Lordship Salvation?

I will honor Lou's request and not comment any longer in this Lordship discussion, even though he is the one who mentioned that LS flows out of Calvinism and then proceeded to give caricatures.

But I respect his request, so I will not comment any further.

 

LM , TCGreek is as level-headed as they come . He said he doesn't want a misrepresentation of the Calvinistic view . You have mischaracterized it repeatedly .

And you did not start this thread . You do not "own it" . You bring issues up , but you don't want to dscuss them here . That's odd . Instead of going link-happy , deal with folks who differ with your particular slant on things on the BB .

And BTW , you brought Calvinism into the discussion . After saying that LS is a "man-centered message that frustrates grace" you instigated things with "LS flows from Calvinism especially Total Inability ..."

 

Yes, I did initiate it. Sorry for the start and stop.

No, they are not mischaracterizations. I am going to repeat my opinion of Calvinism when ever I feel it necessary.

I am going to link to those articles by Geoge Zeller because they simply, effectively explain and unwind Calvinism's extra-biblical regeneration before faith.

That is all for today.


LM

 

They're clear mischaracterizations. You want a more accurate statement? Pelagianism flows from free-willism. Here's another. Open theism flows from free-willism.

Stick that in your crusade and smoke it.

 

Npet can really turn a phrase .

 

Back on Track

Hi JRG:

I think I am going to repost what I did earlier to get your thread back on the Lordship Salvation track. I pulled the reference to Calvinism because as you can see some men get quite agitated ("crusade...pipe and smoke it") when it is called into question.

Some one recommended reading MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus for the Lordship perspective and Absolutely Free by Zane Hodges from another perspective. MacArthur and Hodges are as far apart doctrinally on the Gospel as men can be from one another. Both have taken extreme positions at opposite ends of the theological pendulum swing. Both are wrong!

As for Lordship Salvation: It is irrefutably a man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Lordship advocates insist lost men must make an upfront “whole-hearted commitment” to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands in "exchange" for salvation.

The Lordship advocate frontloads saving faith with demands for a commitment to deny-self, bear the cross, and follow Christ. Imagine asking a lost man to make that kind of decision. He can’t possibly under understand what it is that is being required of him. Then if he makes that commitment thinking it saved him, he is going to find out real soon that he can’t live up to the commitment he made. Result is: frustration and doubt.

BY the way, I also take a very vocal stand against the Easy-Believism interpretation of the Gospel. There is a balance in the doctrine of salvation, but neither LS or Easy-Believism have that balance.

At my site you’ll see I have written a book titled, In Defense of the Gospel. My site is primarily dedicated to a discussion of LS.

Here are some links to certain articles that will help you understand what LS is, why it is antithetical to the Bible, how to recognize and refute this message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3-4)

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

Impossible Decision: John 16:9-10

The Relationship Between God’s Grace & Lordship Legalism

Lordship Salvation’s “Barter” System

There are many more, but these will give you a good head start.

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

 

A man-centered message does frustrate grace. That's why things like Pelgianism (man-centered) and Open Theism (man-centered) flow from free-willism. They are all man-centered and frustrate grace.

Calvinism, in sharp contrast, is all about grace, which is why most people here can't seem to fathom your bizarre misrepresentations of Calvinism.

 

It all depends on your perspective. Maybe you see anger and bickering. I see people with axes to grind who lack integrity in the way they present their views, and I see other people with passionate reactions against this.

I think it's unfortunate that Christian doctrines have become so infected with worldly garbage that there are so many fights in our own ranks. But as long as there is gross error in our doctrines, I don't see any way around this. As Paul said, "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." In other words, whenever you mix error with truth, you're going to get divisions. Not much you can do about that.

Since we're stuck in this situation for the time being, I'd worry more if people weren't passionate. How can one be a true Christian and lukewarm about the truth?

 

Well Said

Exactly! Some of the harshness coming from the men who are trying to defend Calvinism is pretty tame compared to what goes on at other sites.

I have found that these blogs reveal much about the character of those who participate. No one is looking for perfection, but with some you find a regular pattern of harshness, name-calling, backbiting and vitriol.

One can say difficult things and disagree sharply, but it can be done charitably. Many who post at these "Christian" blogs have not learned this.

Late last year (2006) I debated the Lordship position with Nathan Busenitz. Nathan is the personal assistant to Dr. John MacArthur. Our on line debate took place at Pulpit Magazine. This is a site owned and administered by MacArthur's Grace to You ministry.

MacArthur's staff became aware of my book and they began a series of articles (some written by MacArthur) on Lordship Salvation to shore up their base and position.

Nathan contacted me and invited me to discuss/debate the issue at their site. After a period where I observed their site and some interaction I joined the discussion. Nathan and I debated Lordship Salvation over about six weeks through numerous articles. Nathan also did a five-day review of my book, which also debated. (Although he only dealt with one chapter of my book)

I told you that to say this: Nathan and I disagree sharply on the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel, but there was never a harsh word spoken between us. Numerous men on both sides of the Lordship issue publicly commented on the good example Nathan and I set for addressing difficult subjects in a gracious manner.

If Nathan had spoken to me like some of the men here do, I would have thanked him for his time and checked out. Nathan would have done the same with me had I behaved badly.

My pattern is to discuss issues, but once men resort to personal attacks, etc. I ignore them and either carry on or move on. This way I protect myself from being dragged down to the point where I'd let the "flesh" get involved.

Anyway, when posting I always keep this passage in mind:

"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Colossians 4:6).


LM

 

But, it's not about grace because there is NO grace extended to the non-elect. Whereas, in the non cal position, grace is extended to ALL, but not ALL except it.

 

Amy, you have no idea of what you are talking about in regards to calvinism.
Since when is universalism required for salvation to be by grace?

By the way, common grace IS exteneded to all, saving grace is only given to the elect, those that believe.
Even in the arminian view, only grace goes out to those that accept it.

 

That is even worse than what many who disagree with me would say actually. They will say that grace is extended to all who believe.
The only problem with that is that the order is wrong.
By your theology all are given grace but some go to hell anyway because they refuse heaven I guess.
Really, it makes no sense.

 

What a bunch of garbage! Two post this week, calvinists have insisted free willers serve a different "god". Great integrity!

 

Amy knows exactly what she is talking about. Offering grace to all is NOT universalism...a common strawman you and your side commonly present.

 

What is common grace?

Salvation is granted to those who believe, but the offer is made to all. The only way for your theology to work is to change the definition of words like "all", "world" and "whosoever".

 

Lordship Salvation really came from the opponents of "easy believism". You have one side quoting many verses that all you have to do is believe to be saved, so just get people to say a prayer and believe and they will go to heaven - with no real change (repentance) in their life.

The Lordship proponents basically preach that if you are truly saved Jesus will be LORD of your life - there WILL be evidence of salvation that permeates your entire life, A change of heart, a change of mind and and a change of action. You will not be an instantly mature Christian but there will be a desire to make Jesus Lord of your life and not just say a prayer, get dunked and no change in your life.

Both EXTREME sides make compelling and biblical supported arguments for sure. The truth of the Bible is beleive on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and of course a saved person will experience that ALL things have passed away (old nature) and ALL things have become new (born again) A saved person will exhibit a changed life.

Easy Believism vs. Lordhsip Salvation can be as heated as the Free Will of God and the Sovereignty of Man debate.

 

I actually chuckled when I read this. I see where you're coming from, but strictly speaking, you've got it reversed. If God is obliged to offer grace to all people, then it is no longer grace but an obligation.

But that's not what I meant when I said Calvinism is all about grace. I meant that Calvinism = salvation by grace. Arminianism and semi-pelagianism = salvation by grace PLUS free-will. Calvinism is ONLY about grace. It needs no free-will in order to save.

 

Where did she say God had to offer it to everyone? I agree if He had to offer it, it is not grace. She plainly stated what Scripture does...He has chosen to.

Apparently, you don't need faith then, either.