Featured John MacArthur takes on some of Arminianism's teachings

He didn’t say anything of either men, but his analysis of the debate offered cautions for both sides of the argument. Regarding lordship theists he noted a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the opposing view. He highlighted the emphasis of regeneration over justification. MacArthur’s insistence of works as evidence of genuine salvation seems to be saying (at times) “where there are works, there is salvation,” which is problematic.

The bottom line was a suggestion that they refine their logic. “MacArthur has also been ambiguous in his discussion of the relationship of obedience to faith. He seems to alternate between saying that obedience is synonymous with faith, that it is a part of faith, and that it is an inevitable accompaniment of faith. Such statements do not contribute to precise understanding. Similarly, he seems to say both that repentance is part of faith and that it is an invariable companion of faith. This also introduces confusion.”

He notes that both sides are closer than they may realize and suggests that they need to lower the emotional tone of the rhetoric and engage in Christian debate/exploration of the issue. “This dispute has the potential for dividing congregations and the entire church of Jesus Christ, perhaps unnecessarily.”

Lastly, he notes that “it is one thing to be unaware, or at least not consciously aware, of the lordship of Christ, and another to be aware of it and reject it…it is quite possible that a great deal is implicit in a commitment to Jesus Christ.” Erickson sees this area in need of refinement.

 

I'm not exactly sure where this is or was going. The "grace by faith" crowd like Hodges does not believe that you "say a prayer" and are saved.

Hodges thinks that you are saved by faith apart from works - works are a result of faith, but not necessary for salvation. He definitely does not believe that a true Christian can become "unsaved" - even if they desired such. I don't agree with a lot of his theology (the two types of redeemed, for example) - but you can't dismiss his views on lordship so easily. He does point out a difficulty in MacArthur's position (works as a requirement of salvation rather its result - sometimes, depending on the sermon Mac's giving).

I lean more towards MacArthur - except that I believe works are a product of genuine faith and not necessary for salvation itself (I don't think you can separate believing Christ as Savior AND Lord and I don't think that you can separate repentance from belief - they are two sides of the same coin). But some of MacArthur's comments are questionable or at least in need of some refinement.

 

He does get dogmatic about some things that are not definitively prescribed in Scripture – but all in all I like his sermons. I do feel that he is week in examining opposing beliefs – he misrepresents opposing theology or views - but he has a strong understanding of his own and articulates his position well.