“The first time I met John MacArthur face to face was in 1981. I had spent three years in youth ministry in Florida, shepherding a group of students who believed that they were Christians because they had invited Jesus into their heart [?] when they were toddlers, but they were as carnal and as unsanctified as the un-churched hoodlums in my neighborhood. [Editor’s note: It reminds me of the carnal Corinthian Christians that the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.] And so I had taken my youth group through a study of 1 John, and some of them along the way realized that they were not Christians at all, and they were soundly converted [to ‘Lordship Salvation’]. And to my surprise, their parents at first were pretty upset with me! They would scold me for teaching their kids ‘Lordship Salvation’ – a big thing in Florida because that’s where Ray Stanford was. And I was listening to Grace To You by then. Tampa was one of the first three stations that carried John MacArthur on the radio. I listened to him every day and he was preaching through 1 John, and that was extremely helpful and encouraging to me [in accepting ‘a different gospel,’ 2 Cor. 11:1-4]. And after three years I left Florida because Moody Press wanted me to return to Chicago and work for them. It would have been my second tour of duty with Moody Press. And they wanted me; they arranged for me to be at a meeting with John MacArthur to talk about The MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. And that was where I met John for the first time, around a little table with a bunch of editors and we talked about the commentaries. And afterwards we were sort of doing the social thing with coffee or whatever. And I saddled up to him because he was there by himself kind of, and I said, ‘You know, I listen to you every day on the radio, and I think you need to do a book on the Lordship issue.’ And he brightened up immediately and he said, ‘You know, I plan to. I want to. I even have a title in mind,’ he says, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’. ‘That’s what I want to call it.’ And that was the start of my relationship with God. Or, with John MacArthur. [The audience roars with laughter and applauds.] Freudian slip! [More laughter from the audience.] There’s a bit of truth in that. [The audience laughs.] There is a bit of truth in that! [More laughter.] It had a massive impact on my relationship with God. But that was the start of my relationship with John, and uh, his book [The Gospel According to Jesus] and the sequel that came [The Gospel According to the Apostles], have been so formative in my life and thinking that they helped me finally untangle the confusion that I had carried for years between what I had read in Louis Berkhof [in his Systematic Theology] and what I had read from Charles Ryrie [in his book Balancing the Christian Life, in the chapter titled ‘Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?’].”[1]
Reference:
[1] Phil Johnson, “Answering the Antinomians” (March 9, 2023), Shepherd’s Conference 2023: “Shepherding the Remnant” (time stamp: 44:00 minutes – 46:30 minutes), brackets added. www.gracechurch.org/sermons/20917
4 comments:
After listening to Phil Johnson's 1 hour and 15 minute sermon titled "Answering the Antinomians" (?), what I noticed is that he didn't mainly go back to the Bible, but rather he kept pushing John MacArthur's books, particularly The Gospel According to Jesus, and The Gospel According to the Apostles. I thought Mr. Johnson's arguments were very weak, he basically just name-called the opposing side in the debate, labeling them as "Antinomians" because we believe that "we are not under law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). And no, in case anyone is wondering, Mr. Johnson didn't even attempt to explain that verse! I also noticed that it was not until the 1 hour and 5 minute mark when Mr. Johnson finally admits a key distinction between Law and Grace: that "the Law condemns us because we can't obey perfectly, grace grants us forgiveness on the basis of Christ's perfect obedience." That's a key distinction and a big difference between Law and Grace, and Mr. Johnson even admits it! Mr. Johnson wants to preach the Law today because it is good, Paul says yes, but only if we use it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8-11): meaning to show a person how far we all fall short of God's perfect and holy standard (see Romans chapters 1-3). But in this age of grace, the Mosaic Law should not be used as a rule of life (a measuring stick), but rather the Law today should be used as a mirror to show us that we all fall short of God's perfect standard of righteousness and we are therefore sinners in need of a Savior. As the apostle Paul says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Mr. Johnson says that Law and Grace have mostly similar messages, such as loving God and loving other people. Okay, but that doesn't mean believers today are under the Law, just because there are similarities. Take the 10 commandments for example. Most of them are repeated in the grace teachings of the apostles to the church in this age of grace, but from the standpoint of grace, not law. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not repeated for believers today in the age of grace is the commandment about Sabbath-keeping. Again, that doesn't mean we are under the Law (Paul expressly says we are not!), but rather we are to do those things from the standpoint of (as Jesus said to his disciples), "If you love me, keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15). I talked about this in the Free Grace Notes for my blog post titled: "Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" | 1959 Eternity Magazine. In that blog post I reprinted the 1959 Eternity magazine article and added some Free Grace Notes at the end of the article responding to John R. Stott (an early proponent of "Lordship Salvation").
[Continued below...]
And for endnote 41 in that blog post ("Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?", FGFS, June 9, 2020), I made the following statement which relates to the discussion here,
[41] Stott says: "We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate." I would ask Stott: Are they benefits or requirements? Stott is turning the benefits given us at salvation into legalistic requirements that one must commit to in order to be saved! I like the following statements by Dr. J. Vernon McGee on this topic. Commenting on Ephesians 1:7, McGee writes: "We looked at the Greek words for redemption and saw that it involved the paying of a price which was the blood of Christ: we can have forgiveness because He paid the price. We know that God went into the marketplace where we were sold on the slave block of sin and He bought us, all of us. He is going to use us for Himself — He establishes a personal relationship. We saw also that He bought us in order to set us free. Now somebody will ask, 'Doesn't that upset the hymn that says, 'I gave, I gave My life for thee. What hast thou done for Me?'?' My friend, it surely does. The very word for redemption in verse seven, apolutrosis, means that God never asks you what you have done for Him. That is the glorious thing about grace: when God saves you by grace, it doesn't put you in debt to Him. He bought you in order to set you free. Someone else will ask, 'But aren't we supposed to serve Him?' Certainly. But it is on another basis, a new relationship — the relationship now is love. The Lord Jesus said, 'If ye love me, keep my commandments' (John 14:15). He didn't say, 'Because I'm dying for you, you are to keep My commandments.' He said, 'If you love Me.' Today, if you love Him, He wants your service. If you don't love Him, then forget about this business of service. One hears so much today about commitment to Christ. Friend, you and I have very little to commit to Him. We are to respond in love to Him, and that is a different basis altogether. We love Him because He first loved us. . . . He paid a price for you. He gave Himself and shed His blood so that you could have forgiveness of sins. This is all yours if you are willing to come to Him and accept Him as your Savior."
The late Miles J. Stanford wrote an excellent response specifically to Phil Johnson's false charge of "antinomianism", which is available here.
Here's the actual link:
https://withchrist.org/faqs.htm#Reformed_Baptist_Phil_Johnsons_web_site_lists
Post a Comment