Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[DHK]

I put the phrase "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...." in "quotes" for a reason. None of the comments by LS advocates that you presented uses the phrase "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...."

As usually used by those who oppose LS, the "upfront commitment to servitude" is said to be a work that must be done to earn "salvation".

None of the quotes you provided suggests any such belief by those who said it.

peace to youraying:

You asked for those who misrepresent their position.
I gave you quotes to show how we do not misrepresent their position.
For example:

If you love anything in this world more than Christ, then you are not Saved,

That is an extreme statement typical of LS advocates. Many new believers have not given everything over to Christ. Christ is not Lord of everything in their lives. There may be things that they love more than Christ as new believers. They need time to grow and mature. The LS advocates with statements like this leave no room for growth as a Christian. Either your a fully mature Christian at salvation or your not a Christian at all. That is nonsense.

 

[DHK]

Salvation becomes so important that the regenerate will forsake all to obtain it.

To continue, is the above a true statement?
No. it is so obviously unbiblical how can anyone miss it?
As I challenged before: Should I challenge my seven year old, my 13 year old to forsake his mother and father to follow Jesus? This is nonsense.

Does any new Christian forsake all to follow Jesus? I seriously doubt it.

 

[canadyjd]

If you love anything in this world more than Christ, then you are not Saved,

That is an extreme statement typical of LS advocates.

Generally, when I am speaking of LS advocates, I am speaking of those like John MacArthur that are well known and published in this area.

However, not knowing the context of the statement, it could be this person is commenting on scripture, where our Lord Jesus says, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."(Matt 10:37)

It is our Lord Jesus who is saying that those who claim to be Christians must love Him more than anything else in the world, otherwise they are not worthy of Him.

Now, is it correct to take "not worthy of Me" to mean "not saved"? Well, the following verses appear to support the idea those "not worthy" are "not saved".

(39) "He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."

"found his life" equates to loving something else in the world more than Jesus, and therefore "lost". He that "lost his life for My sake" refers to those who are saved.

Now, if you believe our Lord Jesus Christ teaches that a person can love something else in the world more than Him (even their family), and still come to faith and be saved, please show me from scripture where He says it and I will carefully consider it.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Salvation becomes so important that the regenerate will forsake all to obtain it.

To continue, is the above a true statement?....No. it is so obviously unbiblical how can anyone miss it?

To continue, we should look at the quote in the context it was stated:

The Lordship position as taught by JM is that upon regeneration (a change brought about by God) Salvation becomes so important that the regenerate will forsake all to obtain it.

Mathew 13:44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."

This is obviously a comment on scripture, Matt.13:44-45.

The question is, does this passage of scripture teach that "salvation becomes so important that the regenerate forsake all to obtain it."

This person is equating salvation with finding the "kingdom of heaven". That seems very logical to me. But, perhaps you see it differently.

If you believe these passages of scripture teach something other than what has been said above, then please explain what it means.

You have claimed the above statement is "obviously unbiblical". I would challenge you to prove your assertion by addressing the passage of scripture that was being commented upon and explaining exactly why it doesn't teach what the person said it was teaching.

peace to youraying:

 

[DHK]

Generally, when I am speaking of LS advocates, I am speaking of those like John MacArthur that are well known and published in this area.

It is our Lord Jesus who is saying that those who claim to be Christians must love Him more than anything else in the world, otherwise they are not worthy of Him.

Now, is it correct to take "not worthy of Me" to mean "not saved"? Well, the following verses appear to support the idea those "not worthy" are "not saved".

(39) "He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."

"found his life" equates to loving something else in the world more than Jesus, and therefore "lost". He that "lost his life for My sake" refers to those who are saved.

Now, if you believe our Lord Jesus Christ teaches that a person can love something else in the world more than Him (even their family), and still come to faith and be saved, please show me from scripture where He says it and I will carefully consider it.

peace to youraying:

Jesus is speaking of discipleship, not salvation.
Compare these verses to John 5:24; 3:16; 3:36; 3:18.
The Bible teaches no such thing for salvation.
If the Bible teaches what you have quoted then what you have is a works based salvation.
Works come after salvation, not before.
LS advocates require the things that you mentioned in order for one to be saved, as a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by faith alone.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

We are not justified by forsaking all and following Him. That is an aberrant theology. It is a works-based salvation.

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus is speaking of discipleship, not salvation.
Compare these verses to John 5:24; 3:16; 3:36; 3:18.
The Bible teaches no such thing for salvation.

You never addressed the passages of scripture that were quoted. There are clear references to salvation in the passage, not discipleship.

Do you believe our Lord and Savior taught that a person could love something else in this world more than Himself, and still be saved? The passage spoke of losing one's life or not being worthy of Him. Are you saying that simply refers to a genuinely saved person who has not "made Jesus Lord of his life"?

If the Bible teaches what you have quoted then what you have is a works based salvation.

I quoted someone else who was quoting scripture, of which you did not address to tell what it means if it doesn't mean what it says. Address the passage of scripture.

Works come after salvation, not before.

I know of no LS advocate that believes works come before salvation, other than the work of Almighty God in bringing someone to salvation.

LS advocates require the things that you mentioned in order for one to be saved, as a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by faith alone.

I believe you are mis-reading what the LS advocates are saying. They believe saving faith will include a "desire" for Christ, a "commitment" to His Lordship (even if they don't understand the theology or the terms).

It is not viewed as a "work" for salvation any more than repentance and faith are viewed as "works" for salvation. It is a part of the God-given faith that genuine believers have.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

We are not justified by forsaking all and following Him. That is an aberrant theology. It is a works-based salvation.

Please show me where a LS advocate stated the words "we are justified before God by forsaking all and following Christ", and I'll take a look at it.

peace to youraying:

 

[DHK]

You never addressed the passages of scripture that were quoted. There are clear references to salvation in the passage, not discipleship.

Do you believe our Lord and Savior taught that a person could love something else in this world more than Himself, and still be saved? The passage spoke of losing one's life or not being worthy of Him. Are you saying that simply refers to a genuinely saved person who has not "made Jesus Lord of his life"?

To be saved a person must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
To be damned a person must reject the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is as simple as that.

Did Christ teach that a person could love something else in this world more than Himself and still be saved.
The question is moot.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is a red herring to what salvation is.
If I say yes, (but the answer is no), then Peter obviously was not saved. He denied Christ three times. He loved his own life, his own pride, his own fear, his own reputation, more than Christ. He denied him. Therefore you and other LS advocates have just condemned Peter as an unsaved person. For Christ was not first in his life. He loved himself more than he loved Christ. He denied Christ.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To be saved a person must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
To be damned a person must reject the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is as simple as that.

Did Christ teach that a person could love something else in this world more than Himself and still be saved.
The question is moot.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is a red herring to what salvation is.
If I say yes, (but the answer is no), then Peter obviously was not saved. He denied Christ three times. He loved his own life, his own pride, his own fear, his own reputation, more than Christ. He denied him. Therefore you and other LS advocates have just condemned Peter as an unsaved person. For Christ was not first in his life. He loved himself more than he loved Christ. He denied Christ.

Was Peter born again, regenerate, before he denied Christ?

 

[DHK]

To continue, we should look at the quote in the context it was stated:This is obviously a comment on scripture, Matt.13:44-45.

The question is, does this passage of scripture teach that "salvation becomes so important that the regenerate forsake all to obtain it."

This person is equating salvation with finding the "kingdom of heaven". That seems very logical to me. But, perhaps you see it differently.

If you believe these passages of scripture teach something other than what has been said above, then please explain what it means.

You have claimed the above statement is "obviously unbiblical". I would challenge you to prove your assertion by addressing the passage of scripture that was being commented upon and explaining exactly why it doesn't teach what the person said it was teaching.

peace to youraying:

The question is, does this passage of scripture teach that "salvation becomes so important that the regenerate forsake all to obtain it."

The answer us no.
The "Kingdom" parables of Matthew 13 are not necessarily speaking of salvation. Matthew is a book with primarily a Jewish audience. The Kingdom of Heaven usually relates to the Millennial Kingdom in the Jewish mind. But even with that in mind, he already is speaking to disciples. He is not speaking to the unsaved. These are not about salvation.
The LS advocates are out in left field.

Is this what LS advocates??

The interpretation of the parable of the treasure, which makes the buyer of the field to be a sinner who
is seeking Christ, has no warrant in the parable itself. The field is defined (v. 38) to be the world. The
seeking sinner does not buy, but forsakes, the world to win Christ. Furthermore, the sinner has
nothing to sell, nor is Christ for sale, nor is He hidden in a field, nor, having found Christ, does the
sinner hide Him again (cf) Mr 7:24; Ac 4:20. At every point the interpretation breaks down.

The above is wrong.
Here is the correct interpretation

Our Lord is the buyer at the awful cost of His blood 1Pe 1:18, and Israel, especially Ephraim Jer
31:5-12,18-20, the lost tribes hidden in "the field," the world (v. 38), is the treasure Ex 19:5; Ps 135:4.
Again, as in the separation of tares and wheat, the angels are used Mt 24:31; Jer 16:16. The divine
Merchantman buys the field (world) for the sake of the treasure (v. 44) Ro 11:28, beloved for the
fathers' sakes, and yet to be restored and saved. The note of joy (v. 44) is also that of the prophets in
view of Israel's restoration. De 30:9; Isa 49:13; 52:1-3; 62:4-7; 65:18-19.

The above seems to be far more reasonable don't you think?
Scofield sets forth both cases in his notes. That is where these were obtained from.

 

[DHK]

Was Peter born again, regenerate, before he denied Christ?

He testified: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you but my Father in heaven.

That exchange took place well before Peter's denial.
If Peter was not saved would God the Father be speaking to Peter or revealing to Peter such things about the deity of Christ, as He did there. I think not!!
Of course Peter was born again.

 

[EdSutton]

Was Peter born again, regenerate, before he denied Christ?

Yes!(Matt. 16:16-17) In 'Boxcar" letters! And Peter was no more saved then (and no more nor no less saved) than he was when Jesus called him "Satan," and said Peter was "an offense" to Himself, a mere seven verses later when Peter argued that the Lord Jesus should not die and be raised the third day. (Talk about "crossless!") (Matt. 16:22-23)

And I will use "born again", "regenerate" and "saved", interchangeably, and ask about these individuals.

Was David saved when he was both a murderer and an adulterer? (II Sam. 11:24; Ps.51)

Was Rahab saved when she was a prostitute? (Jas. 2:25)

Was Samson saved when he was one of the notorious 'womanizers' in history? (Jdg. 14:7; 16:1)

Was Noah saved when he was drunk? (Gen. 9:20-24)

Was Jacob saved when he was the biggest 'cheat' and/or swindler in the Bible? (Gen. 27:36; 30; 31)

Was Gideon saved when he was one of the biggest cowards of all time, scared of his own shadow, his neighbors, and even his own father, and who argued with the LORD that he was too weak to do anything, and even had to have his father protect him, after the little vandalism incident of casting down the altar of Baal, that actually belonged to his father? (Jdg. 6)

Was Solomon saved when he was the greatest 'polygamist' in history (Compared to Solomon, the Eldorado bunch, are at best, fifth rate 'wannabes'!), with personal wealth that would make Midas look like a pauper, and with more wives than all the other kings in the line of the Lord Jesus of Israel and Judah combined, which was in direct disobedience to God's direct prohibition for a king to 'multiply' wives (and wealth) for himself? (Deut. 17:17, I Ki. 11:3)

Was Jonah saved when he was the most obnoxious bigot in Scripture, who did not want anyone to heed his message, instead wanting God to destroy Ninevah, where he preached a message of fewer than 10 words, from a street corner, effectively told the LORD, "Okay! I preached what you asked.", and was angry with GOd, when He did not destroy Ninevah, because they repented, said he'd rather be dead than to have to live with that crowd? [Jonah seemed to forget that he had already been physically dead, once before ('Living' people were not found in Sheol, the realm of the dead.) and he didn't like it, but still he was willing to be dead again, in order to keep down the 'population explosion' of 'undesirables' in Paradise, even if they were now among the 'redeemed'.] (Jon. 3:4-4:12)

These are just a few from the OT. Let's ask about a couple of folks you may have heard of in the NT.

Was Thomas saved when he "doubted" in that he refused to believe the testimony of 10 apostles who were eyewitnesses that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and said that unless he, personally, could jab his hand into Jesus' side, "I will not believe!", the most notorious 'skeptic' in the Bible? (Jn. 20:25)

Was Paul saved when he said he "am 'chief' of sinners?" You do notice that Paul did not say he once was chief of sinners, I presume! (I Tim. 1:15)

And one more from the OT: Was that great 'role model', paragon of virtue, and whom I call the Biblical "saint of saints", because he is one of only two, or perhaps three individuals whom the Bible calls "righteous" or "just" three different times (and the only individual in Scripture specifically identified as being among "the godly") - "Yep! You got it!" - 'Hizzoner', himself, Ol' Lot, saved when he was the Mayor of Sodom? (Gen. 19:1; II Pet. 2:7)

Yes, they were all saved. -all 11 of 'em, as well, according to what I read. The first 6 are even found in what is described as the "Hall of Fame of faith" chapter in Scripture - Heb. 11.

The way I got it figured, including Peter, that's a Christ-denier, a murderer and an adulterer, to boot, a hooker, a womanizer, a swindler, a drunk, a coward, a polygamist, a bigot, a skeptic, the chief of sinners, and the Mayor of Sodom.

Hey, Nice Crowd!

Incidentally, I challenge anyone to show me where the Bible ever says any of them 'repented'. Of or from anything!

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Was Peter born again, regenerate, before he denied Christ?

Ed:

I cited RB above to address this because it has its origin in MacArthur's LS theology.

Peter was regenerate at the time of his denial of Christ. All of the 12 except Judas was regenerate. I know where RB got this from and where it is headed. I can't remember the page number right now, but this thinking comes from MacArthur. I’m pretty sure he got this from the portion of MacArthur’s Hard to Believe he said he read portions of. Got it! Page 127 of HTB.

LS advocates have a problem with Peter’s denial because it does not fit the LS model. So, LS men have to make Peter unregenerate at the time of his denial of Christ. This is a classic example of forcing a presupposition into the Scriptures to force it into conformity to LS.

The next step is to say that Peter was not regenerated, born again, until the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, had he been indwelt at the time of the Lord's passion, he (Peter) never would have denied Christ.

Furthermore, JM goes on to write, “After that, he never again was disloyal.” Yet another example of a misuse and/or misunderstanding of Scripture.

Peter was never again disloyal? What does the Bible say?

Some commentators believe Peter essentially quit the ministry when he declared, “I go a fishing” (John 21:3). Another time, the Lord appeared to Peter and commanded him, saying, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord” (Acts 10:13-14). There was also Peter’s dissimulation at Antioch, when “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:11-ff). Yet in spite of all his shortcomings, Peter was a saved man.

All of that happened after Peter was indwelt. he never quite lost that rebellion streak; did he? And MacArthur says Peter was never again disloyal?

If a Lordship teacher were to meet the modern-day equivalent of the Apostle Peter, he would have to conclude that the man had never been saved.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ed:

I cited RB above to address this because it has its origin in MacArthur's LS theology.

Actually, Lou/Ed...it was a question that I had, with no origin in MacArthur. I wanted to see how the no-lordship apologists answer.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Ed:

I’m glad we have been able to show RB from a balanced biblical position another LS presupposition does not stand the test of Scripture. I trust RB is going to abandon any false notion that Peter was unregenerate at the time he denied the Lord three times. I am grateful to know that we have kept him from falling into another trap of Lordship Salvation.

If he had any opinion that motivated his question it appears he is not going to share it, now that it has been shown to be an unwarranted deduction based only in Lordship’s unbiblical presuppositions.

Lord willing RB will be recovered from all the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation’s false, works based theology.


LM

 

[EdSutton]

Ed:

I cited RB above to address this because it has its origin in MacArthur's LS theology.

Peter was regenerate at the time of his denial of Christ. All of the 12 except Judas was regenerate. I know where RB got this from and where it is headed. I can't remember the page number right now, but this thinking comes from MacArthur. I’m pretty sure he got this from the portion of MacArthur’s Hard to Believe he said he read portions of. Got it! Page 127 of HTB.

LS advocates have a problem with Peter’s denial because it does not fit the LS model. So, LS men have to make Peter unregenerate at the time of his denial of Christ. This is a classic example of forcing a presupposition into the Scriptures to force it into conformity to LS.

The next step is to say that Peter was not regenerated, born again, until the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, had he been indwelt at the time of the Lord's passion, he (Peter) never would have denied Christ.

Furthermore, JM goes on to write, “After that, he never again was disloyal.” Yet another example of a misuse and/or misunderstanding of Scripture.

Peter was never again disloyal? What does the Bible say?

Some commentators believe Peter essentially quit the ministry when he declared, “I go a fishing” (John 21:3). Another time, the Lord appeared to Peter and commanded him, saying, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord” (Acts 10:13-14). There was also Peter’s dissimulation at Antioch, when “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:11-ff). Yet in spite of all his shortcomings, Peter was a saved man.

All of that happened after Peter was indwelt. he never quite lost that rebellion streak; did he? And MacArthur says Peter was never again disloyal?

If a Lordship teacher were to meet the modern-day equivalent of the Apostle Peter, he would have to conclude that the man had never been saved.


LM

In fairness to all, I did not notice that you had addressed ReformedBaptist about this, but I was responding to his response and the question he asked to DHK, whom I now see has responded to ReformedBaptist, as well.

Secondly, although Dr. John MacArthur is definitely a major figure who advocates (if not today's most 'visible' advocate of) Lordship Salvation, he is by no means the only person, nor even the first person who holds this position, by any stretch.

So while Dr. MacArthur addresses this question and comments on Peter, in Hard to Believe (and touches on this in some other of his books, if memory serves), I had previously heard this point of view presented, long before I ever heard of Dr. John MacArthur. Personally, I do not often refer to individuals, when it is possible not to, for just the reasons and responses this subject has provoked, here on the BB.

I will repeat, although I seriously question who is actually listening,
first, what is not the issue and secondly, what it is.

The issue is not Dr. John MacArthur vs. Dr. Charles Ryrie;
the issue is not Dr. John A. Gerstner vs. Prof. Zane Hodges;
the issue is not Dr. John Stott vs. Dr. Everett Harrison; incidentally the first major published delineating of the opposing positions that have come to be known as "free-grace" and "Lordship Salvation" almost a half-century ago;
the issue is not ReformedBaptist vs. Lou Martuneac;
the issue is not Brother Bob vs. EdSutton;
the issue is not Revmitchell vs. DHK;
the issue is not Jarthur001 vs. webdog; or any variation or combination of any of the above with the afore named or any other individuals.

The issue is not what esteem (or lack of the same) any one person holds for any other person - the issue is what does Scripture teach about what is 'necessary' to salvation? That and that alone, is the issue!

"What must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, - you and your house." (Ac. 16:30-31)

End of discussion, in the Bible, to that question - hence, "Case closed!"

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ed,

In fairness to all, I did not notice that you had addressed ReformedBaptist

Actually, I am not being addressed any longer. He is talking around me not to me. Which in my mind a virtual admission of defeat.

 

[webdog]

Big on the whole victory thing, eh RB?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Big on the whole victory thing, eh RB?

When it come to the truth of the Gospel...absolutely.

 

[webdog]

I'm not seeing that. I guess no victory

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm not seeing that. I guess no victory

I am not debating you on the subject. Either way, *shrug* he bowed out on debating the topic with me anymore. To me that's virtual defeat.