Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

If it's "all God", how are we responding? It would be God responding to God. If regeneration is totally of God's will apart from anything (it's not, it's based on faith in Christ), any responding to that would be God responding to Himself.

 

I will not say here that Pastor Larry has dodged all of my main arguments. :smilewinkgrin: But I do believe that now I have given a satisfactory answer on Rom. 10:9.

Now I'll comment on Rom. 10:13. The issue is simple, really. On who are what are we to call? It says clearly "the name of the Lord." It does not say, "Call on Jesus as Lord." What is the name of the Lord? It is Jesus, of course! "Lord" and "Christ" are both titles--wonderful titles, of course. But it is the name Jesus we are to call on. What does Jesus mean? It means "Jehovah is Salvation." (I've seen several other definitions, but they all come down to salvation.) Thus, we are to believe in Jesus as our Savior. I see nothing in this verse (or in Acts 2:21) that proves the LS doctrine.

 

You cannot call on the name of the "Lord" if you do not recognize who the Lord is. How many people in the gospels can you present that Jesis interacted with in a redemptive way that did not recognize Him as and call Him Lord?

 

canadyjd:

As I suspected you have not read any of MacArthur’s comprehensive works on Lordship Salvation. Yet you have been speaking as though you are authoritative enough on the subject to tell those who have rejected and refuted the Lord interpretation of the Gospel they are wrong and/or misrepresent MacArthur.

Do you think reading a few minor pieces on a web site gives you all you need to know to speak authoritatively on the man’s position?

May I suggest: Do the homework that you should have done, before speaking as though you have. Read, cover-to-cover, JM’s original and revised TGATJ. Read at least two works that reject and refute LS. For example

Charles Ryrie’s So Great Salvation and

Charlie Bing’s LS: A Biblical Evaluation & Response

BTW, just because you read JM's use of orthodox terms that does not mean his personal definition of those terms is orthodox and balanced

Up until now, you have IMO, been speaking about that which you do not fully understand. Plus you are speaking through Calvinistic presuppositions, which colors your view in the first place.

Please, go do the reading.


LM

 

To All:

I have mentioned several times that Lordship advocates blend the doctrines of salvation and discipleship as though there is no doctrinal difference.

I wrote an extensive chapter on that subject in my book. I also developed a blog article to briefly address this. The article is titled John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation


LM

 

In some of those cases, they just meant "sir." In koine Greek, kurios often just meant what we mean when we say "sir." Check out the places in John 4 and 5 when it is translated "sir," for examples.

 

John, I have a lot of respect for you, but if kyrios in a soteriological context only means "sir," I must question such approach.

 

1. I really do not see in Ephesians 4:4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

2. Surely "One Lord" cannot mean "One sir."

 

I seriously thing you guys are missing each other by a hairs space, but your travelling so fast in your own directions your you don't see you are sharing the same target and headed for the same bullseye. I am speaking to the topic of the thread and not the side notes recently being contended.

I will repost what I said earlier regarding this discussion here in:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1138317&postcount=41

 

Allan,

I think I have been arguing the same things that you have outlined. BTW, good stuff. :thumbs:

 

Thanks for the kind words. You do pretty well yourself in theology and Greek!

I haven't really studied out kyrios yet in a soteriological context. Please note that my statement was in answer to a specific question about people in the Gospels: "How many people in the gospels can you present that Jesis interacted with in a redemptive way that did not recognize Him as and call Him Lord?" Also, I did say, "some of those cases," you'll note. One case in which it is clear that kyrios means "sir" is John 4 and the woman at the well. I don't see how one could translate "Lord" as if she already meant Him to be her Lord in any of the three cases it occurs: vv. 17, 15, 19. Other cases are arguable, like v. 49 in the same chapter.

 

Lou, you probably know this case already, but I'm going to give the link in answer to you anyway.

To everyone on the thread: here is an example of the devastation caused churches by one Benny Beckum, a LS advocate evangelist who insisted that you were not saved if you did not consciously accept Christ as Lord when you got saved.

It is actually a whole book about the situation at the church and the doctrine involved. Click on The Evil Fruit and Errors of Lordship Salvation by John Mark Charlton at: http://www.biblefortoday.org/idx_articles.htm

Disclaimer: I am not recommending all the stuff on the site.

 

In my view he was distinguishing between salvation by faith and attempted salvation by obedience to the Law. So he was discussion the human side of salvation. If it is necessary to receive Christ as Lord in order to be saved, I still maintain that Galatians would have been a perfect time to describe that part of the human side of salvation. But he did not.

I may be dense, but I still don't see any direct connection between this phrase and accepting Christ as Lord at salvation.

As for repentance, I'm always a little mystified when people bring repentance into the LS discussion. Many (including myself) are strong on repentance but oppose LS. Ernest Pickering was one. (God bless his memory.) I don't follow the "free grace" people in my definition of repentance, yet some LS people would call me weak on repentance simply because I don't accept LS. Beats me!

But this argument can be applied to any book of the Bible. There was no defined doctrine of LS in Bible times or even among any of the church fathers that I know of. Can you show me a single statement from a church father that is similar to modern LS?

And here it all depends on definitions and phraseology. Some will say, "Accept Him as Lord." You are saying to recognize Him as Lord. There is a big difference. The first is the original LS position. Yours is not.

 

Yes, it was good.

To claim it for your view of salvation means that it has to be made with the mouth. So I don't think that helps you.

Yes. How can you not? I don't know how it is possible to acknowledge Christ at all without acknowledging him asLord.

I don't think you have shown that at all.

Again, how can one acknowledge Christ in any sense and not include these? I am certainly not saying one has to go through the list. But in salvation, we must recognize who it is that is saving us.

It seemed like you were making a distinction between the purpose of John and the other gospels. If I misunderstood i apologize.

To say, as you did, that one cannot preach LS from John seems to miss the point of John 6 where the crowds went away because they could not stand his strong teaching. That teaching they didn't like was not merely a fire escape salvation; It was a call to submission to the Lord. And they did not want that. Galatians is hardly absent of the lordship of Christ either, unless you go there trying to avoid it, in which case you probably can.

Let me ask you: if a prostitute comes to you and you share the gospel and she says, "I want to be saved, and I don't intend to give up prostitution, what will you say to her? Can she be saved?

 

It seems that Lordship has everything to do with obedience----the two "intertwine" and you can't have one without the other

What did Jesus say???

Why call Me Lord, Lord and do not the things I say??

Lordship has everything to do with salvation and it also has everthing to do with every day which follows point salvation.

Has someone mentioned in any post how Saul related to Jesus on the Demascus Road??

Who are you, Lord??

Lord! Show me what you would have me do!!!

 

The Mantra

Just a note for all…

What we have been witnessing that is coming from canadyjd is the standard mantra of most LS advocates, those who are sympathetic to LS, or lastly do not take the time to do the study of LS so that they know what they are trying to defend in the first place. Canadyjd falls into the latter category.

For example, in regard to the LS writing of JM, and those who take his stance on the Gospel, the mantra goes like this:

1) He is “overstating” his case. (Then they dismiss the statements as though they don’t exist or they are not problematic in the first place.)

2) You don’t understand what he is saying.

3) You can’t understand what he is saying.

4) You misrepresent what he is saying.

5) You are creating a “Straw Man.” See- Is Lordship Salvation an “Exchange?” & There is No Straw Man

With canadyjd, it is the same mantra, just a new voice behind it. He/she is not the first and won’t be the last.


LM

 

That's no answer to my points. The verse is clearly demanding verbal confession of Christ as Lord since it says "with the mouth." Is that or is that not a sine qua non of salvation for everyone, including illiterate people with no vocal chords?

My view of this verse is the standard pre-LS view. To give just one example of many I could give, Charles Hodge wrote in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, "The two requisites for salvation mentioned in this verse are confession and faith. They are mentioned in their natural order; as confession is the fruit and external evidence of faith" (p. 341). LS puts a new spin on this classic passage which is contrary to the traditional interpretation. I stay with the tradition, myself, not this new-fangled doctrine of LS, which makes the two requirements the same.

Let me put it this way. In 106 verses in the NT we have all three of the following words: Lord, Jesus, Christ. Many of these verses deal with salvation. Now, by the same logic that LS uses, why do I not have to accept Jesus as Christ as well as Savior?

Lord and Christ are both titles of Jesus. They are both very important titles of Jesus. They both tell of His character. Why not argue that one must accept Jesus as the Messiah/Christ in order to be saved? No one makes that arguement. But the logic is the same.

This really bothers me. You keep telling me I haven't shown anything, but you won't engage me in debate. By your previous statement you don't even believe my arguements are worth discussing. In my view, sorry, but that leaves me as the winner of the debate.

If my arguement about the Gospel as described in 1 Cor. 15 is worthless, why not tell me about it? Why not teach me? Why not debate me? Several people on this thread have praised my points as being valid. How does it look for you to not even show you understand my points?

So are you adding knowledge and acceptance of all of the titles and names of Jesus as requirements for salvation? Have you dealt with any lost sinners about salvation lately? Surely you did not demand that they know all of those names and their meanings to be saved! You and I don't know them, for crying out loud! A sinner needs a Savior!

I have a little book by Francis Derk, The Names of Christ. He says there are 272 names of Jesus in the Bible. My oh my, the depths of our wonderful Savior. A sinner needs to know Him as Savior, but after that there is so, so much to learn about Him. How can we learn all of that in our entire lifetime? So to require anything of a poor lost sinner except faith in Jesus Christ is wrong.

I WAS making a distinction between the purpose of John and the other gospels. You are still misunderstanding. I was NOT saying the other Gospels could not point people to Christ. I WAS saying that the Gospel of John was written according to a STATED PURPOSE (which none of the synoptics have) of helping people to believe in Jesus. You have not yet shown you understand my point. You simply dismiss it out of hand as being weak--and I guess beneath you to interact with.

And with a couple of sentences you dismiss my major arguments. That's not debate.

But I'll answer you on John 6, since that is at least a small attempt to deal with my position. The term "Lord" occurs three times in John 6. The first one (v. 23) only uses the term as His rightful title. The second one (v. 34) does the same. The third one (v. 68) is also simply His rightful title, but does deal with salvation. You didn't even take the time to find this out, but thought you could dismiss my whole argument with a brief two sentences.

Now, your point on John 6 seems to be only that "the crowds went away because they could not stand His strong teaching." What was His strong teaching? That they must believe in Him to have everlasting life (v. 47) because He had come down from heaven (v. 51), etc.

Why did many of His disciples turn back at that time? You say it was a call to submission to the Lord? Where in the world is that in John 6? No, because He told them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. They didn't understand that, and stumbled at it. That's what the text says.

Of course not! But that is not LS in my theology, it is lack of repentance! It is entirely possible to have a strong position on repentance and not believe in Lordship Salvation!