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.