Define Lordship Salvation: Your Opportunity

[Lou Martuneac]

Half-Way

Since I'm not actually sure where I fit into the debate (this is one area I haven't studied all that much about). Would you say I fit the LS mold or something else. Just curious what you think.:thumbs:

Allan:

I have to leave, but may I say that while you appear to be balanced in what I read by you, the seeds of the Lordship message are there. Be cautious not to go beyond what the Bible teaches, and buy into the "false dilemma" argumentation. You are half-way to LS.

We'll talk more later, for now read some of the articles I link above from my site. They will help you recognize the jumping off points into the erroneous LS gospel.


LM

 

[Martin]

I’m not going to attempt to guide Dr. Ryrie on this, I’m sure he is handling it in a way he feels honors the Lord.

==I would imagine that Ryrie knows nothing about it. You probably should just mention it to him if nothing more.

 

[Mr.M]

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

If a person would focus on the gospel, that Christ paid for their sins and upon believing the gospel they are secured salvation for eternity, maintained by the integrity of God and not human effort or merit, then the "Lordship" of Christ is most exalted.

However, when people demand some form of sanctification before a person believes, Christ is diminished and human righteousness muddies the gospel.

Simply present the gospel without a bunch of gimmicks to try and induced whatever condition YOU think necessary for a person to be saved and let the Spirit of God do His work and then you will have "Lordship" salvation.

 

[Martin]

What can I say? Assuming all your quotes are accurate (and I have no reason to assume otherwise), MacArthur is promoting a false gospel. I can't help but wonder if it's a self-righteous gut reaction against "easy believism" that leads many people astray.

==I would be careful making that kind of assumpution with any secondary sources. MacArthur does not believe that works save or that works in any way result in salvation (etc). What you maybe a bit surprised by is that MacArthur's core teaching is the same teaching that many great men of God have taught throughout church history. Many of MacArthur's comments are just parroting what Scripture teaches. Martuneac's non-Lordship view is his assumption, MacArthur's Lordship view is his assumption. What you need to do is check the sources that Martuneac highlights and then check both Martuneac and MacArthur's views by Scripture. I know I will check on Martuneac's quotes (already done some).

My views on this issue are pretty much settled. Having been on both sides of the debate I know the arguments. Personally I believe MacArthur's arguments are more in line with Scripture than Ryrie's or Martuneac's. I don't agree with MacArthur on every point nor do I disagree with Ryrie or Martuneac on every point. It is more the general direction of my thinking on this subject. This is why you have not seen me debate Martuneac directly on this issue. If he was promoting the Zane Hodges version of free-grace I would debate him directly (because I believe Hodges to be a dangerous heretic). Martuneac's view seems more in line with Ryrie, Stanley, and folks like that. While I have some real disagreements with them I don't consider their views heretical.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It is probably hard for most to define LS in a brief statement. It is not easy.

Some other LS advocates do not want to be to open and upfront about it. Meaning: They prefer introducing their LS position through subtlety and over time. They employ the false dilemma and other means to demonize any position that falls short of their LS interpretation. This paves the way for an easier sell of LS.

Not all are like that, but some are and I have dealt with that personally.


LM

Just who are these people you are speaking of?

 

[npetreley]

==I would be careful making that kind of assumpution with any secondary sources.

Good point, thanks.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

==I would imagine that Ryrie knows nothing about it. You probably should just mention it to him if nothing more.

Martin:

Met him briefly. His flight was cancelled yesterday, so he was in and out today. Yesterday I was told by two men who are close to him that he is quite familiar with the issue.


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

LS is a false gospel

==I would be careful making that kind of assumpution with any secondary sources. MacArthur does not believe that works save or that works in any way result in salvation (etc). What you maybe a bit surprised by is that MacArthur's core teaching is the same teaching that many great men of God have taught throughout church history. Many of MacArthur's comments are just parroting what Scripture teaches. Martuneac's non-Lordship view is his assumption, MacArthur's Lordship view is his assumption. What you need to do is check the sources that Martuneac highlights and then check both Martuneac and MacArthur's views by Scripture. I know I will check on Martuneac's quotes (already done some).

My views on this issue are pretty much settled. Having been on both sides of the debate I know the arguments. Personally I believe MacArthur's arguments are more in line with Scripture than Ryrie's or Martuneac's. I don't agree with MacArthur on every point nor do I disagree with Ryrie or Martuneac on every point. It is more the general direction of my thinking on this subject. This is why you have not seen me debate Martuneac directly on this issue. If he was promoting the Zane Hodges version of free-grace I would debate him directly (because I believe Hodges to be a dangerous heretic). Martuneac's view seems more in line with Ryrie, Stanley, and folks like that. While I have some real disagreements with them I don't consider their views heretical.

Martin:

No mistake about it- Hodges has gone into gross error with his “Crossless” gospel position and new definition of repentance, which for him is no longer, even a change of mind. I saw the seeds of these things over 10 years ago, which is why I never cited him in my book on LS.

That said- John MacArthur is as deeply in to gross error on the opposite end of the theological pendulum swing as Hodge’s is on his end.

BTW, I am always careful to point out that LS men, like MacArthur, do not insist works must be performed for salvation. It is not like the RCC that insists on fulfilling the sacramental system to get saved. LS demands an upfront promise/commitment to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) for the reception of eternal. This is a works based message!

There is no way to conclude MacArthur’s Lordship gospel is in line with the Bible. His position is man-centered message that frustrates grace. The quotations I cite from several of his own books conclusively prove he demands "whole-hearted commitment, full surrender and a willingness to die for Jesus sake" in "exchange" for the saving grace of God.

First year Bible College students are taught grace is God’s unmerited, unearnable favor. There are no preconditions, no expectation of return. Grace is absolutely free.

Now compare the definition of grace with what MacArthur’s says the sinner must do to be born again.

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom. (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148)

That is just one of many similar examples from John MacArthur. The LS message is focused on man. LS calls for an upfront commitment to the works that belong to the born again child of God.

Here is J. I. Packer,

“In our own presentation of Christ's gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness. In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything."

There is no way to honest with the Bible and conclude that those statements are an accurate reflection of the bibllcial plan of salvation, which all of grace.

Lordship Salvation is a false gospel, man-centered message that without any doubt frustrates the grace of God (Gal 2:21). My book thoroughly and accurately documents what these men believe. It is their own writing that I use to show far askew of the Bible they have gone with the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel.


LM