tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post7401634196848585459..comments2023-09-01T16:11:44.564+08:00Comments on Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): John MacArthur, justification and sanctificationDaniel Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-29052397830668752772014-02-02T06:54:13.685+08:002014-02-02T06:54:13.685+08:00I don't think MacArthur was "putting word...I don't think MacArthur was "putting words into Jesus' mouth." He was paraphrasing what he thinks the text is saying. And as I have said, you can't just take an isolated quote and impute whatever meaning you think it means. You need to interpret that ambiguous quote in the larger context of what MacArthur is actually saying.<br /><br />And there is nothing wrong with saying Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-44566788272244104962014-02-02T06:54:13.021+08:002014-02-02T06:54:13.021+08:00I don't think MacArthur was "putting word...I don't think MacArthur was "putting words into Jesus' mouth." He was paraphrasing what he thinks the text is saying. And as I have said, you can't just take an isolated quote and impute whatever meaning you think it means. You need to interpret that ambiguous quote in the larger context of what MacArthur is actually saying.<br /><br />And there is nothing wrong with saying Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-12092509208937295562014-02-02T03:18:51.426+08:002014-02-02T03:18:51.426+08:00I'd be happy to interact with more of MacArthu...I'd be happy to interact with more of MacArthur said in your quotation. Look at the words he places into Jesus's mouth, which you quoted and I verified as MacArthur's. But he says that Jesus said them! He says that Jesus said "unless I can be the highest authority in your life, there is no salvation for you." He even puts them in double quotes, as if Jesus actually said Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17548005503765076487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-83804878379819307692014-02-02T01:28:02.811+08:002014-02-02T01:28:02.811+08:00@Larry,
you claimed to read into MacArthur what i...@Larry,<br /><br />you claimed to read into MacArthur what is not there. I don't see any real engagement with what he actually writes besides the usual "quote one sentence out of context."Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-4135110629240014462014-02-02T00:03:27.527+08:002014-02-02T00:03:27.527+08:00Of course, now we can also talk about methodology....Of course, now we can also talk about methodology. No idea is justifiable merely because it's fighting against a different bad idea. Many people attempt this, for example, politicians, saying, "vote for change, not [insert bad idea]." Change to what? Similarly, the fact that someone is against antinomianism does not justify their thoughts. That's a Hegelian view, that the Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17548005503765076487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-76606673031978000772014-02-01T23:25:37.327+08:002014-02-01T23:25:37.327+08:00Of course acknowledgement of Lordship is evidentia...Of course acknowledgement of Lordship is evidentiary. MacArthur's argument tries to enlist the converse, the supposed non-acknowledgment of Christ's Lordship by the rich young ruler (which, by the way, he inserted into the text: it's not there! A great example of an "ad hoc" attempt to make the issue something brought into the text from the outside.) Put yourself into the Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17548005503765076487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-71296789132691020082014-02-01T16:09:50.112+08:002014-02-01T16:09:50.112+08:00@Larry,
one cannot divorce MacArthur's statem...@Larry,<br /><br />one cannot divorce MacArthur's statements from the context he situates them in, and I think it is clear that the Sitz in Leben is that such acknowledgment of lordship is evidentiaryDaniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-8975180365885461942014-02-01T13:00:53.750+08:002014-02-01T13:00:53.750+08:00No. The very words you quoted show that there was...No. The very words you quoted show that there was as of 2008, hopefully not now, a substitution of sanctification for justification. "'Those who are not willing to turn from sin, possessions, false religion, or selfishness will find they cannot turn to Christ in faith.' (p. 99)". Here you find a pre-conversion (because as yet, such people "cannot turn to Christ in faith&Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17548005503765076487noreply@blogger.com