My Response to an Antinomian Objection...
After writing my post on Charles Ryrie, I received a comment from a specific person who objected to my main argument that Charles Ryrie's "easy believism" was nothing more than a false gospel. Since it is not my purpose to rigorously "expound" my belief in Lordship Salvation, I do not feel the need to write an in depth response treating all of the antinomian objections to the biblical position. This has already been done by men like John MacArthur, Ernest Reseinger, and pretty much every single orthodox theologian of the past. This is my statement to the person who objected to my comments. His objections are italicized.
The thing is, the proof of a position is in the treatment of texts.
I would absolutely agree with you! Yet I included the texts I did because they are some of the clearest Scriptural texts dealing with the issues of obedience and faith. The reality is, the New Testament witness concerning obedience and faith is this: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME! Take Heb. 3:16-18 for example. Because I've been accused of "proof texting" and "ripping texts out of their contexts", let me first saying something about the book of Hebrews. Hebrews was written to a group of struggling Christians with the intent of 1) teaching them about the nature of Christ's Sonship and High Priestly ministry 2) exhorting them to persevere in the midst of a strong temptation to embace the types and shadows of the Old Testament which had been fulfilled in Christ. In a word, Hebrews contains 1.) a rich doctrinal emphasis on the person and work of Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest and 2) strong hortatory passages emphasizing the absolute neccessity of obedience and faith in the midst of temptations of various kinds. Having said that let me mention this passage. (By the way...the objector has accused me of ripping texts out of their context and not treating them properly. I believe in the clarity and perspecuity of Holy Scripture. That's not to say that we are to simply "proof text" passages and "rip them out of thier contexs. Careful, patient, experiential study is a solemn duty and joyous delight for the Christian to practice everyday. Having said that, it's not my purpose to act as a commentator in treating the texts I have mentioned. I think that they speak for themselves and it is my contention that it is the lawless "free grace" advocates themselves who twist the Scriptures that I have listed.)
Heb. 3:16-17
16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
This is another strong text which I failed to mention previously. Notice how the writer here uses disobedience and unbelief as synonomous words. Disobedience is said to be the very same thing as unbelief. On the other hand, unbelief is said to be the very same thing as disobedience. This is a good starting point for understanding the Bible's teaching on obedience and faith. The texts I listed speak for themselves. If you want an in depth commentary on the texts I mentioned, read John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus.
You probably ought to be ashamed of yourself for using texts so obviously ripped out of their context to make your point.
Let me say this: I am not ashamed of myself. My assertions concerning the heresy of antinomianism are the fruit of years of study specifically pertaining to this issue. I by no means claim to have everything figured out, and I by no means claim to be an expert on these doctrines. But I BY NO MEANS am ashamed for listing the texts that I did. They speak for themselves and if this antinomian objector thinks that they are "ripped out of their contexts", I'm curious as to what he thinks these texts mean. Yet coming from a person whose profile contains a picture of Zane Hodges' book of heretical babbling's "Absolutely Free", I probably already know his interpretation of these verses.
Could you even expound one of those texts by a well-reasoned exposition of it?
Yes I could expound one of these texts reasonably, rationally, and contextually. Yet I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's not the purpose of this blog to exegetically delve into the meaning of every single text I mentioned. Most of my thoughts and ideas come from my interaction with the works of John MacArthur and Ernest Reseinger. Likewise, many of the biblical texts (which have been the center of controversy in this debate) have come from those specifc authors' treatment of them. I suggest that you read their works if you want a "well reasoned expostion" of those texts. This is a BLOG not a commentary and the purpose of this blog is not to handle every single aspect of the issues.
Can you give a biblical argument supporting the position that the conditions for discipleship are conditions for everlasting life?
If you are understanding me as saying that obedience to the law is the means by which we obtain eternal life, you are misunderstanding me and misconstruing my words. Try reading my words in their context. What Jesus, the Apostles, and all orthodox theologians throughout church history have advocated is this: We are justified before God by faith alone (sola fide) but the faith by which are justified is never alone. This is what these biblical texts are teaching. Repentance, obedience to the law, fidelity, and love for God and man are the natural and joyful manifestations of a heart that has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. You want to talk about absurd interpretations? The classic dispensational interpretation of these texts (especially those in the gospels) are that 1) faith is intellectual assent and that obedience is merely an option for those who desire to be "spiritual" Christians as opposed to "carnal Christains." 2) Those texts in the gospels which speak of repentance and obedience were written within the context of the "dispensation of law." Since we are now living in "the age of grace" these condtions no longer apply. This irresponsible compartmentalizing of the Bible is absurd and even laughable. The burden of proof for the postion that obedience is optional lies upon the antinomian, not upon the advocate of Lordship salvation. The Bible is perspicuous on this matter.
Do you not think it is possible for a Christian to not be in fellowship with God, not practive the truth?
I know both from experience and from the Scriptural testimony that indwelling sin is a reality which we all will fight against until we dwell with Christ in glory. Yet an absence of fellowship with God and a refusal to practice the truth, manifested continually and willfully, is a stong evidence that a person is unconverted and still in their sins much like the people described in
1 John 2:19-
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
I am afraid that your proof-texting is no better than that of the average Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. A text without a context is a pretext.
And I'm afraid that the heretical antinomianism of Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges is both a disgrace and an embarassment to the community of believers who desire to live their lives in obedience to God's revealed will.
-Jordan
The thing is, the proof of a position is in the treatment of texts.
I would absolutely agree with you! Yet I included the texts I did because they are some of the clearest Scriptural texts dealing with the issues of obedience and faith. The reality is, the New Testament witness concerning obedience and faith is this: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME! Take Heb. 3:16-18 for example. Because I've been accused of "proof texting" and "ripping texts out of their contexts", let me first saying something about the book of Hebrews. Hebrews was written to a group of struggling Christians with the intent of 1) teaching them about the nature of Christ's Sonship and High Priestly ministry 2) exhorting them to persevere in the midst of a strong temptation to embace the types and shadows of the Old Testament which had been fulfilled in Christ. In a word, Hebrews contains 1.) a rich doctrinal emphasis on the person and work of Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest and 2) strong hortatory passages emphasizing the absolute neccessity of obedience and faith in the midst of temptations of various kinds. Having said that let me mention this passage. (By the way...the objector has accused me of ripping texts out of their context and not treating them properly. I believe in the clarity and perspecuity of Holy Scripture. That's not to say that we are to simply "proof text" passages and "rip them out of thier contexs. Careful, patient, experiential study is a solemn duty and joyous delight for the Christian to practice everyday. Having said that, it's not my purpose to act as a commentator in treating the texts I have mentioned. I think that they speak for themselves and it is my contention that it is the lawless "free grace" advocates themselves who twist the Scriptures that I have listed.)
Heb. 3:16-17
16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
This is another strong text which I failed to mention previously. Notice how the writer here uses disobedience and unbelief as synonomous words. Disobedience is said to be the very same thing as unbelief. On the other hand, unbelief is said to be the very same thing as disobedience. This is a good starting point for understanding the Bible's teaching on obedience and faith. The texts I listed speak for themselves. If you want an in depth commentary on the texts I mentioned, read John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus.
You probably ought to be ashamed of yourself for using texts so obviously ripped out of their context to make your point.
Let me say this: I am not ashamed of myself. My assertions concerning the heresy of antinomianism are the fruit of years of study specifically pertaining to this issue. I by no means claim to have everything figured out, and I by no means claim to be an expert on these doctrines. But I BY NO MEANS am ashamed for listing the texts that I did. They speak for themselves and if this antinomian objector thinks that they are "ripped out of their contexts", I'm curious as to what he thinks these texts mean. Yet coming from a person whose profile contains a picture of Zane Hodges' book of heretical babbling's "Absolutely Free", I probably already know his interpretation of these verses.
Could you even expound one of those texts by a well-reasoned exposition of it?
Yes I could expound one of these texts reasonably, rationally, and contextually. Yet I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's not the purpose of this blog to exegetically delve into the meaning of every single text I mentioned. Most of my thoughts and ideas come from my interaction with the works of John MacArthur and Ernest Reseinger. Likewise, many of the biblical texts (which have been the center of controversy in this debate) have come from those specifc authors' treatment of them. I suggest that you read their works if you want a "well reasoned expostion" of those texts. This is a BLOG not a commentary and the purpose of this blog is not to handle every single aspect of the issues.
Can you give a biblical argument supporting the position that the conditions for discipleship are conditions for everlasting life?
If you are understanding me as saying that obedience to the law is the means by which we obtain eternal life, you are misunderstanding me and misconstruing my words. Try reading my words in their context. What Jesus, the Apostles, and all orthodox theologians throughout church history have advocated is this: We are justified before God by faith alone (sola fide) but the faith by which are justified is never alone. This is what these biblical texts are teaching. Repentance, obedience to the law, fidelity, and love for God and man are the natural and joyful manifestations of a heart that has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. You want to talk about absurd interpretations? The classic dispensational interpretation of these texts (especially those in the gospels) are that 1) faith is intellectual assent and that obedience is merely an option for those who desire to be "spiritual" Christians as opposed to "carnal Christains." 2) Those texts in the gospels which speak of repentance and obedience were written within the context of the "dispensation of law." Since we are now living in "the age of grace" these condtions no longer apply. This irresponsible compartmentalizing of the Bible is absurd and even laughable. The burden of proof for the postion that obedience is optional lies upon the antinomian, not upon the advocate of Lordship salvation. The Bible is perspicuous on this matter.
Do you not think it is possible for a Christian to not be in fellowship with God, not practive the truth?
I know both from experience and from the Scriptural testimony that indwelling sin is a reality which we all will fight against until we dwell with Christ in glory. Yet an absence of fellowship with God and a refusal to practice the truth, manifested continually and willfully, is a stong evidence that a person is unconverted and still in their sins much like the people described in
1 John 2:19-
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
I am afraid that your proof-texting is no better than that of the average Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. A text without a context is a pretext.
And I'm afraid that the heretical antinomianism of Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges is both a disgrace and an embarassment to the community of believers who desire to live their lives in obedience to God's revealed will.
-Jordan
posted by ReformedVictorious at 9:11 PM
2 Comments:
Good blog Jordan....you've hit the nail on the head.....it amazes me that, even though the Scriptures can be crystal-clear on an issue, there is always some radical group who attacks it because it doesn't MAKE SENSE to them....such arrogance!
Now, i've been to this person's blog sites, and wow, i'm amazed....so many strawmen i was suffocating.....Truly....the objection raised by this heretic and heretic-lover has no place in Scripture....this person claims in his own blogs that repentance is not included in the Gospel message...although this is clearly contradicted by multiple passages in Scripture, with plain meaning.....in fact, in Acts 2, the first thing Peter states after being asked "Brothers, what shall we do?" is "Repent!" It's also linked to eternal life in Acts 11:18, 17:30, and 20:21.
If I may quote Mr. Hodges, "The Scriptural revelation knows nothing of a doctrine in which Christian love for God is guaranteed by the mere fact that one is a Christian."(Absolutely Free pg.131) At this point, I'm not quite certain if Mr. Hodges is reading the same Scriptures I am. It's clear that if "If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed"(1 Cor.16:22). A Christian WILL love God, or he is accursed. If this is not the case, what is the point of the hortatory passages in Hebrews regarding perseverance to the end?...mere folk music? True believers desire to obey God(James 2:18-22, 1 Jn.2:4,29; 3:7, 9-10. A true believer desires to stop sinning.(Rom.8:13; 1 Jn.2:9, 15;3:6, 8, 15;4:8.)
There are so many more passages....but i fear that this person's argument's and obvious passions for radical unorthodox theology rely upon mere logical assumptions and governing hermeneutics.......To be honest, I'm appauled there is even a concept of non-lordship salvation
Once again...good blog
And I'm prayin for you and your family....stay strong bro...God is always good
Jordan,
You should check out this guys blog. It's...amazing!
Post a Comment
<< Home