It may surprise many Christians to know how many of their fellows do not believe in the necessity of faith in Christ if one is to be saved. But it is common among Chritsians to believe that there are other ways to salvation for those who never hear the Gospel. But is this what the Bible teaches? The idea is that it would be unfair of God to judge in hell those who never hear the Gospel. But long before a person is responsible for denying the Gospel they are guilty before a holy God because they are sinners. People go to hell because they are separated from God, dead in their sins and trespasses whether they hear the Gospel or not.
If the only thing that makes a person responsible to God is conscious rejection of the gospel then the cruelest thing we can do is world missions. As soon as we share Christ with someone they become responsible. I they reject Christ then they risk hell fire. If they remained ignorant then all will be well. It would be better by far to simply leave them be.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
John MacArthur Responds
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The Calvinist answer that everyone was born guilty is weak. 1. Because God emphatically declares that sin is not inherited. 2. Because people rightly judge that personal responsibility is non-existent in such a case (though Calvinists affirm that somehow it still exists). The proper Scriptural answer to the question of how people who have never heard the gospel even have a chance at salvation is found in the example of Cornelius in Acts 10, "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," He was neither a Jew, nor a Christian, but he feared God and prayed daily. And what happened? God heard his prayers and made a way for him to hear the gospel. The principle set forth is that God will make a way for everyone who fears him to hear the gospel. If some native in some far away land comes to a realization that there is one God, and fears him, God will get a missionary over to him. So, the way for those who haven't heard the gospel to be saved, is that God in his providence will get the gospel to those that fear him.
The way John MacArthur is framing it is totally different from the above Scriptural view. His view is that a man can truly fear God and live to the best of his ability in accordance with God's righteous requirements as they see them in nature and yet God will be a miser and not get the gospel to them. In other words, God not care that they are seeking him. According to MacArthur, God does not give to him that asketh nor open to him that knocketh, nor will those who seek find. But Cornelius, a non-proselyte Gentile, is proof that God does give to him that asketh, because Cornelius although not in covenant relationship with God prayed and prayed and lived as right as he could, and God heard his prayer, and God sent the gospel to him, because (in the words of the angel) "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:...he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." Therefore, if a Muslim is truly seeking God, God will send him the gospel. If a Budhist is truly seeking God, God will send him the gospel. God will not save him in Islam or in Budhism, but will bring the revelation of Jesus Christ to him via his providence as he did for Cornelius.
egomakarios,
Like all arminians, your approach to biblical interpretation is a bit weak. You work so hard to make God "fair" (as you understand fairness) that you end up compromising the Scriptures. You cannot possibly believe that the example of Cornelius supports your conclusion. The text does not draw the conclusion you are reaching for. Also, one of the principles of proper hermeneutics is to avoid making a descriptive passage a prescrptive passage.
You would be helped by a careful study of Romans 1-3.
How does the text not present this? Peter says "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." He doesn't say "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that was eenie-meenie-miney-moed before the world began is accepted with him. " The principle Peter is setting forth is that God will get the gospel to those who truly seek him and attempt to live righteously--not that he will save them by their own righteousness, but that he will get the gospel to them which gospel will save them. And it was Jesus Himself who said that trio, knock and it shall be opened, seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given. John MacArthur's and your view contradicts those very words of Jesus. If those who seek will never find, especially after Jesus said they would find, then the issue is not at all unfairness but a question of whether Jesus told the truth or not. I say Jesus told the truth. Apparently you have a different idea.
Ego...
Once again your exegesis is as horrible as your understanding of the doctrine of sovereign election. I am amused by your "eenie, meenie, miney, moe" comparison. My, how easy it is to knock down straw men! Just because you want sovereign election to mean a certain thing doesn't make it so.
It saddens me to think that there are those, like you, within evangelical circles who want to make salvation the result of man's doing. I suspect you would be more comfortable in Roman Catholic circles. The standard Roman belief is that God will not deny his grace to anyone who does what he knows is right. This, of course, is not grace. It is merit.
How does an unregenerate man seek after God? Romans three explictly denies that we seek God. Your ideas are not arminian at all, they are semi-pelagian. You are parroting some of the very things Charles Finney said. Incidentally, the father of popular arminianism, John Wesley, would disagree with you. This is why I fear you have crossed over into semi-pelagianism.
Your misuse of Jesus' words to his people is yet another example of your poor understanding of biblical interpretation. Do you really think that "seek and you will find" was intended to teach that unregenerate men naturally possess the ability and desire to seek God and that God will reward them as a resutlt? Are you even remotely familiar with Paul's words: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and HE IS NOT ABLE to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Have you ever heard of the principle: "interpret Scripture with Scripture"? It does not honor God's Word to cherry pick passages out of context and then build a theology on your findings. Please do more study.
The standard Roman belief is that God will not deny his grace to anyone who does what he knows is right. This, of course, is not grace. It is merit.
Talk about a strawman. I didn't say, as the Catholics do, that a Muslim will be saved by doing works in accordance with his pagan religion. I said that if a Muslim is truly seeking God, God will get the gospel to him. That's a wholly different matter. Noah lived righteously, and then found grace in the eyes of the Lord. His works didn't save him, by through them he found grace which did save him. And it's shown by clear example in Acts 10 too. As far as labels go, I've never claimed to be an Arminian, have no idea who Finney is, and don't care what Wesley said, nor does it bother me if you want to call me semi-pelagian. Call me anything but Augustinian or Calvinist, and I'll survive, but if you call me either of those two, I may die of an heart attack. Nowhere in the word of God does it say that regeneration precedes faith, nor indeed that unregenerate men do not seek God. Regeneration is the rebirth, which is of water and of the Spirit. Men seek God, God provides the gospel, they beleive the gospel, repent of their sins, confess Christ, and are baptized, and they the Spirit regenerates them while they are in the water. And Paul plainly shows in Romans 2 that some unregenerate men, Gentiles who have not the law, do the things of the Law which they perceived in nature. What will God do with such men? Damn them to hell or get the gospel to them and give them a chance to accept it and be saved? Like the god of puppets condemn everyone who seeks him (since he is a fiction anyway), but the God of human beings in his providence will bring the gospel to those who seek him.
Here is what I know is true, Christ on earth called 12 men to spread the message of salvation. These 12 men were not mental giants or philosophers. I have tried to read this blog entry and egomakarios' blog site to gain a deeper understanding of the God of creation. However, all I am coming away with is that we have 2 very bright, philisophical men (I assume since ego... does not post any information about himself on his blog) who are capable of sucking all the joy, hope, love and passion out of the gospel message - turing it into a philisophical discussion that would alienate the very men Christ first called. I hope that in the midst of your dispassionate discussions of theology you each stop to remember that God is God and we are not. There is mystery in the gospel, don't miss the forest for the trees.
egomakarios,
Even if we grant that your theory is correct that God will send the gospel to those who respond positively to the light given them, it still does not negate the doctrines of election or effectual calling. The question still remains how those who are dead in sin, do not seek God, are not righteous, and do not in their natural state receive the things of the Spirit can respond positively to God without His prior working their hearts.
Acts 16:14 is a good example. Lydia was also a worshiper of God. She came to the riverside to worship. But Luke tells us that the Lord opened her heart to respond to the gospel. This fits perfectly with what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3. Unless someone is born from above, they cannot see the kingdom of God. They have no spiritual perception unless the Spirit sovereignly comes to give the life.
In addition, it appears that you believe in baptismal regeneration. You said, "Men seek God, God provides the gospel, they beleive the gospel, repent of their sins, confess Christ, and are baptized, and they the Spirit regenerates them while they are in the water." It appears that you are saying not only that regeneration does not precede faith but that regeneration does not occur until water baptism takes place. Such a view certainly makes regeneration a result of works.
Ric,
There is always a danger in losing the joy of the Gospel in these types of discussions. We must always remind ourselves that the gospel is not a man-made philosophy to be discected. It is the glorious announcement that Christ died for sinners and rose gloriously from the grave. It the message that evangelicals of the Calvinist and Arminian stripe alike celebrate and proclaim.
At the same time when someone advances on this blog ideas that I believe are contrary to the faith once for all delivered to the saints then I feel it necessary to respond. However, your words of warning are definitely valued.
Egomakarios,
I am going to respond to you once more. Since you have not dealt with any of the questions I have posed to you I am not willing to continue this fencing match beyond this point.
I am very concerned about your understanding of salvation. As I said to Ric I am happy to worship with, serve with, and fellowship with evangelical arminians. I have much in common with them. This is why I am concerned about your beliefs. Perhaps you mis-stated but you seem to be saying that God rewards our good works of seeking Him by giving us grace. This is not grace but merit. What is more, it destroys the Gospel. The apostle Paul viewed such distortions of the Gospel as grounds for dividing (see Galatians).
You are advancing a very confused message. Your assertion that regeneration does not precede conversion is illinformed. Please study Jesus' exchange with Nicodemus in John 3. I don't know what denomination you are a part of if any but the Baptist Faith and Message affirms that regeneration must occur before conversion is possible.
The example of Lydia that Kelly referenced is a prime example. Also, the Scriptures speak of those whom God "grants repentance."
Remember that outside of Christ "no one seeks for God" (Rom. 3).
Please read church history. You will find it very helpful I am sure. I think you will find that your ideas have been shaped a great deal by Charles Finney who has had a sadly powerful impact on Amercian evangelicalism.
I wish you well.
riccrowder,
This is not simply an academic discussion with no practical implications. God is God. We all would agree on that. But that does not mean that we make our best guess about the gospel and trust God to be God. The gospel is indeed a mystery. But it is one that has been revealed in the Word of God. I think you would agree that it is important that we understand the gospel properly so that we can proclaim it properly.
You said that this was a dispassionate discussion. I would argue that it is passion that is driving this discussion on both sides. If one has a true passion for the gospel, one cares about whether it is being explained biblically. Our hope truly is in the gospel. But if we place our hope in a false gospel, it is a misplaced hope that leads to an eternity of despair. That is why we cannot be dispassionate about the nature of the gospel and how that gospel operates in the hearts of people.
It appears that you are saying not only that regeneration does not precede faith but that regeneration does not occur until water baptism takes place. Such a view certainly makes regeneration a result of works.
No, because it is the result of God's promise. Read Acts 2:38. No work is a work of man when God places a promise in it for it becomes a work of God. Water does not save, nor does dunking in water. But when God promises salvation to those who are dunked in water in his name, then God provides the salvation in the water (not apart from it). Yet, it is God that does it, only under a condition based on his promise.
Kelly,
You reminded me of something I intended to say to my friend Ric. This is not,for me, a dispassionate discussion at all. I am more passionate about the Gospel than I have ever been in my life. There is very objective content connected to the Gospel. It is a message first and foremost and God has given in His Word a wealth of wisdom concerning the good news. In one sense, the entire epistle to the Romans is a systematic theology of the nature of the Gospel.
So, for me, this is something that lights my fire. I jealously defend what I am convinced the Word of God has made plain about the greatest news in the universe.
Great men in the past have been burned in the fires of the Roman church over just such discussions.
Even if we grant that your theory is correct that God will send the gospel to those who respond positively to the light given them, it still does not negate the doctrines of election or effectual calling. The question still remains how those who are dead in sin, do not seek God, are not righteous, and do not in their natural state receive the things of the Spirit can respond positively to God without His prior working their hearts.
When the spirit is dead, the body is still alive. Read John 3. Jesus describes the doctrine of the rebirth as "earthly things." Once Nicodemus has fully rejected the doctrine of the rebirth, Christ responds "If I tell you earthly things and you do not beleive, how will you beleive if I tell you heavenly things?" John the Baptist later in the same chapter describes himself as being of the earth and speaking of the earth but Jesus as being above all and speaking of heaven. The point is that the carnal mind is able to comprehend earthly thing, yea the unregenerate mind. Yet Nicodemus refused to beleive the doctrine of the rebirth, which his unregenerate mind could have believed. He refused to beleive the teaching of John the Baptist which the carnal mind could have perceived. All that a man need to beleive to become a Christian, is earthly enough to be apprehended by the carnal and unregenerate mind. And in becoming a Christian, God regenerates the soul, in order to empower the man to live the Christian life and understand the things he will need to understand to go on. But the beginning starts with the body, not the soul. The carnal man responds before the soul. This is how a dead man still walks and talks. The body which is still alive seeks God even if the soul cannot, so to speak.
Egomakarios,
This will have to be our farewell on this topic. Your assertions about regeneration and the ability of unregenerate man to do what pleases God (repent and believe) are unbiblical. Your exegesis of John 3 is novel at best. Understand: your interpretation of John 3 and other texts that you have commented on are outside the mainstream of historic orthodoxy.
Please feel free to continue this discussion on your own blog. On this, I will have to suspend your free will.
egomakarios,
You seem to be saying that water baptism does not save but is a condition for salvation. If this is the case, why is water baptism absent from such critical passages as Romans 3 and 4 where the whole discussion revolves around the conditions of salvation? Following the logic of your argument, the Judaizers could have said, "circumcision doesn't save but it is a condition of salvation. God provides the salvation as you are circumcised." The whole point of Paul's argument is that it is erroneous to place any condition on salvation other than faith. To add anything to faith, including baptism, is to make salvation hinge on something other than faith alone.
If baptism is essential to salvation, why did Paul say that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel? (1 Cor. 1:17)Why did not Paul insist with the jailer at Philippi, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and you will be saved...? (Acts 16:31)
Acts 2:38 does speak of baptism. However, you must interpret that statement in light of the rest of Acts and the Epistles. For instance, in Acts 10:44-48, we see that Cornelius and those with him 1) heard the gospel 2) believed 3)received the Spirit 4)were baptized. Acts 11:17 makes it clear that they received the Spirit after they believed. Their baptism in water was a symbol of what had already taken place in their hearts.
Regarding your understanding of John 3, I think you have it backwards. After Jesus said to Nicodemus "you must be born again or you cannot see the kingdom of God" Nicodemus started talking about a man entering his mother's womb a second time. Clearly, Nicodemus did not understand with his carnal mind the new birth. Why, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that born of the Spirit is spirit. In other words, you cannot comprehend spiritual things if all you have is a fleshly perspective. That is the very reason why one must be born from above by the Spirit.
Thanks for the discussion. Adieu.
I hope you don't mind if before I bid this topic adios here, I answer just one of kelly's concerns.
"Following the logic of your argument, the Judaizers could have said, 'circumcision doesn't save but it is a condition of salvation. God provides the salvation as you are circumcised.'"
There are two differences between circumcision and baptism relevant to this statement:
(1) No apostle by the authority of Christ gave a promise concerning circumcision as Peter did with baptism in Acts 2:38-39, nor did Christ himself give a promise on circumcision as he did with baptism in Mark 16:16.
(2) Circumcision is from the Law of Moses which Christ nailed to the cross, the enmity that he slew with his body on the tree, part of that Old Covenant which is dead and decaying according to Hebrews 8:3.
It is God's promise that makes all the difference.
Post a Comment