John Murray makes repentance necessary for salvation

 John Murray writes on union with Christ in Chapter 9, in Redemption Accomplished and Applied. You would think that such an important subject as he says on Page 171 would have been addressed earlier in the book. Bit instead he deals with the subject after discussing Faith and Repentance, Sanctification, and Perseverance. None of these things are conditions for salvation.

No one is saved by their Repentance, whether thay be the narrow or wide sense of the word.

John Murray also writes that union with Christ is a spiritual matter (Page 176). What does this mean? "'Spiritual' in the New Testament refers to that which is of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual man is the person who is indwelt and controlled by the Holy Spirit and a spiritual state of mind is a state of mind that is produced and maintained by the Holy Spirit."

It's not that Murray's views are necessarily wrong, they are necessarily unclear. What does he mean by being controlled by the Spirit unless he believes in mysticism? How can he discern a life that isn't lead by the Spirit? Would he agree with not by sight but by faith? But if faith includes repentance as even Schreiner says then I suppose he could say such.

The Bible does talk about walking according to the Spirit and by this it means to walk by faith, by the Bible, by the Gospel doctrine. What does a man bring before other men? What do they speak of (Matthew 7). We judge a prophet by the fruits of their words. Unfortunately if we follow Murray we would not know what to say.

John Murray's Process of Justification

 John Murray's book Redemption Accomplished and Applied makes Redemption a process. For instance in his book in Chapter 8 on Perseverance he writes that one thing saints do is persevere. Of course, he says this act of perseverance is of God (Page 169). The saints are kept (Page 164). But with all this being said, he makes our Perseverance an application process of Redemption. The question then becomes how do you know you are saved? What are the grounds for which we may deduce we are saved? For some people it is that they give to charity, or go to church, or so Christian things. However, again others as long as they persevere they shall be assured.

The Bible however tells us that salvation is found in no other name but the name Christ Jesus. Saints know and are assured of their salvation because He died for the sins elect alone and propitiated the wrath of God and was buried and was raised again 3 days late. This is how we know the love of God (Ephesians 3).

Schreiner can never have assurance

 Schreiner's view of justification being eschatological means that he cannot have assurance in this life. Because he conflate law and gospel, he either has to be perfect and thus become a legalist (which is what he doesn't seem to believe) or become an antinomian by which he makes the law doable and tries to pat himself on the back when he fails. Schreiner says on page 153 that justification in Paul is fundamentally eschatological.

Why is Justification by Faith alone so Important?

 I bought Schreiners book Faith alone. In it he says, "How important is 'Faith alone' - the doctrine of justification? I am not arguing that sola fide is the gospel, though I believe it is one element ot entailment of the gospel. Those who reject the motto aren't necessarily proclaiming a different gospel."

Well Mr. Schreiner the Apostle Paul would say that if Righteousness came by works of the law then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21) and to place one's trust in something other than Christ alone which is Faith alone is to believe in vain.

Looking within only brings doubt and not assurance

 So I sent a youtube video over to one of the elders at Paradox of Macarthur telling a woman who doubted of her salvation because she doesn't know if she has basically done enough. Macarthur of course puts her back into introspection.

This elder defends Macarthurs way of doing it through out and yet has the audacity to claim he is against Lordship Salvation. Of course, when you confuse law and gospel and you are for Van Tillian logic you will say irrational things.

First, he asked me about Macarthur's distinction between security and assurance. My response to him was that the Bible treats these as the same thing. The elect have a sure foundation by Christ. The elect because of the work of Christ alone are assured of salvation.
Macarthur in the video said to the woman that one of the surest signs that she was saved was that she desired to be saved. Yet the Bible no where says this is where assurance lies. Esau also desired the promises of God but found no place of repentance from his father even though Esau sought it with tears.

So the elder asked me what would my answer be to this woman?

Either she believes in Christ alone for assurance or she is not. That should have ben clear from what I said. Macarthur doesn't. 

Its interesting how these guys want to add something that we do to the mix of salvation.

Again this elder tells me that she is looking for assurance but her security is unwavering in Christ.

My question is do we know this? No. Macarthur is pushing this woman to look inside. Typical Lordship salvation guys do this. They want to look for 'evidences' of ones salvation in what the Spirit does inside them. The elder assumes that she desires the lord and it is good but does she desire it from knowledge? You could also interchange desire with having a zeal. The Jews sought the righteousness of God but didn't attain it because they sought it not rightly through Christ Jesus alone.

The elder wants more room for Progressive Sanctification. 

I understand what he is trying to do. He wants to send this woman away from the true Christ of Scripture, which wouldn't be optimal. The Bible never grounds our salvation in anything else other than what Christ accomplished on the cross. Either one is saved by the power of what Christ got done or they are not. Either a man looks to Christ or they do not. Can't change a leopard.

Jesus is referred to as the Hope of the elects salvation in Scripture. The elect are said to believe upon him, to believe upon his word.

Secondly, the question was raised about whether I doubt. I am sure this elder doubts everyday for its a natural inclination for those whose eyes are taken off Christ.

His question was do I ever doubt the sincerity of my Faith? My answer is No. I don't because my Faith is not in my Faith. If it was then yes I would doubt.

Then the next question was whether I had any besetting sins that make me question my Faith. Have I ever experience any season of doubt? Like maybe I am not actually saved?

To which I responded in the negative. For I know who I have believed in and believe that he is able to keep me til that day.

Now keep in mind my response isn't that I never am tempted to look away from Christ and that I never do sin. My response is of a different nature. My response is with regards to my own work which is not perfect to that of what Christ achieved on the Cross and how his work is perfect and mine is not.

The elder then back peddles and says that he is not arguing that assurance is within ourselves - which he basically did at the beginning when he said "she is looking for evidence to that effect. The evidence is the Spirit working in her life - specifically, that she is experiencing conviction, and that her desire is for the Lord."

The question now is then have you desired enough? are you convicted enough? look to yourselves for such conclusions.

When he says have I ever sinned to which causes me to lose my assurance you are then suggesting that my sin can cause my assurance to be effected. Again this means that no one can be assured of salvation because of sin. Again when one looks within all they see is the mire of sin and guilt before a Holy God who requires perfect obedience outside of Christ. And most professing Christians, mostly false converts, have never been taught what is the basis of assurance.

Then he asked a wiggle question if I could be wrong about this. To which I responded that I am not. Methodologies matter. How one reads the Bible matters.

Again he suggest that I am misinterpreting a few minor points with some of these theologians, and missing the difference between belief and application of belief - whatever that means?

I wouldn't call Macarthur a theologian. He suggesting and trying to defend Macarthur softly will show how this guy is inconsistent when he later says that he is against Lordship Salvation, New Perspective, and Federal Vision. 

He asked if there is any room for evidence or fruit of salvation? Faith and then works? the Fruit of the Spirit?

Again the question is already answered. These 'fruits' are imperfect and cannot be the basis of our assurance. He is wanting these fruits to be the basis or part of the basis of our assurance. They are not.

The rest of the conversation is a rehash of what I have posted on here about James and 1 John.

James teaches Justification by Assent alone

James 1:21-2:26 This passage of scripture has been misunderstood. The point is really quite simple. The hearer/doer dichotomy really works if you understand that knowledge/assent dichotomy. The point is simple, James is not saying that a man is not justified by Faith alone or Assent alone; however, what he is saying is quite simple if one understands the different usage of the word faith. In the Bible the word faith can mean the doctrines that are believed in or can also mean the act of believing.


But, someone might say in James 2:18 it says show me your faith without works and why will show you my faith by my works. What does this mean? For the Christian it is important to know that a man is justified by Faith alone. Faith is the minds act of assenting to the propositions understood and in this instance the gospel doctrines understood. Paul often speaks of the justification before God while James speaks of the justification before others. The question is how might someone know that I am a Christian? How might I show someone that I am a Christian? First, let me ask this how did you know what the Gospel was? Again going back to James 1 we are born again by the word of God. Simply speak one must be shown the truth before he can believe it, likewise, one must show someone what he believes before anyone might know he or she is a believer or what a Christian is.




Going further into this passage James continues and presents to us two examples of those who were Justified by faith and works. This passage is not about the justification before God (that is by faith alone) but this passage is about the justification before others. So Abraham and Rahab were shown to be vindicated by what they believed through their works. The question is what works are these? I am going to say that the works that James speaks of is the work of Faith not some sort of 'good deed' in which someone walks an old lady down the isle. How do you know this? What tips you off that this is so? Read Matthew 7:21-29. Notice anything similar? Remember the hearing and doing dichotomy from James? Well Jesus also has same dichotomy the only difference is that Jesus says anyone who hears His words and does them is a wise man. Just a few verses prior to this Jesus says to people who Had works that they were workers of iniquity and Jesus says those who do the will of God will be the one's who will enter heaven.

Now this leads to sever other words. What is the will of God and how might we do the Scriptures? In John 6:40 we see that Jesus says, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." So we see here that the will of God is that we believe in Christ the one whom God has sent. This is very important to know this. But how do you know if you are not studying and reading God's word? Now to continue on to the next question how might we do the Scriptures? We do the Scriptures when we hear God's word and we believe what God has said concerning His son Jesus Christ. Christ is the redeemer who has alone atoned for the sins of His elect alone. It is these people whom Christ came to redeem and save by His righteousness alone. The elect hear his voice and they follow. John 6:28-29 tells us that this is the work of God that we believe in Him. There we have it folks. This is the connecting board showing us that what James is distinguishing by faith and works is really a set of doctrines which we have vs. the act of believing.

John Macarthur's false gospel is grounded in existential works

"The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. It was in every sense good news, yet it was anything but easy-believism." - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 37

The Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-17). Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance of salvation (1 John 2:4). - Pg. 39

Genuine assurance comes from seeing the Holy Spirit's transforming work in one's life, not from clinging to the memory of some experience. - Pg. 39

Macarthur says all of this. In the first paragraph he claims that the gospel proclamation is a call of discipleship. Keep in mind what he is saying is that the gospel calls us to do something. However, this is not at all what the gospel message is. The gospel message is made of indicative statements about what God has done in Christ Jesus on the cross for the elect's sin. It does not command us to do anything or call us to do anything.

The bible does not say that evidence of God's work in a life is basic transformed behavior. What it does say "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." - 1 John 3:10

Loving the brethren is not the only thing Christians do but they also love God and they love God by knowing about God and studying his word. As Christians who also love God and His truth we love one another through various circumstance. But to say that behavior is evidence of the Christian life is false.

But our assurance does not come from our own broken works. Assurance for the Christian comes not from what is in him nor comes from him but is completely external. The assurance of the Christian Is grounded in Christ's complete work on the cross where he alone has atoned for the sins of his elect alone so that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Those who are conditionalist simply make salvation and assurance depend and kept on the good works of the sinner whether it is something that the sinner himself does or whether it is infused by grace.

Assurance is necessary for good works but assurance does not come from the sinners works. We are called to make our calling and election sure not by our good works.

Assurance comes by gaining understanding of God's truth - more specifically the Gospel not by looking at our transformed lives. For our works are not perfect.

What the lordship issue is about

The lordship issue if you have not read any articles from Mark McCulley or David Bishop is the idea that once a sinner believes in Christ as saviour he must then accept Him as Lord of his life. He does this by walking in obedience and repenting from sin. A person who only believes in Christ as Savior but not as Lord i.e. not walking in obedience is not a true believer. For a true believer is one who will make it his endeavor to repent from every sin. Repentance is not just a change of mind for them but is also repenting from works of sin i.e. behavior. In other words if you do not actually change your conduct then you have not really repented.

Of course they will probably not say you repent of every sin right away but if your not continually growing in holiness then your salvation is in question. Have you really believed the gospel? Believe is not just the act of the mind that accepts as true the gospel propositions but also includes the element of trust. What this last element is really is not clear.
The totality of the lordship issue is that the lordshiper will stress a change life over and above a change mind. They stress works rather than belief. What they say is that your assurance is grounded in doing not in knowing.

With that said the Bible Really Stresses The Opposite. It stresses what is to be believed. For by faith one does good works.

If you read Gordon H. Clark you see his stress is on what a person knows rather than what he does. The older reformers do the same. Not all of course. But the majority.

If you want to say it this way the issue is an existential issue. The lordship salvation guys are existentialist. If you are not doing then it is not really real.

1 corinthians 1-4 is about our epistemology.

Popular Preachers itch the ears of those who do not love the truth

"If I should say, that our modern demagogues have done more hurt to the souls of men, than all those stigmatized with the name of infidel writers have done together, the reflection would be thought odious. I would be referred to many passages in their treatises, asserting almost every branch of the Christian doctrine, in words not easily to be contradicted; and though I might fairly show a complete system of self-dependence to be contained in these same treatises, yea, to be the leading scope and design of them, yet it is easy to see that such a discovery, or any attempt toward it, behooved to meet with the greatest opposition from all who feed on this compound doctrine, especially from those have the largest share of religious pride. For men do not choose to be scared away by arguments from the food which they love best.
If you should throw some handfuls of barley among ever so great a quantity of pearls, the poultry will indeed resort to the pearls; but it is their natural food that draws them: they sometimes do gravel, for the better digestion of their food; for it is the barley that fattens them. And well do the pastors, I speak of, know how to season and mix up the Christian truth with proper ingredients to suit the taste of the people, or, to express myself in more obsolete style, 'They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.' That I may not seem to have disjointed this ancient saying from its context, I would have it noticed, that the chief thing aimed at there is, to make us cautious of hearkening to every spirit or doctrine, by which men pretend to assure themselves of the favour of God, or that Christ abideth in them. The sacred writer, after showing us by what spirit he and his fellows were assured of this, adds, 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God.' Then giving us several rules to judge by, he sums them up in these words,'We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.' Keeping then this rule in our view, let us return to the examining of Aspasio." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Assurance is not based upon our good works

"Matthew 7:22-23 reads, 'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name . . . ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.'
This is severe, and very strange. These people against whom Jesus shall shut the door of heaven are not the secularists who openly despise religion. These are the people who attend church regularly, the ones who do the work, who boast of their success. These are the religious leaders, who talk of leading the church of Christ. But Jesus says, I never knew you. False assurance is a common thing.
Yet it is possible to have a true assurance and rejoice in a hope that will not disappoint. The Scriptures say it is possible and urge us to attain to that state. John wrote his first epistle especially to teach us this lesson." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?

The Arminian does not believe the Gospel

The Arminian/General Baptist gospel make the Cross work of Christ a mere by product of what they think really saves. For them it is not Christ's death imputed to His people that saves and results in regeneration. For them it is really one's faith that results of the imputation of Christ's death. This tramples on the good news of Christ atoning sacrifice for His elect and cheapens as all forms of conditionalism does the Grace of God. The good news is that Christ died on behalf of His people by taking their sins upon Himself appeasing God's wrath on behalf them so that as a result they are imputed His righteousness. In this is God's sovereignty and justice seen. Only those who have been elected before the foundation of the world before the foundation of the world not because of any work found in them will in fact be saved by the shed blood of Christ and no one whom Christ died for will perish. It is Christ work on the Cross that limits the atonement to them only. There is no condition by which a sinner is to be saved but that the shed blood of Christ would save them. Those who were/not saved are because Christ did/not atone for their sins.

The Lordshiper's assurance is in his works not in Christ alone

"Perhaps it will be thought needful, that I should define, with greater precision than I have hitherto done, what I mean by the popular doctrine; especially as I have considered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other; and particularly as I have ranked amongst them Mr. Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent reproachers of that God, whose character is drawn by the apostles, that this island has produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself.
Throughout these letters, I consider all those as teachers of the popular doctrine, who seek to have credit and influence among the people, by resting our acceptance with God, not simply on what Christ hath done, but more or less on the use we make him, the advance we make toward him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh to do so; or on something we feel or do concerning him, by the assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on something we employ him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In sum, all who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, and grace, special or common, or about anything else. For I am disposed rather to reconcile than widen the various difference among them.
But my resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the same time deceitfully clogs them with the opposite falsehoods. This I would compare to a chain having one link of gold and another of brass alternately: or, I would call it a two-fold cord, wherein one thread of truth and another of falsehood are all along entwisted together. If we think of its practical address to, and influence on the minds of the people, as contrasted with its formally avowed tenets, it resembles a whited sepulcher, inwardly full of rottenness." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio