Because it seems that advocates of the Dispensational Lordship doctrine suspect anyone who critiques them of latent antinomianism, let me say here that I agree entirely with MacArthur when he writes, “and any ‘salvation’ that does not alter a lifestyle of sin and transform the heart of the sinner is not the salvation God’s word speaks of.”88 The Reformed churches have always confessed that new life and true faith issue change in the Christian. To wit:
24. How are these Articles divided?
Into three parts: the first is of God the Father and our creation; the second of God the Son and our redemption; the third, of God the Holy Spirit and our sanctification.
The entire third part of the Christian faith, or questions 86–129 of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), concerns sanctification (mortification of sin and vivification of the new man, in Christ). So, in the catechism, we confess:
45. What benefit do we receive from the “resurrection” of Christ?
First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, that He might make us partakers of the righteousness which He has obtained for us by His death. Secondly, by His power we are also now raised up to a new life. Thirdly, the resurrection of Christ is to us a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection.
70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
It is to have the forgiveness of sins from God through grace, for the sake of Christ’s blood, which He shed for us in His sacrifice on the cross; and also, to be renewed by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin and lead holy and unblamable lives.
81. Who are to come to the table of the Lord?
Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the passion and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.
87. Can they then not be saved who do not turn to God from their unthankful, impenitent life?
By no means, for, as the Scripture says, no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
To be sure, we are Augustinians and not Pelagians, in that we resolutely deny the possibility of perfection (i.e., “entire sanctification”) in this life (see HC 114 and 115). The Reformed theology, piety, and practice are not Pelagian, antinomian, or nomist.
We say that there are two aspects to Christ’s saving grace or of his benefits to us. Calvin spoke of the “twofold grace” of God (duplex gratia Dei) and his student Caspar Olevianus spoke of the “double benefit of Christ” (duplex beneficium Christi)—free justification (sola gratia, sola fide) and free, gracious sanctification in union with Christ as his adopted sons. These two benefits are distinct but inseparable. Thus, in our tradition, we have never spoken of “carnal Christians” and the like. That way of speaking belongs to Dispensationalism, not to Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
This is all to say that I agree with most of chapter 5 of GAJ, however, the chapter is seriously flawed (as is the book) by MacArthur’s apparent rejection of the Protestant (and even Augustinian) distinction between law and gospel. Had MacArthur accounted for this distinction, this chapter (and the book) would have been transformed, and thus, much more useful.
Why does this matter? Consider two outstanding statements in this chapter: “One of the most malignant by-products of the debacle in contemporary evangelism is a gospel that fails to confront individuals with the reality of their sin” (emphasis added).89 Had he used the word message, this sentence would be unobjectionable because it would be demonstrably true. MacArthur is right that many evangelicals have given up entirely on announcing God’s condemnation of sin as “too negative.” Six pages later he writes, “The gospel according to Jesus is first of all a mandate for repentance.”90 Again, had he simply said “message,” the sentence would be fine. We can see the difficulty of using gospel the way MacArthur does by substituting good news for gospel. Consider “. . . is a good news that fails to confront. . . .” It is too incongruous. The same appears in the second case: “The good news according to Jesus is first of all a mandate for repentance.” The noun mandate is a synonym for command. The gospel is an announcement of good news. The law is a mandate for repentance.
The theological liberals were wrong to say that Jesus was only a prophet or a teacher. He was much more than that, but he was also a prophet and a teacher. Traditionally Christians have spoken of Jesus’ threefold office (triplex munus), prophet, priest, and king.
MacArthur is almost correct about the first thing Jesus is recorded as saying. Mark says: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel'” (Mark 1:14–15).
Mark indeed uses the one word (gospel) to comprehend Christ’s twofold message. I have already addressed the broader usage of gospel as distinct from the narrower but it is also significant how Mark characterizes Jesus’ message: “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent. . . .” Before Jesus called for repentance he announced good news: “the time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand.” These clauses are in the indicative mood, not the imperative. These are not commands but the basis for the command (mandate) to come.
We see the same pattern in what Calvin called the prologue to the Ten Commandments: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:2). Then he proceeds to give the law. It is the same pattern we see in Mark 1:14–15. It is the same pattern we see in the Pauline epistles where Paul gives the gospel indicative, about what God has done for us sinners in Christ, and then gives us moral imperatives (the law). This is not t0 say that there are no “gospel imperatives” but, in these cases, the imperatives are law and the indicatives are good news for sinners.
One of the threads I have followed through this series is to ask how MacArthur’s Dispensationalism (and that of his Dispensational opponents, e.g., Ryrie and Hodges) affect their theology and their rhetoric. Why is it that MacArthur omits the first part of Jesus’ message? Could it be that his Dispensational theology and his eschatology do not account well for the inaugurated eschatology (already/not yet) of the New Testament? According to the Reformation understanding of the New Testament, the Kingdom of God did come with Jesus. It has not reached its consummate state but it is here.91
Two more brief remarks:
We should agree with MacArthur that a man who has left his wife and is living with a girl is of course sinful and we should share his bewilderment at a pastor who does not seem to understand that. For readers from the Dispensational/Bible church tradition: in Reformed churches, should that man remain impenitent for abandoning his wife and committing adultery, he would be recognized as an unbeliever (Matt 18). The Reformed churches follow this procedure regularly, but I was struck by the casual way he assumes that this man’s ownership of a chain of liquor stores is also wicked.92 MacArthur seems to take it for granted that no believer could own a chain of liquor stores. This might be a sound conclusion, but it should not be assumed. It must be shown. There are a host of questions to be sorted out here: Is alcohol inherently sinful? If not, from where should a Christian buy it? Are there approved places for Christians to buy alcohol (e.g., Costco)? Are liquor stores unclean for Christians? If alcohol is not inherently wicked, why may a Christian not own a liquor store? Does owning more than one liquor store change the equation? Indeed, there may be a subterranean world of assumptions beneath MacArthur’s story. It is also a little ironic that MacArthur, who spends a good bit of time in this chapter denouncing Pharisaism, takes what is arguably a Pharisaical approach to a Christian owning liquor stores.
We might doubt MacArthur’s reconstruction of the call of Levi/Matthew even as we agree with him, however, that Christ is for notorious sinners like Matthew the tax collector.93 Neither Mark nor Luke tell us anything about Levi/Matthew’s state of mind when Jesus called him. What we see in both Luke’s and Mark’s narratives (Mark 2:13ff and Luke 5:27ff), is the power of Christ’s call. Mark’s intent is to show that, indeed, the King has come, that He is gathering citizens for His Kingdom, and that by the sovereign power of His Word He has collected the unlikely figure of Levi, the tax-collector. Yet, MacArthur is right about Jesus’ words to the Pharisees.94 MacArthur’s inference from Jesus’ words, “follow me” (Mark 2:14) does not follow from what the narrative says. In other words, this episode does not work well as evidence of his Lordship Salvation doctrine. Like the observation above, his use of the calling of Levi/Matthew might tell us more about MacArthur’s assumptions than what Mark and Luke are themselves doing with this story.
- GAJ, 74.
- Ibid., 73.
- Ibid., 79.
- For resources on this approach to eschatology generally see the HB Resource Page on eschatology. See also Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (New York: American Tract Society, 1903). See also the HB Resource Page on redemptive history.
- GAJ, 73.
- Ibid., 75–79.
- Ibid., 78.
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Heidelcast: Is Confessional Reformed Theology Antinomian?
- Office Hours: The Lordship Controversy Is Back
- Michael Horton, ed., Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992).
- R. Scott Clark, Lordship Salvation, The Federal Vision, And The Covenant Theology That The Reformation Rejected
- Mike Abendroth, My Pilgrimage From “Lordship” to Law/Gospel (part 1)
- Mike Abendroth, My Pilgrimage From “Lordship” to Law/Gospel (part 2): Test Case—The Rich Young Ruler
- Mike Abendroth, My Pilgrimage From “Lordship” to Law/Gospel (part 3): Assurance
- Heidelcast 181: As It Was In The Days Of Noah (24)—We Are Pilgrims Under Christ’s Lordship
- With No Compromise Radio On The Lordship Controversy, QIRE, And The Reformation
- The Gospel According To Jesus, Grace, Salvation, And Sanctification
- Embracing The Reformation Doctrine Of Salvation Is Not “Wearying From The Battle”
- A Faithful Elder Stands Up For The Sheep
- The Dispensational Playbook Again? There Is A More Biblical, Historic Way
- Resources On Dispensationalism
- Resources On the Doctrine of Sanctification And The Third Use Of The Law
- Resources On The Marrow Controversy
- Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 64—Does Justification Sola Fide Lead To Antinomianism?
- Heidelcast Series: Nomism And Antinomianism
- Antinomianism Is A Serious Error And So Is Nomism
- Ursinus Against The Antinomians, Libertines, And Similar Fanatics Who Deny That The Decalogue Is For Teaching In The Christian Church (Objection 1)
- Resources on the Law/Gospel Distinction
- Calvin On Justification Without The Aid Of Love Or Works
- Heidelcast 95: Reformation Happens
- W. Robert Godfrey, “Faith Formed By Love or Faith Alone?” in Clark, ed. Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.
- John 3 Might Not Mean What You Think It Does
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to:
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization