Lordship’s Salvation: Not by Works?

[Lou Martuneac]

Ed/WebDog:

Thanks for the comprehensive and helpful comments. It is quite telling that LS apologists will not accept the plain teaching of LS teachers like MacArthur.

MacArthur wrote,

”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.”

Whether one filters statements through the extra-biblical Calvinistic presuppositions or not, JM means what he says, which is: Salvation, the reception of eternal life, is ONLY for those who are willing to forsake everything.

These kinds of extreme statements have been reiterated and reinforced in every major LS book he has written.


LM

 

[JustChristian]

Dear BB Readers:

In this article I am going to document (author and source) another example that proves Lordship Salvation conditions eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to perform works. I want you to notice that this carefully documented and the meaning of the citations is clear. I encourage all readers to read these citations objectively without any preconceived notions or feelings toward or about who the writer is. Just read objectively and as you read ask yourself: Is this how the lost are born again?

In Matthew 19:16-22 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 is from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. It is a revision of what John MacArthur wrote in the original edition, which was: From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote: From the quotes from three of MacArthur’s LS books you can see that he is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Again, I encourage all readers to carefully and objectively consider how John MacArthur defines the way he believes the lost must be born again. Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?


LM

But you neglected to follow up with Jesus' response.

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Why did Jesus say to His disciples that it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven? Because the rich young ruler who had just left was a good example of one who wasn't going to enter the kingdom. The ruler went away sorrowful. Why? Because he wasn't willing to pay the price of following Christ. Oh yes, there is a price. You and many others distort the gospel to make it seem easy to be saved. We are saved by grace but our salvation results in our being born again to a new life. The rich young ruler didn't want a new life on earth. He was rich. He just wanted eternal life.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

But you neglected to follow up with Jesus' response.

I'll be happy to expand on that later tongiht or towmoorw. However, I don't think you addressed the closing question to my article.

Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

You and many others distort the gospel to make it seem easy to be saved. We are saved by grace but our salvation results in our being born again to a new life.

Time for another reminder about what the debate is over. For me the debate is not primarily over what should be the results of becoming a Christian. You’ll get little argument from me about what should be the life of a born again Christian.

The debate and true crux of the debate, however, is over the requirements for salvation. You need to try to focus on what is necessary FOR salvation because that is where the true and primary doctrinal controversy revolves.

Salvation, the reception of eternal life, is easy because the lost man receives what has been done for him by Jesus Christ.

Are you suggesting it is hard to become a Christian?


LM

 

[Rippon]

Time for another reminder about what the debate is over.


LM

Yeah! ... Oh, I thought the debate was over.It's getting soo old Lou.

 

[nodak]

And yet there is nothing more important to discuss.

Either salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of works, lest any man should boast, or it is not.

There is no middle way.

And JM clearly teaches a works based salvation.

No argument from me that there is no salvation without regeneration. Therefore, works will most assuredly follow salvation. Key word is FOLLOW.

And if we are going to discuss the rich guy, let's take the whole passage. The disciples then asked who COULD be saved. "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

The rich dude was sorrowing for he had much. We are NOT told his ultimate outcome. Despite his sorrow, he may well have obeyed.

And consider this: he may have been sorrowing BECAUSE, now a saved man, he knew what he was going to be parting with.

JM makes too many assumptions based on what he reads into the passage,

 

[canadyjd]

And JM clearly teaches a works based salvation.

John MacArthur clearly and repeatedly teaches salvation is completely a work of Almighty God and that men can do nothing to earn salvation, that there are no prepatory works to be done to pave the way for salvation, that God alone is the author of salvation.

I urge you to visit John MacArthur's website: grace to you: to discover what he believes and teaches. You may also want to read one of his books.

The rich dude was sorrowing for he had much. We are NOT told his ultimate outcome. Despite his sorrow, he may well have obeyed. And consider this: he may have been sorrowing BECAUSE, now a saved man, he knew what he was going to be parting with.

If he had been "saved" as you suggest, then he would have obeyed his Lord and Savior and he wouldn't have been sorrowful. He would have followed Jesus.

His ultimate outcome is not the point, anyway. The point is, at that moment, when Jesus Christ told him what he needed to do to enter into eternal life, he rejected the words of our Lord and walked away.

JM makes too many assumptions based on what he reads into the passage,

You have just speculated the "rich dude" may have actually been saved (even though Jesus said otherwise), and you accuse MacArthur of reading into the passage?

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Nodak:

Watch this,

John MacArthur clearly and repeatedly teaches salvation is completely a work of Almighty God and that men can do nothing to earn salvation, that there are no prepatory works to be done to pave the way for salvation, that God alone is the author of salvation.

Why then 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."

MacArthur is calling on the llst man for a great deal of "willingness" and commitment as a "requirement for eternal life."

How does one explain God does it all and at the same time the lost man must have a "willingness" to perform as a "requirement for eternal life?"

MacArthur is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

 

[nodak]

Emotions are not sinful, rather they are a normal part of human makeup.

Who can honestly say, that as a born again child of God they have never been asked by to part with something precious to them? I know I have sure experienced it.

Remember, this dude came bragging about his works. He WANTED a works based salvation because he believed his good deeds already done had earned him salvation. Jesus shot him down by proving to him that there were works left undone. And Jesus will do that to anyone trying to come to Him on the basis of works.

Remember also that to break the law on any one point is to be guilty of all.

Just as Jesus told the rich young ruler he had not yet attained perfection, He tells it to us in His word. Remember: there is none righteous, no, not one.

Not even John MacArthur.

Look at it this way--suppose I invite you to dinner at my house. You ask if you can bring anything and I reply no, just show up and trust me to feed you. You do so. At the door I lay in to you that you need to bring a dessert, wash your feet, and wear an Armanti suit to come to my free dinner. Is it really a free dinner?

Of course not. So would Jesus, who clearly taught (start with John 3:16 and work your way on) that salvation depends solely on believing in Him tell someone who was coming on that basis to go and do some works to earn that free salvation?

I think not. I think the passage of the rich young ruler is not about total commitment to earn salvation, but showing that we are not capable of doing enough to earn it.

He was not confirming works salvation, He was proving the impossibility of it.

And I have studied JM's books. I am not ignorant of his teachings. I just believe he teaches a false gospel that appeals to human pride.

 

[webdog]

Emotions are not sinful, rather they are a normal part of human makeup.

Who can honestly say, that as a born again child of God they have never been asked by to part with something precious to them? I know I have sure experienced it.

Remember, this dude came bragging about his works. He WANTED a works based salvation because he believed his good deeds already done had earned him salvation. Jesus shot him down by proving to him that there were works left undone. And Jesus will do that to anyone trying to come to Him on the basis of works.

Remember also that to break the law on any one point is to be guilty of all.

Just as Jesus told the rich young ruler he had not yet attained perfection, He tells it to us in His word. Remember: there is none righteous, no, not one.

Not even John MacArthur.

Look at it this way--suppose I invite you to dinner at my house. You ask if you can bring anything and I reply no, just show up and trust me to feed you. You do so. At the door I lay in to you that you need to bring a dessert, wash your feet, and wear an Armanti suit to come to my free dinner. Is it really a free dinner?

Of course not. So would Jesus, who clearly taught (start with John 3:16 and work your way on) that salvation depends solely on believing in Him tell someone who was coming on that basis to go and do some works to earn that free salvation?

I think not. I think the passage of the rich young ruler is not about total commitment to earn salvation, but showing that we are not capable of doing enough to earn it.

He was not confirming works salvation, He was proving the impossibility of it.

And I have studied JM's books. I am not ignorant of his teachings. I just believe he teaches a false gospel that appeals to human pride.

Excellent post! The dinner analogy was a good one :thumbs:

 

[mparkerfd20]

Excellent post! The dinner analogy was a good one :thumbs:

I agree. Very good post... And here I was thinking I had made up my mind on this subject. Let's see... maybe Lou will start 75 more threads so that I can be sure. :BangHead:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Emotions are not sinful, rather they are a normal part of human makeup.

Who can honestly say, that as a born again child of God they have never been asked by to part with something precious to them? I know I have sure experienced it.

Remember, this dude came bragging about his works. He WANTED a works based salvation because he believed his good deeds already done had earned him salvation. Jesus shot him down by proving to him that there were works left undone. And Jesus will do that to anyone trying to come to Him on the basis of works.

Remember also that to break the law on any one point is to be guilty of all.

Just as Jesus told the rich young ruler he had not yet attained perfection, He tells it to us in His word. Remember: there is none righteous, no, not one.

Not even John MacArthur.

Look at it this way--suppose I invite you to dinner at my house. You ask if you can bring anything and I reply no, just show up and trust me to feed you. You do so. At the door I lay in to you that you need to bring a dessert, wash your feet, and wear an Armanti suit to come to my free dinner. Is it really a free dinner?

Of course not. So would Jesus, who clearly taught (start with John 3:16 and work your way on) that salvation depends solely on believing in Him tell someone who was coming on that basis to go and do some works to earn that free salvation?

I think not. I think the passage of the rich young ruler is not about total commitment to earn salvation, but showing that we are not capable of doing enough to earn it.

He was not confirming works salvation, He was proving the impossibility of it.

And I have studied JM's books. I am not ignorant of his teachings. I just believe he teaches a false gospel that appeals to human pride.

Well done, LS is man-centered.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

I like Dr. Charlie Bing's note on the Rich Young Ruler:

Thus, the account of the rich young ruler does not teach that to be saved the ruler must meet the demands of discipleship, surrender to Christ's lordship in the area of covetousness and love for others, or repent of particular sins. The issue of riches was raised to show that the ruler had not fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law and that he was really trusting in the merit of his wealth and position. . . . The forsaking of one's possessions, or the willingness to do so is never made a condition of salvation in other evangelistic encounters in the New Testament. (Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, pp. 149-150.)

LM

 

[JustChristian]

I'll be happy to expand on that later tongiht or towmoorw. However, I don't think you addressed the closing question to my article.

LM

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I'll let the Bible speak for me. How about you?