Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[John of Japan]

The lordship salvation debate ended 15-20 years ago. The Hodges-Ryrie-Wilkin side lost. Period.

Are you not aware that there is a much larger spectrum than Hodges-Ryrie-Wilkin in evangelicalism that opposes LS doctrine to this very day? Most evangelicals don't agree with either side of that debate. Check the theological journals sometime.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. On MacArthur case, it is clearly an overstatement of pisteuw.

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.

2. I grant the Hebraism at this point, but apeithew can either be "disobeying" or "disbelieving." For instance, peithew without the alpha-privative is rendered "obey" at Hebrews 13:17.

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!

3. I quite agree with everything expressed here.

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.

4. Yes, against God's holiness, but what do we make of the people at Pentecost hearing that Jesus became both Lord and Christ, and was pierced to the heart as a result? How should we understand Lord here?

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).

5. That is why I referred to the Deutoronomic text, for it puts things into perspective.

 

[EdSutton]

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

Is there a possibility that the phrase would be better translated as (Rom. 10:9) as "Jesus IS Lord"?

9 because, if(A) you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and(B) believe in your heart(C) that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom. 10:9 -ESV)

This rendering in the ESV is also entirely consistent with the rendering by the NIV, NIV-UK, TNIV, AMP, WE, NIRV, HCSB, NLV, NCV, CEV, NLT, , and even that decidedly 'notorious for paraphrasing' version, the MSG, at least according to the 21 versions in English, found on Bible Gateway. The last time someone checked my math, 13 out of 21 was over a 3/5 majority, at almost 62%.
The WYC, NKJV, YLT, and KJ21 are rendered as the KJV, here, with "the Lord Jesus (+ Christ - WYC)". 5 of 21 is just a bit smaller than 24%.
In fact, only 3 versions found there render this phrase with the words of "Jesus as Lord", they being the DARBY, ASV, and NASB, or a 1 of 7 rartio, which is smaller than 15%. I would tend to say this rendering appears to represent a "minority view" among translators.

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 (sic) the 'no lordship' doctrine who is not connected with DTS.

Incidentally - I'm a current student there.

The popularity, today, of John MacArthur, and a few more influential figures, who tend to believe much along the lines as he does notwithstanding, I suspect the "reports of the death" of this debate may 'have been greatly exaggerated'. In fact, I seem to recall one ongoing in this thread, as we speak.

However, I see a couple of flaws of reasoning, in this post, here. There is a great deal of difference in not believing a "lordship salvation" teaching, vis`-a-vis some caracature of a "'no lordship' doctrine", IMO. I reject "lordship salvation", as the teaching of Scripture. I just as firmly reject any 'no lordship' doctrine, whatever that is really supposed to mean. To me, 'no lordship' is merely a strawman, and an undefined pejorative phrase. You will know the sort I'm speaking of. 'Easy believism' comes to mind, for another common one, in this same 'theological debate', and can often be found (allegedly) contrasted with "make Him Lord". It really doesn't mean anything, but it sure "sound good" as a catch-all negative pigeon-hole.

John of Japan, Alex Quackenbush, webdog and me - EdSutton, and I believe Lou Martuneac (although I'm not absolutely certain of Lou M., and my brain is too tired to find out, at the moment), have posted at one time or another, that Jesus is absolutely Lord. It makes no difference whether or not I particularly want to 'accept this', it is part and parcel of who He is. HE IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! GOD MADE HIM LORD!, without any help from me, and that 'long ago', to boot. It is even a part of His blessed and holy Name! It is impossible to make Him something He already is, to begin with. And that is one huge fallacy of this teaching.

FTR, and I cannot speak for any other, I am not, nor have I ever been in any way "connected with DTS", not that I'm all that important, by any stretch, in this debate, as I'm merely a farmer and layman in KY. I have had the rare privilege of meeting a couple of Dallas folk, and conversing via phone, with a couple more, over these 40 years, just as I've had the rare privilege of meeting a few from other institutions, as well. Not too many of them have shown up in my hay and pasture fields, though. In fact, I can think of exactly zero.

Also FTR, I have read the same number of books by John MacArthur that I have read by Lou Martuneac, among a few others mentioned in this thread - again, exactly zero.

One final thought, and I can speak for no others, once again, except for here, maybe Lou Martuneac. I'm pretty sure that both he and I would disagree that one cannot find someone who does not really believe in Lordship Salvation, aside from in Dallas. Why, he probably might even remember a 'dumb farmer' from KY, wearing Bib overalls, with a few others, showing up in his "neck of the woods", if asked. :thumbs:

Ed

P.S. Sorry, my posting can't usually keep up with some of you other folks.

 

[TCGreek]

Is there a possibility that the phrase would be better translated as (Rom. 10:9) as "Jesus IS Lord"? This rendering in the ESV is also entirely consistent with the rendering by the NIV, NIV-UK, TNIV, AMP, WE, NIRV, HCSB, NLV, NCV, CEV, NLT, , and even that decidedly 'notorious for paraphrasing' version, the MSG, at least according to the 21 versions in English, found on Bible Gateway. The last time someone checked my math, 13 out of 21 was over a 3/5 majority, at almost 62%.
The WYC, NKJV, YLT, and KJ21 are rendered as the KJV, here, with "the Lord Jesus (+ Christ - WYC)". 5 of 21 is just a bit smaller than 24%.
In fact, only 3 versions found there render this phrase with the words of "Jesus as Lord", they being the DARBY, ASV, and NASB, or a 1 of 7 rartio, which is smaller than 15%. I would tend to say this rendering appears to represent a "minority view" among translators.

1. ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν--here is the problem I have with those translations that render the Greek as "Jesus is Lord," an explanation must be given for the kύριον Ἰησοῦν being accusative.

2. When a verb has to be supplied it must explain why kύριον Ἰησοῦν is accusative. In this case, estin, is, would no work.

3. In a similar combination, when a verb had to be supplied, the verb was estin, but the construction was not accusative, but predicate nominative: καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς .

4. At Rom 10:9 we have what grammarians call predicate nominative, not with estin, but with the Greek preposition, eis, the reason for the accusative kύριον Ἰησοῦν .

PS- The minority is not always wrong.

 

[John of Japan]

4. Yes, against God's holiness, but what do we make of the people at Pentecost hearing that Jesus became both Lord and Christ, and was pierced to the heart as a result? How should we understand Lord here?

Look at the context here. The outline of Peter's message is, "This is a great event prophesied in Joel (vv. 14-21). You killed the Christ (22-23), but He rose again (24-28), and God once more exalted Him to His previous position as Lord of all" (29-36). It's a parallel to that wonderful passage in Phil. 2:5-13. At that time it was necessary for the Jews to know the complete truth about Christ, including His deity and His crowning as King of all, Lord of all. He had laid that down to die for all mankind, and the Father had restored Him to the throne.

But Peter gives an invitation that does not include "Receive Christ as Lord," even if you say that v. 21 teaches that. Peter's invitation is simply repent and be baptized (a symbol of the Gospel, of course). The message states that Christ is once again restored as King of kings, then says trust Him as Savior! Be baptized in what name? The name of Jesus the Christ.

The Lordship of Christ is a very powerful message that can lead very easily into a salvation message, as many other themes in Scripture can! I say let's preach the Lordship of Christ--but just not make it part of the Gospel as given in 1 Cor. 15:1-8! I'm told to preach the Gospel to every Japanese, and I do so as best I can. Sometimes I use the doctrine of creation, sometimes I use the law, sometimes the Lordship of Christ (especially that He is above all idols and ancestors). Recently in Sunday School I asked a lost woman who comes to our church, "What do you believe?" and she was so shocked she wept! She couldn't think of anything she actually believed! God uses many truths to bring people to Him.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Perhaps the best "proof" comes from a thorough reading of the Bible and not from piecemeal exegesis of this or that passage. It seems to me that the Bible is clear that salvation is by faith. We see this in Paul (Romans, Ephesians etc), John, Hebrews, Luke/Acts, Peter etc. But there are also passages of warning that say that the unrighteous will not be rewarded.

I think I would agree at least in a small way with MacArthur that salvation involves not just a one time confession (which if this were the sole requirement would be a "work" - think about it!) but a conversion and an indwelling. While it is possible for one to be saved and not make Jesus the Lord of one's life this is certainly not what Jesus, Paul, or others envisioned. I have always thought that Hodges et al have made such efforts to disprove "works salvation" or "lordship salvation" that they offer an equally unrealistic and unpalatable - and unbiblical gospel.

When a person accepts Christ that should involve a change - and a significant one. If this does not occur and if the person has no desires to make Jesus Lord of his/her life then I would wonder what sort of faith that individual has.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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.

Hi Maestroh:

I am in full agreement about the strange teachings on the Gospel coming from Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society.

For eight months I have been debating and contending for the faith against their system and its advocates, including one of the GES staff members Jeremy Myers.

Their position on the Gospel is commonly known as the “Crossless” Gospel. You can get a snap shot of their egregious errors if you will read this article at my blog: What is the “Crossless” Advocates Stance…

One note, however, on Charles Ryrie. He is nowhere close to what Hodges teaches and believes. Ryrie rejects and thoroughly refutes the LS message from men like MacArthur. Read So Great Salvation. I do know for certain that Ryrie does not go into the other extremes, such as you have noted, by Hodges. There is a rift between them over this.

More…


LM

 

[John of Japan]

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

Sorry, webdog, I didn't see this until now. Look a little over halfway down the page. Or maybe go to "search" on your browser and search for "Lordship.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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.

TC:

Thanks for the transparency. Most people who read my book or blog and are predisposed to the LS message recoil at first look. They do not want to believe that JM or any of the men in that camp would believe and teach some of the things, such as you have noted above, that are clearly in their theology.

There are well-known men in my IFB circles who, like you, struggled with what I had presented, but many have since come back to me and acknowledged that they had missed some of what I have brought to the front.

I, for one, appreciate most of what MacArthur has contributed over the years. His work on the Charismatic movement and the church marketing issues are first rate. On the Gospel, however, it is my opinion he has checked out on Scripture.

It gives me no joy to have to deal with this, but I was drawn into it in 1988, and the Lord has seen fit to keep me involved.

If some of these critics would read my book they would find that I go out of my way to be gracious and charitable toward JM while I contend for the faith.

Kind regards,


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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

Hi Maestroh:

I've heard these interviews in another format. Those disturbing incidents did impact him early on in his life.

The following is from my book, In Defense of the Gospel. This addresses how JM reacted to what he saw among some who professed Christ, but lived more like the Devil.

From his review of The Gospel According To Jesus, Dr. Ernest Pickering observed,

“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”

Dr. Charlie Bing made a similar observation,

“They are motivated by the worthy desire to see those who profess Christ go on to maturity and fruitfulness. Faced with the sad realities of inconsistent behavior, “backsliding,” and outright apostasy by some professing Christians, they have proposed a gospel that demands up front an exclusive commitment to an obedient lifestyle in hopes of minimizing these problems.”

One must always be careful not to bounce off one unbiblical teaching into another. This has sadly been the case of some people who have, with good cause, been frustrated by those who make professions of faith in Christ, but do not live for Christ. This writer shares the distress over those who call themselves Christians, but are weak and seem little interested in the things of the Lord. Certainly there are many Christians who do not live up to what they profess to believe. This frustration, however, does not warrant “changing the terms of the gospel.”

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

That said, Mac's first edition needed some revision due to overstatement (one of Mac's biggest problems).

Maestroh:

Over the years many, who are sympathetic to MacArthur, have been writing and telling JM he has made some serious overstatements. Men like Dr. Rosscup on the Master’s Seminary faculty are among them.

These “overstatements” that first appeared in the original TGATJ and run like a thread though all of his major and some minor works on LS.

With the exception of one very minor correction in Hard to Believe, none of his “overstatements” have been explained, edited or eliminated. Why do you think that is?


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:

I read portions and saved it to my files. Good example of the extremes of LS.


LM

 

[HankD]

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.

Something I tried to point out earlier is that those who make verbal profession of Christ as Lord can meet with the following situation:

Matthew 7

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Notice the emphatic "Lord, Lord". They were not only professing the Lordship of Christ but were emphatic about it.

In other words even a profession of His Lordship is no gaurantee that one has saving faith.

HankD​

 

[Lou Martuneac]

If JM Retracts...

canadyjd asked this question of webdog:

"Would you at least acknowledge that he isn't teaching a works based salvation?

The moment JM publicly retracts and corrects his "overstatements," and states without hesitataion or apology that the free gift of God cannot be received through "full surrender, unconditional surrender, whole hearted commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs, a commitment to take up the cross, deny self and follow Him," I will be happy to re-examine his teaching on the Gospel.

And note that I put those things in quotes!

If he will publicly state that none of these things play any role whatsoever in and for the reception of eternal life; that calling for these things for the reception of eternal life frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) I will be happy to say JM does not teach a works based message.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Error Alert!

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.

Error Alert!​

Lurkers:

What you are reading here is the extra-biblical teaching that regeneration must precede faith. This is very common among those who hold to the LS interpretation of the Gospel.

This man believes a lost man must first be regenerated, that is born again, before he can express faith and repentance for salvation. Strange? Yes! Born again and then calls upon the name of the Lord.

Is it “look and live” or “live and look?” Is it “Look unto Me, and be ye saved” (Is. 45:22) or “Be ye saved, and look unto Me?” Is it “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or “He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?” Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 6:36) or “Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?”17

This teaching is one of the ways the LS men can call for commitments to obedient Christian living and insist it is not a works based gospel. In their opinion they are trying to gain these commitments from a man that has been born again already.

For details please read:

Impossible Decision

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Debate

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

That s a long story with some very disturbing behavior coming from Wilkin and the GES.

The events took place over the summer. Way too much to write here.

Read Open Challenge for a synopsis.

E-mail me with your phone number if you want further details.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

One final thought, and I can speak for no others, once again, except for here, maybe Lou Martuneac. I'm pretty sure that both he and I would disagree that one cannot find someone who does not really believe in Lordship Salvation, aside from in Dallas. Why, he probably might even remember a 'dumb farmer' from KY, wearing Bib overalls, with a few others, showing up in his "neck of the woods", if asked.

Hi Ed:

It was a pleasure to meet up here in my neck of the woods.


Lou

 

[EdSutton]

That s a long story with some very disturbing behavior coming from Wilkin and the GES.

The events took place over the summer. Way too much to write here.

Read Open Challenge for a synopsis.

E-mail me with your phone number if you want further details.


LM

Let me merely add that I am fairly well aware of some of what Lou Martuneac is referring to here, as well.

And I am also fairly well acquainted with, and correspond with The Honorable L. Ron Shea off and on, and have for several years, and have interacted more than once with Dr. Robert W. Wilkin, as well. I choose not to be "caught in the middle", at this time, so to speak, at least in a public manner.

I'll leave it at that, for the time being, not wanting to cloud any Biblical and/or theological issue, here.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Hi Ed:

It was a pleasure to meet up here in my neck of the woods.


Lou

It was also a pleasure to finally meet you, in person, as well. I still think you should drop in on my hayfield, sometime during a summer, preferably when we are loading a few bales, and can always use an extra 'hand'.

'Sides, I think you would look pretty good in Bib overalls, as well!

Here is the real Lou Martuneac, folks.

What you see!

What you get!

:thumbsup: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

It was also a pleasure to finally meet you, in person, as well. I still think you should drop in on my hayfield, sometime during a summer, preferably when we are loading a few bales, and can always use an extra 'hand'. 'Sides, I think you would look pretty good in Bib overalls, as well!

Hi Ed:

Love that guy in the bibs, but my hairline is not as far receded.

My wife grew up on a dairy farm. I used to think I could catch a hay bail when it shoots out of the hay bailer. Not a good idea!!!


Lou