A Disturbing Post by John MacArthur
Confusion over sanctification, thanks to the Reformed camp, continues to reign in Christianity. The few who do get it in the institutional Reformed church are not calling out the perpetrators by name, and I think that is a big mistake. A post by John MacArthur is indicative of the horrible confusion being propagated among God’s people in regard to sanctification.
Per the typical, the grave concern is “Counterfeit Sanctification.” This concept in and of itself is confusing and unbiblical. The overriding concern among the apostles and Christ was counterfeit justification, not a micromanaging of our motives in sanctification. To this point, in vogue among the Reformed is the idea that Galatians is primarily a sanctification concern. Hence, the tone of Galatians is lent to confusing justification and sanctification. The post by MacArthur reflects the reason that paralyzing fear and confusion are rampant in Christianity. Most Evangelicals in our day are ill prepared to lead others to Christ because they are unclear themselves on the difference between justification and sanctification.
Though much of the post is agreeable (no surprise since error always swims in the lake of truth), MacArthur begins to state confusing concepts in the third paragraph:
But that’s not true spiritual growth—it’s counterfeit. If you truly love the Lord, you can’t be willing to move the goalposts on biblical sanctification.
Then in the next paragraph…
There are many varieties of counterfeit sanctification. Some are easier to spot than others, but all lead to the same kind of spiritual shipwreck. Here are a few to be on the lookout for in your own life.
For sure, sanctification is deep waters, but notice the close correlation MacArthur makes between properly understanding sanctification and the separate issue of justification; viz, “If you truly love the Lord,” and “all lead to the same kind of spiritual shipwreck.” And there are “many varieties” with varying degrees of difficulty in ascertaining. But then MacArthur follows that up with warnings about things that the Bible specifically tells us to practice in sanctification!
Restraint is another possible kind of counterfeit sanctification. People don’t always avoid sin in favor of righteousness—sometimes they’re simply afraid to face the consequences of sin. They don’t necessarily have a heart to obey God or His Word. They’re just afraid of pursuing temptation because of the results.
The Bible instructs Christians to “abstain” (2Thess 4:3) from unrighteousness and even posits the fear of judgment as a motivation (2Thess 4:6). When offering an example of “counterfeit sanctification” that is something the Bible instructs us to do, it would seem that further qualification would be in order to prevent confusion. Nevertheless, MacArthur continues:
That fear could be the sign of a well-trained conscience. Maybe the person was raised in a Christian home and has built-in convictions about right and wrong. Maybe he grew up under the moral standard of God’s Word and can’t shake the nagging of his conscience. Rather than face a troubled conscience or the consequences of his sin, he’ll simply not do it.
But again, the New Testament, in many places, commands us to “keep a clear conscience before God.” The New Testament writers had much to say about utilizing and developing the conscience for purposes of spiritual growth. The Bible even speaks directly to a well-trained conscience being the opposite of spiritual immaturity (Romans 14).
My primary point of contention here is MacArthur’s steroidal hypocrisy. While chiding others for not being biblically clear and concise, he warns Christians against specific biblical imperatives with little qualification.
It’s eerily similar to the whole Reformed motif of sanctification being something that we shouldn’t try at home without the infinite wisdom of Reformed thought. Learn and do is a concept that is grasping at shadows without their deep knowledge of God’s word.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“I have known many professed believers whose approach to God continued to be performance based. Though they had professed faith in Christ, they continued to think in terms of attaining or retaining a right standing with God by their performance. If that is our view of the Christian life, we are clearly not believers. I am not suggesting that we must question our motive for everything we do before we act. I am suggesting that we must examine our view of life. Are we “obeying” to gain God’s justifying favor or because we have been fully accepted in the Beloved one?”
Jon, I certainly hope believers are thinking constantly about their behavior, actions, words and how they affect others around them. Our behavior, love, compassion, honesty, intergrity, etc, etc should be so obvious as believers that we ARE the city on the hill to the world.
Instead, I am hearing all the time about sinners, sin. Excuses, excuses. I am even hearing believers claim they have mixed motives or don’t even know their motives for behavior. What do we expect since we are totally depraved?. Now you tell me my motives have to be a certain way before doing good counts or it could be a sort of sin.
So, I am coming to the conclusion that being around many Christians is dangerous. I need to lock up the children and hide the silver. I should expect sin from them. I should wonder if they are doing good out of the right motivation.
Jon wrote: “Are we “obeying” to gain God’s justifying favor or because we have been fully accepted in the Beloved one?”
What would be the converse of that thinking? Why not be reprobate so we can prove we are not trying to earn God’s favor? We can prove Grace is cheap by doing so. Hey I think CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll are doing just that these days!
You do not understand that we see Justification totally different than you do. It is done. Either you accept the free gift or you don’t. I don’t have to earn it. It was made available to me.
Now, what am I to do with it? Grow in Holiness. And what does that look like? Jesus. Not the celebrity gurus.
LikeLike
“You, like MacArthur, argue from a false premise, and frankly, a false gospel. The premise is that justification is an ongoing work called “sanctification.”
Bingo.
All that stuff can keep people so twisted in fake spiritual pretzels they are paralyzed in their navel gazing. Go forth and live in the victory Christ provided over evil in synergy with the Holy Spirit who is your counselor.Be the best human you can be while on this earth. Just like Jesus was. (Who was not real patient with the religous leaders of his day, either)
LikeLiked by 1 person
It might be helpful to discuss the issue of motive in terms of the Galatian problem. The issue was not Gentile circumcision as such. There is certainly nothing wrong with a Gentile male opting to be circumcised. The problem would be one’s motive for submitting to such a rite. If a person submitted to circumcision to gain God’s favor, he would not lose his justification, he would simply demonstrate that he was not trusting in Christ alone for justifying favor and Christ would profit him nothing. In that case, his sanctification would prove counterfeit because his justification was counterfeit. Unjustified people are not being sanctified. The point that Mac and others would make is the true sanctification will always occur in the life of everyone who has been justified. If so-called sanctification is not genuine, there is every reason to question whether justification has occurred.
LikeLike
No Jon, I think it would be more helpful if you answer my three questions. What’s the problem?
LikeLike
Lydia,
You persist in misrepresenting what I am writing. It is as if you don’t even read my comments. I don’t believe in or teach “cheap grace.” In fact, I teach just the opposite. Your posts are full of red herrings. Stick to the issue.
LikeLike
No Jon, answer my 3 questions or you’re done here.
LikeLike
Paul,
Quick answers since I have to go soon. The answer to your first question would depend to some extent on the definition of “law.” Since justification is forensic in nature, it would have to be a declaration in relation to a legal standard. Nothing else would make sense. Second question–the standing of the true believer never changes. Third question–I believe there will one judgment in which different issues will be judged. The believer does not need to wait until the judgment to learn if he is accepted or not.
LikeLike
Lol! Those are answers? When the Reformed get cornered it is always the “short answer” because you know, what they know is sooooo deep that it would take a book to properly answer the question. So classic. I also like the one where you can’t know anything about Calvin unless you read every word of everything he wrote while he wasn’t executing people.
Let me help you out “Jon.” Your answer to the third question answers the first two. If there is no law in justification, and the unregenerate will be judged by the law, and they will be, believers cannot and will not stand in that judgement. There is nothing to judge them with. One judgement =’s sanctification being progressive justification. if justification is a finished work;ie, static, and sanctification is separate, a separate resurrection and judgment is needed.
LikeLike
I have to go, but that is what I meant when I said different issues will be judged. A believer’s right standing will not be determined by a final judgment. That is a settled issue. I will answer your questions more fully when I return if you wish
LikeLike
How so? The Bible makes it clear that only the damned will appear at that judgement.
LikeLike
Ya, I wish for you to tell me how Christians wind up in a judgement that the Bible clearly states is for the condemned only.
LikeLike
“It might be helpful to discuss the issue of motive in terms of the Galatian problem. The issue was not Gentile circumcision as such. There is certainly nothing wrong with a Gentile male opting to be circumcised. The problem would be one’s motive for submitting to such a rite. If a person submitted to circumcision to gain God’s favor, he would not lose his justification, he would simply demonstrate that he was not trusting in Christ alone for justifying favor and Christ would profit him nothing. In that case, his sanctification would prove counterfeit because his justification was counterfeit. Unjustified people are not being sanctified. The point that Mac and others would make is the true sanctification will always occur in the life of everyone who has been justified. If so-called sanctification is not genuine, there is every reason to question whether justification has occurred.”
Now you have really confused the issue. The problem was circumcision was presented as a requirement for salvation by Jewish converts because of the Abrahamic covenant promise. . See the Jerusalem Council, too. But note, the Jerusalem council did recommend avoiding certain things notin order to be saved but in living out the Christian life in a more composite socity of believers since food was such an issue back then. Converted Jews/prostylites had kosher type requirements and the pagans had their branded food from idols. Can you imagine the confusion/problems that created?
They were making circumcision a salvic issue. After all, one cannot keep receiving circumcision over and over.It is a one time deal, too.
LikeLike
:”Since justification is forensic in nature, it would have to be a declaration in relation to a legal standard. Nothing else would make sense. ”
Oh dear. I am seeing penal subsitutionary atonement theory in this answer.
LikeLike
“You persist in misrepresenting what I am writing. It is as if you don’t even read my comments. I don’t believe in or teach “cheap grace.” In fact, I teach just the opposite. Your posts are full of red herrings. Stick to the issue.”
Sorry I did not communicate better.
Here is what I wrote in response to your comment::
Jon wrote: “Are we “obeying” to gain God’s justifying favor or because we have been fully accepted in the Beloved one?”
What would be the converse of that thinking? Why not be reprobate so we can prove we are not trying to earn God’s favor? We can prove Grace is cheap by doing so. Hey I think CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll are doing just that these days!
I was looking at the opposite of what you are claiming about having the right motives. . Not accusing you of believing in cheap grace.
Sorry I was not more clear. I guess the bottomline for me is that how we live as the kingdom now is all important. I have no idea what anyone’s motives are. All I can see or hear is what sort of fruit is produced by claiming salvation. And today much rotten fruit is being marketed as good fruit.
LikeLike
Nothing but Dispensational delusion would lead anyone to the conclusion that there will be more than one judgment. One of the many errors of Dispensationalism is the tendency to find distinctions where they do not exist. Careful scrutiny of the pertinent passages usually reveals the biblical writers have simply used different terms to describe the same event.
It is clear from Matt. 25 that both sheep and goats will stand before Christ in judgment. Such judgment is not determinative but declarative. We don’t have to wait until the judgment to see of we made it. Books such as 1 Jn. tell us how we can know that we know in the here and now. Jesus said unbelievers already stand condemned and believers are not condemned [presently]. As far as I can see, there is nothing in any New Testament passage that would rule out one tribunal with more that one issue being considered.
In reality, this question is aside from the issue. The real issue is your false assumption that the law is not the standard to measure what is righteous and thus not the standard for justification. Yet, you wrote recently, “But unbelievers are still under the law, and will be judged by that written law and the law of conscience—that will not go well.” It appears you are saying the law, both written and unwritten will be the standard for condemnation. How can the law be the standard for unbelievers and not for believers? Justification is the antithesis of condemnation. Law cannot be the standard for one without being the standard for the other. That believers are not condemned by the law does not mean it was not the standard for condemnation/justification. It merely means all the righteous requirements of the law have been fully met for the believer.
LikeLike
Right Bubba. In Rev 20, “first” resurrection doesn’t mean first, it’s a “different term” for the “second death.” You make me sick Randy, and you are a stalker now here using an eighth alias. You represent Calvinism well–the others just hide their narcissism more efficiently. You guys, every one of you, are the same: your gnosis is so beyond what we can’t understand that “first” doesn’t rally mean “first” and “second” doesn’t really mean “second.” You are a psychopath like all Calvinists. And by the way, why does a law that only brings death in regard to justification need to be fulfilled? It can only bring death in regard to justification. There is NO law that can give life for justification. You continually come here and regurgitate your views based on the fusion of justification and sanctification. One is a finished work, the other is not.
LikeLike