The Gospel According to Jesus

[Javilo]

John Macarthur on his Grace To You radio broadcast, has been preaching
on The Gospel According to Jesus. He is teaching that repentance as
part of saving faith. Today he quoted Spurgeon where he said that a person
has to turn from all sin to be saved. How is this even possible since we all
still sin and sometimes even willingly? But also don't understand how some
Christians try to separate Christ as Savior from Christ as Lord. So looking at
it this way, Lordship salvation seems to make sense. So I don't understand
these people that say making Christ Lord is works. Macarthur appears to
be right on except for the Spurgeon quote.

 

[Scott1]

While there are a lot of theological issues here, I think Dr MacArthur is generally getting this (biblically) right. I understand he has taken a lot of criticism from some who did not understand what he was saying or have an Arminian-influenced view of salvation to start with.

Repentance and "good works" (those that flow from a right heart toward God) inevitably flow from salvation, something God alone does. This is somewhat what James, chapter 2 is saying. While works do not justify us in God's sight (Christ's righteousness alone does that), they do inevitably flow from the life of someone God has changed.

Remember, faith and repentance are evidence God's grace, the Holy Spirit working, in a person's life.

 

[Wannabee]

First John is central to this as well. The habitual life of the Christian is turning from all sin. That's not to say that one will flawlessly turn from sin, but rather that their life habits will forsake sin and embrace righteousness.

 

[brandonadams]

Joe,

I found this article very helpful in discussing MacArthur's view:

The Gospel According to John MacArthur

 

[Grymir]

I've read lots of Spurgeon, and haven't read that we turn from all sin. It may be something pulled out of context, or used in a larger framework. I know that Dr MacArthur has arminian tendencies in this respect. For a person who thinks they have turned from all sin is deceiving themselves. Everybody, saved or lost, sins in thought, word and deed everyday. We will only stop this when Jesus comes back and we get our resurrected bodies. Yes, we will progressivly get 'better and better', but not according to a do and don't set of lists, which many have, but according to God. And not all those that we think are the 'sanctified' are. As Paul says, it appeals to the flesh and is not of God.

 

[Scott1]

Joe,

I found this article very helpful in discussing MacArthur's view:

The Gospel According to John MacArthur

Food for though here.

There are some outstanding Christian theologians referenced in this paper (Boice, Packer, Robbins and others).

From this it seems Dr MacArthur did not get everything expressed right in regards to justification, sanctification, etc at the time of this book but has since shown he does understand this biblically and does teach and defend it biblically now.

Overall, he was addressing the popular notion that one can have Jesus has Savior but not Lord- a deep and important biblical topic.

 

[cih1355]

Today he quoted Spurgeon where he said that a person
has to turn from all sin to be saved. How is this even possible since we all
still sin and sometimes even willingly?

Did Spurgeon mean that a person has to stop sinning from now until the day he dies before he can be saved or did he mean that a person has to have the desire to forsake sin in order to receive salvation?

 

[brandonadams]

but has since shown he does understand this biblically and does teach and defend it biblically now.

I don't know enough to say one way or the other... but if that is the case, I sure wish he would stop selling his older books and issue a public statement about it.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

MacArthur's Revised & expanded edition (1994) supposedly corrected some mistatements and added some clarification following cautions and concerns expressed by some of the Reformed theologs with his wording. Note that John Robbins' critique (linked above) was dated 1993.

 

[Dwimble]

It has been a lot of years since I read MacArthur's presumptuously titled, The Gospel According to Jesus, so I can't speak specifically to most of what has been said here, or to whether or not the expanded edition corrected any mistakes. But, one thing I specifically remember, which disgusted me when I read the book, was how frequently he stated his assumptions as fact, and how much it suffered from eisegesis.

For example, I remember there being a large section (it may have even been an entire chapter) about Judas, in which he went on and on about Judas' motives and feelings, in spite of the fact that he had no scriptural evidence to support his declarations.