Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[webdog]

I see repentance and faith as our response to God Holy Spirit's work of regeneration, conviction, drawing us to our Lord Jesus. We would not have done so had He not intervened in our lives, indeed we were not even able to do so without His intervention.

peace to youraying:

Not a gift, then?

 

[canadyjd]

Not a gift, then?

The gift of God is a new life, a regenerated nature that has allowed the response of repentance and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Salvation, therefore, is all of God and is a gift. Repentance and faith are certainly part of salvation. It that sense, I could see repentance and faith as a gift from God. I wouldn't have had those experiences had God not intervened in my life.

peace to youraying:

 

[John of Japan]

1. Yes, the human perspective over against the divine as reflected in the gospel offer, but I still see no need for Paul to mention receiving Christ as Lord to substantiate his argument.

2. Rather, it is faith in Christ plus nothing--not works of the Law, which at its heart, at least in Galatians, included Circumcision.

We are agreed up to here. I believe we agree much more than we disagree on this subject.

But what does Paul mean by "faith in Jesus Christ" becomes the issue.

By this are you agreeing with MacArthur that pisteuw has a meaning of obey? (See the first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, pp. 174-176.) Sigh. And I was doing my best not to refer to MacArthur in this thread.

3. At Ephesus Paul says that he preached both repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21)---as I've maintained, in coming to the Lord for salvation is a renouncing of a life of rebellion in sin (repentance) and the embracing of Christ from salvation (faith)---this very process, implies a recognition of the Lordship of Christ in salvation over all other alternatives to be right with the Father.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

5. Frankly speaking, I am disillusioned by the particular hard-nose LS formula---I do not see it in Scripture---at least, the way it is presently defined in the LS debate.

6. I do agree that there is a subtle difference in "Accepting Jesus as Lord" and the "Recognition of the Lordship of Christ."

7. I believe you and Lou are correct in maintaining that not an upfront commitment to discipleship, but I would still maintain that salvation is Jesus for the sinner is really because of the Lordship of Christ, whether the sinner acknowledges it or not.

See, we agree much more than we disagree!

8. What then do you make of Rom 10:9,10?

Here is what I wrote on 10:9 previously in this thread.

"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."

 

[webdog]

The gift of God is a new life, a regenerated nature that has allowed the response of repentance and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Salvation, therefore, is all of God and is a gift. Repentance and faith are certainly part of salvation. It that sense, I could see repentance and faith as a gift from God. I wouldn't have had those experiences had God not intervened in my life.

peace to youraying:

Macarthur states repentance is given to man to use, making it not a "work". This is how he gets around the requirement of it being the same thing as making Jesus Lord not being a work (like faith being given to man not being a work also...but if it came from within man, it would be a work).

 

[canadyjd]

Macarthur states repentance is given to man to use, making it not a "work". This is how he gets around the requirement of it being the same thing as making Jesus Lord not being a work (like faith being given to man not being a work also...but if it came from within man, it would be a work).

When we speak of something being a "work", we usually mean we are doing something that , in our minds, qualifies us to "earn" our salvation from God. From what I have read of him, that is foreign to what MacArthur teaches. He doesn't teach we must have an "upfront" commitment to Christ, prior to salvation.

MacArthur acknoweldges that God expects certain things from us. They aren't "works" in the sense they "earn" our salvation for us. They are, nevertheless, expected from a person who is a true believer. These are the works, according to J. Mac, that every true believer will have as the result of their salvation, not to earn their salvation.

Do you believe God expects those who are believers in Jesus Christ to behave in certain ways and to do certain things?

peace to youraying:

 

[TCGreek]

By this are you agreeing with MacArthur that pisteuw has a meaning of obey? (See the first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, pp. 174-176.) Sigh. And I was doing my best not to refer to MacArthur in this thread.

1. I will say this, that saving faith, as seen in Scripture, always results in obedience---inherent in pisteuw is obedience.

2. How can we escape the obvious parallels in John 3:36 of "Believing" and "Obeying"?

3. The faith that God honors always results in obedience--I believe this is the genius of Hebrews 11.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

4. What then is your explanation of Acts 20:21?

Here is what I wrote on 10:9 previously in this thread.

"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."

5. My own belief of this text is set forth in Dr. Moo's commentary on Romans, demonstrating that this heart-mouth combination must be understood in light of the Deutoronomic text.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

MacArthur on the Lordship of Christ

Are LS advocates hard of reading? Please see my comments to Amy, as you say "you can read it yourself". I don't need Lou, nor have I had Lou "tell me" about LS. I've known about this position before I read any of Lou's posts.

Have you read his 4 part sermon on LS? I'm guessing not. Wouldn't you want to read in DETAIL (and not a prepared statement) of what the man has said?

Hi Web:

Here is an article that documents and discusses more of MacArthur's Lordship theology. The documentation is from MacArthur's own writing found in various sources.

See John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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.

John:

Thanks for this link, I will peruse it later.

The LS preacher said, "...you were not saved if you did not consciously accept Christ as Lord when you got saved." That is a very common position among LS preachers.


LM

PS: I know a preacher in CA whose has shared similar stories that he has been witness to. LS preachers going into sound, balanced churches, introducing LS and the "contrary" LS doctrine brought "division" and "offences" (Rom. 16:17) into that church.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

It does not teach that and it is not JM's position. I have his book right here in my biscut grabbers. No one teaches an exchange.

Wrong! JM does teach an "exchange" of commitment for salvation.

Read- The Exchange/Barter System of Lordship Salvation


LM

PS: I don't care if certain persons, who have not read JM or any of his critics, gripe that I link to articles at my blog. I'm not going to copy and paste them here.

 

[webdog]

JoJ, I didn't see that article in the link you provided...

 

[TCGreek]

John:

Thanks for this link, I will peruse it later.

The LS preacher said, "...you were not saved if you did not consciously accept Christ as Lord when you got saved." That is a very common position among LS preachers.

Lou,

1. I must confess that at first I was adamantly against your confrontation of LS, but now that I have stepped back and look at it again, I find myself agreeing with some of what you have been saying---not all of it, however. :thumbs:

2. I truly think it is unscriptural to tell a person that you should have consciously acknowledge Christ as Lord to be saved---I see no evidence of that in Scripture.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

...then you don't see it, but it doesnt' mean it's not true. Lordship Salvation precedes Macarthur, and the theology is pretty straight forward.

Web:

I'm sure by now you are used to the LS/MacArthur apologists crying "misrepresentation."

It is the standard retort when faced with clearly documented statements by JM that they cannot dismiss away by saying they are mere "overstatements.


LM

 

[Maestroh]

Definitions

Maybe you're right, but there are two issues here.

1. Is Lordship Salvation true?
.

Yes. I don't know of any other kind of salvation. Except you believe Jesus as LORD...

2. Is John MacArthur teaching that Lordship is a prerequisite for salvation?
.

No. JMac is teaching that if you believe in Jesus Christ, your life will actually show it. How that ever became to be an addendum to the gospel, I have no earthly idea. No, it will not PERFECTLY show it. JMac has said for years salvation is by grace alone through faith alone because of the finished work of Christ alone.

Yet he is accused of preaching works.

I can't answer the first question with authority. However, I can say with great confidence that John MacArthur is NOT teaching that Lordship is a prerequisite for salvation, but that he's teaching it is the result of true salvation. Whether or not one agrees with JM, it is wrong for anyone to misrepresent what he teaches.

The lordship salvation debate ended 15-20 years ago. The Hodges-Ryrie-Wilkin side lost. Period. Their view is not even the majority view today at Dallas Seminary - and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who belives the 'no lordship' doctrine who is not connected with DTS.

Incidentally - I'm a current student there.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

MacArthur on the Rich Young Ruler

The rich young ruler didn't accept Lordship Salvation either.

When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.

In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes,

"Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what points of doctrine he affirmed, because he was unwilling to turn from what else he loved most, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is only for those who are willing to give Christ first place in their lives." (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 85.)

That citation from the revised edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a sanitized revision of what John MacArthur first wrote. In the original edition, John MacArthur states:

"Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." (p. 78.)

From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:

"And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does." (p. 9.)

Do these statements by JM accurately define the Gospel that results in the reception of eternal life?


LM

 

[Maestroh]

The Issue - Reality

I would love to have an honest debate about the LS issue. I am not sure where I stand on this issue, partly because I believe the LS position has been misrepresented.

For example, some have repeatedly used the following quote from John MacArthur.
MacArthur, in context, is speaking about a "response". He identifies that "response" as a "wholehearted commitment".

Would someone please tell me, according to MacArthur and in context, what is the person responding to?

I am going to guess (and I really do not know), that, in context, MacArthur is saying a person is responding to the grace God has poured out upon him through regeneration by Holy Spirit, that has resulted in conviction, faith and salvation. That person responds with "wholehearted commitment" immediately after conversion and in conjunction with saving faith.

I am not sure I would agree that everyone who is truly saved will immediately respond with "whole-hearted" commitment to Christ, but I do believe that accurately reflects the LS view.

I do not believe it is the same thing as saying the Lordship Salvation view requires an upfront commitment prior to salvation.

peace to youraying:

What causes all of this? What begins the discussion? Where did MacArthur BEGIN all of this?

If you listen to his tape series on TGATJ, he does an interview on tape six that preceded the airing of the radio series. He tells three stories of people with whom he had experience:

1) A guy who was his best friend in high school and college who went witnessing with him in a bad section of LA for years. Mac lost contact with him and met him a few years later. The guy was an avowed atheist.

Is the atheist saved or lost? In Mac's view, he made a false profession of faith. In the cheap grace view (and that's what it is), the atheist is still saved even if he doesn't believe God exists.

Be honest with me - does that really make any sense?

2) A guy who he discipled every Tuesday morning for a year. At the end of that year, the guy left the church, explicitly denied the Christian faith, divorced his wife, and joined a liberal Episcopalian church where he became a rector and denies Bible teaching regarding who Christ is.

Again - is this guy saved?

Anyone who has ever hung around Baptist churches knows all too well those folks who have emotional experiences and come down front drooling during the revival. Then they get baptized. Then you don't see them again until their funeral.

My grandfather supposedly had a 'born again experience' when he was younger. Yet not only did he never go to church, he was drunk the last forty years of his life, smoked like a chimney, and I never heard him use the word 'God' without it being followed by that other word. Never. When people prayed, he got up and left and snorted as an avowed agnostic.

In the Zane Hodges school of thought, that guy's saved. I think it was R.B. Thieme who said one could become 'an unbelieiving believer,' going so far as to say 'you cannot lose your salvation even though you deny God.'

That's not what the Bible says. I believe that salvation is forever, but I also believe that you will not deny God or His existence a la the atheist if you truly know Him. But again - in the CG paradigm, the only folks who are wrong are those who question the salvation of those without the first fruit in their lives.

That said, Mac's first edition needed some revision due to overstatement (one of Mac's biggest problems). Yet I hold him in high esteem. The so-called 'gospel' of Ryrie-Hodges-Wilkin would have told me I was Ok because I had a 'religious experience' when I was ten.

I read an article not long ago by M. James Sawyer about the controversy. He said that there were shrinks in LA who were having problems with people doubting their salvation due to Mac while none of Hodges followers had this problem.

No, duh. A God who will tolerate and even excuse my sin and let me into the kingdom - why would I have to worry about anything in the first place?

 

[webdog]

What causes all of this? What begins the discussion? Where did MacArthur BEGIN all of this?

If you listen to his tape series on TGATJ, he does an interview on tape six that preceded the airing of the radio series. He tells three stories of people with whom he had experience:

1) A guy who was his best friend in high school and college who went witnessing with him in a bad section of LA for years. Mac lost contact with him and met him a few years later. The guy was an avowed atheist.

Is the atheist saved or lost? In Mac's view, he made a false profession of faith. In the cheap grace view (and that's what it is), the atheist is still saved even if he doesn't believe God exists.

Be honest with me - does that really make any sense?

2) A guy who he discipled every Tuesday morning for a year. At the end of that year, the guy left the church, explicitly denied the Christian faith, divorced his wife, and joined a liberal Episcopalian church where he became a rector and denies Bible teaching regarding who Christ is.

Again - is this guy saved?

Anyone who has ever hung around Baptist churches knows all too well those folks who have emotional experiences and come down front drooling during the revival. Then they get baptized. Then you don't see them again until their funeral.

My grandfather supposedly had a 'born again experience' when he was younger. Yet not only did he never go to church, he was drunk the last forty years of his life, smoked like a chimney, and I never heard him use the word 'God' without it being followed by that other word. Never. When people prayed, he got up and left and snorted as an avowed agnostic.

In the Zane Hodges school of thought, that guy's saved. I think it was R.B. Thieme who said one could become 'an unbelieiving believer,' going so far as to say 'you cannot lose your salvation even though you deny God.'

That's not what the Bible says. I believe that salvation is forever, but I also believe that you will not deny God or His existence a la the atheist if you truly know Him. But again - in the CG paradigm, the only folks who are wrong are those who question the salvation of those without the first fruit in their lives.

That said, Mac's first edition needed some revision due to overstatement (one of Mac's biggest problems). Yet I hold him in high esteem. The so-called 'gospel' of Ryrie-Hodges-Wilkin would have told me I was Ok because I had a 'religious experience' when I was ten.

I read an article not long ago by M. James Sawyer about the controversy. He said that there were shrinks in LA who were having problems with people doubting their salvation due to Mac while none of Hodges followers had this problem.

No, duh. A God who will tolerate and even excuse my sin and let me into the kingdom - why would I have to worry about anything in the first place?

I take it you don't believe the god of this world, the father of lies can deceive true believers?
Was Lot saved?

 

[TCGreek]

What causes all of this? What begins the discussion? Where did MacArthur BEGIN all of this?

If you listen to his tape series on TGATJ, he does an interview on tape six that preceded the airing of the radio series. He tells three stories of people with whom he had experience:

1) A guy who was his best friend in high school and college who went witnessing with him in a bad section of LA for years. Mac lost contact with him and met him a few years later. The guy was an avowed atheist.

Is the atheist saved or lost? In Mac's view, he made a false profession of faith. In the cheap grace view (and that's what it is), the atheist is still saved even if he doesn't believe God exists.

Be honest with me - does that really make any sense?

2) A guy who he discipled every Tuesday morning for a year. At the end of that year, the guy left the church, explicitly denied the Christian faith, divorced his wife, and joined a liberal Episcopalian church where he became a rector and denies Bible teaching regarding who Christ is.

Again - is this guy saved?

Anyone who has ever hung around Baptist churches knows all too well those folks who have emotional experiences and come down front drooling during the revival. Then they get baptized. Then you don't see them again until their funeral.

My grandfather supposedly had a 'born again experience' when he was younger. Yet not only did he never go to church, he was drunk the last forty years of his life, smoked like a chimney, and I never heard him use the word 'God' without it being followed by that other word. Never. When people prayed, he got up and left and snorted as an avowed agnostic.

In the Zane Hodges school of thought, that guy's saved. I think it was R.B. Thieme who said one could become 'an unbelieiving believer,' going so far as to say 'you cannot lose your salvation even though you deny God.'

That's not what the Bible says. I believe that salvation is forever, but I also believe that you will not deny God or His existence a la the atheist if you truly know Him. But again - in the CG paradigm, the only folks who are wrong are those who question the salvation of those without the first fruit in their lives.

That said, Mac's first edition needed some revision due to overstatement (one of Mac's biggest problems). Yet I hold him in high esteem. The so-called 'gospel' of Ryrie-Hodges-Wilkin would have told me I was Ok because I had a 'religious experience' when I was ten.

I read an article not long ago by M. James Sawyer about the controversy. He said that there were shrinks in LA who were having problems with people doubting their salvation due to Mac while none of Hodges followers had this problem.

No, duh. A God who will tolerate and even excuse my sin and let me into the kingdom - why would I have to worry about anything in the first place?

A straight shooter, I see. :thumbs:

 

[Maestroh]

Dear Lou

When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.

In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes,



That citation from the revised edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a sanitized revision of what John MacArthur first wrote. In the original edition, John MacArthur states:



From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:


Do these statements by JM accurately define the Gospel that results in the reception of eternal life?


LM

I checked out your blog and noted something about a Wilkin-Shea debate. What is that in refernence to - and when?


M

 

[Maestroh]

The Straw Men Are Coming

I take it you don't believe the god of this world, the father of lies can deceive true believers?
Was Lot saved?

And why would you say that? This gets away from the point - but having watched this debate for 20 years, hey, I'm used to it.

Nobody's advocating sinless perfection here. Yes, believers can be deceived (I would think this would go without saying, but I guess I'm wrong).

Why you would think someone who lives in defiant and open rebellion towards God - to the point of hating God or denying His existence - is the equivalent of a failure in a moment of trial is beyond my ability to process. It's the difference between the lost Judas and the saved Peter.

 

[John of Japan]

1. I will say this, that saving faith, as seen in Scripture, always results in obedience---inherent in pisteuw is obedience.

2. How can we escape the obvious parallels in John 3:36 of "Believing" and "Obeying"?

3. The faith that God honors always results in obedience--I believe this is the genius of Hebrews 11.

This is, of course, not the same as believing there is a lexical definition of "obey" for pisteuw, which is what MacArthur appeared to be saying.

Concerning John 3:36, I look at that verse as Hebrew parallelism, in which case the proper translation should be "believes" and "doesn't trust" rather than "believes" and "doesn't obey." I don't see "believe" and "doesn't obey" as parallel expressions.

4. What then is your explanation of Acts 20:21?

That repentance and faith are both necessary for salvation, of course. Once again, this usage of "Lord" is a title, not a theological statement. I don't see that simply the usage of the title Lord in a soteriological context necessitates recognition by the lost person of the Lordship of Christ. He is Lord whether we recognize that or not!

Why must repentance necessarily mean a recognition of the Lordship of Christ? I don't see that in either the "change of mind" definition or the "turn from sin" definition. Why can't repentance refer primarily to God as the Judge of sin instead? That is a more immediate connection to salvation than the Lordship of Christ is. Christ as Lord is then another step away from salvation, seeing that it is the holy God Who judges sin. In other words, sin is an offense to God in His holiness rather than specifically God as sovereign.

5. My own belief of this text is set forth in Dr. Moo's commentary on Romans, demonstrating that this heart-mouth combination must be understood in light of the Deutoronomic text.

Oh, shucks, you're going to make me read Moo? The man wrote 941 pages of sometimes crashingly boring prose. (Sigh.)

Forgive me for complaining. Moo is actually quite good there. He wrote in agreement with what I've been saying, "Paul's rhetorical purpose at this point should make us cautious about finding great significance in the reference to confession here, as if Paul were making oral confession a second requirement for salvation" (p. 657).