CS, I understand that your push for repentance has scriptural grounds, but your arguments create other problems. Where do we stop in specifying what must be done for salvation?  My Church of Christ friends actually have a list of (IIRC) 7 things, including believe, repent, be baptised, confess, remain faithful and whatever others, with some sort of scriptural basis for all of them.  When does that list turn into works?  You say salvation requires repentance, but isn’t repentance a work?  Is my salvation conditional on repentance?  If so, how long do I have to demonstrate repentance before my salvation becomes effective?  After all, repentance is a turning away from sin.  How long does God wait to see if I have truly turned away?  And if I repent (change direction) for a time, but then go back to sin, do I lose my salvation?  If salvation requires repentance, and I keep sinning, am I saved?  Is my salvation dependant on “being good?” Church of Christ guys say they lose their salvation everytime they sin, and they are lost again until they confess and repent. 

You know, I’m a lot different than I used to be.  I don’t act anything like I did back in the day.  I seem to have repented pretty well.  Something I can be proud of!  Except of course for Eph 2:8,9. 

As I see it, the simplest and clearest example of salvation is shown in Luke 18, in the story of the tax collector.  The guy recognised God, he recognised his own sin and he recognised his need for mercy.  And evidently, that was enough - he went home justified.

We could get into the whole election/free will/ perseverance debate, (if God elects me, can I “veto” his election by not repenting?) but this is not the time nor the place.  My point is that these issues have been debated in the church since it began, by very Godly, Spirit-led people (Paul and James, for example), and yet the tension remains.  Maybe it’s wise to not be so quick to assume we have all the answers and the one true perspective, and then castigate anyone who doesn’t agree. 

I just don’t think God has given me the authority to decide who is a true convert and (especially) who is not.  I am just another fish in the net (Matt 13:46-49) as are you, John MacArthur, Rick Warren, and everyone else.  Just imagine the net full of fish, pointing their fins at each other, bubbling out judgments, when it’s not, and never has been, up to them. Pretty silly.

Dave:

You asked a lot of good questions about my conviction surrounding repentance.  Rather than quote the whole thing, I’ll hit the highlights.

I believe repentance and faith are those actions that happen in response to Christ’s work, and should be used in response to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” It was the same response Peter gave at the beginning of Acts.  It was the same thing that Christ said at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17).  And it was in the Great Commission’s charge (Luke 24:47).  The theme of repentance and faith is consistent and truly biblical.

The act of repentance and possession of faith is a supernatural gift from the Holy Spirit as well, and not a work.  If we treat them as works, then we could say, “Yes, my repentance and faith got me into Heaven,” which goes against Ephesians 2:8-9.  But, no, repentance is something again where God gets the credit (John 6:44). 

This repentance is a supernatural act that will cause a man to turn away from sin and want to stay away from it.  We will still sin, mind you (1 John 1:9), but we will not live in a lifestyle of it (1 John 3:8).  And when we sin, we confess our sins and continue in the ongoing repentance and faith in our lives.

As for your CoC friends, that teaching is unbiblical.  That really sounds like a works-based faith like Catholicism.

Summing all of this together, do you see how there is so much confusion with people understanding what happens with salvation, and why MacArthur’s explanation for what is wrong has such validity?

And, Todd, I’ll be standing in my boat with an assembly of sinners.  =)

--
CS

CS - that sermon isn’t your typical “expository” sermon as JM would say is the ONLY real preaching.  Also, He WAS the sermon!

If you were to read some of the textbooks I have on what expository preaching is supposed to be, Jesus would have flunked the course.  His sermons were topical and application oriented in every case that comes to mind right now.  I might be wrong, but I can’t think of any examples that contradict them.

Also, I need to apologize to the group.  I began nit-picking JM, and this is exactly what he does to others and what I deplore.  Please forgive me for this oversight on my part, and I’ll drop that part of the conversation.

As for what I think is the biggest problem in the church today, in my opinion it is that we are not helping people become doers of the word.  We’re heavy on information and very light on application in sermons, Bible study, small groups, etc.

OK, how about this...is a threat to the Church of Jesus Christ even possible?  Really… in the big picture.  Is not the battle already won?  We’re just watching the details play out.

Consider it - is there a chance that the church could be hurt by anything - that the accomplishment of the plan of God could be affected by what we do?  We’re talking about the body of Christ himself.  Can there be a threat to Christ?  To God himself?

What do y’all think?

Brian:

Before I respond, I’d like to pause for a moment. Sometimes I don’t say it enough, but I am grateful for brothers like you, Dave, Peter, Leonard, and Todd.  I enjoy our conversations whether here or through e-mail, both when we’re in sync and when we have opposing viewpoints.  Just something on I my heart I felt I needed to say.

Now, onwards!  =)

“As for what I think is the biggest problem in the church today, in my opinion it is that we are not helping people become doers of the word.  We’re heavy on information and very light on application in sermons, Bible study, small groups, etc.”

I disagree with your assessment.  Anecdotal example, I know, but I went through a recent series of presentations I created for understanding the Bible with some people in my church.  I covered the basics from the layout of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, themes, locations, etc.  And many of these people did not even know the simplest things in the Bible.

They didn’t know why they were reading the same stories of Jesus in four different ways.  They didn’t know where to find basic stories in the Bible.  One question I was even asked was, “Why are some of the words in red in the New Testament?” Another person to whom I e-mailed my presentation said, “Thank you so much for what you sent!  It crystallized and made so much of what I have been reading make sense!”

I think that the problem here may not be information<i>, but <i>data.  Data is just bits of facts, stories, and elements that are available to people.  But information is taking that data and transforming it into useful purposes.  Purposes that would cause people to want to take what they know and go apply it. 

So, as people go to church, they may be getting plenty of data (or enough of it to be dangerous), but since there is a lack of teaching, discernment, and biblical wisdom, it never gets translated into information that is beneficial to believers that then causes reactions.  That is why I discount the common declaration used on many Christian blogs today that, “People are educated above their level of obedience.”

Dave:

“But I do get very tired of the attacks that JM and others seem to constantly make against those who have a different approach to ministry.  If we’re going to condemn something, let’s condemn sin.”

You’re right that sometimes MacArthur seems to go overboard.  Yet I’m finding that he is right more and more about the quantity and fervency of false, bad, and errant teaching in our churches.  And when we have people who mangle the Word of God in such a matter, that is a sin worth condemning in itself.

--
CS

The biggest problem in the church today, to me, is the lack of a marriage of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the hearts of believers.

I weary of John Macarthur castigating everyone that is not him.

“Not know enough about the Gospel to be saved?” Gimme a break.

Turn from sin and turn to Christ. (Yes, repentance is in there, but I intentionally avoided using the word.)

I think anyone can get that, the rest of the details get filled in by the community of faith, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit.

Peter,

What MacArthur is getting at are the masses of unregenerate people INSIDE the Church who, when asked, can’t explain or even understand core doctrine such as the Blood Atonement.

This is because of DECADES of pragmatism that have led people to believe they are saved because they said a prayer, or they “asked Jesus into their heart” after having their emotions manipulated once upon a time in a service designed for that very purpose.

It’s called Decisionism.

Peter,

God knows the heart, not me. But I do know that MANY will come before the Lord on Judgement day who did all the good works for Him and He will say “I knew you not.”

I was a part of the church model that used every resource available to build peoples emotions to a huge cresciendo on a weekly basis. There was very little in the way of explaination of the Gospel and how to Know Christ. But many people made decisions.

Our Nation is in a huge crisis because people made decisions by their emotions APART from REASONING, signing contracts for mortgages they didn’t understand. Manipulated by their emotions and the promise of instant reward and life improvement. Thats not far from what the church growth movement has done, appeal to what people want… a better marraige, better sex life, happiness on the job etc.
Everyone seeks those things, it doesn’t mean they seek Jesus. In fact no one seeks Jesus but those who are His own.

If you make a decision to “try Jesus” as it has been put, without first being completely CRUSHED by the weight of your Sin, what have you been “saved” from?

Jesus is too often presented as a solution for lifes challenges, and people are asked to “accept” Him. ACCEPT the Creator of the Universe?. He is the blood sacrifice for our sins… but blood, sin and repentance have largely been replaced in our vernacular by phrases like” your best life now” and “find your purpose”.

Straw men you say? Nope… record smashing best sellers.

I recently read Larry Osborne’s “Contrarian’s Guide to Knowing God.” After looking at all this yesterday, I went back and found this quote from the book that might be interesting:

“Didn’t Jesus say something about the kingdom of heaven belonging to those who are like little children?  If he meant it, how does our insistence on sound doctrine being essential for knowing and pleasing God fit in with a child’s theological naïveté?

Anyone who has ever been around a children’s Sunday school class knows that these kids have some pretty messed-up theology.  They haven’t got a clue about propitiation, the Trinity, or any of the other important doctrines of Scripture.  If asked, they’ll say the darnedest things.

But as Jesus, pointed out, many of them can and do have a great relationship with God – and often, a relationship worth emulating.

That’s caused me to wonder if sound doctrine is perhaps more the RESULT of knowing and pleasing God than the primary and indispensable first step before he shows up.”

—from “Contrarian’s Guide to Knowing God” pg. 24

I think MacArthur’s statement that many people “don’t know enough to qualify to be a Christian” flies in the face of passages like Romans 10:9.

Thanks for jamming the words in my mouth !

I never said you had to understand all the core doctrine to be saved. What I said (to paraphrase) is that if you claim to know Jesus Christ and you can not personally explain how a person can be saved ( I’m a good person and I try to live a good life....) then I get HUGE question marks.

Jud,

You kinda did say that.

Your words… [What MacArthur is getting at are the masses of unregenerate people INSIDE the Church who, when asked, can’t explain or even understand core doctrine such as the Blood Atonement.

This is because of DECADES of pragmatism that have led people to believe they are saved because they said a prayer, or they “asked Jesus into their heart” after having their emotions manipulated once upon a time in a service designed for that very purpose.]

There’s an implied connection between these two points, and if you didn’t mean to make that connection, I’m sorry, but many who seem to me to agree with you do.

...and besides, I would argue that if somebody genuinely asks Jesus into their heart, he’ll come on in.

But as far as this statement goes, [if you claim to know Jesus Christ and you can not personally explain how a person can be saved ( I’m a good person and I try to live a good life....) then I get HUGE question marks], I agree…

Jud,

Thanks for the clarification.  And like Peter, I would agree with that last paragraph, as would probably most of the people here.