Agreed, Mark.

I fully concur with the secondary, subjective basis for the assurance of salvation, i.e. fruit, but you would notice that Turk's critique centers on his perceived undue place of primary that the indicative-imperative paradigm holds, the latter being precisely the dynamic that produces grateful obedience.

In the light of these debates, could someone help me with understanding how biblical John MacArthur's "lordship salvation" position is (and where it really stands w.r.t. our different camps, Hortonite or otherwise) and whether it is related to what Frank Turk is saying?

Horton's book, "Christ the Lord," helped me a lot in understanding the "Lordship Salvation" controversy. The book was specifically concocted for the purpose of addressing the issue. In fact, Horton mentions in the book that MacArthur graciously accepted Horton's correction of the former's conflated view of justification and sanctification.

I blogged about it here: Underdog Theology: Calvin on "Lordship Salvation"

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

Horton's book, "Christ the Lord," helped me a lot in understanding the "Lordship Salvation" controversy. The book was specifically concocted for the purpose of addressing the issue. In fact, Horton mentions in the book that MacArthur graciously accepted Horton's correction of the former's conflated view of justification and sanctification.

I blogged about it here: Underdog Theology: Calvin on "Lordship Salvation"

Yes I have read the book but no I have not found it all that helpful. I cannot interact with your blog because that's not what this thread is about and my book is stuck in my home country. From what I do remember, Horton did say explicitly in the book that MacArthur's view of law and gospel was erroneous and he did draw quite a strong line between what is law and what is gospel, making me think that that may be quite related to the discussion at hand. So what I am trying to ask if anyone is able to place MacArthur's "erroneous view" of law and gospel in the context of these discussions and whether Frank Turk's view is near to that of MacArthur. I am not asking about assurance of salvation, which has been discussed ad nauseum in past threads. I think there was consensus that there are both subjective and objective aspects to assurance.

MacArthur's view, as articulated in the Lordship Controversy and reflected in The Gospel According to Jesus and the like isn't much different from Norman Shepherd's. This is the problem with the whole controversy. Confessional Reformed people should say: a pox on both your houses. The Zane Hodges ("easy believism"; walk the aisle, pray the prayer, ex opere operato view) is antinomian because it denies the moral necessity of the third use of the law, the moral necessity of fruit as evidence, the moral necessity of sanctity in the justified. MacArthur, however, because he isn't a confessional Protestant (and he will tell you so) but a biblicist, didn't have the categories by which evaluate the Zane Hodges view properly. He reacted by doing as many have been wont to do, by trying to make sanctity essential to justification. Since that time, I'm told, he has said more orthodox things but he has never, to my knowledge substantially revised what he published in the Gospel According to Jesus.

The confessional Reformed view, taught in the Three Forms and in the Westminster Standards is that justification is by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone AND that those who believe and are united by the Spirit to Christ, will produce fruit as evidence of their justification. Those who are united to Christ must seek to conform their lives to the moral law of God, not as a condition of acceptance with God but as a consequence of having been freely accepted by God for Christ's sake.

Everyone should read the two essays by Paul Schaefer in Christ the Lord. They are the single best treatments of the controversy.

Tragically, there has been something of a confluence between the Shepherdites (justification through faithfulness) and MacArthurites, such as Frank Turk, via Doug Wilson. The latter is quite the Wilsonite and I've heard more than a few Shepherdites pledge allegiance to MacArthur, as if we had a side in the Lordship Controversy.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

MacArthur's view, as articulated in the Lordship Controversy and reflected in The Gospel According to Jesus and the like isn't much different from Norman Shepherd's. This is the problem with the whole controversy. Confessional Reformed people should say: a pox on both your houses. The Zane Hodges ("easy believism"; walk the aisle, pray the prayer, ex opere operato view) is antinomian because it denies the moral necessity of the third use of the law, the moral necessity of fruit as evidence, the moral necessity of sanctity in the justified. MacArthur, however, because he isn't a confessional Protestant (and he will tell you so) but a biblicist, didn't have the categories by which evaluate the Zane Hodges view properly. He reacted by doing as many have been wont to do, by trying to make sanctity essential to justification. Since that time, I'm told, he has said more orthodox things but he has never, to my knowledge substantially revised what he published in the Gospel According to Jesus.

The confessional Reformed view, taught in the Three Forms and in the Westminster Standards is that justification is by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone AND that those who believe and are united by the Spirit to Christ, will produce fruit as evidence of their justification. Those who are united to Christ must seek to conform their lives to the moral law of God, not as a condition of acceptance with God but as a consequence of having been freely accepted by God for Christ's sake.

Everyone should read the two essays by Paul Schaefer in Christ the Lord. They are the single best treatments of the controversy.

Tragically, there has been something of a confluence between the Shepherdites (justification through faithfulness) and MacArthurites, such as Frank Turk, via Doug Wilson. The latter is quite the Wilsonite and I've heard more than a few Shepherdites pledge allegiance to MacArthur, as if we had a side in the Lordship Controversy.

Dr Clark,

Yes you have restated what was in the book. How about MacArthur's view of the law and gospel, at least w.r.t his position at the time of the controversy? And, from your understanding of what he has said before, in his view, is "repentance" (the change of the will towards God) the gospel, the law, or both? And in your view, is "repentance" the gospel, the law, or both? And is his position by any chance anywhere close to those of us who do think that the gospel can be lived since salvation includes sanctification? There was a revised edition on the book "The Gospel According to Jesus" in which MacArthur apparently attempted to improve his clarity of his language based on feedback received. I've only ever read the revised edition of it, so I'm not entirely sure of the changes between the two. Pardon me if it's one question too many, address as you deem fit.

By the way, it's not really the MacArthurites' fault that FVs "pledge allegiance" to them, is it?

Originally Posted by jayce475

Yes I have read the book but no I have not found it all that helpful. I cannot interact with your blog because that's not what this thread is about and my book is stuck in my home country. From what I do remember, Horton did say explicitly in the book that MacArthur's view of law and gospel was erroneous and he did draw quite a strong line between what is law and what is gospel, making me think that that may be quite related to the discussion at hand. So what I am trying to ask if anyone is able to place MacArthur's "erroneous view" of law and gospel in the context of these discussions and whether Frank Turk's view is near to that of MacArthur. I am not asking about assurance of salvation, which has been discussed ad nauseum in past threads. I think there was consensus that there are both subjective and objective aspects to assurance.

It's a shame that you didn't find it helpful.

Also, the issue of assurance of salvation definitely plays a major role in the "Lordship Salvation" controversy and the present one since conflating justification and sanctification in the obsessive "fruit-hunting" of both controversies always "rocks the boat" assurance-wise.

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

It's a shame that you didn't find it helpful.

Also, the issue of assurance of salvation definitely plays a major role in the "Lordship Salvation" controversy and the present one since conflating justification and sanctification in the obsessive "fruit-hunting" of both controversies always "rocks the boat" assurance-wise.

I bought it hoping that it will help me understand Lordship Salvation better, but both my pastor and I ended up with the conclusion that it wasn't that helpful and we still don't see that much of an issue with MacArthur's position. Maybe I have looked into the controversy 20 years too late, but I see none of the "obsessive fruit-hunting" anywhere, at least nothing beyond Matthew 7:17. Answer the question at hand if you will, lest we turn this into a Lordship Salvation thread.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

The fourth absurdity is thinking that because someone listens to WHI, that Horton has some sort of personal responsibility for their actions. Does the Turk take responsibility for the jerks who link to Pyro articles?

While I think Frank Turk has a point with regard to what appears to be some sloppiness in some of the transcripts that he posted, I also suspect that the unaccountable watchbloggers he is trying to make Horton own are at least as influenced by the aggressive polemics of Team Pyro through the years than they are by WHI. Just Saying.

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Pyromaniacs dispensationalists?

The reason I ask is because if that is so, it just adds another layer to the law/gospel critique, and as such is not really a Reformed critique of the position.

Dan Phillips and Phil Johnson are dispensationalists, but based on some posts on the law a few months back, Phil is at least as "leaky" a dispensationalist as MacArthur is. He definitely doesn't take the classic dispensational view that the law is done away with and seemed to articulate something like the Third Use.

As for Frank Turk, if I recall correctly, he posted somewhere that he was actually Amil, although that doesn't equate to being covenantal of course. He's also a fan of Doug Wilson whereas Phil is decidedly not.

Frank's post seems to be animated by a disdain for TR's (a term I've seen him use before, if not in that discussion) who dot all the I's and cross all the T's properly but who he perceives as having glaring shortcomings in their practice if not their doctrine.

Tom Chantry, a confessional Reformed Baptist pastor, posted several times in the comments and was in close agreement with Frank's concerns regarding the alleged overemphasis on the law/gospel distinction.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Tom Chantry, a confessional Reformed Baptist pastor, posted several times in the comments and was in close agreement with Frank's concerns regarding the alleged overemphasis on the law/gospel distinction.

Just out of curiosity:

What does this particular reformed baptist have to do with the discussion?

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Tom Chantry, a confessional Reformed Baptist pastor, posted several times in the comments and was in close agreement with Frank's concerns regarding the alleged overemphasis on the law/gospel distinction.

Just out of curiosity:

What does this particular reformed baptist have to do with the discussion?

Marrow Man had written that because the Pyros aren't confessional or covenantal that the post "is not really a Reformed critique of the position" and I was pointing out that a Confessional RB pastor had written in agreement with Frank's post. That may not technically make Frank's post a Reformed critique of the position, but it really doesn't matter because there are numerous Reformed critiques of the position, some of which have been cited in this thread.

Having attended a "seeker-sensitive" church, I know what antinomianism is first hand. Inversely, having attended a cult that called itself Reformed Baptist but taught salvation by believing AND obeying, I know what legalism is first hand. In both instances, men like R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, and Rod Rosenbladt greatly helped me in understanding the Law/Gospel distinction, and helped me understand how both churches were confusing Law and Gospel.

The Lord in His mercy used the work of these men to pull me out of the seeker-sensitive church, as well as the spiritually, psychologically, and emotionally abusive cult. I have greatly benefited from their work and think that Turk's article is just plain off the mark.

I don't know about Turk, or anyone who thinks he has a valid cause for concern, but I daily relish in the fact that all of my sins have been forgiven, that Christ has robed me in His perfect righteousness, that the Father is pleased with His Son and, therefore, is my loving Father and not my Judge. Doesn't every true child of God look to Christ more than he looks to himself? Isn't this what David does all throughout the Psalms? Isn't this what Paul does at the end of Romans 7? Isn't what regenerate men who know that they are vile sinners who even at their best deserve eternal damnation and not even the faintest hint of God's approbation for their sorry attempts at living righteously....isn't that what they do?

In all honestly, I don't know if antinomianism is really the thing we should be worrying about, seeing as we are naturally prone to establishing our own righteousness over and against the righteousness of Christ.

-h.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Dan Phillips and Phil Johnson are dispensationalists, but based on some posts on the law a few months back, Phil is at least as "leaky" a dispensationalist as MacArthur is. He definitely doesn't take the classic dispensational view that the law is done away with and seemed to articulate something like the Third Use.

As for Frank Turk, if I recall correctly, he posted somewhere that he was actually Amil, although that doesn't equate to being covenantal of course. He's also a fan of Doug Wilson whereas Phil is decidedly not.

Frank's post seems to be animated by a disdain for TR's (a term I've seen him use before, if not in that discussion) who dot all the I's and cross all the T's properly but who he perceives as having glaring shortcomings in their practice if not their doctrine.

Tom Chantry, a confessional Reformed Baptist pastor, posted several times in the comments and was in close agreement with Frank's concerns regarding the alleged overemphasis on the law/gospel distinction.

Thanks for answering my question, Chris. Very helpful.

Tom Chantry seems to be a good guy, and I've enjoyed the couple of Banner of Truth books I've read by him. Since he adopts a confessional position on Sabbath observance, I'm going to assume that he is not New Covenant in his Baptist theology. I do not say that to slight anyone, but only that if we are operating in different categories with how one views law and gospel, that is obviously going to create some problems. You have a variety of views in moving between Lutheran, Reformed, Dispensationalist, and New Covenant.

Minor Clarification: Tom Chantry is not Walt Chantry, of BoT authorship... A father-son relation, I believe. Both would be considered Ref.Bapt.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Minor Clarification: Tom Chantry is not Walt Chantry, of BoT authorship... A father-son relation, I believe. Both would be considered Ref.Bapt.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

I haven't listened to this yet, but Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith interviews Frank Turk concerning the open letter here: Fighting for the Faith: Interview with Frank Turk RE: His Open Letter to Dr. Michael Horton

There is much discussion here about MacArthur's view of Lordship salvation that has peaked my interest. My home church is MacArthurite and is in agreement with MacArthur on the issue of Lordship salvation and I have never heard the advocacy of justification through faithfulness. In fact, I have only ever heard exactly what I hear from most orthodox Reforming folks: we are justified by faith alone but that faith bears good fruit. You know, like what the Bible plainly says.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I haven't listened to this yet, but Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith interviews Frank Turk concerning the open letter here: Fighting for the Faith: Interview with Frank Turk RE: His Open Letter to Dr. Michael Horton

It was good and worth taking the time to listen to it. I thought the point made around the 29:00 minute mark concerning the Preaching of the Law and the "3 uses" to be very important.

I did appreciate how he said God uses the law as he will. The Holy Spirit applies it as He will. It even hardens. I forgot about that point.

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

Agreed, Mark.

I fully concur with the secondary, subjective basis for the assurance of salvation, i.e. fruit, but you would notice that Turk's critique centers on his perceived undue place of primary that the indicative-imperative paradigm holds, the latter being precisely the dynamic that produces grateful obedience.

Fruit is objective as well.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

There is much discussion here about MacArthur's view of Lordship salvation that has peaked my interest. My home church is MacArthurite and is in agreement with MacArthur on the issue of Lordship salvation and I have never heard the advocacy of justification through faithfulness. In fact, I have only ever heard exactly what I hear from most orthodox Reforming folks: we are justified by faith alone but that faith bears good fruit. You know, like what the Bible plainly says.

You know, I think it is ironic that the Antinomian "free gracers" or "greasy gracers" (as I've heard them called) are the ones who have profited from the fact that MacArthur has confused Law and Gospel in his major publications and his sermons. I am not an antinomian, but I do find much of what Bob Wilkin's critique of John MacArthur's Hard to Believe very helpful in seeing just badly MacArthur can confuse Law and Gospel. MacArthur does this in his New King James Version study Bible, substituting obedience in passages where the clear context is not obedience but faith.

Also, I know there's a ton of beef between the Clarkians and Van Tillians, but I think that beef should be put on pause, and that John Robbins' review/critique of MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus should be considered. Robbins shows how MacArthur confuses Law and Gospel, and justification and sanctification.

-h.

Originally Posted by hrdiaz

Also, I know there's a ton of beef between the Clarkians and Van Tillians, but I think that beef should be put on pause, and that John Robbins' review/critique of MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus should be considered. Robbins shows how MacArthur confuses Law and Gospel, and justification and sanctification.

If memory serves, Robbins' review of Piper's Future Grace is even more scathing. Those who would disagree with Robbins would likely charge that in those reviews he was selectively quoting and quoting out of context. But I think he made some good points about how unclear they both were at times, even if I don't agree with his and Clark's rejection of the standard Reformed definition of saving faith. (That's a subject that would require another thread and has probably been done to death here on the board already.)

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

MacArthur's view, as articulated in the Lordship Controversy and reflected in The Gospel According to Jesus and the like isn't much different from Norman Shepherd's............He reacted by doing as many have been wont to do, by trying to make sanctity essential to justification. Since that time, I'm told, he has said more orthodox things but he has never, to my knowledge substantially revised what he published in the Gospel According to Jesus.

That's a strong charge, Dr. Clark. I've read MacArthur and Horton and did not come away with that. Lordship Salvation folks are nowhere NEAR being similar to Norm Shepherd's group/followers.

I know your time is limited, but please demonstrate from a current printing of The Gospel According to Jesus where MacArthur's view is 'not that much different' from Shepherd's.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

There is much discussion here about MacArthur's view of Lordship salvation that has peaked my interest. My home church is MacArthurite and is in agreement with MacArthur on the issue of Lordship salvation and I have never heard the advocacy of justification through faithfulness. In fact, I have only ever heard exactly what I hear from most orthodox Reforming folks: we are justified by faith alone but that faith bears good fruit. You know, like what the Bible plainly says.

That's what I've always gotten from MacArthur too - in TGATJ, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles and Hard to Believe.