All LS Discussions and Debates

[Lou Martuneac]

SkyPair:

While I appreciate your note, I have OFTEN times shared my appreciation for MacArthur’s views, when I can appreciate them. This includes calling on believers to live in obedience to the lordship pf Christ. LS, however, is a radical departure from the Gospel of Grace. LS is man centered and a message that conditions salvation on the lost man’s commitment to behave like a Christian is expected to behave.

As for "<i>these criticisms</i>," I do not need respond to personal attacks on character and motives. The Lord will sort it out in any event. See Matthew 7:1-2.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Regardless of what Dr. John MacArthur says, as well as the fact that you are attempting to put words into the mouth of Lou Martuneac, here, which to my knowledge, at least, he has never even suggested, what is the effective difference between what you are saying in my bolded part and what Lou Martuneac has said, above? More than one poster on this board and forum have said that 'obedience' is necessary for salvation, in so many words, if not using my exact phraseology. I believe they would come under the category of "Lordship Salvation" advocates. I can look up names, if absolutely necessary, but I believe you would (or at least should) know this to be true.

Ed:

Thanks for the note. I have made my position clear on repentance, justification and sanctification, but as you noted some of the LS sympathizers are determined to redefine me. IMO this is for the sole purpose of deflecting legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of LS as defined by John MacArthur.

It is a common debate tactic used by men who are driven by raw emotionalism.

Do you notice the hypocrisy? We quote MacArthur from his own books, and in context and are told that we are misrepresenting him. I am NOT quoted and they are telling others what I believe. Ironic, funny!


LM

 

[DHK]

I recommend the following answers to Lordship Salvation, all of which quote LS teachers very liberally and in context.

Here is what I would recommend.

Give your definition of Lordship Salvation, not necessarily JM's.
Then have your debate about it.
Do not mention JM once in your discussions. Keep him and all of his material out of the discussion, as well as others, whether pro or con.

We claim that we believe in sola scriptura. Let's act like it. There is no reason to tear down Godly men or attack them. It the doctrine is Scriptural it will stand or fall by the sword of the Word. Use the Bible alone to either defend or attack the doctrine, not the books of another man. We all have read enough by now that we are acquainted with the doctrine. Now define it by Scripture, and stick to the Word of God for your defence no matter what side you are on.

Fair enough?

 

[Havensdad]

We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is:

Anyone who believes Paul was Biblically presenting the Gospel here, believes in LS, whether they like to acknowledge it, or not.

Could these men have said "Nah, we like sacrificing to Zeus. We don't want to give it up. But we'll throw your God in there too..."?

If you believe they COULD have said that, and done that, and been saved, you agree with Lou. If you believe they could not have done that, you agree with scripture...and J. Mac.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Here is what I would recommend.

Give your definition of Lordship Salvation, not necessarily JM's.
Then have your debate about it.
Do not mention JM once in your discussions. Keep him and all of his material out of the discussion, as well as others, whether pro or con.

We claim that we believe in sola scriptura. Let's act like it. There is no reason to tear down Godly men or attack them. It the doctrine is Scriptural it will stand or fall by the sword of the Word. Use the Bible alone to either defend or attack the doctrine, not the books of another man. We all have read enough by now that we are acquainted with the doctrine. Now define it by Scripture, and stick to the Word of God for your defence no matter what side you are on.

Fair enough?

Fair enough, but do you realize I have done this, and if I do it again the cries of "misrepresentation," will be forthcoming no matter what I write.

IMO, it always best to let the advocates of a position define his position. This is why I quote MacArthur and other key LS teachers liberally. This way there is NO misrepresentation regardless of the shrill cries to the contrary coming from some men who have NEVER read MacArthur in the first place.


LM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, you could start by reading my posts that use that exact term. I have made over 100 of them on that subject. You can find that many more which name 'repentance' as weel, and I was here making them for almost a year before Lou Martuneac, or a year and a half before Havensdad were even members, FTR.

Just don't be getting too 'emotionally attached', 'cause my bride might not approve.

Ed

Ok. I won't get attached. I don't like the term "lordship salvation" which lacks discription. Not that I'm necissarily an adherant of it. It seems to me the argument here is breaking down into this. Works is either necissary for salvation or it is necissarily a result of salvation. Would this be correct?

 

[DHK]

Fair enough, but do you realize I have done this, and if I do it again the cries of "misrepresentation," will be forthcoming no matter what I write.

IMO, it always best to let the advocates of a position define his position. This is why I quote MacArthur and other key LS teachers liberally. This way there is NO misrepresentation regardless of the shrill cries to the contrary coming from some men who have NEVER read MacArthur in the first place.


LM

You can define LS as you understand it. There must be many other leaders that believe in it besides MacArthur. Give an honest straightforward definition, and let the board respond from there. If the definition is challenged, then quote a reliable source where one can find it. But I don't believe that the continual sourcing of JM's work is necessary, nor the attacks on JM is necessary.

 

[donnA]

Works are a result of salvation, not for the purpose of salvation, calling Jesus Lord is a result of salvation, not for the purpose of salvation. As of yet I have seen no one say Jesus had to be Lord of a lost man before salvation for the purpose of salvation. Even scripture says this. But for a christian to not want Jesus as Lord, is unscriptural, and according to scripture means theres no salvation.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

What is Lordship Salvation?

deleted until further notice.

 

[DHK]

Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. Lordship views “saving faith” as incomplete without an accompanying resolve to “forsake sin” and to “start obeying.” Lordship’s “sine qua non” (indispensable condition) that must be met to fully define “saving faith,” for salvation, is a commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience.

If this is true, what shall I tell my children when they trusted Christ at the age of seven or twelve. Forsake all that they have? Forsake their mother, father, brothers, sisters, deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ? Christ never put age limits on those that could be saved.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Retract it

nor the attacks on JM is necessary.

I am calling on you to retract that falsehood!

Or show me any paragraph, sentence or paraphrase where I have attacked John MacArthur’s character, motives or personality.

I posted a LS definition, but just deleted it. I will not repost it until you either prove I have attacked the person of MacArthur so that I may apologize for it…or retract that blatant misrepresentation you just posted.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

nor the attacks on JM is necessary.

I am calling on you to retract that falsehood!

Or show me any paragraph, sentence or paraphrase where I have attacked John MacArthur’s character, motives or personality.

I posted a LS definition, but just deleted it. You have a portion, but I will not repost the full definition until you either prove I have attacked the person of MacArthur so that I may apologize for it…or retract that blatant misrepresentation you just posted in the other thread.


LM

 

[Bible-boy]

Lou,

You have multiple threads on this same topic. I will be merging them all into one thread. Do not keep spamming this forum with multiple threads on the same basic topic.

Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As we look at Lordship Salvation it is imperative that a clear distinction be drawn in regard to where the area of debate is, and where it is not.

The major issue and crux of the doctrinal controversy is over Lordship’s definition of how the lost are born again, their view of the requirements for salvation. Concerns in regard to the discipleship of genuine believers are an important discussion, but for me that is not where the main controversy lies. The debate is over the requirements for salvation, not the results of salvation.

One of the central questions that fuels and defines the Lordship debate is: What is required of a sinner that would constitute “saving faith,” i.e. the faith that results in his being born again? For a lost man to be born again must his faith in Christ include a “willingness to forsake everything, whole-hearted commitment, unconditional surrender and a full exchange of self for the Savior?” Numerous statements to that effect from the advocates of Lordship Salvation are the focal point of the doctrinal controversy and they have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make them. In fact, over the years, these statements have been reiterated and reinforced.

Most men on both sides of the debate will agree in principle that a new creature in Christ will set out to do the God ordained “good works” for the believer. Daily submission to the lordship of Christ should follow a genuine conversion to Christ. There is wide spread agreement that a born again Christian will grow in the grace and knowledge of his Lord and Savior (2 Peter 3:18). Christians will, however, struggle with the flesh, the warfare between the two natures (Rom. 7:15-25) and the besetting sin (Heb. 12:1). Christians will flop and fail in their walk with God, but growth is typically seen to one degree or another.

As you study the issue you find, just as I did, that Lordship Salvation touches on numerous Bible doctrines. This makes arriving at a brief definition a difficult, but not impossible undertaking. I do believe it is important to provide a summary definition. The following definition is not all encompassing of the Lordship position, but it is a beginning.

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation sets upon the sinner’s path to Christ a stumbling block. Lordship Salvation makes rough and uncertain the simple plan of salvation and it frustrates grace. We will see that in addition to faith and belief in Christ, Lordship Salvation demands promises of surrender and commitment to fulfill what the Lordship advocates consider genuine saving faith. Surrender and commitment of life in “exchange” for salvation is the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. Those are demands and conditions for salvation placed on the lost that the Bible does not mandate for them.


LM

One other request please if you would endulge me. How do you define salvation? I think that having these two items defined as to what we are talking about we can better discuss the issue of Lordship Salvation (who came up with that name ?.). Thank you.

 

[DHK]

I am calling on you to retract that falsehood!

Or show me any paragraph, sentence or paraphrase where I have attacked John MacArthur’s character, motives or personality.

I posted a LS definition, but just deleted it. You have a portion, but I will not repost the full definition until you either prove I have attacked the person of MacArthur so that I may apologize for it…or retract that blatant misrepresentation you just posted in the other thread.


LM

The tone of most of your posts betrays a disdain for the man.
Personal attacks, as you know, are against the rules.
The first post I went to had this remark:

I have OFTEN times shared my appreciation for MacArthur’s views, when I can appreciate them.

That infers that you can't appreciate them or even perhaps him all the time. It was an unnecessary add-on. You have many of them.

 

[EdSutton]

Here is the difference Ed>

"works" as defined by scripture, is things done actively which bestow merit. For instance, circumcision. Feeding the poor. Priestly sacrifices. Etc.

"Giving up" something (such as ceasing to do something you shouldn't) is never described as "works" in scripture.

Notice that it is impossible for "turning from a sinful lifestyle" to be "works salvation", for this is what Paul preached, the very one who most eloquently expounds on the Doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith!

Both Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. John Gerstner, have differentiated between "meritorious works for salvation", and "non-meritorious works", which Dr. Gerstner then describes as an accurate position for Lordship Salvation advocates, with the latter included as an integral constituent of faith, a position that I completely reject. Dr. Gerstner is here referring to Prof. Zane Hodges.

Hodges fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the issue when he thinks that works are some sort of addendum, something beyond the faith itself. We maintain that it is implicit in the faith from the beginning."

Hodges, and virtually all dispensationalists, do not see the elementary difference between non-meritorious "requirements," "conditions, necessary obligations," "indispensable duties," and musts, as the natural outworking of true faith, in distinction from faith in the Savior plus meritorious works as the very basis of Salvation. (p. 226)

Lordship teaching does not "add works," as if faith were not sufficient. The "works" are part of the definition of faith. (p. 257) (Dr.John H. Gerstner; Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 1991, P. 226, 257) (My emphases - Ed)

Rom. 4 and Ephesians 2:8-10 do not differentiate between these two concepts, either, nor do any other Scriptures, to my knowledge.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

One other request please if you would endulge me. How do you define salvation? I think that having these two items defined as to what we are talking about we can better discuss the issue of Lordship Salvation (who came up with that name ?.). Thank you.

This "name" apparently first was coined in 1959 during the "Eternity" 'debate' between Dr. Everett F. Harrison and Dr. John R. W. Stott.

Ed

 

[Havensdad]

All Lordship Salvation Discussions & Debates

These are the defining points of LS, by those of us who are the proponents of it. It is from "Grace to You". So any points that say ANYTHING contrary to this, is simply non LS people wanting to argue and cause division. Other things might be believed by INDIVIDUALS , but it is NOT part of "Lordship Salvation".

First

Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.

So, Lordship Salvation teaches that "Repentance" is a change of mind/heart. If anyone says something else, they are lying, and INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the position. It DOES RESULT in a change of action, as any change of mind MUST (or it is not a change of mind).

Second

Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.

NO WORKS required for salvation. Anyone who says LS involves salvation by works, is a liar. Also, the truly faithful are PRESERVED, by GOD> in other words, God is faithful.


Third

Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

No promise, of ANY KIND is required for salvation. Faith is "personal commitment to Christ". This can be easily seen in the words "Christ, save me, forgive me".


Fourth

Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Gal. 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Rom. 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God's commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matt. 12:50), abide in God's Word (John 8:31), keep God's Word (John 17:6), do good works (Eph. 2:10), and continue in the faith (Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:14). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.

Real faith in Christ, produces a Changed life. No problem, here.

Fifth

Scripture teaches that God's gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.

All believers are being sanctified. No exceptions (just like in scripture!)


Sixth

Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.

You cannot be saved, and purposefully fight against Christ. You can't say "Jesus, I want you to save me, but I am going to keep on sinning, cause I like it".

Seventh

Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.

Saved people will desire to please Christ.

Eighth

Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one's faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith.

Nuff said> this does not deal with salvation, but fruits. NOT what it takes to BE saved, but what one can expect from one who IS saved.

Ninth

Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Cor. 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.

If someone represents something different from the above, they are DELIBERATELY lying. All I will say for now.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Meritous and Non-meritous works?

If non-meritous works are required for salvation, then they are still works. It's double talk:

It's basically saying "These works don't contribute to your salvation, but they are required, and if you don't do them, you aren't saved".

 

[skypair]

These are the defining points of LS, by those of us who are the proponents of it. It is from "Grace to You". So any points that say ANYTHING contrary to this, is simply non LS people wanting to argue and cause division. Other things might be believed by INDIVIDUALS , but it is NOT part of "Lordship Salvation".

Once again, the "whole world" is being "pressed into" the kingdom of Calvinism! :tonofbricks: Another new "paradigm" -- another "refinement." Another new "code word" for your "decoder rings," children! Oi Veh!

skypair