Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Violating JWO By Having A Second Master
Accordingly, if we treat someone like Paul as an inspired voice who makes the criteria for salvation even in the slightest any different than what Jesus announced, we have a problem. We have created a risk of Two Teachers and Two Masters. However, Jesus told us what happens when you have two masters (teachers) competing for control of doctrine:
No man can serve two masters ( kurios ); for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and
despise the other. (Matt. 6:24) ASV.
Despite this warning, many hold to one Master (Paul) while despising the words of Jesus. This is most obvious in how they treat Jesus' words defining the Gospel.
37.The decision in Acts 15 on whether Gentiles were to be circumcised was a decision over doctrine. No individual was on trial. Who decided this? Not the twelve. The twelve obviously did not regard their judicial authority was involved and only engaged in the discussion. In that case the twelve submitted to the superior authority of James, the Lord's brother and non-apostle, who made the final decision. James apparently had their consent, but there is no indication the twelve voted on the issue. Thus, the twelve must not have regarded their superior judicial authority extended into issues of doctrine. There, James as citybishop, had authority to decide doctrine.
For indeed, Jesus' doctrine of salvation is not hard to discern. His Gospel was reflected right within the Great Commission itself. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of all the nations, "teaching them to obey \tereo ] everything I commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20.) Why were these commandments to be taught and obeyed by the nations? Because Jesus explained in (John 8:51):
"I tell you the truth, anyone who obeys [ tereo] My teaching will
never die!"
To be more accurate, "obeys" is "should have kept on obeying" and "will never" is actually "should never." Thus, it says, "all those who should have kept on obeying My Teaching should never ever die." 40
Well then, to whom does Jesus affix the absolute promise of salvation? It is to only one type of person. In (Matt. 10:22), Jesus says "the one who has endured (aorist active) to the end shall be saved (future indicative)."
38 JVew Living Translation.Thc King James renders "obey" in this verse as "kept guard." In Greek, the literal meaning is "to attend to carefully" or "guard." Metaphorically it means obey, observe, etc. Here, the NLT's obey is the more contextually accurate meaning.
-
The word for obey and have are both active aorist subjunctives. The habit of the NIV and KJV is to translate any verse on salvation with shall rather than should to serve doctrine. This is because ordinarily the active verb which precedes is believe, e.g., John 11:26. Thus, due to this habit, they translate John 8:51 with shall, which no doubt they prefer not doing, since now Jesus links obedience to salvation. However, we cannot ignore the subjunctive. For why the verb obey and have should be translated as subjunctives, see Footnote 15, page 383.
-
This is exactly comparable to (John 3:16) and 11:26 in proper translation. "All those who keep on believing should not perish but should have eternal life." (John 3:16). Likewise, (John 11:26) should read: "whoever keeps on living and keeps on believing in me should never ever perish." For discussion on how the subjunctive tense is often ignored to serve doctrinal biases, see Footnote 15, page 383.
Jesus said likewise in the Parable of the Sower. From among the four seeds, even the seed which sprouted and thus "believed for a while" (Luke 8:13) but fell in time of temptation, Jesus said only one was saved. Jesus said it was the fourth seed. It was the only seed which 'brought forth fruit with patient endurance to the end.' 41
Thus, whenever the Great Commission is fulfilled by teaching obedience to Jesus' commands, including the necessity to endure successfully in them, the Gospel that saves is spread.
This is the same message in Jesus' parable about the one who builds on sand. "And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand [whose end is destruction]." (Matt. 7:26-27) ASV.
So what are these commandments which lead to life if obeyed in patient endurance, or hell if disobeyed? Here is a small sampling of verses from just the early chapters of Apostle Matthew's Gospel. None are parabolic. Hence, there is no mystery involved. All threaten damnation if certain principles are disobeyed. Or they promise eternal life if certain principles are obeyed:
-
"One who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of judgment.''' (Matt. 5:22).
-
"Whosoever shall say 'Fool' shall be in danger of Hell fire." (Matt. 5:22).
-
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matt. 7:19) ASV.
-
"[B]ut I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a married woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:28-29).
-
"[B]ut I say unto you, love your enemies , and pray for them that persecute you; that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 5:44-45).
- See page 171 et seq.
-
"And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell... But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven...Fie that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 10:28), 33, 39 ASV.
-
"And behold, one came to him and said. Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life ? And he said unto him,... '[I]f thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. Fie saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and mother, and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."' Matt. 19:16-19 ASV.
Yet, despite the clarity of Jesus' Gospel, how many evangelicals would teach obedience to the commands in these verses actually are crucial for salvation? Each verse expressly says so. Each verse points us away from thinking that John 3:16 means that faith alone should save. (John 3:16.) Now we realize that with equal force, Jesus says in John 8:51 that obedience should save. Jesus obviously intends us to read both John 3:16 and 8:51 together. When both verses are combined, it is faith and obedience that Jesus simultaneously says should save. Where have we heard that before? In James' Epistle! James says when faith is working together with obedience (works) in synergy, one is justified. ((Jas. 2:20-24).) 43 Jesus then assures us the result after a lifetime of patient endurance in both principles is that we " shall be saved." ((Matt. 10:22).)
42.On the should versus shall issue in both John 3:16 and 8:51, see Footnote 50, page 506.
43.See Footnote 24, page 261.
Thus, we cannot emphasize for salvation the importance of faith that neglects obedience. Nor can we emphasize obedience for salvation that neglects faith. They are working together to justify one who calls on the name of the Lord. Jesus only gives assurance of salvation when both principles are operative. 44
However, we all know that no evangelical teaches the necessity of obedience to any of Jesus ' commands quoted above for salvation-sake itself, whether in patient endurance or otherwise.
Why is this?
There is no secret here. Most of us evangelical Christians claim that teaching that our salvation depends on any kind of obedience to any Law, whether from Jesus or Moses, is the heresy of works. For this proposition, we rely upon Paul. ((Rom. 4:3-5).) In fact, most evangelicals will mock anyone who dares teach the necessity to obey these commandments of Jesus to spare ourselves from damnation. More to the point, the Modern Pauline Gospel teaches us emphatically that we are saved without having "kept guard" or "obeyed" Jesus' teaching, despite Jesus saying the opposite in John 8:51. This implies that anyone who teaches what Jesus teaches in John 8:51 is, in fact, lost. Thus, to most evangelicals, anyone who teaches the literal meaning of what Jesus taught in John 8:51 or any of the numerous verses quoted above is damned!
- Jesus said if we "keep on listening and keep on following" Jesus "we should not perish" and "shall not be snatched from my hand." (John 10:27-28.) Notice the verbs are no longer about believing or obeying. They are now listening and following. Assurance has a different source than the specific principles of faith and obedience which should save. The terms Jesus focuses on are, instead, principles of endurance: listening and following. On the correct translation of this verse, see Appendix A: Greek Issues page ii for discussion of John 10:27-28.
The Evangelical Rationale
What is the rationale that explains away Jesus' contrary statements? The evangelical position is that the only command we must obey from Jesus is faith. That supposedly answers all these other commands with a 'not guilty' declaration! Atonement applies across the board now and for every future sin as long as I said I believe in Jesus and trust in His work on the cross. That's the only superficially-satisfactory explanation that has ever been offered on how to square these demanding words from Jesus with Paul's doctrine. 45
But no one cares that Jesus refuted that idea Himself. Jesus was emphatic that the atonement sacrifice does you no good if you have not first appeased the one you had sinned against. Jesus commands you to leave your sacrifice at the sacrifice-place (Jesus' true words), and be first reconciled to the one you offended. Then come with the atoning sacrifice to the sacrifice place. (Matt. 5:23-24). 46
45.The Dispensationalists give up on the attempt to square everything from Jesus with Paul. They admit most of these passages contradict Paul's Gospel. Their solution to the conflict is to toss all these verses from Jesus in the dust-bin of a supposedly defunct dispensation between God and Moses. For extended discussion, see page 387 et seq.
46.See page 265 et seq. for further discussion.
Jesus was saying nothing new. The Prophets of old always said that it was an abuse of the atonement-offerings for an unrepentant person to expect forgiveness from God by such offerings. Unless one already had repented from sin and turned from evil, the atonement had no application to you. 47 Furthermore, no one seems to care that this inflated significance to atonement directly discourages taking seriously the numerous warnings of Jesus to believers. Where Jesus sows doubt, this argument sows assurance. Where Jesus wants believers to fear damnation, this argument sows the unalterable promise of heaven. Where Jesus exhorts the sternest self-control to enter heaven albeit maimed ((Mark 9:42-47)), this view tells you to "relax, sit back" (J. Vernon McGee) and rely on the atonement alone.
47."The Prophets disparaged sacrifices that were offered without a regeneration of the heart, i.e., a determined turning from sin and returning to God by striving after righteousness." ("Korban," Wikipedia Encyclopedia.) Some of the many such verses are: (Mic. 6:6-8), (Joel 2:13), (Hos. 14:1-2); and (Mal. 1:10), 3:3-4. Cf. (Isa. 27:9).
- In 1878, the famous Robert Dabney put forth the Calvinist argument "The certainty that he will not [apostasizej arises... from God's secret...purpose.... Among those appropriate motives [God uses in man] are these very warnings of danger and wholesale fears about apostasy....They are part of that plan by which God ensures that he shall not." (Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mi., Eerdmans, 1971 reprint) at 697.)
When these incongruities were finally faced, the most absurd solution of all was offered. Calvinism teaches that Jesus uses these warnings to sow fear and lack of assurance to fulfill God's supposed absolute assurance that God will never allow us to fall from His predestined will that we will be saved. (This reasoning is compelled by Paul's doctrine of predestination.) However, this makes God deliver a twofaced message. For God would be using warnings that are premised upon attacking assurance to accomplish the very assurance of predestination that Calvinists insist (based upon Paul) is the real truth. If predestination were true, then a believer would have every right instead to believe he has total assurance based on predestination. He thus would be free to disregard the insecurity for his own salvation that Jesus taught. Unless God wants us to accept He can lie to us, Jesus cannot utter threats which negate the very assurance that God supposedly wants us to know we have in the doctrine of predestination. In other words, if Jesus threatens an assurance of a believer, but it is false that any believer has any grounds to doubt his assurance (based on Paul), wouldn't Jesus have to be a liar in uttering the threat in the first place? Of course, He would. The correct solution is to reject any doctrine of Calvinists (and Paul) that would make Jesus into a liar. One of these doctrines is predestination. If you assume Paul is telling the truth, then Jesus is the liar. If Jesus is telling the real truth that our salvation is at risk for certain misbehavior, then Paul's teaching that no such risk exists is false doctrine. I prefer to accept Paul has the false doctrine than swallow the idea that Jesus was deceptive, misleading, or worse.
These Pauline rationalizations are just more proof that much of Christianity has come to despise Jesus' words in preference for another Master: Paul. For what else could explain why anyone would take Jesus' threats and promises which hinge salvation on obedience, in part, and which are clearly directed at us, and yet claim they are really all resolved by Jesus' atonement? Under this Pauline view, all Jesus' warnings were really pointless. All He had to do is tell us about atonement and faith, and leave out all these troublesome threats and promises. What is really afoot is many have decided that rather than let go of Paul and hold onto Jesus, they prefer letting go of Jesus and holding onto Paul.
Bonhoeffer saw through these mental twists and turns. In his famous book entitled The Cost of Discipleship (1937), Bonhoeffer preached Jesus' words alone. He ignored Paul's doctrines. Bonhoeffer saw clearly that Jesus' doctrine of salvation turns on costly obedience to the Law, in particular the Ten Commandments in addition to faith. Bonhoeffer was blunt. He mocked the Modern Gospel as cheap grace. That Modern Gospel ignored Jesus' dominant theme of a personal costliness to receive eternal life. Bonhoeffer says the cheap grace gospel clearly is denying the words of Jesus. Bonhoeffer boldly calls this a "Christianity without Christ." ( Cost of Discipleship (1937) at 39.)
Despising Jesus' Words Via Translation
Thus, it is clear that much of modern Christianity has come to despise our True Master in preference for another Master. If this really is not what is going on, then why would many in the church consent to translators not properly reflecting " keep on believing" is the real language of John 3:16, preferring instead to make it appear a one-time faith ("believes") is at issue? 49 What else explains why translators would change "should have eternal life" improperly into "shall have eternal life" in John 3:16? 50
If the Modern Gospel has not led to the disdain for Jesus' words, then why else would translators make it appear God's wrath remains on those who "disbelieve the Son" in John 3:36 rather than what the verse actually says - God's wrath rests on those who "disobey the Son"? 51
If Christians have not become lax in loyalty to their Lord, why else would there be no anger about the twisting of our Lord's words to Moses in (Gen. 15:6)? For the Lord told Moses that "he (Abram) reckoned it (the promise of 15:5) to Him (God) as righteousness." Premier evangelical scholars of Hebrew concur this is what the Hebrew means if we did not have Paul's words to deal with. God was not reckoning anything to Abraham. It was the reverse: Abraham was reckoning God's promise of (Gen. 15:5) as a righteous deed. This is because the he we see in most translations before reckoned is not actually present in the Hebrew. It is an interpolation. So without interpolating the addition of this he, its meaning is unmistakable in both English and Hebrew syntax: "He (Abram) believed the Lord and reckoned it to Him for righteousness." Hebrew's syntax here is identical to English. The correct meaning for the subject of reckoned was the lie from the earlier clause: Abram. (Later his name was changed by God to Abraham.) Therefore, this verse never had anything to do with the idea of justification by faith, contrary to how Paul construed it.
49.See page 373 et seq. See also, Appendix A: Greek Issues.
-
The KJV preserves the correct tense of the subjunctive in John 3:16 although you have to interpolate it. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but [should] have eternal life." However, the NIV renders it "shall" have eternal life. For the rationalization of using Paul's faith-alone doctrine to do so, see page 381.
-
See page 382 et seq.
52.See page 251 et seq.
Consequently, but for a primary allegiance to Paul, why would anyone tolerate any more the modern translations of (Gen. 15:6) which even as they translate word-for-word correctly, mislead us by (a) interpolating the second he without bracketing it [ e.g ., [he]) and (b) then capitalizing it. Watch how these two alterations trick your mind: "And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness."
(NASB YLT.) But in Hebrew, the meaning is the reverse: "'[he] (i.e., Abram) counted it to Him for righteousness." Same words, but a totally opposite meaning!
But for transferring part of our allegiance from our Lord to Paul, why would anyone tolerate Paul's translation of (Hab. 2:4)? It is no excuse that Paul relied upon the erroneous Greek translation of the Septuagint. Instead, to this very day, we know that Habakkuk 2:4 in Hebrew stands for the opposite of what Paul thought it said! Its true meaning in the original Hebrew is: "The just shall live by his faithfulness ," which in Hebrew means obedient living . 54 The verse thus had actually the opposite meaning from what Paul deduced. The obedient (faithful) are just. One is not justified by faith that is alone! Paul was simply using a wrong translation - a defect which was pointed out two millennia ago in the Dead Sea Scroll Habakkuk Pesher.
53.The King James, NIV, and ASV correctly translate (Gen. 15:6), including omitting any capitalization to the second-clause he. Yet, they do add the second-clause he without indicating it is an interpolation. Some publishers of the KJV do capitalize the second-clause he. Yet, the following versions officially capitalize the second-clause he (and fail to bracket it to indicate it is an interpolation): NASB and YLT. Some even blatantly change the he to the Lord : GWT.
54.See "(Hab. 2:4:) What Does It Really Say?" on page 274 et seq. Only a few translations are correct: "by his steadfastness liveth" (YLT); "faithfulness" (God's Word); "faithful to God" (GNB). The Hebrew word emunah here is derived from a man, "to be firm, last." When used as a personal attribute of man, it means fidelity in word and deed (Jer.7:28; Jer. 9:2; Psalm 37:3.) It is solely a Pauline re-interpretation to replace its sense here by the solitary concept of a mere belief in some truth about God/Jesus/the atonement, etc.
507
What did this ancient commentary on Habakkuk say? It said Haba kk uk 2:4 did not imply faith (as used in the Greek Septuagint) made one just, but rather faithfulness which in the Hebrew meant obedient living did so and made one "saved." 55
Thus, (Hab. 2:4) has always stood for the exact opposite of how Paul understood the verse! However, due to Paul's competing understanding, evangelicals refuse to see that Habakkuk 2:4's view on obedience is the Gospel that the Lord Jesus repeats in the Great Commission, John 8:51, (Matt. 10:22), His parables, and numerous other verses.
Yes, much of modem Christianity has come to accept a competing Master. As a result, it has despised the Lord's words. It has added to and diminished from the Lord's words in violation of (Deut. 4:2). The reason is that Paul's doctrines are treated on par with Jesus' words (whether Jesus expressed them in the New Testament or through the Prophets). This approach has made Paul a competing Master. This preference for Paul is what is used to rationalize skewing Jesus' words in (John 3:16) and elsewhere to fit Paul's words. People criticize the cults (and rightly so) for translating passages to fit their doctrine. Before we evangelicals can take the speck out of their eye, however, we need to take the beam out of our own!
A Clear Example of Suppression of Jesus' Words
People ask me for proof that they can more easily recognize that we have indeed killed off Jesus' words in preference for Paul. They do not know enough classical Greek to uncover the mysteries of John's Gospel. They do not know enough Hebrew to decipher the issues in (Hab. 2:4) or (Gen. 15:6).
- See page 297 et seq.
508
Thus, here is one of the clearest examples of the mental gymnastics used to suppress Jesus' words in preference for Paul's doctrines. It comes from Charles Stanley. No one needs training in classical Greek or in Hebrew to see this.
Charles Stanley is the head of the eighteen million member Baptist church. Stanley comments on Jesus' many parables that discuss "weeping and gnashing of teeth" which servants of His in the parables will suffer typically "outside in darkness." These servants' errors were:
-
not having interest on their talents given by God. Matt. 25:14 ff.
-
abusing fellow Christian servants. Luke 12:41 ff. Matt.24:48 ff
-
failing to have charity to the brothers. Matt. 25:31 ff.
-
being once virgins who later let their oil burn out. Matt. 25:1 ff.
-
being once a "friend" who accepts the "call" and is even seated at the great banquet but when the time for examination comes they lack a "proper robe." Matt. 22:2 ff.
Stanley confesses it is too obvious to deny that Jesus is warning Christians of this place of weeping and gnashing for misbehavior. So isn't Jesus warning Christians hell (weeping and gnashing outside in darkness) if they have the failings of the "unprofitable servant"? If they are an "abusive servant"? If they are "goats" who call Him Lord but do not provide food, clothing and water to the brethren? Etc.
Stanley says no. Charles Stanley insists this "weeping and gnashing" which is "outside in darkness" is in heaven, not hell: "It certainly does not mean hell ...It clearly refers to being thrown outside a building into the dark. There is no mention of pain, fire or worms." 56
56.Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure, supra, at 125.
In arriving at such conclusion, Stanley never discusses His true Master's words in (Matt. 13:42). Jesus calls the place of "weeping and gnashing" in Matthew 13:42 the "fiery furnace " where the angels at the time of final judgement throw those who were "ensnared" in sin. If Stanley discussed that verse, Jesus would no longer fit Paul. Losing Paul is too horrible a consideration. Thus, Jesus and His meaning are sacrificed. As Bonhoeffer said of the modern cheap grace gospel: "Jesus is misunderstood anew, and again and again put to death." (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center (1960) at 39.)
The Dilemma of Two Masters
How did such serious and prominent Christian leaders succumb to positions that hold tightly to Paul, while blatantly disregarding Jesus' words? It is simple. When you have two masters, you have a dilemma. These Christian leaders solved their dilemma by choosing Paul on certain issues. Jesus says when you so choose Paul, then you will love Paul on those issues. Jesus told us the consequence: you will despise your true Master (Jesus) when He speaks on the same issues. Jesus, however, said we cannot live like this. We must choose one over the other. Yet, it is not an acceptable choice to choose Paul over Jesus. Jesus told us to have an allegiance for Him greater than any family or personal ties. (Matt. 10:37.)
Thus, if Jesus and Paul conflict, we must choose Jesus' clear meaning over giving the slightest weight to a contrary teaching from Paul.
However, this approach has not been followed. Modem Christianity in large part has, instead, left Jesus' doctrine in shambles. As Bonhoeffer said of the cheap grace gospel, it is a Christianity without Christ. It denies the costliness of grace. The root cause of this desolation of Jesus' doctrine is the Paul-Jesus division. Jesus explained the eternal principle at work:
Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation-,
and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
(Matt. 12:25)
- Stanley's claim also disregards God's consistent message that in heaven there is "no more sorrow, nor crying." (Rev. 21:4; see also, (Isa. 25:8) "God will wipe away tears from all faces"; Rev. 7:17.)
Regrettably, mainstream Protestantism remains highly divided. The divide is typically drawn on lines that directly trace back to the Paul versus Jesus division. Lutherans who adhere to the mature Luther's Catechisms (like Bonhoeffer), Methodists and Pentecostals along with Messianics tend to stress Jesus' words on salvation and the Law. On the other side are the Baptists, Reformed (conservative) Presbyterians and Evangelicals who accept Luther's youthful emphasis on Paul's doctrines. This Pauline side has several main sub-splinters based upon whether one believes something Paul said deserves greater emphasis than what other churches emphasize. For example, Predestination is highly important in Presbyterianism but is either sometimes ignored or sometimes rejected by certain Baptist scholars and evangelicals. See Dillow's Reign of the Servant Kings. Within this pro-Paul splinter, there are sub-groups who preach Law mixed with Pauline salvation doctrines. For example, some Baptist groups teach restoration of the Sabbath day. What we find then is there are sub-divisions even among Pauline Christians which sometimes lay partial emphasis on something Jesus taught to the detriment of accepting competing doctrine from Paul.
From these conflicts, however, a miracle recently emerged from the Paulunist side. This miracle shows Jesus is drawing the two sides closer together to accept one master both in faith and doctrine: Jesus Christ.
What was this miracle of God? It is John MacArthur's conversion to Jesus' Gospel. MacArthur first announced this in the 1990s. Since then, he has become progressively more centered upon Jesus' Gospel up through his latest work of
58.Lutherans comprise 70 million of the approximately 350 million Protestant Christians. On how Luther's mature writings come close to Jesus ' Words Only, see page 106 et seq.
- 59 MacArthur's writings hold clear eannarks of influence from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship (1937). MacArthur's 2003 work Hard to Believe even has a subtitle drawn from Bonhoefifer: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus. MacArthur has thus bravely weathered the charge of heretic as he holds dearly to the true salvation doctrine of Jesus. Yet, simultaneously, he avows his belief in the Paulunist-Calvinist doctrine of the 'sovereignty
of God' 60 and the "faith alone doctrine."
How does MacArthur reconcile Paul's doctrine to Jesus' Gospel? MacArthur insists that we can simultaneously hold onto Paul and Jesus' true gospel if we just squeeze repentance and obedience to the Law under the meaning of faith alone. 61 MacArthur constantly is trying to thread a needle. He wants to keep all Paul's jargon but re-interpret its meaning in the hope of preserving Jesus' Gospel. 62 It is a valiant effort by a sincere but utterly conflicted man.
Yet, MacArthur represents an extraordinary movement of the Spirit bringing the Calvinist and Lutheran sides closer together on doctrine. MacArthur is speaking from the Calvinist side tilting in favor of JWO on salvation. Bonhoeffer speaks likewise from the Lutheran side in favor of JWO.
59.See, e.g., "One Big Surprise" on page 366.
60.The 'sovereignty-of-God' doctrine is a euphemism for the doctrine that God directs and ordains evil thoughts and objectives yet supposedly remains untainted by such direction. See page 433. For MacArthur's defense of the 'sovereignty-of-God' doctrine, see MacArthur, Hard to Believe (Nelson: 2003) at 34-35. He admits evangelicals call this doctrine 'dreadful,' 'blasphemy,' 'God-dishonoring.' 'incongruous,'and 'the most twisted thing 1 have ever read.' Citing only Paul, MacArthur insists it is true. To deny it, MacArthur puts us in a box: it only can be denied if one is willing to deny Paul's validity. That's the step that MacArthur thought was unthinkable. However, it is that step which God's honor demands we consider. What John MacArthur supposed was unthinkable is the correct question rather than accepting a teaching so dreadful and God-dishonoring as what Calvinists euphemistically refer to as the 'sovereignty-of-God doctrine.'
61.See Footnote 23, page 399.
Thus, MacArthur and Bonhoeffer must reflect what is going on inside the hearts and minds of many believers. God is moving. God wants us to know there is no need any longer to live with such internal tension between two competing doctrines. Instead, there is one obvious solution. It will erase all this confusion and division. What if within Christianity, we all simultaneously agreed Jesus' words were the sole inspired source to formulate church doctrine? Jesus prayed that "they all may be one...." (John 17:21.) Jesus wanted this unity so His message would be unified and a better witness. What more sensible and better way to obey Jesus' intentions than to unite on the single-source of Jesus' words to formulate doctrine? It's the obvious solution to this nagging disunity. Unless we take this brave step, our witness for Christ is marred. And we will continue to defy our Lord's wishes of unity for us.
62.To see MacArthur's conflicting reasonings in just one book, see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles (Nelson: 2000). He condemns once saved always saved. (Id. at 158-159.) He then affirms perserverance of the saints. (Id.) MacArthur doctrine teaches salvation depends on repentance from sin and submission. (Id. at 7.) Yet, salvation is by grace through faith. (Id. at 8.) Jesus supposedly said little about justification. (Id. at 78.) While the Law can never justify, yet the true believer will persevere in obedience. (Id. at 9, 83.) But to what end is perserverance? Then MacArthur says that no-Lordship doctrine that prevails in evangelical churches is killing the church. It teaches salvation even if does not "continue believing" or turns into "hostile unbelief." (Id. at 33.) No-lordship wrongly teaches faith in "a message," not in Jesus per se. (Id. at 34.) True faith "necessarily impacts behavior." (Id. at 35.) MacArthur then tries to un-entwine faith and works so works is never a condition of salvation. (Id. at 36.) Yet, then he says that "faith that remains idle is no better than the faith that demons display." (Id. at 37.) One can see a valiant effort to hold onto Jesus' gospel despite the agonizing pressure to conform to Paul's gospel. It is a brave but ultimately unavailing effort.