritan history; and I mean Trueman reads it this way. He needs some help from Janice Knight, she’ll help straighten him out and expand his histiorgraphical horizons. Anyway, I think this thread is spent.
Sure, I can develop it a little more… James 2:19 (even the demons believe in one God…and shudder) suggests (in the context of faith and deeds) that there is more needed for salvation than mere intellectual assent. This is also seen in the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matt 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, βLord, Lord,β will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, βLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?β Then I will tell them plainly, βI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!β ”
The Sermon on the Mount is, as we know, about what kind of faith is required to enter the kingdom…as a rebuke to the Pharisees and religious leaders of the day. So Jesus, in a theme later echoed by James, says there is more to salvation than just identifying with Jesus in some superficial way. Note that the Matt 7 false disciples drove out demons and performed miracles, yet still were considered to not have efficacious faith.
Lest one be tempted to use either of these passages to justify a works-based salvation, we have to contrast it with Romans 10 (confess / believe and you are saved), and we also have to note what is the “will of the Father” that is spoken of…other passages in context show it to be loving God and loving people.
So that is why I say that lordship salvation is obvious, but Macarthur complicates a Scriptural truth in his explanations and poor defense of it (eg, setting up straw man arguments).
Hey Marc Lucca, π
Thanks for coming back and providing a little more development. Of course I disagree with the your observations from these particular texts, and so that is why I would pause on “Lordship Salvation” being as obvious as some (including you π ) seem to think.
Actually, my reading on the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t have anything to do with answering Protestant Reformation dogmatic soteriological questions; instead I think it is very 1st century 2nd Temple Judaism in orientation. Certainly, I think, Jesus was challenging the Pharisees and religious leaders of the time, but I don’t think his reference was working through the categories of justification, sanctification, and glorification; I think his referent was referring to being included in God’s Covenant people, and the strictures that provided for that, or not. I think his reference would take us back to Deuteronomy, and would in fact be highlighting his ministry as the True Prophet (like Moses Deut 15 and 18) vs. the false prophets, the Pharisees. This is just a quick sketch on the categories that I think that are at play in this Matthean context vs. the categories that “Lordship Salvation” pivots on in MacArthur’s schema.
Same with James. I think this is a very 1st century book that wouldn’t be referencing the dogmatic categories provided for us through the post Reformed orthodox.
So I’ve jettisoned this whole way of reading the Text, which means that I side-step MacArthur’s soteriological conundrums π .
Bobby,
But this is the whole point, you cannot “jettison” Puritan doctrine and theology completely, without losing something of the historical and even the Reformational-Reformed Church! Mac is just your nice and neat ‘straw-man’! It won’t work Bobby me lad! π (And I am not speaking from my age here, but my conviction of the very historical church itself!)
Note, this is one of the places I so disagree with TFT’s thinking!
Sure I can jettison Puritan doctrine to the degree that it jettisons what Scripture teaches, and that’s what I see myself doing. I am also convicted of the historical church, as you know, as was TFT. It’s just how we conceive of that that causes the distinction.
I know, that’s the issue and rub! But I have personally never seen a good man or biblical servant, that really rejects the history of the Puritans. In fact one of my old mentors places his whole life, work and personal theology there…Sir James Packer, from one time good old Trinity College, Bristol!
As does one of my mentors, Dr Ron Frost. His life’s work, theologically, is in Puritan theology. His Affective theology, from Sibbes and others of the period, does not reflect a monolithic feeling in Puritan theology. In other words, to follow Puritan theology results in following different trajectories and streams of the period (even Muller would agree to this in principle).
Bobby, yes in some sense we are both students and reflections of our teaching and mentors! π Though I can go my own way at times! π Sometimes I feel that my Roman Catholic past and up-bringing cannot be overcome, but that is my own subjective I suppose? I really had a few Irish Roman Catholic priests that were huge on my mental shaping as a boy, and even young man! My childhood was almost idyllic! That generation of men (right after WW2), were much different than today!
Yeah, I’ve somewhat gone my own way too, at points (like with TFT); I also have other mentors besides Frost though. Ones that have had a profound theological impact on me; my dad and mom included. There is something about the era of men that you mention that I really miss; I am sad to see that generation going to be with the Lord, they are missed deeply! They represented a piety that is altogether absent in many/most quarters today. Anyway, got to keep looking forward to the Lord’s return and allow that to shape the perspective . . . He’s obviously not done yet!
Yes, my father was also huge on my upbringing, he simply was as strong a man as they come, but always fair and actually gentle! And my mother was very quiet and subservient, but she had fire deep inside! I am an old baby-boomer! I am moving into and toward my more retirement time. But, I will stay at this wheel until I want to change it, or God does? But my wife’s health is always an issue! And raising a teen at my age is always a challenge! And yes, GOD always remains my sovereign!
Ok, back to the discussion at hand. So how WOULD a 1st century reader view a passage like the 2 that I mentioned? They certainly have soteriological consequences. The SOTM in Matt 5-7 would of course be viewed (not exclusively) as Jesus defining what true faith/doctrine etc was (in contrast to the leaven of the Pharisees). “You have heard it said….but I tell you” is a clear contrast and a declaration both of the person of Christ and also his authority.
Perhaps instead of agreeing with “Lordship Salvation”, and therefore bringing the Macarthur baggage to the discussion, I should say that I believe that simply “praying the prayer” doesn’t make you saved. To the degree that Lordship Salvation theology agrees with me on that, I find it to be an orthodox and obviously Scriptural teaching, based on the 2 verses I referenced. To the degree he wades into the weeds and sets up straw men and knocks them down, I disagree.
I feel, and I cannot give specific examples because I haven’t read anything he has written in 10 years, that Macarthur might want to brand the theology his own. Like bottling water and calling it “Marc’s Stunningly Refreshing New Beverage”, though everyone has water.
So perhaps you should speak more about what you believe the “1st century reader” would have believed these verses said, and about what I have declared to be self evident truths in the paragraph above, and I can better understand your position.
@Fr Robert,
Life goes on π !
@Marc,
You’re really asking me to write at least another post addressing this issue π . At the level of assertion, but I don’t think baseless, the 1st century reader definitely would not have understood this through the Literal Grammatical Historical approach to interpretation. I don’t think praying the prayer makes you saved, but I do think faith in Christ is required for an individual appropriation of salvation. I think that Christ represents salvation in himself, and so all those united to him by Spirit spirated faith participate in both the justification that he offers, and the sanctification that he has also wrought in his own obedient life to the Father. It is by virtue of this participatory union that we “partake of the divine nature,” and thus have eternal life (or live in and through God’s life in Christ).
I gave a brief sketch, through hinting at a way that I might try and develop the context here further. That Jesus is contrasting his “Prophet-hood” with that of the religious leaders of His day. If folks wanted to be aligned with His kind of true prophet-hood, then they would need to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees; i.e. more than a righteousness that is merely outward, like the religious leaders. So the issue was who had the kind of righteousness that Yahweh required; did the religious leadership and thus false-prophets, or did His prophet-hood have the kind that Yahweh was looking for? All of His disciples would be aligned with His righteousness, the kind associated with his coming kingdom, which was presently breaking into the 1st century in His divine person (now I’m getting rather theological). His kingdom was associated with certain characteristics that reflect His shalom. But this kingdom, and its works, are not accomplished by anyone other than the true prophet. He personifies this “ethic”, and it is this ethic that will characterize His people; but not in an absolute sense, only in a proximate sense. In other words, obedience certainly is an aspect of being a disciple of Christ, but it is not grounded in my righteous works (as proof of my election or something); but instead in His righteous works for us, now we ought to walk in them. I am getting quite theological in my exegetical assumptions, but this is off the top. Yet this does reflect my current exegetical approach (e.g. its not the LGH, in a strict sense). I’ll have to do a bigger post on this, Marc. One that will sketch in a more coherent way how I approach Matthew 7, and biblical exegesis in general. Also one that will further lay bare my theological assumptions; the ones that are informing some of my thoughts even here. I think we need to be cognizant of authorial intent, and also be aware of the inner-logic that the “author” must be presuming upon in order to say what he does in the writing of his particular text. Stay tuned, I’ll do a post soon that will directly with your questions. Thanks, Marc.
I think I agree with your interpretation of the SOTM, as I understand it. You just said it more theologically than I did.
As for the obedience question, what all believers have to answer is, obedience to what? We know the Who we must be obedient to. So here is what we know, as a syllogism:
1. I must be obedient to Christ (eg, be holy as your Father is holy, and several other places).
2. I still sin
3. Ergo, I am either not a true believer, or obedience is something other than perfect sinlessness.
4. Only one man was perfect, so I am not expected to be perfect in that sense of sinlessness (“if any man says he is without sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him).
5. So I can be a true believer, and obedience is something other than works.
So now we know what it is not…but what is it?
I believe that the obedience that confirms true efficacious faith is the obedience of the man who “does the will of my Father.” In the totality of NT revelation, we learn what that will is (and that it is remarkably similar to God’s command in the OT): Love God, and Love thy neighbor. So the people whose faith is efficacious are those whose lives demonstrate that they (imperfectly, of course) love God, and love their neighbors. Note that the will of the Father is NOT casting out demons (rather rejoice that your names are written in the book of life) or working miracles in Jesus’ name, which is why those false disciples were destined for rebuke despite doing these “works.”
Therefore, you have a coherent theology, and not a construct, that affirms that many who come in Jesus’ name and even do miracles and cast out demons are not truly saved; that faith is by grace and not by works; that those who confess and believe are saved; that the evidence of this faith is the works accompanying this testimony and belief; and that these works are doing the will of the Father, which is to love him and love his people.
To me, this is a different theology than the traditional tent-evangelist-Roman-road-pray-the-prayer-after-me-and-you-go-to-heaven theology that requires nothing else of the “believer.” If they walk right back into the sorry state they were in, with no regard for God or his people, then I would submit that the Spirit is not in them and they are not saved.
Btw, I have a nice little book in my library here, that is about expository preaching, the writer Steven Lawson says: “The aim of this book is to raise the bar for a new generation of expositors.” And the name of the book is, ‘The Expository Genius of John Calvin’, with a very positive note in the front of the book, to John MacArthur…’To John MacArthur – faithful shepherd, peerless expositor, dedender of the faith’. And, this book was well worth the read to me! And I still preach, and still work hard at preaching!
@Marc,
My approach is much more radical than what you have laid out through your own schema. My approach pivots on the vicarious humanity of Christ for us in salvation. So both the objective side and subjective side of salvation is all grounded in Christ ‘for us’. So all of the good works (active obedience), and passive works (passive obedience on the cross); all of justification, sanctification (and ultimately glorification — to use these categories) are in Christ. That’s why I wanted to emphasize participation in what I said earlier. I would appeal to John Calvin’s ‘double grace’ (duplex gratia) as the model that best captures my theological exegetical assumptions on this (which maybe I’ll have to do a post on, I have a book review coming on this topic on J. Todd Billings book that covers this issue in Calvin). Karl Barth and Thomas F. Torrance also operate with a constructive model of Calvin’s double grace. This places heavy emphasis on a union with Christ model (a Pauline ‘in Christ’ theology), as the mode for construing a theory of salvation. It is with these theological assumptions (as the inner-logic of the text of Scripture, esp. NT) that I come to our pericope in Matthew.
So, consequently, I eschew the model that sets up a correlation between my good works and assurance of salvation/election. In fact this is the model that I am probably known most for; that is, in the way that I typically rail against it (the Calvinist model that operates from a Covenant of Works like understanding of salvation … or the 5 point style). See my other blog: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com
I am going to do a post, probably my next one, on the vicarious humanity of Christ; and what that implies about salvation etc.
Fr Robert,
Yeah, I know of Steve Lawson, he’s dead center in the Shepherds Conference movement; so you know what I think π .
Bobby,
As a Anglo-Irish Anglican thankfully I don’t have to enter into every area of American Evangelicalism, but I did like Lawson’s book in Calvin’s Expository sense. It is well written, foot-noted, and just a nice read!
I must say, that I don’t agree with your driving this constant wedge between your “Calvinism” and the Federals, note I put it in the plural..as the Federal Vision people are also here in some sense. I know you disagree with Federal Calvinism, but it seems much more than theological with you? I know too, you are very intense theologically, as even I can be, but this divide will not serve the Church I am afraid! It reminds me of the older days with Anglicans and R. Catholics, thankfully those days are mostly past now. We all have a bigger foe, with ‘the world, the flesh, and the devil. π
Fr Robert,
The reason I draw this line, materially, is because there is one. Federal Calvinists, themselves draw lines between them and say a John MacArthur Baptist 5 point soteriological only Calvinism. I think it would be deceptive of me to not make the distinction between Fed Calv and Evangelical Calvinism that I do (even though there are plenty of contributors to our book who would not want to calcify EC as an actual strain distinct from Calvinism in general); you know as well as I that there is quite a substantial/material difference between the two. So I don’t understand why you would object. In fact you make this distinction yourself between me and you. How else would you distinguish this?
Bobby,
I don’t disagree about theological difference we gonna have it until the end, my point is that we should not make it sound prejudicial, and personal, and sadly it just often comes across that way. As the words toward MacArthur, etc. There are simply many other Reformed Baptist types also in the plane of a Mac. And whether we like it or not, the major history of Calvinism is Federal and in the place of the Westminister Standards. I am not one that loves the WS in the whole certainly, but I am not going try to attack it either. It is what it is. Thankfully we have other Reformed creeds. One question a friend of mine who reads most of both our stuff is, which Reformed Creed or Creeds does the the EC tend to? I had said no doubt the Scotts, but I will let you speak there. As I have said before, I tend toward the Irish Articles 1615, generally at least, but then I am also an Anglican Calvinist. And the Anglican Reformed list is rather long, and of course a bit different in both people and places, etc. But as you noted, we must also bring in the Reformational Lutherans, and they are simply but broadly Augustinian.
Fr Robert,
I am not certainly willing to break fellowship with anyone who names the name of Christ; but that said, I will stand (with conviction, as do you) for what I believe at a material level. I am a passionate fellow, and so this will come across in my communications. I have had personal, bad experiences with both Federal and MacArthurites (I’ve had good ones too); but its not really personal because of that for me. It is so, because I’ve seen what these theologies teach do to the rank and file Christians who are affected by this that thoroughly aggravates me. Interestingly, Mac and others are much much more sectarian in approach than I am. Have you ever written to Mac and asked him to cool it? π I don’t feel like I’ve ever been in sin (well maybe a few times) in what I’ve said about Mac or any Federal Calvinists. I definitely have sought to joust with such characters, but I haven’t engaged in ad hominen (for the most part). This is just who I am, Fr Robert. I feel very strongly about this stuff (at a pastoral level even), and so I will communicate that (even unapologetically . . . although if you haven’t noticed I have tried to tone down some of my rhetoric as of late — maybe barring this post).
On “EC”, yeah, you’re right; The Scots Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, in fact part of my chapter for our book compares these two with the WCF and Belgic Confession.
Bobby,
No problems, “joust” on.. π I know I am not your normal Anglican rector type! π
Funny, but I don’t see the so-called “MacArthurites” as really fully historical myself. I know we had our Strict and Particular Baptists in the UK too. ‘The frozen chosen!’ I think Pink was a Strict & Particular Baptist? I am certainly no Baptist! π But Spurgeon was of course! I wonder what you think of the American Southern Baptists? They have produced some good theolog’s!
I am hesitant when I hear that one is looking at the text through their own theological framework. The problem with theological constructs is we have a tendency to sit back and admire our own handiwork, to the detriment of the pursuit of truth. This is not an accusation or even an observation, for I don’t know if this is how you approach the topic. Merely a caution. The danger of theology, and its “tongues” as you describe it brilliantly in another post, is that it is very possible, and perhaps likely, to lose sight of the forest because we are studying the needles on one tree – and that under a microscope.
To eschew, as you say, the idea that your good works have any correlation to a confirmation of salvation would be to ignore large bodies of text in the NT, in my view. For example, John 13:35 “By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This IS the good work we are saved unto (love), and it is the demonstration of true efficacious faith.
The entire book of 1 John is about efficacious faith, is it not? And what does he say?
“We know that we have come to obey him if we obey his commands. The man who says “I know him” but does not do what he says is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (2:3-4).
“Whoever claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light and there is nothing in him to make him stumble.” (2:9-10).
“…you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him” (2:29)
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.” (3:7)
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God: nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (3:9-10)
So, the works ARE the confirmation…but what are the works? We have to be cautious and not create a works based salvation theology, taking into acount the whole of revelation. We could step in to James at this point and look at James 1:27, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” It certainly applies, but why not stay in the Johannine text?
“This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.” 3:11
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brother.” 3″14
“Dear children, let us no love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set out hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us.” 3:18-19
Jesus of course was the author if this theology. He said in Luke 10:26-28:
βWhat is written in the Law?β he replied. βHow do you read it?β
He answered, ββLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mindβ; and, βLove your neighbor as yourself.ββ
“You have answered correctly,β Jesus replied. βDo this and you will live.β
So to receive eternal life we must believe in Jesus, and those who do will do good works…those good works are to love each other, and to love God. To Jesus this “summed up the Law and the Prophets”.
How do you integrate this truth and its supporting scriptures into your theology? Admittedly, I don’t speak theological “tongues” nearly as well as you, so this is a request for explanation, and in no way a taunt.
Marc,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we all have theological traditions informing our interpretive work in Scripture; so I think it is difficult for any of us to avoid that, indeed, I don’t think theological constructs are bad, as long as they “dialectically” rise out of the Text and the inner-logic or material point of the text which is Christ’s life.
A principle of the protestant Reformational hermeneutic is the “analogy of scripture,” Martin Luther called it the “analogy of faith” (in contrast to the Roman Catholic’s appropriation of the “rule of faith” which was really their teaching and interpretive magesterium). In lieu of this principle, I think we need to take the whole context of scripture together when we interpret passages in their various contexts; in other words, I think a part of Protestant exegesis (and Christian in general) is that theological exegesis is always in the forefront. I am afraid that the LGH has created a situation for interpretation that has a few scattered trees amongst different forests, and thus there is no organic relation between the forests and then the trees therein; if that makes sense.
The reason I said I’ve eschewed the 5 point model, is because I don’t buy the metaphysics and the ontology present therein. And thus if I reject that, then I will reject the theology that is informing the interpretive decisions that have concluded in providing a framework that presents a rupture between the works and person of Christ; ascribing good works to us individually, and not grounding those works in the humanity of Christ for us.
You have provided too many, might I say, “proof-texts” π for me to work through one by one. So I am just going to have to leave it at a general response in regards to how I approach biblical interpretation and this issue in general. I will just refer you to my most recent post on Galatians 2.20 and Vicarious Faith. That should help to further pin-point my approach, and hopefully dispel the idea that my approach entails an undue eisogesis of the text. I think the most important thing to get hold of though, is that we all do theological exegesis; and so it is really important to make sure that our informing theological grids are integrated in a way that give a cogent account and ontology of God’s life in Christ; since that is the source of God’s Self-revelation, and what serves as the inner-coherence of our interpretive decisions as we approach any of the texts in scripture that we do (all those you highlight above, included). Thanks, Marc.
I know my response is probably dissatisfying, hopefully I can get to your points in more detail later, Marc; maybe through posts.
Marc: Nice post! Indeed the text of Eph. 2:8-9-10 come’s to mind! Sadly I believe at least that Rome (RCC) has produced a “works righteousness” theology, somewhat in the past, and certainly practise at least even now. But we Protestant Evangelical types, need to also beware of an Antinomianism! It is here to my mind at least, that the best of the Reformed creeds, and some of the better Reformed Churches, are seeking the biblical balance, of faith evidenced by works. But even here we cannot make a maxim!
It will be interesting to hear what our Bobby mate will say there?
Well, I wouldn’t exactly say “dissatisfying,” but it does not answer my questions about your theology. I am no theologian, so I don’t have the frame of reference to critique (or agree) with your position, because I don’t understand it as yet.
However, I respect your theological mind and experience and so approach it with humility and grace, mindful of the fact that it may be beyond me at present, for lack of time to process.
Marc,
And I appreciate your insights as well. It is really hard to try and get into all of my views in this format. If you go here http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/the-themes-of-evangelical-calvinism/ this should help give a little more insight into my views (but is quite a bit to read).
Thanks, Rector. Rome has little credibility to claim a grace based salvation, when nearly every one of its votaries believes that their works are central to their salvation (and not merely evidence of it). A teacher is known by the beliefs of their pupils. If the pupils all believe that their works will save them, then how can they make a claim that that is not what they are teaching?
Marc: Sadly true! I grew-up Irish Roman Catholic. However, heaven will and does hold many of them! Thankfully grace is just that! Though Bobby and I disagree on the main element of Federal Calvinism, i.e. “Covenant” itself, we agree on the nature of grace and salvation, which is Christ Himself, who is Himself our “righteousness”, etc. (1 Cor.1:30).