Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[Lou Martuneac]

Gentry Sound? Hardly!

I've read Kenneth Gentry's book on Lordship salvation and the position presented is so theologically and exegetically sound, I am astounded by the numbers here on this board who are decrying this teaching.

Gentry sound? Hardly!

Kenneth L. Gentry wrote:

“To 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' involves more than knowledge, assent and trust (reliance). True, one must know about God’s provision, he must assent to the truth of the gospel and he must rely on Christ to save him. But to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ means more than to believe that he is Lord and more than to rely on Him to give eternal life. It also means to receive Christ as one's own Lord, the ruler of one's own life.” (The Great Option: A Study of the Lordship Controversy.” Baptist Reformation Review 5, Spring 1976: 49-79.)

That final line is an example of the non-saving LS message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:20).

Lordship teachers insist this condition, believe, demands more than faith in Christ as Savior; that it also demands submission to Him as Ruler and Master of one's life in order to be saved. For example, anther quote from Kenneth Gentry:

“The lordship view expressly states the need to acknowledge Christ as Lord and Master of one’s life in the act of truly receiving Him as Savior. These are not two different, sequential acts (or successive steps), but rather one act of pure, trusting faith.” (Lord of the Saved, p. 10.)

These citations demonstrate some of the extremes in LS theology. Gentry is hardly sound in his theology on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

But at several points I must agree with JM: "A concept of faith not producing surrender of the will corrupts the message of salvation" (p. 191).

TC:

In many venues I am on record acknowledging that a genuine conversion should result and show itself in some measure of genuine growth.

The crux of the doctrinal controversy is not necessarily over the results of salvation. There are, however, some debatable issues.

For me and those truly concerned the focal point of the controversy is over what LS advocates insist are the requirements for salvation.

LS requirements for salvation such as I have cited from MacArthur and now Gentry are the disturbing aspects of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

In many venues I am on record acknowledging that a genuine conversion should result and show itself in some measure of genuine growth.

The crux of the doctrinal controversy is not necessarily over the results of salvation. There are, however, some debatable issues.

For me and those truly concerned the focal point of the controversy is over what LS advocates insist are the requirements for salvation.

LS requirements for salvation such as I have cited from MacArthur and now Gentry are the disturbing aspects of Lordship Salvation.


LM

Yes, I am aware of the controversies surrounding the upfront requirements---but I was just trying to point out what I think saving faith is all about, and something you might agree with.

 

[canadyjd]

LS requirements for salvation such as I have cited from MacArthur and now Gentry are the disturbing aspects of Lordship Salvation.

You have shown no such requirement from MacArthur. Just the opposite, I have demonstrated from J.Mac's own writings that he sees no requirements for salvation. The most you can say is that J.Mac believes wholehearted commitment to follow Jesus will always and immediately accompany salvific faith. He does not present it as a requirement prior to salvation.

You still have not answered my question to you. What is MacArthur saying a person is responding to with "wholehearted commitment"?

BTW, I wasn't complaining that you linked to your blogs. I was complaining that you linked to your blogs INSTEAD OF directly answering the question.

I'll given you another chance to actually answer the question directly.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Yes, I am aware of the controversies surrounding the upfront requirements---but I was just trying to point out what I think saving faith is all about, and something you might agree with.

TC:

Yes I am sorry if I came off as unintended. I do agree that genuine (non-LS defined) faith in Christ should result in genuine results.

Is that what we are agreeing to?


LM

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

Yes I am sorry if I came off as unintended. I do agree that genuine (non-LS defined) faith in Christ should result in genuine results.

Is that what we are agreeing to?


LM

Thanks anyway, but no need to apologize. Then we are in agreement on what is saving faith as set forth in Scripture. :thumbs:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

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

2 Peter 3:17
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

But don't tell the LS Calvinist this. :laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

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

I know- I just wish I had half as good a "head of hair" as you. :thumbs: :laugh:

But as to taking hay bales out of a baler, the "chute delivery" works fine for that, as you would then know; but as you said, a "bale thrower" which propels a 60-100 lb bale up to 30' would be something I would sell, and would guarantee to work properly.

However, like a manure spreader, it's something I wouldn't stand behind!! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

I know- I just wish I had half as good a "head of hair" as you. :thumbs: :laugh:

But as to taking hay bales out of a baler, the "chute delivery" works fine for that, as you would then know; but as you said, a "bale thrower" which propels a 60-100 lb bale up to 30' would be something I would sell, and would guarantee to work properly.

However, like a manure spreader, it's something I wouldn't stand behind!! :laugh:

Ed

If you guys are ever in my area in Hokkaido in northern Japan, just drop by and I'll show you a Japanese farm! :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

Repentance in the LS Debate

Lou and John, I've got a few questions:

1. How does one avoid the LS portray of the salvation offer in the call to repentance?

2. Isn't the call to repentance an obvious implication of the Lordship of the one who commaned repentance?

3. Isn't biblical to say that the call to repentance represent not only a violation of the holiness of God but a recognition of the Lordship of the One who issued the command?

How do we reconcile these issues?

 

[John of Japan]

Lou and John, I've got a few questions:

1. How does one avoid the LS portray of the salvation offer in the call to repentance?

I was just looking on my Theological Journals disk, and found a book review in the July-Sept. 1959 Bibliotheca Sacra of Basic Christianity by Stott. The reviewer (F. R. Howe) greatly praises the book, but takes Stott to task for saying that receiving Christ involves "an act of faith in Him as our Saviour and an act of submission to Him as our Lord." According to Howe, this is confusing salvation with sanctification. This was long before MacArthur ignited the current LS controversy, of course, but I think it gives a standard evangelical view from the day, and one that I agree with.

I'm not sure if that answers your question adequately, but it just seems to fit here. The growth and changes that come after salvation are rightfully sanctification. We repent and believe in order to be saved. Then as a result of our new birth we have a God-given ability to grow and commit.

Something else that may help. My grandfather was strong on repentance and preached it. His close friend Harry A. Ironside had a similar view and wrote an excellent book on it, Except Ye Repent. (Buy it if you can.) But John R. Rice believed that repentance and faith were simultaneous, and two words to describe the same event.

2. Isn't the call to repentance an obvious implication of the Lordship of the one who commaned repentance?

3. Isn't biblical to say that the call to repentance represent not only a violation of the holiness of God but a recognition of the Lordship of the One who issued the command?

I just don't take it that repentance is an implication of the Lordship of the One Who commanded it. And if an LS advocate were to try to force that view on my theology would seem quite unfair. As I have said, I consider it an implication of God as the judge of sin, and a natural requirement of His holiness.

How do we reconcile these issues?

If that doesn't seem to jive, the Bible is full of things that seem illogical humanly speaking: the hypostatic union of Christ, the trinity, the fact that our Bible is God-breathed but through fallible men, etc. Through my own study of Scriptures I came to the conclusion that repentance is vital for salvation, and also that it is wrong to demand a conscious acceptance of Christ as Lord in order to be saved. I don't try to reconcile them. I long ago promised the Lord that I would allow the Word of God to change my theology, and that means that there are some things in the Bible I just can't logically reconcile. So I don't try to! So be it!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Stott

I was just looking on my Theological Journals disk, and found a book review in the July-Sept. 1959 Bibliotheca Sacra of Basic Christianity by Stott. The reviewer (F. R. Howe) greatly praises the book, but takes Stott to task for saying that receiving Christ involves "an act of faith in Him as our Saviour and an act of submission to Him as our Lord." According to Howe, this is confusing salvation with sanctification. This was long before MacArthur ignited the current LS controversy, of course, but I think it gives a standard evangelical view from the day, and one that I agree with.

John/TC:

Biographical note here...

Men such as John Stott, J. I. Packer, Walter J. Chantry, and Martyn Lloyd Jones are among the most noteable advocates of the Lordship gospel prior to MacArthur’s book being published in 1988.

The forerunner of the current debate erupted in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Two well-known evangelicals, Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott debated the issue in Eternity magazine in September, 1959.

Here is a sample quote from Stott:

“We may believe in the deity and the salvation of Christ, and acknowledge ourselves to be sinners in need of his salvation; but this does not make us Christians. We have to make a personal response to Jesus Christ, committing ourselves unreservedly to him as our Savior and Lord.” (Basic Christianity, 2d ed,. p. 107. Also see p. 121.)

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

LS Repentance

Lou and John, I've got a few questions:

1. How does one avoid the LS portray of the salvation offer in the call to repentance?

2. Isn't the call to repentance an obvious implication of the Lordship of the one who commaned repentance?

3. Isn't biblical to say that the call to repentance represent not only a violation of the holiness of God but a recognition of the Lordship of the One who issued the command?

How do we reconcile these issues?

TC:

This is all I have time for today.

Before we can reconcile the issues, we need to know and understand how the LS advocates define repentance.

Please see How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

For example,

“If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God).” (Nathan Busenitz: Personal Assistant to John MacArthur from my debates with him at Pulpit Magazine)

For those who have not read JM please understand that Nathan was speaking in terms of how to become a Christian, how to be born again.


LM

 

[TCGreek]

I was just looking on my Theological Journals disk, and found a book review in the July-Sept. 1959 Bibliotheca Sacra of Basic Christianity by Stott. The reviewer (F. R. Howe) greatly praises the book, but takes Stott to task for saying that receiving Christ involves "an act of faith in Him as our Saviour and an act of submission to Him as our Lord." According to Howe, this is confusing salvation with sanctification. This was long before MacArthur ignited the current LS controversy, of course, but I think it gives a standard evangelical view from the day, and one that I agree with.

Long before me too. :laugh:

1. Yes, I see how one can confuse justification with sanctification in the LS paradigm.

I'm not sure if that answers your question adequately, but it just seems to fit here. The growth and changes that come after salvation are rightfully sanctification. We repent and believe in order to be saved. Then as a result of our new birth we have a God-given ability to grow and commit.

2. This is essentially what I see in Scripture as well.

Something else that may help. My grandfather was strong on repentance and preached it. His close friend Harry A. Ironside had a similar view and wrote an excellent book on it, Except Ye Repent. (Buy it if you can.) But John R. Rice believed that repentance and faith were simultaneous, and two words to describe the same event.

3. Plus the Greek text bears witness to the unit of repentance and faith with the one article governing them, whenever they appear together (Acts 20:21).

I just don't take it that repentance is an implication of the Lordship of the One Who commanded it. And if an LS advocate were to try to force that view on my theology would seem quite unfair. As I have said, I consider it an implication of God as the judge of sin, and a natural requirement of His holiness.

4. I'm following your argument, but I still cannot avoid one's repentance as not only pointing to a violation of the holiness of God, but also a response to the sovereign Lord---I believe this can be the case without it being part of the LS offer---think about it!

If that doesn't seem to jive, the Bible is full of things that seem illogical humanly speaking: the hypostatic union of Christ, the trinity, the fact that our Bible is God-breathed but through fallible men, etc. Through my own study of Scriptures I came to the conclusion that repentance is vital for salvation, and also that it is wrong to demand a conscious acceptance of Christ as Lord in order to be saved. I don't try to reconcile them. I long ago promised the Lord that I would allow the Word of God to change my theology, and that means that there are some things in the Bible I just can't logically reconcile. So I don't try to! So be it!

5. I'm with you on that one.

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

Lou, I'm in CA, so I really don't get up that earl--a few hours behind. :laugh:

This is all I have time for today.

Before we can reconcile the issues, we need to know and understand how the LS advocates define repentance.

Please see How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

For example,
For those who have not read JM please understand that Nathan was speaking in terms of how to become a Christian, how to be born again.


LM

I read your post, and I must say, good stuff. But I didn't get a clear definition of your side of biblical repentance (maybe I overlooked it). Can you help me out on that?

 

[HankD]

I was just looking on my Theological Journals disk, and found a book review in the July-Sept. 1959 Bibliotheca Sacra of Basic Christianity by Stott. The reviewer (F. R. Howe) greatly praises the book, but takes Stott to task for saying that receiving Christ involves "an act of faith in Him as our Saviour and an act of submission to Him as our Lord." According to Howe, this is confusing salvation with sanctification. This was long before MacArthur ignited the current LS controversy, of course, but I think it gives a standard evangelical view from the day, and one that I agree with.

I'm not sure if that answers your question adequately, but it just seems to fit here. The growth and changes that come after salvation are rightfully sanctification. We repent and believe in order to be saved. Then as a result of our new birth we have a God-given ability to grow and commit.

Something else that may help. My grandfather was strong on repentance and preached it. His close friend Harry A. Ironside had a similar view and wrote an excellent book on it, Except Ye Repent. (Buy it if you can.) But John R. Rice believed that repentance and faith were simultaneous, and two words to describe the same event.

Dear JoJ,
being a linguist you know that the study of any word must be its philological and not its acquired theolgical meaning especially when the word is a translational receptor word.

Strongs : metanoew - change of mind.
Kittels' - change of heart.

It has similarities and I believe it is related to metamorpheow - change of form found in the following passage:

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.​

My understanding is that for the children of God it is a change of mind from Adamic thinking to the mind of Christ.

It has its inception in regeneration when "all things become new" ("born again" can also be "born anew") and is a continuing work of the Spirit as indicated (perhaps) in the 2 Corinthians passage above.

Do you have a Kittels'?

What are your thoughts


HankD

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I read your post, and I must say, good stuff. But I didn't get a clear definition of your side of biblical repentance (maybe I overlooked it). Can you help me out on that?

TC:

Here is a brief definition for your consideration.

Repentance is a change of mind where one recognizes he is a sinner before a just and holy God. When he agrees with the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit that he is a sinner (John 16:8-9) and transfers his dependence to the Lord for his salvation—he has biblically repented. Biblical repentance is a change of mind that should produce the fruit of a change in direction from self and sin toward God. The fruit that should follow is distinct from repentance itself. This change of mind is what Acts 20:21 describes as, “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

LM

 

[Allan]

TC:

Here is a brief definition for your consideration.

Repentance is a change of mind where one recognizes he is a sinner before a just and holy God. When he agrees with the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit that he is a sinner (John 16:8-9) and transfers his dependence to the Lord for his salvation—he has biblically repented. Biblical repentance is a change of mind that should produce the fruit of a change in direction from self and sin toward God. The fruit that should follow is distinct from repentance itself. This change of mind is what Acts 20:21 describes as, “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

LM

I'm not trying to be a stickler here Lou but I had to laugh when I saw the part I have bolded. Even you must use the discriptor of 'Lord' and a turning or dependence to 'the Lord'.

I can take that and run a muck with it with misrepresentation. :laugh:

Bu i'm just hassling you though. BTW - it is a sound definiton of repentence though.

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

Here is a brief definition for your consideration.



LM

Thanks, Lou,

I find this to be a sound, biblical definition of Repentance.

 

[John of Japan]

Dear JoJ,
being a linguist you know that the study of any word must be its philological and not its acquired theolgical meaning especially when the word is a translational receptor word.

This is essentially correct. The most important element in determining meaning is current usage, so for a Greek word I study first its usage in the NT, secondly in secular koine, thirdly in classical Greek and fourthly it's etymology (needed sometimes in the case of rare words).

Strongs : metanoew - change of mind.
Kittels' - change of heart.

My definition of metanoia (metanoew being the verb) is: a change in fundamental thinking. My problem with the phrase "change of mind" is that in modern English a change of mind is usually a light, casual thing, ergo: "I was going to go to MacDonald's but changed my mind and went to KFC." When we talk about a serious issue we are more likely to use the term "thinking," as in, "I changed my thinking about abortion and I now think it is murder."

It has similarities and I believe it is related to metamorpheow - change of form found in the following passage:

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.​

The similarity of these two words are in the fact that they are both compounds beginning with meta. Other than that I don't think you can make a deep connection between the two. The literal meaning of metanoew is "after-thinking" and of metamorphow is "after-changing." So to that extent they are similar.

My understanding is that for the children of God it is a change of mind from Adamic thinking to the mind of Christ.

This definition has possibilities. I'll have to think it over.

It has its inception in regeneration when "all things become new" ("born again" can also be "born anew") and is a continuing work of the Spirit as indicated (perhaps) in the 2 Corinthians passage above.

Sorry, but I have a problem with all efforts to produce an order of salvation. It all takes place simultaneously, and the effort to produce a logical order is to me doomed to failure.

Do you have a Kittels'?

What are your thoughts


HankD

Alas, I don't have a Kittel's, though I've used it and would like the set. It just costs way too much for my salary! However, Kittel's is a mixed bag. For example, the article on pisteuw is by Rudolph Bultmann, a radical theological liberal. I much prefer the various normal lexicons that I have.