[This post represents something I wrote awhile ago — before I was ever exposed to “Evangelical Calvinism” — but I think it illustrates some of the problems, that aren’t new, which can arise if someone follows the Federal/Classic Calvinist ‘way’ — whether that be in the 17th century or the 21st. Also, I realize that John MacArthur is not a ‘true’ Federal Calvinist; nevertheless, the ‘practical’ fall-out of assuming the Westminster themes of ‘grace and nature’ are still very much present within his construal and preaching of things . . . thus “his Calvinism” can foster the same kind of waywardness that Federal Calvinism can in re. to many things — in the case of this post, in re. to ethics, holiness, and salvation]
Below I am going to provide two quotes, the first will be from Theodore Dwight Bozeman discussing the emergence and factors that shaped the thinking of the yet to come English Puritans; and the second will be from John MacArthur, and his discussion on the role that changed behavior and moral values have in a genuinely “saved life.” What I am highlighting, and want you all to see, is the striking correlation of thought and practice that both camps share, relative to emphasizing the importance of outward moral behavior in the “elects” life. Here is Theodore Bozeman discussing the early factors that led to English Puritanism:
English penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, several of the English included a moment of moral renewal. In harmony with Reformed tendencies on the Continent and in unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied “contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,” they required an actual change in penitent. For them, a renewal of moral resolve was integral to the penitential experience, and a few included the manifest alteration of behavior. They agreed that moral will or effort cannot merit forgiveness, yet rang variations on the theme that repentance is “an inward . . . sorrow . . . whereunto is also added a . . . desire . . . to frame our life in all points according to the holy will of God expressed in the divine scriptures.” However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching underscored moral responsibility; it also adumbrated Puritan penitential and preparationist teaching of later decades. [italics mine] (Theodore Dwight Bozeman, “The Precisianist Strain . . . ,” 20-21)
It is important to keep in mind that Bozeman is not even discussing actual English Puritanism yet, rather he is highlighting the streams and emphases, present within England just prior to the full-fledged emergence of Puritanism, that actually brought shape and form to the disciplinary “religion” known as Puritanism. Notice the correlation he makes between this kind of Protestantism with Roman Catholic spirituality. . . .
Conversely, John MacArthur sounds very much like this incipient Puritanism described above by Bozeman. You will notice this similarity as MacArthur, like these early penitentialists, emphasizes the function and necessity of moral reformation in the life of the “truly saved” individual; notice:
. . . They’ve been told [Christians in the typical evangelical church in the West] that the only criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some basic facts about Christ. They hear from the beginning that obedience is optional. It follows logically, then, that a person’s one-time profession of faith is more valid than the ongoing testimony of his life-style in determining whether to embrace him as a true-believer. The character of the visible church reveals the detestable consequence of this theology. As a pastor I have rebaptized countless people who once “made a decision,” were baptized, yet experienced no change. They came later to true conversion and sought baptism again as an expression of genuine salvation. [brackets mine] (John MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus,” 17)
Striking is it not? Both English Penitentialism (early and full blossomed English Puritanism), and MacArthur’s approach are intended to curb moral laxity, by emphasizing the moral conduct and “performance” of the truly “saved.” As MacArthur underscores, as a good follower of the “English Puritan” (and for that matter Roman Catholic) ethic and spirituality, genuine salvation is only noticeable and discernible via an “. . . an ongoing testimony of his life-style.” Bozeman speaking of the moral laxity within England (in the 16th century and onward) notes how this affected the “Reforming spirit” of that locale, he says: “. . . There the Reformation emerged in a period of deeply felt concern about social order. . . . (Bozeman, 13) This motivation similarly, and unabashedly, motivates MacArthur’s emphasis on performance, duty, and obedience, as he states: “. . . Why should we assume that people who live in an unbroken pattern of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, deceit, and every conceivable kind of flagrant excess are truly born again? . . .” (MacArthur, 16-17) In other words, the remedy for both camps (i.e. between the 16th and 17th cent. and 20th and 21st cent.) is to hang people over hell in order to foster an supposed environment of holiness and moral uprightness, this is by way of EMPHASIS. Both of these camps spoke and speak of solifidian (faith alone), but this is not enough, external moral transformation needs to accompany “faith alone,” otherwise there was never any faith to begin with (i.e. later on we will discuss how this thought came to be tied to concepts like “preparationism” and “temporary faith”).
All of this is contrary to Martin Luther’s approach, which is to emphasize the need of a changed heart, and the objective Word of God as the motivation and reason for holiness. Luther did not hang people over hell in order to engender holiness of life, and neither did the later antinomists (i.e. Sibbes, Cotton, et al) who we will discuss later. Did Luther think moral transformation was needed within the church, indeed . . . but we do not hybrid the gospel in order to achieve this end (i.e. MacArthur and the Puritans); rather we emphasize the winsome love of Christ disclosed at the cross, grave, and right hand of the throne of the Father as the motivation for purity and holiness. This was Luther’s, Cotton’s, Sibbe’s, and my aim, I hope it is yours.
I have provided this brief comparison in order to further establish the corollary and continuity between English Puritan salvation themes and motifs, and in this case, John MacArthur’s themes and motifs, relative to articulating the gospel. I am not sure how anyone who has read anything on Puritan spirituality, and its formation, can deny the similarity between that and the outlook that MacArthur (and others like him) is articulating today. At minimum my hope is to expose this, not to smear MacArthur (or others), so that folks who have bought into such teaching can see it for what it is, and realize that this kind of doctrine leads away from an emphasis upon Christ; and focuses upon self (and “my transformed life”). Jesus said it best, “. . . Seek ye first, His kingdom and His righteousness . . . ,” in other words, keep your eyes ON HIM!
September 13, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Fascinating post Bobby. Essentially MacArthur leaves you in no better a spot than Pelagianism (at least post-conversion). Too harsh? Like you say "this kind of doctrine leads away from an emphasis upon Christ; and focuses upon self…" This is again illustrative of the value of the vicarious humanity of Christ. Sanctification becomes a process of coming to know Jesus and as I partake of Christ's vicarious humanity I am given to participate in his righteousness. Moral betterment comes as a result of this, not as a pre-requisite. Nice post.
September 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I don't think that's too harsh, Scott. I just think it is saying it like it is. I think you're right, the vicarious humanity of Christ is so key to getting past the scholastic or Thomistic alternative.
September 13, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Well, I didn't quite absorb the entire content of this post but this: Jesus said it best, “. . . Seek ye first, His kingdom and His righteousness . . . ," in other words, keep your eyes ON HIM! pretty much nailed the conclusion I have had to make concerning my own walk.
There is no doubt in my mind that a genuine relationship with Christ is the core of Christian living.
I am confused bout your apparent condemnation of John MacArthur's teaching concerning the need for "fruit" in a professing believer's life.
I've not read his material on Lordship salvation, but have seen a few people (not you, btw) declare that he is a heretic who preaches a soul damning works-based gospel.
Now, I know that there is nothing any of us can do to save ourselves. I would even suggest that the only reason any of my Christian "good works" can be counted as good is because they are covered with Jesus' blood. Otherwise, they would only condemn me further–like continually writing hot checks on an already bankrupt account.
Jesus said a tree is known "by its fruit" (Matt 12:33). He also said that the one who does not take up his own cross cannot be His disciple (Luke 14:27). 1 John talks about "keeping God's commandments" and Paul wrote about examining one's self (2Co 13:5 examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith, prove your own selves. Do you not know your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are reprobates?) and his letters are full of exhortation to "do" certain things. James said "faith without works is dead" and instructed his readers to draw near to God (there is effort involved in that), "wash their hands" (ie, stop deliberately sinning) purify their hearts (make a determination to obey, stop making light of their sin and mourn, humble themselves, etc.
There will be many who come to Jesus thinking that their deeds done "in His name" have secured them a place in eternity (Matt 7:22). And He will say that He never knew them. But, there are also those who will stand before Him who DIDN'T do anything "in His name" who will be turned away. On the one hand, the "works" are worthless. On the other hand, obedience to the One we call "Lord" appears to be very important.
I'm wondering…
~ Do you consider Mr. MacArthur to be teaching a "Jesus plus something else" method of salvation?
or are you simply saying that
~ The emphasis that he places on obedience and the Christian need for self examination somehow detracts from the message of "grace alone, faith alone"? In other words, MacArthur's perspective is not so much wrong as it is a lopsided truth that needs to be better balanced?
And, also—-Are you saying it is wrong for a teacher of the Word to encourage professing believers to examine before the Lord our motives, choices and overall lifestyle? That in doing so, it encourages focus on self?
Surely, you would agree that a person who claims to be a Christian, yet has no apparent conviction concerning grossly immoral (according to Scripture) behavior should be at least a wee bit concerned whether he actually loves God?
I apologize for hogging up so much comment space but the balance between "God changes me, gives me the desire and prompts me to obey" and "I need to actively participate in the process" is a frustrating thing for me. While I understand that the saving and sanctifying work within me is not of myself, I do believe that Scripture says we will be held accountable for what we know.
UM. If you can make sense of any of this, I applaud you. And if you have any helpful insight, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts. :o)
Heather
September 14, 2009 at 12:44 am
Heather,
Let me just re-refer you to this (hi, btw):
. . . They’ve been told [Christians in the typical evangelical church in the West] that the only criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some basic facts about Christ. They hear from the beginning that obedience is optional. It follows logically, then, that a person’s one-time profession of faith is more valid than the ongoing testimony of his life-style in determining whether to embrace him as a true-believer. The character of the visible church reveals the detestable consequence of this theology. As a pastor I have rebaptized countless people who once “made a decision,” were baptized, yet experienced no change. They came later to true conversion and sought baptism again as an expression of genuine salvation. [brackets mine] (John MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus,” 17)
Works are not a problem, we are commanded to walk in them — as Christ did first (speaks to our participation). The problem is that MacARthur, as the quote above illustrates, believes confuses justification with sanctification — he subsumes the former with the latter. So that if certain good works (subjective) are not present in a person's life; then that person probably was never saved to begin with (he says this, not me). Beyond that, there is a framework which this is set into or is spoken out of; the TULIP (for "MacArthurites"). In other words, if Christ died for only the "elect" (Unconditional election and Limtited atonement); then the only way I am going to know that I am one for whom Christ died (one of the elect) and that I've responded to Irresistable grace, is if I Persevere in 'good works.' This places "my subjective good works" between me and Christ, so unless I meet whatever the threshold is for "good works" (outwardly and inwardly) I'll never know if I'm one of the elect for whom Christ died. This makes "faith" a reflexive exercise, first I have to look at me (to see if I have good works) before I can look at Christ as my Savior. This is exceedingly unscriptural, does not follow from the Incarnation of Christ, nor reflect the reality of who God is in salvation.
This is what The Evangelical Calvinist is all about. I am (we other EC'rs) are trying to convey the problems with Classic Calvinism (MacArthur); and expose how it is not "Christ-centered," by way of its method (what I just sketched). It is man-centered because it speaks of individual men as elect (instead of seeing Christ as elect in our stead, wherein 'our election' can be realized through His humanity for us).
There is more to say, Heather, but this is a start.
Also I said in the body of the post:
All of this is contrary to Martin Luther’s approach, which is to emphasize the need of a changed heart, and the objective Word of God as the motivation and reason for holiness. Luther did not hang people over hell in order to engender holiness of life, and neither did the later antinomists (i.e. Sibbes, Cotton, et al) who we will discuss later. Did Luther think moral transformation was needed within the church, indeed . . . but we do not hybrid the gospel in order to achieve this end (i.e. MacArthur and the Puritans); rather we emphasize the winsome love of Christ disclosed at the cross, grave, and right hand of the throne of the Father as the motivation for purity and holiness. This was Luther’s, Cotton’s, Sibbe’s, and my aim, I hope it is yours.
So I think works and such are there, of course, it's how it is framed which is at stake (btw, I dont' think II Cor 13 can be used in the way it often is, i.e. fitting into the Federal Calvinistic interpretation, I'll have to explain the rhetorical nature of that passage in its context later . . . I've done so in the past with Phil JOhnson in an exchange we've had at his blog).
Let me clarify more, if you want me to, Heather . . .
September 14, 2009 at 2:41 am
Thanks for the response, Bobby.
I *think* I understand what you mean. If I may rephrase your comment:
*********************************
The problem with the gospel presentation of Federal Calvinism (MacArthur, in particular) is that it tends to distort the purity and simplicity of the need to simply repent believe ( place one's trust in) that Jesus is who He claimed and that He made possible what was previously unthinkable (that being the potential for reconciliation of humans with our Creator).
The addition of (MacArthur's) teaching concerning fruit and obedience is important for continued growth but not necessarily an essential point to drive home when presenting the gospel message to a non-believer?
*****************************************
Is that a fair assessment?
I have noticed how tightly meshed the TULIP points appear to be. It is another reason I hesitate to call myself Calvinist. Not being completely familiar with every nuance, and knowing the outline was put together by fallible humans, I am a bit nervous about adopting that framework as my own understanding of Scripture.
Not that I think it is completely useless…I just am likely to get sidetracked with trying to understand and defend the tulip doctrine rather than pursue truth straight from Scripture.
Heather
September 14, 2009 at 5:10 am
Heather,
Actually its more than that. In a nutshell, the problem is, is that Mac. and others like him, start with man (i.e. elect) as the center of salvation; instead of starting with Christ (as the elected for us — vicarious). Since he follows this method, salvation revolves around man; instead of from within God's life.
There is way more to be said, but I hope that helps.
As far as the TULIP, yes it is intended and framed as a logical syllogism so that one point necessarily leads to the next. And in that re. it is very good — i.e. it is consistent internally.
I understand your reticence to tie yourself to any labels or confessions, etc. The reality, I think though, is that hopefully some of "our" labels and systems actually spring from and capture what scripture is teaching; in fact this is the motivation for my "deconstructing" of Mac's approach, I don't think it actually does capture the teaching of scripture most accurately.
Hope that helps, further, Heather . . . thanks for your questions, very thoughtful.
September 14, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Thanks again, Bobby.
I can see your concern for the emphasis on election. When looking at salvation from that perspective, I do tend to start sliding down the path that focuses on whether *I* am of the elect, how *I* can know, why are some chosen and not others. etc.
Hm. Interesting.
H
September 15, 2009 at 10:45 am
Exactly, Heather!
Good, I'm glad you see this; surprisingly many don't.
B 😉
September 16, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Bobby,
What you've said here,(somewhere), helps me understand how this marvelous piece of communication from our God through Paul, this verse below, shows us the power that God's love has in drawing men to Him, and keeping them, and letting them know they are surely being kept.
2Th 3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.
We've all been terribly blessed by God and Christ. May we continue to humbly watch it unfold as we abide in his will daily.
Todd
September 16, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Todd,
Thank you for your encouragement, and I'm glad "somewhere" 😉 in here you have been edified.
I really appreciate you sharing this scripture, scripture is so refreshing.