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.

Jerome Zanchius, Zacharias Ursinus, Martin Luther vs. John Macarthur

John Macarthur is known to have brought in the heretical Lordship Salvation heresy into the church. When defining what it means for Christ to be Lord he says basically that it is a lifestyle change. He connects this and other doctrines with how we live or what we do. He says, "Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). That is the single, central, foundational, and distinguishable article of Christianity. It is also the first essential confession of faith every true Christian must make: 'If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved' (Rom. 10:9). The belief that someone could be a true Christian while that person's whole lifestyle, value system, speech, and attitude are marked by a stubborn refusal to surrender to Christ as Lord is a notion that shouldn't even need to be refuted." Macarthur is an existentialist. Unless something is experienced it cannot be true. On top of this he is a dispensationalist.

However, this isnt taught by any of the Reformers. Luther never defined Christ's Lordship in conjunction to our obedience. He says in the Larger Catechism found in the book of Concord on pg. 414 "If you are asked, 'What do you believe in the Second Article, concerning Jesus Christ?' answer briefly, 'I believe that Jesus Christ, true Son of God, has become my Lord.' What is it to 'become a Lord'? It means that he has redeemed me from sin, from the devil, from death, and from all evil. Before this I had no Lord and King but was captive under the power of the devil. I was condemned to death and entangled in sin and blindness."

Luther also says on the same page, "Those tyrants and jailers now have been routed, and their place has been taken by Jesus Christ, the Lord of life and righteousness and every good and blessing. He has snatched us, poor lost creatures, from the jaws of hell, won us, made us free, and restored us to the Father's favor and grace. . . . Let this be the summary of this article, that the little word 'Lord' simply means the same as Redeemer, that is, he who has brought us back from the devil to God, from death to life, from sin to righteousness, and now keeps us safe there."

None of these blessings have an existential truth connected to it.

Ursinus says, "When we, therefore, say that we believe in our Lord, we believe, 1. That the Son of God is the Creator of all things, and therefore has a right over all creatures. 'All things that the Father hath are mine.' 2. That he is in a peculiar manner constituted the Lord, the defender and preserver of the church, because he has redeemed it with his blood. 3. That the Son of God is also my Lord, that I am one of his subjects, that I am redeemed by his blood and continually preserved by him, so that I am bound to be grateful to him. And, further, that his dominion over me is such as is calculated to promote my good, and that I am saved by him as a most precious possession, a peculiar purchase, secured at the greatest expense." - Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pg. 205

Jerome Zanchius says the that the term Lord means that God has absolute sovereign rights to do as He pleases.

Jerome Zanchius says, "As Lord or Sovereign of all, He does as He will (and has a most unquestionable right to do so) with His own, and in particular fixes and determines the everlasting state of every individual person, as He sees fit. It is essential to absolute sovereignty that the sovereign have it in his power to dispose of those over whom his jurisdiction extends, just as he pleases, without being accountable to any; and God, whose authority is unbounded, none being exempt from it, may, with the strictest holiness and justice, love or hate, elect or reprobate, save or destroy any of His creatures, whether human or angelic, according to His own free pleasure and sovereign purpose." - Absolute Predestination, Pg. 38

What Matthew 19 is really saying

Matthew 19, which Macarthur butchers, is not about making Christ lord. But is about the impossibility of becoming saved by human free will. Man is totally depraved from birth and therefore cannot come to the saviour until God changes the sinners disposition. With this it is impossible with man but with God all things are possible.

Discussion of the law and gospel

Kirk says, “Richard Bennett, My name is Kirk. I know Monty Collier and enjoy reading essays by Clark and Robbins from the trinity foundation website. I bought your book "Far from Rome, Near to God". I like it so far. I had a question. I am from the Dallas Fort Worth area in Texas and have not been able to find a church here to worship and fellowship. Quite frankly I may never find one. The churches around here are either Arminian or they are Reformed and succumb to the Lordship heresy of John Macarthur. Wondering if you knew of any good church located in this area?” Pastor Glen says, “Hi Kirk, It is good to hear from you. I am Pastor Glenn Diehl. I was raised up in Ft. Worth. I am presently living in the far northern part of California. It is my responsibility to answer Berean Beacon email. May I say, you are asking the wrong people about a church if you do not like Reform theology. ‘Far from Rome, Near to God’ is written by men who for the most part are reformed in faith. Reformed faith adherents believe in the Doctrines of Grace, and we also believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I don't know where you ever got the idea that believing in the Lordship of Jesus Christ is heresy. It is taught throughout the Word of God, particularly in the writings of Paul. Kirk, I am sure you are aware that is the problem with too many Christians today; they want to live anyway they like and still think they are going to heaven "because they prayed a ‘sinner's’ prayer sometime in their past.’ There is nowhere in the entire Bible where we are told to pray a ‘sinner's prayer.’ Jesus and the writers of the NT told us to repent and believe in the ‘Lord’ Jesus Christ. I exhort you not to jump over the word ‘Lord.’ We also believe in the doctrine of election that is so clearly laid out by the apostle Paul in Romans. So, Kirk, if the Doctrines of Grace, the Doctrine of Election, and the Doctrine of the Lordship of Jesus Christ offends you, we will not be able to direct you to a "good" church. Nonetheless, it is our sincere prayer that the Lord will direct you to a church that will exalt His name and teach biblical truth. Kirk, I do not believe it was by chance you came into contact with our book. I believe the Lord is trying to tell you something is amiss about what you presently believe. After 56 years studying the Word of God, I am thoroughly convinced that the doctrines I have mentioned above are biblical. John MacArthur is not perfect, but he is more solid in the Word than those pastors today who teach a watered-down, no blood, no repentance, no Lordship, seeker sensitive, emergent church nonsense gospel. Remember this, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ ‘For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.’ Kirk, we are living in an era where there is much apostasy coming from our pulpits and supposedly ;Christian’ books. I encourage you to be like the Bereans and search the scriptures against anything you hear from others. Even from us. Richard Bennett and I both attend Reformed faith churches. He's in Yakima, WA, and I am in Redding, CA. I am an ordained Baptist minister. There are Reformed Baptist churches, though I have never attended one. But I would recommend you try one for a month or so and see if God would lead you to regularly attend. Kirk, you are in our thoughts and prayers. If you want to talk some more. please write again, or you can contact me on Skype. My contact information is: kittyhawk63@juno.com I look forward to hearing from you again. Remember, we are two hours behind your time. If it is 6pm your time, it is 4pm our time. The Lord bless you, brother, Pastor Glenn” My response, “I never said I did not like Reformed theology just wanted to clarify that. Perhaps I was not clear on that. I said that the Reformed churches in this area are more so catholic with their doctrine of Lordship salvation than anything else. In fact, I like to read guys like Gordon H. Clark, John Robbins. Monty Collier is currently teaching class over law and gospel distinction. I am a die hard five pointer - supralapsarian, Christ died only for the elect alone and no one else. Lordship salvation is the heresy that says that in order to be saved or keep ones salvation he must not only believe in Christ but also continue to do good works. You must not only believe that Christ is savior but also submit to his lordship. This is heresy in that it focus on one's works for assurance. Macarthur, who is not reformed at all, believes that a person cannot be justified if he does not have 'fruits'. This right here is not what the Bible says and I do ask that you would reexamine your stance on such things. Of course Christ is Lord, but this has nothing to do with whether I live rightly or continue in sin and the Reformers of old never said this as well. We are living in a day where people who do profess to be Christians are in fact not but are in fact legalist, and sadly John Piper, R.C. Sproul (Jr), and John Macarthur are leading this regime.” His response, “Yes, Kirk, I just read your message literally and it did not come across as you may have intended. We also agree that Christ died only for the elect even though salvation is genuinely offered to everyone. It is God the Holy Spirit's work to only quicken the elect that they may believe. I must again state we are in agreement with John MacArthur that true believers accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I state again the scriptures, and there are many in the NT, that we must ‘repent and believe in the ‘Lord’ Jesus Christ. It is not, ‘repent and believe in Jesus Christ.’ Jesus Christ is not a fireman who comes along and puts out the fires of hell for a particular individual without also demanding to be Lord of that person. In other words, true salvation comes when a person believes in the saving work of Christ on the cross and Jesus becomes Lord of that person's life. Kirk, I would agree with MacArthur. If a person who claims to be a Christian does not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit and does not have any good works to show that they are saved, I would seriously question their salvation. I think that is the point MacArthur is making and definitely is the point the apostle James made. Read: http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/... Here you see this statement: ‘Broadly speaking, Calvinism encompasses the whole of Reformed theology and its doctrinal distinctives.’ John MacArthur is definitely Calvinist. Kirk, I think we may be at an impasse. One day all Christians will have their poor theology corrected and we will be of one mind. I look forward to that day. In closing, I say to you what I tell many others: Keep the Faith, share your faith. Pastor Glenn” My response, “Do you agree with John MacArthur's claim that the Gospel in its proper saving sense is ‘a call to obedience’?” His response, “Kirk, I am not a student of John MacArthur. My theology and beliefs are the result of my own Bible study. I do not deny that I have been taught many of the things which I have confirmed through my own study. I do not know what MacArthur teaches in many areas. I would say this to your question, if a person does not intend to obey the Lord Jesus Christ once saved, I would doubt that the person is truly saved. ‘Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.’ As you know from what is written, most of Jesus' words are commandments. The NIV says, ‘Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.’ Obedience is a sign of a changed heart. Pastor Glenn Diehl” My response, “You are familiar with the law and gospel distinction? Further how much is necessary before you know you are saved? How much sin is too much sin? I am sure you sin a lot.” His response, “Kirk, I have no desire, nor time, to continue this present conversation. Our ministry is solely focused on witnessing to Catholics who are enslaved by the false teachings of Catholicism and their four-fold requirement for salvation. We want Catholics to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. If you want to discuss what John MacArthur teaches, which you consider heresy, I suggest you write to him and what you regard as heresy. We are not Grace to You nor are we pushing John MacArthur's theology. I have work waiting to do from Richard. I must go. If you want to know more what we teach, please avail yourself to our articles and videos on www.bereanbeacon.org. We try our best to be biblical in what we teach and yet we do not claim to be systematic theologians. When I told you that you could write, I was hoping you would focus on our ministry, not MacArthur's. Thank you for writing and may we end this interchange in good spirit. Good day, Pastor Glenn” My response, “I fail to understand why you think Macarthur is a good teacher, even when you have not read him and even when Catholics praise him?”

What is wrong with Macarthur?

"What kind of faith is it that permits a person, having affirmed Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, to continue in an unbroken pattern of sin and rebellion?" - John Macarthur, The Gospel according to Jesus, ed. 2008, pg. 80 The answer to John's question is that a faith that is based on the sole person and work of Christ Jesus' righteousness alone imputed to them who are the elect of God through faith in His blood. Faith that saves is a faith that assents to the gospel proposition. Macarthur is going to say that the gospel does not save (baffling seeing how he is a teacher). Macarthur says, "True faith embraces not only the data of the gospel, but the Person of Christ as well." Pg. 81 But how do we know of the person of Christ unless through the data of the gospel? Macarthur here is making distinctions that should not be made. Now I am having issues with Macarthur embellishing the meaning of words and also even finding him equivocating words throughout this book. As a Calvinist I believe in the sovereignty of God or as he likes to put it in the Lordship of God. But this has nothing to do with me believing that I make Christ Lord of my life in salvation. Christ is sovereign over salvation but this hardly equates that I will obey him (completely or even at all). Salvation is salvation from sin and from it's consequences; i.e. damnation. If Macarthur wants to say that I believe in Christ because of fire insurance then so be it. I will also charge him that he is doing the same.

Macarthur's view of dispensationalism

"Chafer's dichotomy between carnal and spiritual Christians was seen by Dr. B.B. Warfield as an echo of 'the jargon of the Higher life teachers,' who taught that a higher plane of victorious living was available to Christians who would lay hold of it by faith. This idea of two classes of believers was undoubtedly an unfortunate result of Chafer's predilection for dispensationalist distinctions. It is a classic example how dispensationalism's methodology can be carried too far.
Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church. Israel and the church are separate entities, and God will restore national Israel under the earthly rule of Jesus as Messiah. I accept and affirm that tenet, because it emerges from a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture (while still recognizing the presence of legitimate metaphor in the Bible). And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist." - John Macarthur, The Gospel according to Jesus 2008, pg. 40

John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation (Reformed and Covenantal) responded back in 1993


John MacArthur is himself a dispensationalist: "Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages.... I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist" (25). This leads him into saying that Christ's Earthly reign was "postponed" because of the unbelief of the Jews: "When the Israelites rejected their Messiah's rule, they forfeited that permanent earthly dimension of the kingdom not only for their generation but for generations to follow. The earthly reign of Christ was postponed until a time yet future...."(118). One stands amazed at such a statement. It implies that had the Jews accepted Christ, the crucifixion would not have been necessary and Christ would have begun his political reign at once. What actually happened--the crucifixion, resurrection, and the Gentile church - are all part of Plan B. Even the second coming of Christ becomes problematic in this view, for he would already be reigning on Earth. But, as Packer's Foreword suggests, the crucial matter in this book is not dispensational theology, but the definitions of both faith and Gospel. And on these questions, both MacArthur and his defenders seem fatally confused. MacArthur confuses at least five questions in his discussion - See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193#sthash.UyQVueb3.dpuf

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.

Faith is intellectual and assent not including 'trust'

Read ead what Macarthur says,

The faith God graciously supplies produces both the volition and the ability to comply with His will (cf. Phil 2:13: 'God . . . is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure'). Thus faith is inseparable from obedience. Berkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is 'a positive recognition of the truth'; an emotional element (assensus), which includes 'a deep conviction [and affirmation] of the truth'; and a volitional element (fiducia), which involves 'a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender . . . to Christ.'" - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Pg. 189

It is interesting that Macarthur says assensus is an emotional element. No one I have read ever said such things. Assensus or accepting as truth what the mind knows is not emotional. What is perhaps not defined properly is the use of fiducia whatever that is. Faith has been said to be intellectual and assent of the will. Interesting enough Macarthur does not speak of Gordon Clark and his understanding at all throughout his book.


Clark says,

A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: Faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening. - Gordon H. Clark

Macarthur's Fallacy

I just got Macarthur's updated version of "the Gospel according to Jesus". I opened it up to a certain page and read parts of it and this is what I found:

"Are we to believe that when Jesus told the multitudes to deny themselves (Luke 14:26), to take up a cross (v. 27), and to forsake all and follow Him (v. 33), His words had no meaning whatsoever for the unsaved people in the crowd? How could that be true of One who said He came not to call the righteous but sinners (Matt. 9:13)?"

- John Macarthur, Pg. 45

Here Macarthur has committed a fallacy. Either we accept what Macarthur says is true as truth or we must fall into the camp that says Jesus' words were not true. This is not the case. Are we to suppose that by his standards that Jesus was really teaching people that unless they clean up their character that these men would not be saved? Of course Jesus uses the law to inform men and women of their sins and of their need of Him. But this does not mean that every time a command is given that it means we can actually do what is found in the command. Macarthur argues like an Arminian here and does not properly distinguish the law from the Gospel.

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.

John Macarthur's False Gospel is no gospel at all Part 1

"First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation."



John Macarthur is right about one thing that faith and repentance are basically the same acts. To repent is to believe. However, repentance from sin does not entail a change life-style from sin. John Macarthur verses do not say anything at all about repentance being something that entails our work. Repentance is just a change of mind about the Gospel of Christ Jesus where sinners who once hated the truth now believe the truth. Macarthur wrongly thinks by saying repentance, the way he understands it, 'is not a human work but a divinely bestowed grace' that this keeps his gospel from being false. No where does Luke 3:8 say that repentance is other than a change of mind. What is the fruit of repentance if it is only a change of mind? It is believing right doctrine. John Macarthur's last sentence is just begging the question and is just fillers; for none of the verses he quotes even remotely agrees with his point.

"Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing."

This is perhaps just besides the point. Yes salvation is wholly God's work alone. However, this does not mean that I believe that Macarthur is correct on the Lordship salvation heresy. Macarthur simply assumes that Faith is more than assent (he does not even prove his assumption either). I have not said that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course a Christian can for a time be subjected to his or her own sin. However, this does not mean that faith is not intellectual assent to the Gospel proposition. Of course, I am not an Arminian and once you are saved you are eternally secured no matter what you do.

"Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."

This makes absolutely no sense. Faith is grounded in Christ Himself? Has Macarthur actually seen Christ and heard directly from Christ? How does Macarthur know who Christ is? Even Geerhardus Vos whom I quoted in another post would disagree. You cannot distinguish between the person of Christ from the words he has spoken. Even if Faith is assent to the Gospel propositions (which it is) does not mean that it is any less personal than if we were to agree with Macarthur on this issue (which we do not).

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A114

Why John Macarthur will never be assured

"Perhaps the most obvious reason for lacking assurance is disobedience, because assurance is the reward for obedience. Hebrews 10:22 strongly points that out: "Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." It's been well said that high degrees of assurance cannot be enjoyed by those who persist in low levels of obedience. To live in sin is to live in doubt."
There are eight reasons for why one lacks assurance says Macarthur. All of them deal with man.
My response obviously when you look to yourself you begin to lack assurance. Am i doing enough? Are my works genuine? By these questions perhaps you begin to work harder, do more things, join a monastery. The truth is that your assurance rest on the gospel of Christ alone. 2 Peter 1 says we must have assurance before we can do good work. The lack of assurance brings about sin and self righteous works. How do you gain assurance? By knowing and understanding the gospel.
Many conditionalist have a gospel that depends on the sinner, whether it is what we do or what the Spirit does in us. They universalize the grace of God and say man must do something or respond. The fact is however this is not the gospel. The good news has nothing to do with us. The gospel is about what God has done freely and unconditionally for His people by dying for them and declaring them righteous for the sake of Christ alone so that they will believe in Christ and trust not in their own righteousness but hope in His righteousness alone imputed.