John Murray's Final Justification

 John Murray, although he wrote years before Schreiner, and Murray's views are not quite as evident as Schreiner's, in Redemption Accomplished and Applied it is interesting he writes on sanctification and his views are quite the same as Schrieners. He says it is process (Page 157) and on the same page he says we are active.

He uses Philippians 2:12-13 to refer to the eschatology salvation. Remember in Schreiner's book, he writes on Final Justification?

Well John Murray says, "The salvation referred to here is not the salvation already in possession but the eschatology salvation."

What exactly does this mean? Again this book should be about Redemption we have in Christ and by Christ alone. Instead, Murray writes about what we do. Again is our justification a process? Does it involve my repentance from sins? Note the topics. Sanctification is one. He wrote on Faith and Repentance prior to Justification.

Our justification before God is complete. It is finish. We need not worry about attaining heaven. The only thing not yet is that we are still waiting for the new heavens and the new earth. We wait by faith in Christ cross work alone.

The Double-Justification of John Murray

 John Murray's book Redemption Accomplished and Applied is none other than Double Justification.

Redemption is an Accomplished fact. It is not an on going process. Because we are bought we have assurance.

Schreiner says no transformation, then no justification but what does he mean?

 Schreiner in his book says that if there is no transformation then there is no justification (pg. 89). Look how he has flipped the truth on its head. Rather he should have said unless Christ is for you on the cross, He is not in you. The question is if this is so, Mr. Schreiner, then can you please qualify it or quantity it? I'm sure you would confess to being a great sinner. You wouldn't say things like you have arrived. So tell us so we can be such good Christians.

He further suffers from confusing belief in the Gospel and repentance unto life. These two are distinct. Again he says belief is more than intellectual assent and so he tacts on repentance to his idea. John Calvin didn't do such. Faith and repentance were dealt separately. Faith was dealt passively in Justification, and repentance was dealt in sanctification.

He talks about the new creature and the new man (Page 141) but for Schreiner these are all connected to the ethic and morality so that if you are not being transformed or becoming better in your walk then you have reasons to doubt.

Schreiner treats justification and the free forgiveness of sins as if they are not the same. Dear brothers and sisters, the gospel is what justifies sinners. Paul was sent to preach the forgiveness of sins. These are one and the same message (Acts 13).

We are finally brought back to Schreiners idol, when in Romans 6 he says to die with Christ entails being transformed (Page 140). This is wrong. Romans 6 is about the death of Christ and how the elect have died with him securing their justification, salvation, and sanctification, and glorification.

Schreiner represents the deadness of our churches and seminaries

 All of our seminary's, and Churches, and professors and preachers have all erred. Read what Schreiner says, a southern Baptist theological seminary professor, he says every where that works don't justify (Page 104) and that there is a polarity between works and faith (Page 105). Of course, all this would be well and good if not for the simple fact that he does says we are made right with God by faith alone (Page 108). Why is this problematic? Read the foreward by John Piper, who says we are made right with God by faith alone, but we attain heaven by works (Page 11). This conclusion of Piper is made clear by Schreiner when, he (Schreiner) says for the Jew "circumcision was the initiation rite." (Page 106)

Dear brothers and sisters, if this is right, then the basis of our assurance is no longer what Christ alone got done for us on the cross. If attaining heaven was the result of our works whether it be single or multiple works, then we are at a loss. The simple fact is that we are not getting better. None of us are. Our desires are always futile. We may have a desire to do good but these desires are mingled with sin. To be made right with God is to have sure assurance to attain heaven, not by works or by the law, which in the strictest sense is the commands or demands found throughout Scripture; but by the works of Christ alone and what He did for us. We simply look to Christ as a sin-bearer, as our scapegoat.

Schreiner believes works are necessary for salvation

 . . . "I will show later in this book, that demonstrate that good works are necessary for salvation." - Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone, Page 87

Or again on Page 93 when discussing Wesley, without any qualifications or push back, he says, "in conclusion, Wesley tried to maintain the balance of Scriptures. He affirmed that salvation is by faith alone and that our righteousness is grounded in Jesus Christ. Still, good works are necessary as fruit for our salvation, and if they aren't present, we have no hope for eternal life."

If good works are necessary for salvation Mr. Schreiner then guess what? You have no salvation nor do you have assurance. Salvation is either all of Christ and what He did for the elect alone or it is of works. Hope is founded in Christ alone not in our works.

Lordship salvation teaches that the Gospel is Christ in us

 When I was duped in the Lordship salvation camp several years ago, the idiom was something to the effect that Christ is not about fire insurance but about savoring Christ more and more; by which the idiom meant believing in Christ alone entails more than being saved from the wrath to come. However much this idiom is spoken by people it is a confused idiom. It confuses the Law and Gospel. It mingles the Christ for us with the Christ in us. The Christ for us made himself a curse that we might be the righteousness of God by imputation (Galatians 3:13), the Christ for us died to deliver us from the curse (Galatians 1:4), and so was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:15);

However, the christ in us who walks in our midst (2 Cor 6:16), who reveals his son in us (Galatians 1:16) - imperfectly, who lives in us (Galatians 2:20), who helps us in our weaknesses- Romans 8:26, dwelling richly in us and not by measure - 1 John 4:12, works in us to will and do Phil 2:13.

However we need first the Christ who laid down his life for us (1 John 3:16) before we can get the Christ who works in us.

The one Christ for us died for our sins so that by faith passively we are justified and declared righteous, the Christ in us is to show our thankfulness and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Our good works cannot be the grounds of our Assurance

What Lordship Salvation does and those who hold to it is that it grounds our assurance in our works. It separates the object of justification from sanctification. It is Christ's death that justifies us. It is His death alone that sanctifies us. Our works here on earth are mingled with sin, therefore, cannot be the basis of our assurance.

People who ground their assurance in their works end up measuring their spiritual life on the basis of imperfect works. It is because these works are so imperfect that they cannot be the measuring rod of our salvation. Our salvation is grounded in and by Christ alone. Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith all send us to Christ alone. The Hebrew writer says that it is by faith we see Christ. Our faith, which is passive in our justification, looks to Christ who is the object of our justification and author of our faith.

We must learn to look to Christ and his finish work for our assurance and let the good works done be whatever they are simple works mingled with sin.

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

Sproul teaches us to look at our works

"The fruit of righteousness is that fruit that is exercised in us by the Holy Spirit. If we want to be holy, if we have a real hunger for righteousness, then we must focus our attention on the fruit of the Holy Spirit." R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, pg. 204

Sproul against the Gospel

So I have read the revised and expanded edition of Sproul's The Holiness of God. On pg. 204 Sproul tells us to focus on the fruit of the holy spirit. Sproul basically is telling us to look inward to ourselves for holiness. The problem is that all of this is abstract and conjured. Ultimately speaking if our holiness and sanctification is dependent on what the Spirit does in us then it is no longer Christ alone but our salvation then hinges on what we do.

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.

Christ's ethics based on the Ten Commandments

The ethics of Jesus is based on the ten commandments. These commandments were broken all the time by the religious leaders of his day. No doubt they are in fact broken by all mankind everywhere, but the religious leaders had a pertinent zeal for God's word that said "because I don't do x, y, and z, I have favour with God." These men, as long as they didn't commit murder or adultery were assured of their heavenly state; so to not break the law they placed around about it certain institutions to keep from having to break them. Of course, Jesus calls them whitewashed tombs. Outside they look clean but inside they were far from it. Today, we might see this very same thing in the world and amongst the professing Christian Institutes. As long as they don't do x, y, and z they are fine. Perhaps they have a certain positive change as well. They even perhaps give on occasion. But, these men have missed it as the proverbial horse and cart goes. Instead, Jesus says even if you lusted in your mind you have committed adultery. Even if you hated someone in your mind you have committed murder. Many false churches further teach some sort of rule as long as you desire to do x, y, and z you're fine. But these churches seem to have missed the point of the law. The law commands what is supposed to be done and what is not to be done. We are commanded not to worship idols but to worship God alone. What is commanded is both in the negative and positive light. So desiring to do x has no bearing at all. Sin is law breaking. All have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory, therefore the only hope for salvation is found in Christ work on the cross alone on behalf of his chosen sheep alone.

The Calvinist Non-Lordshiper are the one's who really do count the cost.

The funny thing is while the Lordshipers are touting their horns "count the cost" "it will cost you everything" those who really have lost everything for the sake of the gospel are those who are of the sovereign free grace of God camp.... Those who believe that salvation is by the effectual and accomplished death of Christ alone received by assent alone. As far as it goes friends I once considered friends no longer are friends with me. It isn't because I pushed them away. I try and attempt to keep up with some of them, but with no avail. I had one tell me the other day that I can be friends with him on Facebook at least if I didn't say anything or post anything on his wall. This same guy asked me if I had down syndrome or was molested as a child.


David Bishop says, "Had LS stopped at saying Christians should strive to bring every area of their life into logical alignment with the truth of the gospel, then I would not have had a problem with them. I would have said amen. But they didn't stop here. Instead they went on to say you're not even saved unless you're doing this, and you have no right to the assurance of your salvation unless you're doing this. Now, that's bad. Very, very bad, because it obliterates the cross of Christ alone as the only foundation of repentance from dead works. It substitutes the cross with my striving to bring my life into alignment with Christ's authority as the foundation of repentance from dead works"

Going beyond Justification by Faith?

"Even before the Reformers had passed off the stage, different sects began to grow up within the Protestant movement and to break from the founding churches. The sects said that Luther made a good start in reviving the doctrines of justification by faith, but they had the feeling and Luther stood only half way and that they must go on, higher and deeper.
But Luther discerned that they erred on the greater charter of Protestantism - justication by  faith - and, as far as he was concerned, if this was wrong everything was wrong. 'Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolator,' wrote Luther. 'For when this article has been take away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc.' (What Luther says [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959], Vol. II, pp. 702-704).
These sectarian teachers did not deny justification as an initiating step in the Christian life. Their error was the old one of relegating justification to something whereby the believer can make a start and then go on to higher things. With them, justification by faith was no longer the center. Their focus was away from Christ's work to their own, from the objective to the subjective." -John Robbins, Appendix found in The Holy Spirit, Pg. 102 

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.

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.

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.