Customer Reviews: Read 87 more reviews...
 Good depiction of Jesus January 5, 2009
The Gospel According to Jesus: What Is Authentic Faith? by John MacArthur is a book that tries to get the reader to start believing in the true Jesus. If one is to truly follow Jesus they might have to change their lifestyle and soften their hardened heart. Following Jesus may be harder than you first believed. I believe one should always read books like these along with the actual Bible.
There is a beautiful new book about Jesus, God , faith and what you will do after death entitled "The Enlightenment, What God Told Me After One Million Prayers: A Message for Everyone," by John H. Eagan. I just finished it. It's really great and deals with God, the creator, Jesus' teachings, and His Passion. It brought me to tears. I think the readers of MacArthur's book will really enjoy The Enlightenment.
Solid, theological teachings.... November 4, 2008
I would have given this book 5 stars, but gave it 4 instead because its a very intense book to read. At times the verbage is a bit intense, even for me who considers myself to have a very good reading comprehension.
Other than that - I think it is a great book for a Evangelical Christian wanting more 'meat' in their readings.
 the gospel according to Jesus October 17, 2008
This book is the most powerful book on what real faith means that I have ever read. A+ on this one.
I think it's BOTH! July 17, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Grace and Works are often set in opposition to each other. Personally, I think a lot of these divisions are academic, nuanced discussions that the average lay person could care less about. Intuitively, I think we all recognize that God sought us out and His efforts through the life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Christ saved/saves us. We also intuitively know/feel that effort cost Jesus his life and He performs an ongoing intecessory ministry on our behalf. I have to agree with Dr. MacArthur, if for no other reason (and there ARE plenty of OTHER reasons), our gratitude and love should compell us to live in obedience and pursue holiness. JESUS IS LORD...OUR LORD. We should act like it.
Those who protest submitting to the Lordship of Jesus tell us much about the quality of their faith and their "citizenship" in God's Kingdom. It is HIS kingdom. He is Lord. He commands. We obey. Period. Get over it.
 Largely incoherent July 5, 2008
5 out of 10 found this review helpful
To paraphrase Chafer, the violence done to the understanding of scripture by confusing Israel and the Church is incalculable.
MacArthur starts this book describing how its thesis was derived through a multi-year study of the Book of Matthew. With Matthew in the front of his mind (a book almost exclusively designed to document Jesus as the bona fide Messianc King, and with only a handful of veiled references to the Church), he derived the core of his soteriology. No wonder the result is nonsense.
Given that the topic is essentially a battle over the definition of the word "grace", I was shocked that there was almost no mention of it. He should have at least presented his own outline of the fundamental concepts behind grace. If he had such a disagreement with "free grace", he should also have been able to refute Chafer's definition of it in detail. Instead, though people like Chafer were mentioned in passing, his treatment of grace was largely ignored.
I would have expected that, if MacArthur's view of salvation were legitimate, he would have been able to find numerous examples of saved people throughout the New Testament who followed his scheme. Of course, he couldn't because they aren't there. Other than the incestuous believer in 1st Corinthians, who he discounts as a believer because he can't imagine that a believer could do such a thing, he spends almost no time showing how his theory played out with the characters of the Bible.
He could have mentioned David (but he was an adulterous murderer, and Christians would never do such a thing), or Nicodemus (but he was a "secret believer", and such a thing doesn't fit with his all or nothing approach), or the Ethiopian official of Acts (but, since he makes no comment about a plan for lifelong dedication, this wouldn't really help his argument). I'd have been interested to hear how he explains Paul sending letters to scores of people he still considers Christians though they are gossiping, slandering, engaging in orgies, stealing, etc. Or for that matter, how does he explain people clearly identified as Christians whom God punishes through death due to disobedience. None of this is seriously addressed.
The logical fallacy is this: How can something that happens chronologically years after a decision for salvation (which is grammatically described in Greek with a perfect tense, meaning it is absolutely established forever) affect the decision? His position would be much easier to defend if he believed a person could lose his salvation, but he does not. Instead, he tries to point to a sort of genetic defect that was part of the salvation decision, and which only manifested itself long afterwards. How, as 1st John puts it, is anyone supposed to have any confidence in their salvation?
The only fairly solid part of the book was his chapter on Justification. There were a couple of holes in it, but I wish the adherents to Lordship Salvation would sit down and just meditate on what he wrote on this. The sacrifice has already been made, and the moment of salvation results in position with Christ. How can your ignorant commitment improve on this?
|
