Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
Dis$ensationalism vs. Sanctification 177 Ideas Have Consequences MacArthur tells us frankly what traditional dispensational theology’s rampant antinomianism has produced: churches filled with immorality One of the most mfllgnant by-products of the debacle in contemporary evangelism is a gospel that fails to confront individuals with the reality of their sin. Even the most conservative churches are teeming with people who, claiming to be born again, live like pagans. Contemporary Christians have been conditioned never to question anyone’s salvation. If a person declares he has trusted Christ as Savior, no one challenges his testimony, regardless of how inconsistent his life-style may be with God’s Word (p. 59). Who teaches such doctrines of “once saved, always saved, no matter what”? Col. Bob Thieme does. Yes, the man who had the world’s largest tape ministry in the early 1960’s. MacArthur cites Thieme’s book, Apes and Peacocks in Pursuit of Happiness (1973): “It is possible, even probable, that when a believer out of fellowship falls for certain types of philosophy if he is a logical thinker, will become an ‘unbelieving believer.’ Yet believers who become agnostics are still saved; they are still born again. You can even become an atheist; but once you accept Christ as savior, you cannot lose your salvation, even though you deny God” (l%ieme, p. 23; MacArthur, pp. 97-98). So much for I John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Imputation and Confession MacArthur did his best to refute Lane Hodges and others who proclaim that people are saved even though they refuse to proclaim Jesus as Lord. Proclaiming Jesus as savior is sufficient
1’78 RAPTURE FEVER to get them into heaven. MacArthur denies this. He says that people must accept Jesus as Lord or else their sins will destroy the validity of their verbal confession. Neither side in this debate understands the biblical doctrine of imputation. God imputes Christ’s perfection to each person at the time of his or her conversion. That is, God declares judicially that the person is not guilty in His court because of the completed work of Jesus Christ in His substitutionary death. What MaArthur and his opponents do not discuss is the content of this judicial imputation. It is total. That is, the total perfection of Christ’s ministry becomes the inheritance of the redeemed believer. This means that Christ’s public confession of His own work is imputed to the believer. Christ is a legal representative, just as Adam was. His perfect confession becomes each believer’s confession before God. It does not matter that the believer confesses imperfectly in history. He mayor may not ever recognize that Jesus is His sovereign Lord, but Lordship salvation is inescapable judicially. Jesus Christ makes the sinner’s confession for him. This is a neglected aspect of the biblical doctrine of representation, commonly called the substitutionary atonement. The definitive sanctification - Christ’s moral perfection - which the believer received through imputation at the time of his conversion cannot stay still. History is inescapable. We move from spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity. We work out the salvation that God extends to us. Thus, definitive sanctification leads to progressive sanctification in history. Progressive sanctification culminates in final sanctification on the day of final judgment. So, as Christians mature, their confessions are supposed to become more precise, and their behavior is more and more to reflect these ever-improving personal confessions. Thus, Hodges is correct: men do not need to confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. Thus, MacArthur is correct: if there is no evidence of progressive sanctification in the confessing church member’s life, he is not saved, i.e., he was not the recipient of definitive sanctification. “Once saved, always saved is
- Page 164 and 165: A Ghtto Eschutology 127 all, the si
- Page 166 and 167: 7 HOUSE OF SEVEN GARBLES [In respon
- Page 168 and 169: House of Seven Garbles 131 A Fig Tr
- Page 170 and 171: House of Seven Garbles 133 And let
- Page 172 and 173: House of Seven Garbles 135 in point
- Page 174 and 175: House of Seven Garbles 137 As I sai
- Page 176 and 177: House of Seven Garbles 139 This she
- Page 178 and 179: House of Seven Garbles 141 legislat
- Page 180 and 181: House of Seven Garbles 143 the rain
- Page 182 and 183: 8 REVISING DISPENSATIONALISM TO DEA
- Page 184 and 185: Revising Dhpensationalism to Death
- Page 186 and 187: Reuising Disfiensationalism to Deat
- Page 188 and 189: Revising Dtipensationaltim to Death
- Page 190 and 191: Revising Dispensationali.sm to Dea!
- Page 192 and 193: Revising Dispen.nationalism to Deat
- Page 194 and 195: Revising Dispensationaltim to Death
- Page 196 and 197: Revising Dis@nsationalism to Death
- Page 198 and 199: Revising D@ensationalkm to Death 16
- Page 200 and 201: 9 DISPENSATIONALISM VS. SIX-DAY CRE
- Page 202 and 203: Di.spensationalism vs. Six-Day Crea
- Page 204 and 205: Dispensationalism us. Six-Day Creat
- Page 206 and 207: Dispensationaltim vs. Six-Day Creat
- Page 208 and 209: Dispensationalism vs. Six-Day Creat
- Page 210 and 211: D@ensationalism vs. Sanctification
- Page 212 and 213: Dispensationalism vs. Sanctificatio
- Page 216 and 217: Dispensationali.sm vs. Sancttjicati
- Page 218 and 219: Theological Schizophrenia 181 again
- Page 220 and 221: Theological Schiwphrenia 183 1980.
- Page 222 and 223: Theological Schizophrenia 185 What
- Page 224 and 225: Theological Schizophrenia 187 nal,
- Page 226 and 227: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
- Page 228 and 229: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
- Page 230 and 231: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
- Page 232 and 233: 13 THE STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE OF DIS
- Page 234 and 235: The Strange Disappearance of Dispen
- Page 236 and 237: The Strange Disappearance of D&pens
- Page 238 and 239: The Strange Disappearance of Dtipen
- Page 240 and 241: Conclusion 203 supposedly based on
- Page 242 and 243: Conclusion 205 Fourth, because God
- Page 244 and 245: Conclusion 207 The dispensationalis
- Page 246 and 247: Conclusion 209 nobody believes in i
- Page 248 and 249: Conclusion 211 repeatedly that “p
- Page 250 and 251: Conclusion 213 original creed again
- Page 252 and 253: Conclusion 215 struction. Sort of.
- Page 254 and 255: Conclusion 217 nationalism, openly
- Page 256 and 257: Conclusion 219 to what you are doin
- Page 258 and 259: Conclusion 221 surely the situation
- Page 260 and 261: Bibliography 223 Works Defending Po
- Page 262 and 263: Bibliography 225 Eschatology. Tyler
Dis$ensationalism vs. Sanctification 177<br />
Ideas Have Consequences<br />
MacArthur tells us frankly what traditional dispensational<br />
theology’s rampant antinomianism has produced: churches<br />
filled with immorality<br />
One of the most mfllgnant by-products of the debacle in<br />
contemporary evangelism is a gospel that fails to confront individuals<br />
with the reality of their sin. Even the most conservative<br />
churches are teeming with people who, claiming to be born<br />
again, live like pagans. Contemporary Christians have been<br />
conditioned never to question anyone’s salvation. If a person<br />
declares he has trusted Christ as Savior, no one challenges his<br />
testimony, regardless of how inconsistent his life-style may be<br />
with God’s Word (p. 59).<br />
Who teaches such doctrines of “once saved, always saved, no<br />
matter what”? Col. Bob Thieme does. Yes, the man who had<br />
the world’s largest tape ministry in the early 1960’s. MacArthur<br />
cites Thieme’s book, Apes and Peacocks in Pursuit of Happiness<br />
(1973): “It is possible, even probable, that when a believer out<br />
of fellowship falls for certain types of philosophy if he is a<br />
logical thinker, will become an ‘unbelieving believer.’ Yet believers<br />
who become agnostics are still saved; they are still born<br />
again. You can even become an atheist; but once you accept<br />
Christ as savior, you cannot lose your salvation, even though<br />
you deny God” (l%ieme, p. 23; MacArthur, pp. 97-98). So<br />
much for I John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were<br />
not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have<br />
continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made<br />
manifest that they were not all of us.”<br />
Imputation and Confession<br />
MacArthur did his best to refute Lane Hodges and others<br />
who proclaim that people are saved even though they refuse to<br />
proclaim Jesus as Lord. Proclaiming Jesus as savior is sufficient