John MacArthur passed away last night. He was 86. I hope he was saved. If he was, it's sad that he went astray on the gospel. (MacArthur advocated the false teaching known as "Lordship Salvation".) I heard a YouTuber talking about MacArthur's passing, and he said that "there hasn't been anyone in the last 30 or 40 years that has been more influential on the Christian church [than John MacArthur]." Okay, but that doesn't mean he was right on the gospel. There's no doubt that MacArthur was influential. But I contend that he was a bad influence on the church as far as the gospel is concerned. Without question he was a skilled communicator, but unfortunately he was wrong on the gospel.
If the apostle Paul were to preach at John MacArthur's funeral, I doubt he'd give him a nice eulogy, in light of the fact that MacArthur was a false teacher as far as the gospel is concerned. Instead of tickling people's ears (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3), I can hear Paul saying something like this to the congregation:
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-10, ESV)
12 comments:
Does Isaiah 55:7 suggest that one must forsake sin to be saved? It sure reads that way.
Commenting on Isaiah 55:7, the 19th-century Scottish evangelist Robert Murray M'Cheyne was correct to say: "This is one of the sweetest portions of the Word of God, and yet it strikes me that it is seldom understood. I observe that it is very frequently one of the devil's plans to prevent a proper understanding of these passages of the Word of God that are the sweetest and plainest, and thus to turn the honey into gall." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God".)
Let's take a closer look at Isaiah 55:7 and see what it says and what it doesn't say. The prophet Isaiah doesn't say "let the wicked forsake his sin," but rather "let the wicked forsake his way" (Isa. 55:7, KJV). This raises the question: "his way" of what? The context has to do with "his thoughts" (v. 7, also v. 8) about how to "come" to God (v. 1, also v. 3), i.e. the way of salvation ("pardon" v. 7b). Thus, my understanding of Isaiah 55:7 is that Isaiah is referring to a man forsaking "his way" of salvation (cf. Prov. 14:12, 16:25) and instead coming to God His way, which is through the work of Christ alone! Not the way of self-effort and self-righteousness attempting to clean up your life in order to earn heaven (remember, John Piper says that heaven is a "reward"), that is not God's way of salvation!
"Let the wicked man forsake his own way [of salvation] and the unrighteous man his own thoughts, let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon" (Isa. 55:7).
This understanding of Isaiah 55:7 keeps salvation by grace completely free (Isa. 55:1; cf. Rom. 6:23) and is harmony with the immediate context (Isa. 55:7-8), which focuses on having a change of thinking about how to be saved.
Related to the topic of this blog post, which is John MacArthur and his "different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, ESV), J. Irvin Overholtzer, founder of Child Evangelism Fellowship, shares the following thoughts in his book Salvation By Grace. Under the heading "The Galatian Error," he writes:
"This terrible corrupting of the Gospel of grace has been ever with us since that time. It has taken many forms. We have added many things to simple faith as the condition of salvation. We have demanded that all sin be forsaken as a condition of salvation. This is not the Gospel of grace at all. Sin is to be forsaken after Christ receives us and gives us His power with which to forsake the sin. We have demanded that a promise to obey Christ as Lord must be made--that we give our hearts to Him. This is not grace. Grace presents salvation to helpless sinners as a free gift (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8, 9). If promises are to be exacted, the salvation obtained would be anything but a gift (Romans 4:4, 5). But the tragedy is, no salvation at all would be had. We have demanded that a certain creed [of conduct, cf. Gal. 2:21] be subscribed to. All of these are but forms of the Galatian error. They are under the condemnation of God."
Source: J. Irvin Overholtzer, Salvation By Grace (Grand Rapids: Child Evangelism Fellowship Press, 1958), pp. 6-7, brackets added.
Very interesting. This is a response I received from another teacher. What do you think of it?
"Isaiah 55:7 reads, “Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isa 55:7). Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66) in which God calls Israel to return to Him in covenant faithfulness. The invitation in verses 6–7 is addressed to the nation, not individuals seeking justification in the Pauline sense. The call to “forsake” wicked ways and “return” to the Lord reflects the prophetic appeal for national repentance and restoration. The Hebrew word for “return” (shuv) is often used in the context of covenant relationship, suggesting that this is a call for wayward Israelites to come back to their God—not an evangelistic message to unbelievers requiring moral reformation in exchange for salvation.
Biblically, eternal salvation is always by grace through faith alone in the promised Messiah, not by forsaking sin or performing works (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). While a person may indeed turn from sinful patterns when coming to faith, that turning is not the condition of salvation but rather an outcome of spiritual awakening or conviction. In this case, Isaiah is appealing to a nation steeped in idolatry and rebellion to abandon its self-destructive course and seek the Lord, who stands ready to forgive. The abundant pardon offered by God flows from His mercy and grace, not from the sinner’s merit or moral effort."
It sounds like the author you quoted is writing from a Free Grace perspective, something akin to the position of the Grace Evangelical Society (the GES). They separate Isaiah 55 from individual salvation and try to make Isaiah's statement exclusively about national repentance/restoration. From my research, the traditional Free Grace understanding of Isaiah 55 aligns closer to accepting both positions, namely that Isaiah is calling the nation to return to the Lord, but the invitation extends to the Gentiles as well: in fact, to everyone! So I think it's both actually: "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16). Dr. Constable in his Notes on Isaiah sums it up well when he says:
"This chapter [Isaiah 55] is part two of Isaiah's celebration of the Servant's work of redemption, the previous chapter being part one. In view of what God would do for humankind, and especially for the Israelites (ch. 54), people would need to appropriate the salvation that He provided (ch. 55).
As in the preceding sections (52:13—54:17), the people of God in view are primarily Israel but not exclusively Israel. As the Lord's salvation extends to all people, so do the benefits of that salvation—for as many as take advantage of it. This chapter contains one of the warmest gospel invitations in the whole Bible. It forms a fitting climax to this section of Isaiah that deals with God's provision of salvation (chs. 49—55)." (Constable Notes, Isaiah 55.)
Remember that Isaiah chapter 53 pertains to the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, and the Savior of the world: not just the nation of Israel. So it is not out of context to interpret Isaiah chapter 55 as having a broader context and application than simply national deliverance. Indeed, the author you quoted affirms that "Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66)". So Isaiah 53 pretty much disproves his narrow view of Isaiah 55.
Also see J. Vernon McGee's booklet titled Initiation Into Isaiah, pages 125-129. (The book is available in pdf format in The Free Grace Library page on my blog.) This is where McGee discusses Isaiah chapter 55, and his commentary on it is excellent. Dr. McGee's comments on Isaiah 55 are similar to those of Dr. Constable. Both men teach that Isaiah 55 has application to everyone and can be understood as referring to eternal salvation, not just to the national restoration of Israel.
So my understanding of Isaiah 55 is that the application need not be exclusively or only to the nation of Israel, but (I believe) can and does apply to individuals--in fact, everyone!
[Continued below...]
Related to this, I read a commentary recently and it said that Isaiah 55 is never quoted in the New Testament (which is false, by the way), as if that lends support to a very narrow application of it, such as the one proposed in the statement you quoted. But that is not really the whole story or the complete picture, because the imagery of Isaiah 55 (thirsting for the water of life, eating the bread of life, etc.) is repeated numerous times in the New Testament, and by Jesus Himself! See John 4:13-14, 6:35, 7:37-39; Rev. 22:17. But actually, the truth is that Isaiah 55:3 is quoted by the apostle Peter in Acts 13:32-34 when he talks about the glad tidings and "the sure mercies of David" (Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:34): they are for us today as well! This was Peter's point in Acts 13. The Scofield Reference Bible marginal note on Acts 13:34 contains this cross-reference to Isaiah 55:3 (see Acts 13:34 in the old Scofield Reference Bible, with the marginal note to Isaiah 55:3), and Dr. J. Vernon McGee makes this same connection between Isaiah 55:3 and Acts 13:34, and it's application to us today. (See McGee, Initiation Into Isaiah, p. 127.) On this point, Dr. McGee states: "These mercies have been made sure to us because our sins have been put away on the cross of Christ. God's holiness is vindicated and now we have 'forgiveness of sins.' [Acts 13:38.]" Amen!
Note that in his statement above, McGee is clearly referring to the "forgiveness of sins" in the sense of justification. That is clearly what Peter means by it (see Acts 13:38-39). In other words, Peter is clearly talking about eternal salvation for both Jew and Gentile (i.e. justification), not merely the national deliverance of Israel in a physical sense.
In closing I would also recommend that you take a look at the commentary on Isaiah 55 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. It also affirms the interpretation of Isaiah 55 that I have set forth above. In fact, most Bible commentaries that I've consulted take this view. If you have any further questions, just let me know. God bless!
My only problem with this is that in the Greek LXX, the word "way" in Greek is plural — ways. That would lend stronger evidence to the turning being from unrighteous ways, or sins. So why not think that while salvation might not require turning from every known sin, it might still require the turning from a general pattern of sinful rebellion. In other words, a thief can't turn from every sin, but they can at least turn from a life of thieving. Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems to hold this view in his "Ten Facets of Our Salvation" in his notes on conversion, and even other FG teachers suggest that there ought at least be a willingness to turn from sin, if nothing else, as opposed to wanting to cling to it, which is just plain rebellion. They say the unsaved can neither turn from nor desire to turn from sin without the Holy Spirit, yet God did command Israel to turn from sins in the OT, and they didn't yet have the HS. If He could expect it of them, then why can't He expect the same from modern unbelievers? He wouldn't ask them to do something if He knew they really couldn't. So maybe a conscious turning from major, overt rebellion (adultery, homosexuality, thieving, drunkenness, etc) really can be expected, at least to demonstrate that one is genuinely serious about wanting salvation. I mean, why not? I have seem no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own "way" of being saved.
Your logic is non sequitur. Just because man is capable of doing something (or is told to do something in a specific context) doesn't mean that it is required for salvation! That would be like saying, "Since God told Noah to build an ark, and Noah did it, that is therefore a requirement for salvation." I hope you see the absurdity of your position.
It sounds like you are preaching a gospel of self-reformation, or at least a willingness to do so in part. That is works-salvation my friend, and it is condemned by God (see Isa. 64:6; Prov. 16:2; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 10:2-3; Gal. 3:10; Phil. 3:9, etc.). Furthermore, the plural "ways" in the Greek LXX of Isaiah 55:7 doesn't support a works-based view of repentance, and I'll tell you why. Because everyone has their own (oftentimes differing) ideas of how to get to God. Isaiah 55:7 is not addressed to merely one individual person who has "a way" (cf. Prov. 14:12; 16:25), but to people in general ("all you who are thirsty," v. 1): all of whom have their own oftentimes differing conceptions or ideas of the supposedly right way to God. Obviously not everyone thinks there is only one way (or the same way) to God. Instead, people think there are many "ways" to God. This should be plainly obvious and hardly needs further proof. Just talk to ten people on the street where you live to verify it.
[Continued below...]
M'Cheyne quite eloquently pointed this out in his sermon on Isaiah 55:7-9 when he said:
---"Let us see what is to be forsaken, verse 7: 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts.' Compare this with the eighth verse: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'
---Observe then, dear brethren, what it is that all unregenerate men are called upon to forsake. You are called upon to forsake your way — your way of pardon — your way of peace with God, and the reason given is that God's way is not as your way, neither his thoughts as yours. Now, observe first that every carnal man has got some plan by which he thinks to get to heaven. This is what God thinks of here. The wickedest man here has got some kind of a way of pardon of his own. You will not find a man on the earth but hopes that at death, or at the judgment day, he will get free. Ah, brethren, if it were not for this, you would not rest as you do. If you had no thoughts of pardon, you could not laugh as you do. And, therefore, you may lay it down as an axiom that every natural man has a way by which he hopes to be saved. 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.'
---The plans of all worldly men may be resolved into this one — self-righteousness. There is one man who says he hopes to be saved, for God is merciful. God will not destroy the souls that he has made. Another man thinks God will save him for his sincere endeavours. He is a kind God, and he will save me for my best endeavours. I dare say, the hearts of many agree to that. This is the answer I get in most houses I go to, when I ask, Are you willing to be saved? You say, I am trying to do the best I can. [...]
---These are some of the ways that men look to for salvation. You will see that their aim is self-righteousness. This is the way you are commanded to forsake this day. O brethren, what is your way? Sinner, you are commanded to forsake your way.
---Observe, farther, that this way is different from God's way — 'For my ways are not as your ways, neither my thoughts as your thoughts.' God's way of justifying a sinner is by the death and obedience of his Son. It is not by washing away your sins yourself, but it is by casting yourself under the doing and dying of his Son. I say, then, it is not your way; I say farther, it is higher than your way. You are groping in the dark, but God's way is in the light. And then it is a more glorious way; just as there is a greater glory spread over the bespangled heaven than there is over this poor earth, so is there over God's way. God's is high up — a perfect, righteous way. Your sins may be covered by this way as completely as the waters of the flood covered the earth." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God.")
In closing you said, "I have seen no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own 'way' of being saved." Then why not accept the Bible's statement on it? It clearly says exactly that! "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)
Alright, but wouldn't that be inserting our preconceived ideas or theology into the text? How do we know God is speaking of ways of pursuing salvation, and not simply ways of sinful works/rebellious lifestyles? How do we know He's not referencing thoughts because even our thoughts are sinful and enough to condemn? Jesus said that even to look after a woman with lust is to commit adultery. Is it really that clear, or could one not argue that yours is a minority view that you are forcing into the text? In context, aren't sinful works more likely? Israel had been taken into captivity because of their sinful rebellion of idolatry, etc. Seems a harsh punishment if all that was needed was to correct their view of how to come to God.
How do we know God is not talking about forsaking sinful lifestyles? Because that's works salvation, right? So then you would have to say that Isaiah 55 is not about eternal salvation, but merely national deliverance. But the apostle Peter in the NT interprets it as pertaining to eternal salvation—that is, justification—in Acts 13:34 (quoting Isaiah 55:3; cf. Acts 13:38-39).
You have a lot of questions because you have not laid the groundwork nor a solid foundation based on the whole counsel of God's Word. And so you have all these ideas and questions swirling around in your head. Take one step at a time. Build the foundation first. Little by little. Precept upon precept. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isa. 28:10, KJV). I just told you one precept. So now we know, based on the Word of God, that Isaiah 55 is not only about national deliverance, but more significantly, it pertains to eternal salvation. I just gave you chapter and verse for it. So is the apostle Peter inserting his "preconceived ideas or theology" into the text when he explains his understanding of Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13? Hardly. Rather, he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is God's Word, and I suggest you take heed to it: "Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." (Acts 13:40-41, KJV).
I also want to say something in regards to a previous comment you made. You mentioned the LXX and how in Isaiah 55:7, the LXX reads: "Let the wicked forsake his ways". You mentioned how in the LXX, "his ways" is plural. You seemed to be stumbled by that, as if you didn't know what to believe in regards to how to interpret it. So let's take a closer look at that. It's important to understand that the LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; the LXX is not the original Hebrew text. So the question then becomes: what does the Hebrew text say? How does it read? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text reads: "his way" (singular). So the translators of the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) turned the singular "way" into the plural "ways". Bill Mounce has correctly said: "Translators are traitors." This is because no translation is perfect. Something is always lost or added in translation. In the case of Isaiah 55:7, the translators changed the singular "way" to the plural "ways". So your point about the LXX is interesting, but it doesn't really address the real issue which is that the Hebrew text says "his way": "Let the wicked forsake his way" (not "his ways"). Furthermore, Isaiah 55:7 is never directly quoted in the NT so we don't have that either. If Jesus or the apostles would have quoted from Isaiah 55:7 in the NT, then that would of course be something to consider. But that is not the case. Thus, it is a much stronger argument to go back to the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 55:7 than to rely on a 2nd-century BC Greek translation of it. I just thought I would point that out because when you brought up how the LXX says "his ways" in Isaiah 55:7, it seemed like you were basing your conclusions on that reading or that you were relying on that reading. But my point is that such an approach would not be wise, as least in regards to Isaiah 55:7, because: a) it's not the original reading; it's a translation, and b) it's never directly quoted in the New Testament. If it had been, that would of course lend support to that reading, but that is not the case. In closing let me just say that it is good that you went back to the Greek. But since we are talking about a Bible verse from the Old Testament, the original text was written in Hebrew (not Greek). So in this instance you did not go back far enough. The real question is: what does the Hebrew text say? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text says "his way" (singular), not "his ways".
Post a Comment