Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[ReformedBaptist]

Another problem...



Scripture teaches repentance as part of faith. Turning from self to Christ is the repentance needed for salvation. If turning from sin is a requirement, the thief on the cross never had the chance to do that, hence he must not be saved (sarcasm). His Scripture references for repentance as turning from sin leave much to be desired. If anything, his reference passages point to repentance as what I already outlined, a turn from self and to Christ.

Where in Scripture does it teach that repentance is a turn from self?

I re-read the quote from JM. I looked up the passages. I still conlude that he is making a proper assessment of Scripture. I do not see this in your commentary, however. Consider the words of James P. Boyce, once professor of Systematic Theology and founder of the SBC, 1887:

"That true repentance is inconsistent with the continuance in sin because of grace abounding."

"That true repentance consists of mental and spiritual emotion, and not of outward self-imposed chastisements. Even the pious life and devotion to God which follow are described not as repentance, but as fruits meet for repentance."

"The Scriptures teach that the author of true repentance is God operating by truth upon the renewed heart. Acts 5:31. Christ is said to have been exalted "to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins." Acts 11:18. "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."

It seems that Boyce is in agreement with what JM is teaching. For the full text you can go here, http://founders.org/library/boyce1/ch33.html

 

[skypair]

Since all of us are committed to only believing the Words of God as found in scripture, now we should look at scripture to see if Jesus really preached a gospel that included a call to discipleship and a call to follow Him in submissive obedience.

Personally, I think it is obvious that He did. However, if you wish to discuss scripture, in context, where Jesus preaches a gospel that doesn't include a call to discipleship and a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, I'll be willing to look at it (in context) with an open mind.

That's a very good appeal for unity, canady. And there is no doubt that Christ calls the "saved" to discipleship.

But where does "discipleship" imperative appear in the gospel message Jesus gave in John 3:15-16, 18? The "equation" appears to be "Believe on Me and have eternal life."

Now I would agree with those who say that "believing on Christ" is our first act of sanctification of which discipleship is the continuation in that initial commitment displayed in works. That is, "believing on Christ" reconciles us to God --- "discipleship" makes us more like Christ, "conforms us to His image" per Rom 8:29. And it would be SO ineffecacious of God or of us to try to conform ourselves to the image of His Son without already having "eternal life."

skypair

 

[webdog]

Where in Scripture does it teach that repentance is a turn from self?

It's a change of mind. From what? Living from and depending on self.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It's a change of mind. From what? Living from and depending on self.

I asked for Scripturual support.

 

[EdSutton]

Charles C. Ryrie is a Calvinist who has taken on MacArthur in print and he doesn't share his view on LS.

Ryrie believes in regeneration before faith, yet he's not for Lordship salvation.

Apparently, regeneration before faith doesn't lead to the LS view.

Just something for you and others to consider.

This only shows there are numerous ways to arrive at a false conclusion He simply took another path, but we arrived at the same destination.

John F. MacArthur and Charles C. Ryrie -

Any others we need to read?

After all, anybody smart enough to write their own Bible ...

Ed

 

[webdog]

I asked for Scripturual support.

Eph. 2:8-9. I don't see "repent of sin" in that verse. Faith and repentance are one in the same. They cannot be divided.

 

[TCGreek]

John F. MacArthur and Charles C. Ryrie -

Any others we need to read?

After all, anybody smart enough to write their own Bible ...

Ed

Ed, I heard that you're working a Study Bible too. :thumbs:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Eph. 2:8-9. I don't see "repent of sin" in that verse. Faith and repentance are one in the same. They cannot be divided.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9

1. I don't see "Trinity" in any verse in the Bible. But it is still true doctrine.

2. If faith and repentance are "one and the same" then this verse can properly be understood as also meaning, "For by grace are ye saved through repentance."

3. I asked for your biblical support that repentence is turn from self. Haven't seen any yet.

 

[webdog]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9

1. I don't see "Trinity" in any verse in the Bible. But it is still true doctrine.

2. If faith and repentance are "one and the same" then this verse can properly be understood as also meaning, "For by grace are ye saved through repentance."

3. I asked for your biblical support that repentence is turn from self. Haven't seen any yet.

1. Red Herring

2. Since faith in Christ is a turn from self to Christ for salvation...yup. That is what repentance means in greek, a change of mind (metanoia). Since one cannot have a "change of mind" apart from faith in Christ, it is one in the same.

3. Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 17:30-32. If you don't see repentance as part of faith in Acts 17, I don't know what else to tell you. Here, we have God judging the world based on whether they repented. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, John 3:18 tells us exactly what man is judged on...did we believe, or did we not believe.
Act 17:30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because He has set a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead."

Joh 3:18Anyone who believes in Him is not judged, but anyone who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. Red Herring

2. Since faith in Christ is a turn from self to Christ for salvation...yup.

3. Eph. 2:8-9

1. Yes, that is what you offered.

2. Still not a single text of Scripture from you.

3. Love the scripture.

You added to your post. I will get to it in a bit.

 

[webdog]

1. Yes, that is what you offered.

2. Still not a single text of Scripture from you.

3. Love the scripture.

See the edit...

I did offer Ephesians 2:8-9 originally...so are you being deliberatly dishonest, or was that on oversight?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

See the edit...

I did offer Ephesians 2:8-9 originally...so are you being deliberatly dishonest, or was that on oversight?

Web,

Is that how you wish to dialogue with me web? By calling my integrity into question? Well, if you think it helps your case....:laugh:

You offered Ephesians 2:8-9 which does not teach respentance. So what are you talking about?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Web,

You have changed your post #2 and #3 since I replied to them. I will need to re-read your edits and changes and reply to those. Question edited because it might be interpreted wrong.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. Red Herring

2. Since faith in Christ is a turn from self to Christ for salvation...yup. That is what repentance means in greek, a change of mind (metanoia). Since one cannot have a "change of mind" apart from faith in Christ, it is one in the same.

3. Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 17:30-32. If you don't see repentance as part of faith in Acts 17, I don't know what else to tell you. Here, we have God judging the world based on whether they repented. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, John 3:18 tells us exactly what man is judged on...did we believe, or did we not believe.
Act 17:30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because He has set a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead."

Joh 3:18Anyone who believes in Him is not judged, but anyone who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

New reply to the added material.

1. No, it's not a red herring. "Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy." I was given a single text of Scripture in which the words were quoted by you "repent of sins" were not contained in that text of Scripture. My reply is neither is the word "Trinity" contained in the BIble, in ANY text of Scripture. Yet the doctrine is true. Just because the words "respent of sins" does not appear in the text of Scripture you chose, does not mean repentence is either uncessary to salvation or equal with faith.

2. You wrote, "Since faith in Christ is a turn from self to Christ for salvation...yup. That is what repentance means in greek, a change of mind (metanoia). Since one cannot have a "change of mind" apart from faith in Christ, it is one in the same." I already gave Boyce's treatment of the Greek on the matter. There is more than one Greek word used for repentence in the NT. Nor is the definition or etymology of a Greek word, or any word for that matter, sufficient for proper exegesis...espeically on matters this important. Here is your reasoning:

Prop A. One cannot change their mind without faith in Jesus.
Prop B. Therefore repentance and faith are the same thing.

This reasoning does not address or do justice to the text of Scriptures where they speak on repentance and where they speak on faith. Repentance, according to the text of Scripture, is not faith, and faith is not repentance. The Scripture separates the two, but they are certainly related to one another. This is basic, elementary Christian doctrine.

Hebrews 6:1 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God..."

Acts 20:21 "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."


3. You have offered as your linchpin Scripture Acts 17. In fact, you claim that if I cannot see your doctrine in this text, then there is nothing left to say to me. Your also attempting to use that noble and reformed hermenutic by seeking to interpret Scripture by the Scripture. But understand what that actually means:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." WCF, Chapter I, Acticle IX.

Your claim is that God will be judging men on whether they repent or not. But is this what Acts 17 is saying? You quoted verse 31 yourself..

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

Romans 2:16 says, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." So which is it? It is faith? Is it reptence? Is it Paul's Gospel? God will judge the world indeed. And I think Acts 17 tells me that God will judge the world by Jesus Christ. But that He does command all men to repent. Therefore your bringing John 3:18 into the interpreation is a mistake. I believe you have missed your subject.

God does command men, if they are to be saved, to repent. They are to turn from their wickedness and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

God will judge the world in righteousness. Man will be judge according to his works. The elect will not be in this judgment. But the discussion of eternal judgement is another subject. But I mention it as briefly as you did only to say that I believe your statement "ohn 3:18 tells us exactly what man is judged on...did we believe, or did we not believe" to be inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture. When I compare other passages of Scripture regarding condemnation and judgment, as well as justification, with John 3:18, I gain a better understanding of that verse.

 

[webdog]

Web,

Is that how you wish to dialogue with me web? By calling my integrity into question? Well, if you think it helps your case....:laugh:

You offered Ephesians 2:8-9 which does not teach respentance. So what are you talking about?

Did you say the statement below or not? Is this an honest statement, given the above bolded?

Still not a single text of Scripture from you.

 

[webdog]

This reasoning does not address or do justice to the text of Scriptures where they speak on repentance and where they speak on faith. Repentance, according to the text of Scripture, is not faith, and faith is not repentance. The Scripture separates the two, but they are certainly related to one another. This is basic, elementary Christian doctrine.

Can a person repent without being regenerated? Since faith and regeneration happen at the same time, either repentance is part of faith, or occurs at some point after regeneration. Since repentance is a change of mind, I maintain my point...it is part of saving faith.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Did you say the statement below or not? Is this an honest statement, given the above bolded?

It is an honest statement but you are misunderstanding my meaning. Do you want to know my meaning?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Can a person repent without being regenerated? Since faith and regeneration happen at the same time, either repentance is part of faith, or occurs at some point after regeneration. Since repentance is a change of mind, I maintain my point...it is part of saving faith.

I don't see this going anywhere. I will say that your questions do not seem to point to me. The question isn't, in our discussion, whether a person can repent without being regenerated. The question is: Is repentance the same thing as faith. I believe the biblical answer is no. Neither is repentance the same thing as regeneration.

If you want to prove faith and regeneration happen at the same time, prove it by the Scripture. The way you have defined repentance is not in line with the Scriptures, completely, nor of the whole of the teaching of Scripture.

You may, of course, maintain your point. But I have yet to see you present your point as proven by Scripture. Boyce, on the other hand, did.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, I heard that you're working a Study Bible too. :thumbs:

Don't believe everything you hear.

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Overview of the Article

Following is my initial reaction to the article at the head of this thread. More to follow.

1) On the peripheral- the writer, Reformed Baptist (RB), has acknowledged (more than once in recent days) he has never read any of John MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. This is becoming a common pattern of LS apologists at BB. For weeks they put up a passionate defense of LS as defined by John Macarthur but have NEVER read any of his major works on the subject. They try to sanitize and defend statements that come from books they have NEVER read. We are, therefore, guided to what essentially amount to Cliff’s Notes on Lordship salvation. This will reluctantly have to suffice for a reaction.

2) The article makes the same error of omission that is very common in any discussion around or defense of Lordship Salvation. That error is the failure to draw a clear distinction between the results of (discipleship) and requirements for salvation. LS advocates consistently steer the debate toward the results of salvation and away from the Lordship advocate’s stated requirements FOR salvation.

They prefer to address what should be the results of salvation, but for men such as me, that is NOT where the crux of the controversy lies. They will find an argument with the heretical and reductionist views of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES, but NOT with me. IMO, a genuine conversion should produce genuine results. However, a promise, the resolve or intention to perform the results and/or the actual performance of the results of a conversion are not the condition or requirement FOR salvation.

Documented examples of how LS advocates define their requirements FOR salvation verify and affirm that LS is in fact based on works.

3) The appearance of a particular debate tactic, a logical fallacy, is very common in the debate over Lordship Salvation. IMO, RB is only mimicking what he has been reading from some LS advocates and simply utilized this tactic because he has been exposed to it without realizing what it is. The logical fallacy people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the Lordship debate, it appears in MacArthur’s books and in RB’s article.

RB Closed with,

“This controversy is not about works-based salvation. It is about true salvation vs. the easy-Believism of modern evangelicalism and the false teaching of what has been called decisional regeneration.”

In that statement you can see the false dilemma. Lordship Salvation vs. Easy-Believism. There is an alternative to the works based LS and the so-called “Easy-Believism,” but LS advocates fail to see it and/or will not acknowledge it. Why is that?

Those who advocate Lordship Salvation, such as RB, see only the “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ GES “Crossless” Gospel decry all others as advocates of Lordship Salvation. There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation, but neither of the extremists on either side of the debate, including RB, seems willing to acknowledge this.


4) The failure to fully define the terms as they are defined by Lordship Salvation advocates. I appreciate that Ed Sutton has already pointed out the lack of definition issue in a previous posting. What one will find with LS is that its advocates will use terms that are biblical, but their definition often time is not fully disclosed. To understand the egregious errors of LS you must insist they define their terms precisely and in unvarnished terms.

In RB’s article he uses terms, but fails to fully define the terms as they are defined and applied by the LS advocates. This leads to the tragic possibility that one might fall into the trap of LS because he/she thinks LS is defining terms as the Bible does without realizing the LS advocates are forcing the Bible into conformity with the LS presuppositions.

One of the most significant terms that need to be defined as LS defines it is repentance. In a separate posting I will demonstrate from the Lordship advocates how their definition of repentance confirms LS is a works based message to the lost for salvation.


LM

*I may post this as a new stand alone topic along with at least one additional topic drawn from the article by RB.