Or, two steps forward and 3 steps backward…
I read a couple of book reviews this morning while I was at the gym. They are located in the vast expanse that is the back pages of the latest edition of Modern Reformation magazine (of which I am a loyal, 3 year subscriber). One of the reviews was written by someone named JV Fesko who happens to be a pastor at the Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Woodstock, GA. The book that Dr Fesko is reviewing is a book by John MacArthur titled The Gospel According to Jesus which is, in itself, ironic, since the book is written by John MacArthur.
But I’ll leave that aside for the moment. The reviewer doesn’t spare any criticism of MacArthur or his book. You would think, after reading the review, that MacArthur is firmly on the side of those Fesko perceives MacArthur is (evidently) doing battle with (i.e., ”…present dispensational antinomianism” (’carnal christians’), 39). There are two paragraphs that speak somewhat positively about the book and four that list the books weaknesses. I don’t doubt that Dr Fesko is writing what he believes. One look at his curriculum vitae at his church’s webpage (under ‘about the pastor) will tell you that this is no mere ADM writing a review of a book. This is a learned man. Still, at the end of my reading, I couldn’t help but feel a little bad for Dr MacArthur.
One might expect that Dr MacArthur is writing a popular level book (he wants it to sell) and not a scholarly systematic theology (he wants praise from the scholarly community) which leads me to ask if perhaps Dr Fesko hasn’t missed the point and over-analyzed the book. (It is, after all, a ‘revised and expanded anniversary edition of Mac’s book!) This also leads me to believe that perhaps MacArthur was intentional in leaving some things out of the book and not ‘digging deeper.’
Well, be that as it may. Here’s the real reason I am writing this short post. In the review, Dr Fesko wrote this, “Perhaps if the author had done in-depth research he would have discovered Walter Marshall’s book The Gospel Mystery of Santification. (Must be a good book as it received three positive reviews at amazon.) Still what bugs me is that Marshall, the author of the book, lived, according to Fesko, from 1628-1680 (one of the reviewers at amazon noted that Marshall’s book was written in 1692! Hmmm.) Fesko concludes by writing, “MacArthur’s book is helpful, but one can do better with Marshall’s book on union with Christ” (40). (All quotes and information from Modern Reformation, Jan/Feb 2009.)
1600? You mean to tell me that in the 500 some years since Marshall published his work no one, and I mean not one single person on the planet, in the church, has written a book about sanctification better than Marshall? Does this strike anyone besides me as being terrifically odd? That is quite an indictment of the last 500 years’ worth of Academic Christianity!
That’s really all I wanted to ask.
1600? Seriously? Forgive me if I don’t take Dr Fesko’s review too seriously. 1600? Am I the only one laughing?
On the other hand, it is sort of amazing that MacArthur isn’t getting a free pass and that, evidently, he can’t write a better book than one written 500 some years ago. I’m feeling for you Dr MacArthur.
45 Comments(+Add)
The church that Dr. Fesko pastors lists the five solas on the front page. So Jerry, while I understand your question about relying on a centuries old book as the unshakeable standard, your post brings up another issue as well.
Both McArthur and Fesko espouse unequivicably the five solas, AND YET, they substantially disagree on core elements of the gospel and its characteristics of sancification as revealed in the life of a believer.
Here is what leaped out to me: In your post “Thought for the day #5″ the comment section dealt briefly with the doctrine of innerrancy. This substantive squabble between two men who would die for inerrancy and the five solas reveal a crack in the armour inside which some camps seek protection.
How can two theologians who agree almost comletely and perfectly on the foundation for arriving at Biblical truth, disagree on such a fundamental issue about which Fesko felt compelled to strongly confront and take to task McArthur.
So, doesn’t the obvious implication of Dr. Fesko’s book review reveal that there is room for debate and exchange about Bible truths that functions within the parameters of a broad definition of inerrancy? In the end, those that castigate others over the most minor points of doctrine reveal their self righteousness rather than protecting the construct of inerrancy.
#1
There are two excellent ones in my opinion:
Wholly Sanctified
The Self Life and the Christ Life- Both by AB Simpson.
John – A.B. Simpson would be anathema in the McArthur camp!
Jerry,
I tend to take any book written in the past 1900 years with a small dose of skepticism…
Rick surely are not suggesting that there is room for variation of thought in the church!?
#3
So would AW Tozer
But that does not change
the very fact that AW Tozer
Wrote some of the most fabulous
some of the most inspitational
some of the most correct theological views
on the sanctified life
the spirit filled life
the Christian walk ..ever published.
Doesn’t this new way of writing
make me more relevant?
I kind of like it.
Abe Simpson? Homer’s dad was an author?
Changing the subject very quickly, commenting on your writing style in #6 PB, I first hated Rob Bell’s writing style in Velvet Elvis. But when you realize that is writing like he speaks, it makes sense. It actually is easier to read than some of the dense, small font, long paragraph books I’ve read in the past.
I have the cd’s of him reading VE and I LOVE IT!
So good.
On the other hand, if I were Dr MacArthur, I think I’d wear proudly the moniker of “Best Writer in the Last Half-Millennium”.
OK, I’ll stop at 3 comments (for now).
Whether you agree with him on any particular issue or not, I’ve found MacArthur to strike a good balance between scholarly and popular level.
Back to the OP, or rather, back to the comments about the OP, Rick, you bring up a great point. It seems easier to accuse one who has a differing interpretation of the scripture of not taking said scripture seriously than it is to engage that person in conversation.
(That was an example of a sentence that should have been fragmented and broken up on separate lines to be more reader-friendly.)
And I’m with you Chris L. on the tried and true writings of the Puritans and earlier.
If something stands the test of 400 years, it means more to me than being on the New York Times bestseller list.
Just my $.02.
Shalom
I happen to like MacArthur’s book, however he uses it to promote a form of Lordship salvation. If making Jesus your Lord, and if Lord means he rules you completely, then no one is saved. (except a few ADMs who I will not mention)
I think the book can be beneficial as an exhortaion to believers, but it presents such a high standard that it may discourage some struggling believers. MacArthur does not deal sufficiently with the place that grace has and the notion that there certainly are “carnal” believers.
I just re-read the comments.
Clearly I misread your comment, Chris L.
Nanthaniel – narcotics should not be a part of a Christian’s lifestyle – unless he’s feelin’ down.
By the way you spelled my name, it appears that you’ve been sampling them yourself.
You really should share.
Yikes! and if Dr. Fesko did some more in-depth research he would have to honestly grapple with Orthodoxy’s conception of theosis and the current reading by Finnish theologians of Luther with respect to sanctification.
and if they did more in-depth research they would find…
and on and on and on it goes.
This type of stuff just demonstrates that there is world of difference between common sense attention to things and taking up the stance of a critical spirit.
“and if Dr. Fesko did some more in-depth research he would have to honestly grapple with Orthodoxy’s conception of theosis and the current reading by Finnish theologians of Luther with respect to sanctification.”
nc – I did not know whether you were tongue in cheek but you elicited this nonsense from me. I sometimes feel some of the “finer points” of theology are as worthless as teats on a bull.
Nathaniel – I have issues which can only be addressed through narcotics, usually only available by some generous entrepreneur who cannot afford an office and is forced to practice his hospitality on a street corner. Thank God for him!
I think Brendt said something about MacArthur above that went like this:
He’s certainly one of the more prolific authors. I think the thing that blew me away with MacArthur was when I read his book The Second Coming. And I was further confounded when I read his Hard to Believe. Talk about a strange mix of theological ideas!
Yet, for all his enigmatic ideas, he remains a staunch defender of the Christian faith. And for that, I am happy he’s on ‘our’ side. I’m actually looking forward to reading his book because I’m interested in this phenomenon called ‘lordship salvation.’ I wonder how closely ‘lordship salvation’ resembles another doctrine I have read about called ‘perfectionism’?
yrrej
Lordship salvation is not true. It portends that anyone who becomes converted must have embraced Christ as Lord/Master, not just as Savior of their souls. It is a theology that comes primarily from the gospels, and relies heavily on the words of Jesus without Pauline consideration.
All believers follow Jesus as Lord with a less than perfect way. What is profoundly puzzling and even baffling is why a Calvinist would spend so much time hashing out the the finer points of who is saved when it will ultimately affect no one.
I would like someone to answer this for me: What benefit is it for believers to be taught how to doctrinally discern who is not saved even though they say they are, when the doctrinal overlay expressly teaches that person will or will not be saved soley according to the will of God. Is it spiritually beneficial to judge someone as unsaved unless he CAN be saved?
I also find the exhortation to examine yourself as to whether you are in the faith, held up against the template of MacArthur’s book, as curious since the dead, lost sinner can’t and the saved person will, according to MacArthur, find the book his own personal testimony.
Rick, do you see a conflict here? I fail to see where Paul and Christ contradict one another. Looking for some clarity on your point.
Paul C.,
With all due respect to Professor Frueh: Good Luck!
jerry
A short form:
Many times Jesus was speaking to the Jews and included some teachings that would help their understanding, but if isolated would present problems to the doctrine of justification by faith. Chris L. has brought out several instances of this.
When the Lord tells the rich young ruler to go sell all that you have and you shall have eternal life, without a further teaching we could arrive at a wrong doctrinal conclusions and in fact some cults have taught such error. I have read the book several times and did not find some needed balance, although I liked the book.
When you teach sola fide but INSIST that works must substantiate that faith, you indict all of us and come very close to a meshing of works and faith. Jesus also spoke in parables and examples (goats and sheep) that seem to elevat humanitarian works as the criteria for getting to heaven.
If we did not need Paul, then the four gospels would have been enough. Paul was chosen PERSONALLY and in person by Jesus to be the pastor/teacher to the New Testament church. MacArthur has pulled many verse from the gospels that are one sided and without the perspective and amplification of a teaching epistle. The book is a great exhortation to those of us who are solid in our understanding of a faith based salvation.
But to some who are more post-salvational legalistic it seems to make them even more strong in their position. And if I was reading the book as an unbeliever I would definitely be confused as to how to be saved.
My point is Paul is usually necessary to gain a balanced perspective of New Testament truth, especially the doctrine of justification by faith, his core teaching.
Paul,
I cannot answer for Rick, but I think your statement
does not properly address his point.
I believe he was saying that they compliment one another. We need both.
Just in reading your short comment, it seems to me you see some conflict between Paul’s message and Christ’s.
Do you see a conflict between Paul and James as well?
Sorry I haven’t read the book, but is there a short example of MacArthur’s one-sidedness you can point out?
Perhaps Nathanael, but even when they stand alone, I fail to see how there might be an issue of contradiction. I think Rick’s point was that you need to be careful interpreting the words of Christ, without the light Paul sheds in his epistles.
I see no conflict betwee Paul’s meesage and Christ’s, perhaps a slower reading of my comment will reveal to you I see Jesus using Paul to amplify His teachings. I see no conflict between Leviticus and Galatians, however if taken without an understanding of the progressive narrative and unfolding of God’s redemptive story, we well could end up with an unfortunate mix of law and grace.
I have lent the book to one of my sons, but I recommend you reading it. You may well see thing things that I have mentioned. Paul emphasizes that grace needs no works and he even asks rhetorically if that be so “should we continue in sin that grace may abound?” But the book comes from a measuring stick of people’s works to identify disingenuous conversions.
Reading the book you may well come to other conclusions, however MacArthur, as is brought out in his book, would have a much smaller estimate of the number of saved people as would some of us, simply based upon the standard he proposes.
“I think Rick’s point was that you need to be careful interpreting the words of Christ, without the light Paul sheds in his epistles.”
That is sometimes very true.
* When Jesus proposes that the rich man went to hell because he stored up wealth, please give me a doctrinal understanding of that without using anything but those words.
* When Paul says “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves” – that can easily be unpacked without using any enlightenment of other verses.
That is what I am trying to teach in my commenting epistles.
BTW – I like reading past generational Christian books to get some perspectives although I never use their beliefs as the standard.
From my understanding, the Lord did not start this work in our lives because of any works we did to warrant his attention.
But, once we receive Christ, there is definitely an admonishment, both by Christ, Paul, John, Peter, James & Jude to “live lives as become the doctrine (lifestyle) Christ.”
For example, after Romans 7, Paul writes:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus”
Many preachers stop mid-sentence, but it continues
“Who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”
Even in Romans 6, Paul tells us that to whom we yield ourselves servants to obey (the Spirit or the Flesh, God or the Devil) his servant we are. So there is a definite call to holiness, sanctification and a “working out” of the salvation the Lord has granted us.
I don’t have issue with embracing Jesus as “Lord/Master” it is more that LS is works clothed in Grace. It revolves around the Fruits as proofwhich is like proof or speaking in tongues or having to be baptized. The idea that we produce fruit as a Christian cuts across the grain of God being the one who does His works in and through us and placed the follow in the arena of proving to himself and to others he is saved by showing his “fruit”.
This leads to the teaching that one must “witness” to save others and makes that even a man based work.
Though they will scream Grace… they place all on the shoulders of the follower.
As far as MacArthur he also teaches the Kingdom is only spiritual now and will come… this cuts across the very words of Jesus.
Yet, if one accepts the Person of Jesus, they also accept HIm as Lord/Master/King/God. You get the whole package in the Person. So to just teach “Lord/Master” misses much of the Person of Christ Jesus.
iggy
Also, it might be worth considering that to every church in Asia Minor, the first thing the Lord says is “I know your works” (in other words, “I know what you are doing with the word that’s been deposited in you.”)
This meshes perfectly with the parables of the Talents and numerous others.
Paul also makes reference to this (Romans 2):
We are not bound by ceremonial law (washing, circumcision, etc) but we are called to obedience and holiness though we all fall woefully short.
I like with the Psalmist said: “Every man, even at his best state, is altogether vanity.”
There is only one “work” that is foundational to salvation. The cross. I completely agree that we are clled to a life of service and one that reflects Christ, however that does not save us, help save us, or even perfectly substantiate our salvation.
The man living with his father’swife turned out to be saved. His works said something else. Conversely there are man mormons and atheists who are generous and live a good life.
Rick, the example of the man with his father’s wife is addressed in 2 Cor:
So we see that it was his repentance (a turning back from his actions) that led to his salvation.
The man who received the Talent and then buried it was a poor steward of the grace of God and therefore suffered the consequences of losing eternal life.
Again, look at Revelation 2 & 3: the admonitions to repentance we quite firm. These people had received Christ, but as Jesus said, “he that endures to them shall be saved.”
Paul C,
The trust and obedience is that of total dependency on the finished works of Jesus… it is not about us proving or doing… it is living lives in accordance to what Jesus did… it is living His Life in and through us… it is about being who we are, a new creation.
How can one add to the Holiness of Jesus? Can we in our own works make ourselves more holy, or set apart than Jesus has already?
Notice also you stopped mid-scripture:
It is not about OUR works but God’s in and through us… it is as Paul stated in Galatians
Galatians 3: 1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
We do not start to do works to prove our salvation, but let God who started a good work in us finish it in and through us.
Paul in Romans sums it up as it was Jesus obedience and it is that obedienc we are to walk in not our own…
iggy
BTW, I don’t disagree that the cross is foundational. Without it, there is no hope. But once we have been awoken, there is a life to be lived and a responsibility on the part of the believer.
Paul C,
But that responsibility is not OUR works… it is trusting God in His finished and what He is still doing.
iggy
It would have been nice if someone had explained this to some of the 7 churches of Asia, like Sardis:
And the thing is, I see absolutely no contradiction between these words from Jesus Christ, and Paul’s (and the other apostles) admonitions.
“And the thing is, I see absolutely no contradiction between these words from Jesus Christ, and Paul’s (and the other apostles) admonitions.”
For the last time, neither do I.
I think I just did… above… if they turned from Jesus to their own works or replaced Jesus with other things… then their works (God working in and through them) are not dependant on Jesus. They either are walking away from Jesus or adding their own righteousness to His works… either way they are not dependant on Jesus and His finished and ongoing works in them.
iggy
The entire home page is almost blank on my computer.
RE: 1600
I figure any book still published 400 years after its writing probably has some merit.
Neil I don’t disagree, I just question why there are no other books for Fesko to reference.
Good point… I’d also question an aniversary re-publishing of MacArthur’s book… is it really due that “honor?”
There are a few notable particulars concerning older books that may give them some weight:
* They do not have nearly the commercian motivation as do many today.
* The resource material was limited.
* The book had little effect on the author’s preaching invitation schedule and subsequent honorariums.
* They did not have the distractions of television, radio, movies, sports, etc., etc.
* Most of these author’s were not pastors of very large churches so they were not cutting out large sections of time they should be spending in ministry.
I guess the negative would be their lack of many resources back then.