Open Letter to Michael Horton Pyromaniacs

[hrdiaz]

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.)

 

[BlackCalvinist]

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.

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.