Lordship’s “Turn From Sin” FOR Salvation

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear BB Readers:

There has been an on-going pattern of a certain few Lordship Salvation (LS) apologists demonstrating that they/he do not recognize or understand how Dr. MacArthur is writing and is teaching on the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The LS apologist wrote,

“John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’.”

This misunderstanding and error on the teaching of John MacArthur necessitates opening this new thread to properly highlight the issue.

The Grace to You website posts an article by Dr. MacArthur, that is touted by one LS apologist as his (MacArthur’s) definitive statement on Lordship Salvation. The article begins with a paragraph that defines how John MacArthur views a lost man must be born again. The statement is written by MacArthur and it is discussing the Gospel, the plan of salvation, the Lordship Salvation interpretation of how a lost man receives the “offer (gift) of eternal life,” how he is born again.

“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

In the Can God-Given Faith be Defective thread I included a link to an important article on Lordship Salvation by Pastor George Zeller. Since certain LS apologists continue to post comments that reveal an on-going lack of understanding of the LS message that they seek to defend, I will link to it again- John MacArthur’s Position on the Lordship of Christ

In that article, by Ps. George Zeller, you will read additional documentation of MacArthur’s view that repentance for salvation requires a lost man to “turn from sin.” Here is that portion.

Dr. MacArthur tends to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance, and to confuse faith with that which faith ought to produce. He confuses saving faith (which takes place in a moment of time--Rom. 13:11; Eph. 1:13) with discipleship (which is a lifelong process). As Miles Stanford has said, “Lordship salvation is not the childlike faith of John 3:16. It rightly insists upon repentance but wrongly includes a change of behavior IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Saviour, but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith.” (Miles Stanford, in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus).

MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance “inevitably results in a change of behavior” (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, “true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose” (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.

The writing of Lordship Salvation advocates confirm beyond any doubt that LS is a works based, man-centered message that conditions eternal life on an upfront commitment to change behavior and perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) that should be the result of a genuine conversion. Calling on a lost man to “turn from sin” FOR SALVATION is to condition salvation on behavior, not believing.


LM

For additonal documentation of Lordship Salvation’s “leave (stop committing) sin, and follow Jesus at any cost” to become a Christian message please read, Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus called people to follow Him, which required leaving their old ways and learning new ways. The New Testament knows nothing of people professing a certain view of the atonement and becoming "saved" without change taking place in their lives. Those who wish to become followers of Jesus (to be "saved") must take up their cross (die to their old lives) and follow Him. He calls everyone to take upon themselves His light and easy yoke so that we may learn from Him.

I believe in "Lordship" salvation, except I believe that Bible teaches that salvation begins with the new birth, not when our body dies. The point is not to "get to Heaven" (although we will) but to work for the Kingdom of the Heavens (aka, the Kingdom of God).

Some will immediately claim I am teaching a "works"-based salvation, in that we must "earn" God's favor. I am not. We are saved by grace through faith. It is not of ourselves, nor of works. However, it does require effort. Remember, Jesus tells us to "strive to enter by the narrow gate."

Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Jesus called people to follow Him, which required leaving their old ways and learning new ways. The New Testament knows nothing of people professing a certain view of the atonement and becoming "saved" without change taking place in their lives. Those who wish to become followers of Jesus (to be "saved") must take up their cross (die to their old lives) and follow Him. He calls everyone to take upon themselves His light and easy yoke so that we may learn from Him.

I believe in "Lordship" salvation, except I believe that Bible teaches that salvation begins with the new birth, not when our body dies. The point is not to "get to Heaven" (although we will) but to work for the Kingdom of the Heavens (aka, the Kingdom of God).

So, you are affirming that LS insists the lost man must make a commitment to "turn from sin" FOR salvation? Right?


LM

 

[Baptist Believer]

So, you are affirming that LS insists the lost man must make a commitment to "turn from sin" FOR salvation? Right?

I read John McArthur's book, The Gospel According to Jesus, back when in came out in the late 1980s and I haven't really looked at it since. I haven't read much else written about the issue except for the very weak rebuttal books by Ryrie and Hodge, which convinced me even more that they were wrong.

I am not terribly interested in taking sides in the "Lordship Salvation" controversy because I think it is misguided. Both sides, in my estimation, seem to think that the gospel is belief in a certain view of the atonement so that we will go to Heaven when we die. Instead, I think the Kingdom of Heaven/God (which is the primary subject of the teaching of Jesus) is something much broader, demanding and exciting than the reductionism of what passes for the gospel in most churches these days.

But to answer your question, I think John McArthur believes (at least back in the 1980s) that one must intend to turn from sin as part of what it takes to embrace the gospel.

And for the record, since Jesus calls us to follow Him, I am convinced there is no choice but to intend to leave our old life (including our sinful ways) behind us.

So, on the point of contention you have with McArthur, I believe he is correct because I'm convinced he agrees with Jesus.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

But to answer your question, I think John McArthur believes (at least back in the 1980s) that one must intend to turn from sin as part of what it takes to embrace the gospel.

He still believes and teaches this today.

And for the record, since Jesus calls us to follow Him, I am convinced there is no choice but to intend to leave our old life (including our sinful ways) behind us.

Who is the “us” Jesus is calling to “follow Him?” Calling on the lost to make this commitment conditions salvation on his promise to perform certain expected levels of behavior (self-denial, following and cross-bearing) that should be evident in the life of a born again disciple of Christ, is works salvation!

So, on the point of contention you have with McArthur, I believe he is correct because I'm convinced he agrees with Jesus.

The problem boils down once again to LS confusing and blending the distinct doctrines of salvation and discipleship.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

Although this subject has been debated ad nauseam, it is VERY clear in scripture, that salvation and discipleship cannot be separated. Jesus never said "Get saved, and then choose whether or not to be my disciple". His offer to people, ALWAYS included discipleship> it is a package deal.

"Faith" is not belief. It is an active trusting belief. If one does not desire to follow Christ, how can you say they trust Him?

Jesus said:

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Mat 16:26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Those who do not "follow Christ", FORFEIT their soul. Such passages are beyond argumentation, unless one FORCES their belief upon it.

Does this mean that we must follow Christ TO be saved? NO. It means that following Christ is an AUTOMATIC part of the salvation process. If you trust (have faith) in Christ, you WILL continually turn from your sins.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The problem boils down once again to LS confusing and blending the distinct doctrines of salvation and discipleship.

The reason I "blend" the doctrines of salvation and discipleship is that Jesus "blended" them. More correctly, He did not seperate discipleship from "being saved."

I know many people will reject this because they like to theologically nail down a moment of conversion where one passes from death to life, but I don't think that's the point of Jesus' teaching. It is clear that those who come to Jesus come as disciples (intending to leave their life of sin) and those who don't follow Jesus in discipleship are outside of the fold of the One Who embodies the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

For what it is worth, I didn't come to this conviction by reading John McArthur, but actually in the mid-1980s when I decided to see for myself what the Bible said. I read the Bible through several times and spent months in the gospels trying to reconcile the "gospel" on which I had been raised, with the message of Jesus and then the writings of Paul. Finally, I decided to look at some systematic theologies that supported the way I had been taught (separating salvation from discipleship) including the notes in the Ryrie Study Bible I was using at the time. I realized that those systematic theologies didn't seem to match up with the clear teachings of Jesus and tended to ignore the verses that didn't support their conclusions. I had to go with what I believed the Bible said rather than what people at church or those who wrote books said.

Then, a few years later, I read The Gospel According to Jesus and was pleased to see that McArthur had picked up on some of the same things I had seen in the scriptures. (Now I'm not a big McArthur fan, and I strongly disagree with some of his other positions, but I think he is right on this point.) Shortly after his book was released, there was some controversy and the Ryrie and Hodge wrote their rebuttals, which I read. I was completely unconvince by both their lack of logic and misuse of scripture.

In recent years, I came across the writings of Dallas Willard who has helped bring these issues into sharper focus. Willard's book, The Divine Conspiracy, spends several chapters working through these issues and showing a better (more biblical) way. I highly recommend you read that book to get a better sense of where the discussion has gone in the last decade. Even if you don't agree with Willard, at least you will better understand the arguments of people like me.

 

[J.D.]

Although this subject has been debated ad nauseam, it is VERY clear in scripture, that salvation and discipleship cannot be separated. Jesus never said "Get saved, and then choose whether or not to be my disciple". His offer to people, ALWAYS included discipleship> it is a package deal.

"Faith" is not belief. It is an active trusting belief. If one does not desire to follow Christ, how can you say they trust Him?

Jesus said:

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Mat 16:26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Those who do not "follow Christ", FORFEIT their soul. Such passages are beyond argumentation, unless one FORCES their belief upon it.

Does this mean that we must follow Christ TO be saved? NO. It means that following Christ is an AUTOMATIC part of the salvation process. If you trust (have faith) in Christ, you WILL continually turn from your sins.

Thank you for bringing the Bible and biblical terms into the conversation. Very good!

I did not vote because it depends on what is meant by "turn from sin" and "receive" eternal life (I find eternal life "given", and "laid hold of", but never "received", in the Bible).

 

[Lou Martuneac]

BB:

You wrote, “The reason I ‘blend’ the doctrines of salvation and discipleship is that Jesus "blended" them. More correctly, He did not seperate discipleship from "being saved. I know many people will reject this…”

If I may clarify further- MacArthur blends the two distinct doctrines into one by making the works of a born again disciple of Christ, the works that the lost must make an upfront commitment to FOR the reception of salvation, eternal life.

I have always agreed that discipleship (following, cross-bearing and surrender) should follow a genuine conversion. You’ll never get an argument from me about the “good works” of a disciple that should follow becoming a Christian, that should follow becoming a born again disciple of Christ.

The problem with LS is that it demands a promise of performance from the unsaved in “exchange” FOR salvation.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I did not vote because it depends on what is meant by "turn from sin" and "receive" eternal life (I find eternal life "given", and "laid hold of", but never "received", in the Bible).

You are correct in that eternal life is given, as a gift. It is not earned, merited or received through any commitment to "turn from sin," which is what Lordship Salvation calls on the lost to make a decision for to BECOME a Christian.

In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to obtain eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, “…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,” and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180). He acknowledges at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178). That is, MacArthur sees repentance as a work of God and of man. According to MacArthur’s view of repentance the lost man must cooperate in salvation by making a commitment to turn from sin, to cease from sinning, to continue striving against sin our whole lives, never knowing we are saved and always hoping we are turning from enough sins. MacArthur contends that if anyone falls into sin they may have never been saved in the first place (pp. 89, 95-96, 132-133).

LM

 

[Baptist Believer]

BB:

You wrote, “The reason I ‘blend’ the doctrines of salvation and discipleship is that Jesus "blended" them. More correctly, He did not seperate discipleship from "being saved. I know many people will reject this…”

If I may clarify further- MacArthur blends the two distinct doctrines into one by making the works of a born again disciple of Christ, the works that the lost must make an upfront commitment to FOR the reception of salvation, eternal life.

Fundamentally, I think it is wrong to separate salvation and discipleship. As far as I can tell, that is not found in the New Testament.

Regarding MacArthur (I just realized I've been misspelling his name), I don't know what his recent statements/writings have said, but in the first edition of his seminal book, The Gospel According to Jesus, he indicated that committing to faith in Christ is more than assent to a theological proposition (what Ryrie and Hodge seem to say), but it is drastically re-ordering one's life to follow Jesus. And that's the same thing that Jesus preached.

Frankly, I think everyone would be better off if you stopped obsessing about MacArthur and demonstrate from the scriptures that Jesus separated salvation from discipleship. If you can do that, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about John MacArthur.

I have always agreed that discipleship (following, cross-bearing and surrender) should follow a genuine conversion.

It begins with discipleship too.

You’ll never get an argument from me about the “good works” of a disciple that should follow becoming a Christian, that should follow becoming a born again disciple of Christ.

But I don't think we have the right to alter the teaching of the New Testament to separate the two doctrines. What happens is that we end up teaching that someone just needs to give intellectual assent to the gospel, yet make no real commitment to Jesus. That's completely contrary to the message of Jesus.

The problem with LS is that it demands a promise of performance from the unsaved in “exchange” FOR salvation.

Not at all.

Performance is not the issue, otherwise we would all be doomed from the start. It is simply repentance (reordering one's life) to follow Jesus in faith. We take on His easy yoke to learn from Him. (Learning of any sort also involves errors.)

 

[Baptist Believer]

You are correct in that eternal life is given, as a gift. It is not earned, merited or received through any commitment to "turn from sin"...

I agree that eternal life (that is, life in Christ) is not earned or merited. But that doesn't mean that we are uninvolved in the process. We must strive to enter through the narrow gate (Luke 13:24), and that will involve some effort, including repentance of the old life to follow a new life in Christ. Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning.

 

[Havensdad]

You are correct in that eternal life is given, as a gift. It is not earned, merited or received through any commitment to "turn from sin," which is what Lordship Salvation calls on the lost to make a decision for to BECOME a Christian.


LM

In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to obtain eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, “…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,” and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180). He acknowledges at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178). That is, MacArthur sees repentance as a work of God and of man. According to MacArthur’s view of repentance the lost man must cooperate in salvation by making a commitment to turn from sin, to cease from sinning, to continue striving against sin our whole lives, never knowing we are saved and always hoping we are turning from enough sins. MacArthur contends that if anyone falls into sin they may have never been saved in the first place (pp. 89, 95-96, 132-133).

This is an out and out lie. I do hope this is a mistaken quoting of unreliable sources on your part, Lou. Even if it is, though, it demonstrates VERY poor scholarship!

The person above asserts that J. Mac says "Nor is repentance merely a Human work", and they use this to try to make L.S. some mutual cooperation of God and man. YET THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE AFTER THIS STATEMENT, JOHNNY MAC SAYS:

"It is likely every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God"

I DO HOPE you issue an apology. Why is it that peddlers of this false, lifeless Gospel that you defend, ALWAYS misquote and deliberately malign those on the other side? The only way you can win a debate is to lie?!

Your sin loving Gospel makes me ill.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Sorry HD, but you are in error because you who have been deceived by the teaching of LS. LS is rooted in the extra-biblical presuppositions of the circle logic of five point Calvinism. You think the extra-biblical presuppositions negate and/or change the obvious works based teaching of LS. That is sad and unfortunate.

Did you notice that I used quotation marks in my article? That indicates that those things are contained in the book which I cited them from. Ans while we are citing from MacArthur's book let's add the followng from the same page (#178), "Repentance is...a redirection of the human will, a purposeful decision to forsake all unrighteousness and pursue righteousness instead."

So, it is very obvious that MacArthur's LS repentance has as much or more to do with changing the behavior FOR salvation as it does with "changing the mind." There is no way around it: LS conditions salvation upon a lost man's commtment to change his behavior.


LM

PS: What ever "sin loving gospel" you refer to, I have no affinity for.

 

[Amy.G]

I agree that eternal life (that is, life in Christ) is not earned or merited. But that doesn't mean that we are uninvolved in the process. We must strive to enter through the narrow gate (Luke 13:24), and that will involve some effort, including repentance of the old life to follow a new life in Christ. Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning.

Christ is the narrow gate. There is no striving to enter into Him, only faith. There is no amount of effort that will cause us to enter into Christ (the narrow gate). The only "striving" we will do is after salvation as a disciple of Christ.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Christ is the narrow gate.

I agree.

There is no striving to enter into Him, only faith.

Yet Jesus disagrees:

Luke 13
22 And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem.

23 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,

24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

There is no amount of effort that will cause us to enter into Christ (the narrow gate).

What is "striving" but effort?

The only "striving" we will do is after salvation as a disciple of Christ.

According to what Jesus says in the gospels, we enter into salvation that way as well.

Listen, I'm not making this up. I am dealing with what the Bible says.

 

[Havensdad]

Sorry HD, but you are in error because you who have been deceived by the teaching of LS. LS is rooted in the extra-biblical presuppositions of the circle logic of five point Calvinism. You think the extra-biblical presuppositions negate and/or change the obvious works based teaching of LS. That is sad and unfortunate.

L.S. is simply the Biblical gospel. Jesus' method of evangelism was to proclaim "If anyone would come after me, let Him deny Himself, pickup his cross, and follow me". This should be our gospel message, too.

Did you notice that I used quotation marks in my article? That indicates that those things are contained in the book which I cited them from.

I apologize. I did not realize you are uneducated. Your are supposed to check sources, before you quote them as authoritative. The man in this writing is deliberately misleading. This is a common tactic among "cheap grace" proponents.

Ans while we are citing from MacArthur's book let's add the followng from the same page (#178), "Repentance is...a redirection of the human will, a purposeful decision to forsake all unrighteousness and pursue righteousness instead."

Right. It is a change of mind. That is the Biblical definition for repentance. Yet without a change of action, it is not a change of mind. It is lipservice/self delusion only. If I say "I will NOT eat that ice cream again", and the eat the whole tub, I did not really "metanoia".

So, it is very obvious that MacArthur's LS repentance has as much or more to do with changing the behavior FOR salvation as it does with "changing the mind." There is no way around it: LS conditions salvation upon a lost man's commtment to change his behavior.

Hmm. The Gospel seems to involve a changing behavior too. Discipleship is part of salvation, according to scripture. I realize you have been brainwashed by people like Zane Hodges, and the heretics at GES, and this is hard for you to see.

PS: What ever "sin loving gospel" you refer to, I have no affinity for.

Any gospel that denies the necessity of repentance, is a sin loving gospel. And you seem to be quite an apologist for it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

LS is rooted in the extra-biblical presuppositions of the circle logic of five point Calvinism. You think the extra-biblical presuppositions negate and/or change the obvious works based teaching of LS. That is sad and unfortunate.

I'm not sure how you know what he thinks... but let me point out that I do not hold to "five-point Calvinism," so that does not explain why I hold to a biblical view of salvation (to which the fundamental tenet of Lordship Salvation also holds).

You seem to have ignored or overlooked my request to demonstrate that Jesus separated salvation from discipleship from scripture. I now repeat my request.

If you cannot demonstrate that Jesus taught your position, then why should I care what you say about it?

 

[canadyjd]

I apologize. I did not realize you are uneducated. Your are supposed to check sources, before you quote them as authoritative. The man in this writing is deliberately misleading. This is a common tactic among "cheap grace" proponents.

Havensdad:

Lou Martuneac is the man. Lou Martuneac is the source of the (mis)quote. Lou Martuneac has the book. Lou Martuneac simply will not accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac cannot be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by Lou Martuneac
Dear BB Readers:

Once again a MacArthur/LS apologist demonstrates that he does not recognize or understand what MacArthur is writing and is teaching. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The apologist wrote,

canadyjd: “John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’

Lou Martuneac continued:

The Grace to You website, which posts an article by Dr. MacArthur, that is touted as his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again. The statement is written by MacArthur and it is discussing the Gospel, the plan of salvation, the LS interpretation of how a lost man receives the gift of eternal life

.“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

To all:

I have read the quote from MacArthur several times. I still do not see the words "to be born again you must turn from your sins". Please remember that Lou Martuneac has already stated that MacArthur believes a man is regenerated (born again) prior to faith, prior to repentance...it is a work of God. (Lou Martuneac considers that an unbiblical postion).

I don't see how somone can hold both positions at once. Does MacArthur believe regeneration occurs prior to faith? Does MacArthur believe regeneration occurs after someone has demonstrated faith with a commitment to do good works? These are contradictory statements that Lou Martuneac continues to refuse to address.

The above post by Lou Martuneac is irrefruable evidence that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered to be a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

peace to allraying: