I. F. C. A. Meeting (June 26, 1989), Part 2

Selected Scriptures

     Moderator:  On the two natures, and this writer asks for a yes or no answer only, is Romans 7 dealing with the struggles of a believer or a nonbeliever? 

     John MacArthur:  A believer.

     Moderator:  All right.  All right, then this question, there's a rather lengthy quote here from your commentary on Ephesians.  The quote is as follows.  "Biblical terminology, then, does not say that the Christian has two different natures.  He has but one nature, the new nature in Christ.  The old self dies and the new self lives.  They do not coexist.  It is not a remaining old nature but the remaining garment of sinful flesh that causes Christians to sin.  The Christian is a single new person, a totally new creation, not a spiritual schizophrenic." 

     In light of this statement, which you have published, how can you be in full agreement and heartily sign the IFCA doctrinal statement, which says we believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural?  Would you say that your writing and opinions along this line of thinking are confusing if not contrary to the IFCA position on the two natures?

     John MacArthur:  No, the reason I can sign the doctrinal statement is because I know what you mean by that.  When you say the believer has two natures, I know what you mean to say by that.  The only difference that I make is that those are not Biblical terms, and that's the only issue. 

     I believe in the struggle of Romans chapter 7 as the normal struggle for every believer.  But I don't...I choose to use Biblical terminology.  Again, it arises out of a study of Romans 6 and 7.  Any of you who would want to know the answer to where I stand on this, I have a little book called Freedom From Sin on Romans 6 and 7. 

     I believe...I can sign the doctrinal statement, let me say it that way, because I believe the intent of everything that is said there.  I simply would not use the terms two natures.  And I'll give you a...I'll give you an exegetical reason.  Those are not used in the Bible. 

     I'll give you a theological reason.  You've got an epistemological problem, or a problem in terminology.  If I say that I have an old nature...okay?...what do I mean by that?  I'm what?  I'm not saved.  Okay.  If I say when I got saved I got a new nature, how have I just described salvation?  What is it?  Addition.  It isn't addition.  It is what?

     Response:  Regeneration.

     John MacArthur:  It's transformation.  And that is why I don't like the idea...you know, the old deal that you've got two dogs, a black dog and a white dog, who wins?...the one you say, "Sic 'em" to, that kind of theology...I don't like to think of my salvation as here I am, this wretched, corrupt person, and now somewhere in the midst of my wretched, corrupt nature God stuck a new nature. 

     That doesn't transform me.  That is inconsistent with Galatians 2:20.  "I am crucified with Christ."  What is crucifixion an emblem of?  Death.  I died.  What died?  My old ego.  Nevertheless, I live, a new ego.  I am a new creation in Christ.  But that new creation is incarcerated in unredeemed flesh. 

     That's why in Romans 8 he's crying out, saying, "We wait for the redemption of our" what?  Of our body.  And by body he doesn't just mean the physical body.  All of the bodily appetites that are in your mind and your emotions and your will, all unredeemed humanness in which is incarcerated the new creation. 

     And there is the conflict, the new creation, which is a transformed inner person.  That's why Paul says in Romans 7, "In the inner man, I delight in the law of God."  Right?  "But I have this principle in me of sin."  I see that.  I just don't like to call it two natures, because it makes salvation look like addition rather than transformation, and it forces people to deal with terms they can't find in the Bible. 

     And so when I teach my people, I try to always use Biblical terms.  In Romans 8, what would it say?  It would have to read like this.  "We wait for the elimination of our old nature."  It doesn't say that.  "We wait for the transformation of our body to match the transformation of that inner part of us." 

     Now, I don't want to get too technical in splitting that all up, because that gets real deep, and it's way beyond me.  The new birth is still a mystery.  But I just like to use Biblical terms.  So I don't have any problem signing that, because what the statement intends to say is that you have a principle of new life, a principle of sin, at war with each other in the believer.  It's just what you call them. 

     And I would rather use Biblical terms, as I try to, in carefully going through Romans 6 and 7, than to just simply call them two natures.  That's okay, and Randy Showers has a good little book in which he redefines natures in such a way that I can accept that.  But I'd rather stick with the Biblical terminology. 

     He calls...I think he calls nature a predisposition, and that's fine.  I don't have any problem with that.  But I'd rather talk about sin that is in me...where?...that is in my flesh, my unredeemed humanness.  Just use Paul's terms.  Then when people go back to the Bible and they read it, they say, "Oh, yeah, I remember that.  That fits what I heard."  So it's just terminology.

     Moderator:  Any questions from the panel on the two natures?

     Harold Freeman:  Yes.

     Moderator:  Harold Freeman?

     Harold Freeman:  John, are you familiar with Buswell's definition of a nature?

     John MacArthur:  I'm not sure.  James Buswell?

     Harold Freeman:  Yes.  He calls a nature a complex of attributes.

     John MacArthur:  Yeah.  That's good.

     Harold Freeman:  And if you use nature in that way, you would be right at home with the word nature.

     John MacArthur:  Sure.  Sure.  I...

     Harold Freeman:  Because, now, just a word that is Biblical, you're not uncomfortable with Trinity.

     John MacArthur:  Right.

     Harold Freeman:  You use that.  But that's not a Biblical term.

     John MacArthur:  Right.

     Harold Freeman:  But it's Biblical truth.

     John MacArthur:  It's Biblical truth.  Sure.

     Harold Freeman:  So, with regard to the nature, if a nature is truly a complex of attributes, we have the attributes of humanness.

     John MacArthur:  I have no problem with that.  I would agree with that.

     Harold Freeman:  In that struggle in Romans 7.  Right?

     John MacArthur:  Thank you for helping me.  That's good.  As a complex of attributes, or as, like I mentioned earlier, a disposition which is composed of all those...sure.  I have no problem with that at all.  I would believe that.  Good.

     Moderator:  George?

     George:  A question that may be helpful to me would be, I'm sure you're familiar with the book Birthright by David...

     John MacArthur:  Mm-hmm.

     George:  David Needham.  Would you be comfortable with his position in the light of the book?  Could the book join the IFCA comfortably?

     John MacArthur:  Needham's book is really just sort of a regripping of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' view, which is pretty much a historic view.  I don't know whether he could join the IFCA.  I guess I'm trying to find that out today, you know, in my own case.  But I'm not sure what you all would tolerate in terms of terminology. 

     But I...the book goes a little too far for me, just in general.  I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the implications of making the division too strong.  And I think he fragments the believer into too clear a division.  I'm a little uncomfortable with that. 

     But I'm certain that both he and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, from whom he drew most of that material, would affirm the sinfulness of the believer, that there is a real entity of sin within the life of the believer.  But I think he goes a little bit far in making the division and distinction.

     Moderator:  Okay.  Thank you.  Now we move into the final category, which we want to spend the rest of the...of our time on, salvation.  And the first question, John, is, could you explain your motive and intent behind writing the book, The Gospel According to Jesus?

     John MacArthur:  Well, I mean, that's a hard question to answer without sounding a little self-serving or pious.  But I have to tell you, I felt like a man under compulsion.  It's hard to assess motive.  You know, I'd like to think all my motives were pure. 

     I don't think it was financial.  Patricia and I devoted all that God has given us from that book back into the Lord's work, so it hasn't brought any money to us.  I don't think it was...I don't think I was trying to confuse the church. 

     But I wrote that book...let me give you just a brief statement of background.  When I was in high school, I had a very dear friend, played on our baseball team, played on our football team.  We were buddies.  He played first base, I played shortstop.  He played a backup quarterback position and I was a tailback and we were close.  He was...his father was real active in a church group, and of course my father was a pastor.  We did a lot of personal evangelism in those days, and we'd go down to Pershing Square in LA and witness. 

     And Ralph went away to Redlands University.  I saw him after his second year after I had been in college.  And I was so glad to see him.  And he said, "John, something's changed."  I said, "What?"  He said, "I'm an atheist."  I was shocked.  I said, "What do you mean you're an atheist?"  He said, "I don't believe in God.  I don't believe any of that blankety blank stuff in the Bible."  And I just didn't have a category in my theology to put him in at that point. 

     I went away to college.  I had a very, very similar experience with a number of guys that I knew who named the name of Christ at one point in time and who abandoned Christ.  The guy that sticks in my mind most of all, I was...my senior year at college he was my running mate in the backfield.  He was a great football player.  We had great times together. 

     He was a youth pastor on the weekends.  He taught the college Sunday School class in a Presbyterian church and I taught the college Sunday School class for my dad.  We always compared notes.  And he graduated.  I went on to seminary.  He went on to get a Ph.D. in psychology, went to teach at Cal State University in Long Beach, and I picked up the Times one day to find out that he had brought nude students onto the...into the classroom and was demonstrating sexual stuff in front of the whole class. 

     He was defrocked, kicked out of the school.  Found out he was selling drugs on the side.  He wound up with a seven-year prison sentence.  You know, when you play football with a guy for three years, you get close.  He was student