Lordship's Commitment to Transform

[Lou Martuneac]

I’ve (John MacArthur) had parents say to me, “I know my...my son is a homosexual. He has chosen that life style. I know my daughter has absolutely no regard for the things of Christ. But I know they were saved. I remember the time they made their decision.” Parents cling to this. Spouses may cling to this for their partner. Friends may cling to this for someone they love deeply.

It conveys the idea that salvation is some momentary transaction that secures forever but doesn’t necessarily transform your life and does not involve acknowledging Jesus as Lord of your life and submitting your life to Him. That kind of thing is behind most contemporary evangelism. You listen, when do you hear someone say, “Are you willing to commit your life to following Jesus?” When do you hear someone say, “Are you willing to repent of your sin and bow your knee in submission to the Lordship of Christ?” “Are you willing to allow Jesus Christ to take over as King and ruler of your life?” What you hear is, “Accept Christ...receive Christ...make a decision for Christ.” (Dr. John MacArthur: The Lordship of Christ, Part 1 of a 4 part series of sermons)

Dr. MacArthur lays groundwork for Lordship Salvation by using extreme examples, such as the one in the first paragraph above, that no doubt exist in our churches today.

Now watch that second paragraph! This is where MacArthur defines the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel that he believes is required for the lost to be born again. It is his answer to the obvious problem illustrated in the first paragraph.

There is absolutely no question MacArthur is talking about how he believes the lost must be born again. At this juncture he is NOT talking about what should be the result of salvation; he is defining what the LS requirements for salvation are. He is reciting the questions he would pose to a lost man in an evangelistic setting. He seeks affirmative answers to demands for a commitment to behavior expected of a disciple of Christ.

MacArthur is conditioning and affirming salvation on the lost man resolving to: commit his life, repent (forsake) from sin, bow in submission, allowing Jesus to rule. He is calling on the lost man, in the evangelistic setting, to make a commitment to transform his life FOR salvation.

All of these things are the privilege and responsibility of the born again Disciples of Christ. The Bible never conditions the gift of eternal life (salvation) on a lost man making an upfront commitment to these things that MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation calls on him to do.

There are many more documented examples just like this one that proves Lordship Salvation corrupts the Gospel through additions to faith in Christ that the Bible never conditions salvation upon.

Dr. Ernest Pickering made this observation,

“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”

LM

 

[pinoybaptist]

Arminian, Calvinist, or whatnot, what would you , Dr. Lou Martuneac, tell people in the first paragraph whom you say are extreme examples but nevertheless admit exist ?
Would you reply to that mother: that's okay. don't worry about it. he accepted Christ. He's safe. If he went into a transaction with the Lord and did his end of the deal to accept Christ as his Savior that's all there is to it ?

The fact is that Dr. MacArthur is right. Popular evangelism today seeks the power to make sheep of goats through transactional, decisional regeneration.
Such a method plays right into human nature: to want to have his cake and eat it, too.
Show me the homosexual who wants to get to heaven even if it means giving up his sin and lifestyle ?
They come rare, far, and in-between.

Or the lesbian who doesn't want to go to hell, but finds her lifestyle much more appealing than holiness and a commitment to Christ ? Offer her salvation thru her decision without the pains of turning away from sin and see if she doesn't grab it before you even finish saying Lou Martuneac !

Dr. MacArthur's point seems to me to be that a regenerate soul is identified by its commitment to his Lord. In many of his books he has time and again stressed that salvation is all OF the Lord, and that includes regeneration, and therefore only the truly regenerate has this firm resolve to turn away from sin and submit to Christ.

Paul told the Corinthian believers that "such were some of you, BUT ye are washed.....".

 

[canadyjd]

....Now watch that second paragraph! This is where MacArthur defines the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel that he believes is required for the lost to be born again. ...There is absolutely no question MacArthur is talking about how he believes the lost must be born again.

Once again, Lou Martuneac continues to miscontrue the statements of John MacArthur.

At times, Lou Martuneac will acknowledge that John MacArthur believes gegeneration (being "born again") begins prior to faith. Most of the time, as Lou Martuneac has done here, Lou Martuneac claims MacArthur believes and teaches a man must believe with a faith that includes commitment prior to being "born again" or regenerated.

Lou Martuneac is deliberately interchanging terms so as to deliberately misconstue John MacArthur's statements.

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

Lou Martuneac should apolgogize to John MacArthur this deliberate miscontruing of MacArthur's statements.

peace to you allraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear BB Readers:

You have obviously noted the MacArthur/LS apologists "misrepresentation" mantra. The teaching of LS, as proven by the writing of its leading advocates, adds a promise of works to faith FOR salvation.

Their cries do nothing to negate the obvious implications of telling the lost that they must make a commitment to forsaking sin and submission to become a Christian.

Read the quote from MacArthur's sermon again. MacArthur is speaking about what he would be asking a lost man, n an evangelistic setting, and what the (LS) conditions are for that lost man to be born again.

“Are you willing to commit your life to following Jesus?” When do you hear someone say, “Are you willing to repent of your sin and bow your knee in submission to the Lordship of Christ?” “Are you willing to allow Jesus Christ to take over as King and ruler of your life?”

That is Lordship's evangelistic approach as defined by JM. Calling on the lost for a commitment to "following and submission" FOR salvation. It is plain and obvious that this is a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation by grace through faith. No amount of crying "misrepresentation" changes Lordship Salvation's obvious corruption of the "simplicity that is in Christ," (2 Cor. 11:3).

The extra-biblical presuppositions of the circle logic of Calvinism only deepens the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.

Dr. Pickering wrote,

“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”

Dr. Pickering noted that MacArthur's "changing the terms of the gospel." I invite the LS apologists to charge with Dr. Ernest Pickering with misrepresenting Dr. MacArthur.

To you who are lurking, do not let the mantra of LS apologists deter you from investigating the teaching of LS. Is salvation by grace through faith or by faith pus commitment of life? Lordship Salvation is a works based, man centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote,

“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.”

LM

*I appreciate the attempt to confer upon me a Ph.D., but that is at this time a misrepresentation of my credentials.

 

[mparkerfd20]

Is this agenda not getting old to anyone else yet?

 

[jcjordan]

Look what one of my favorite baptists has to say about this.....
http://albertmohler.com/bookreview_read.php?cid=30

 

[Havensdad]

Lou Martuneac: "Oh no! They have thrashed my ideas by clear scriptural reasoning! Quick, start another thread before anyone can read it!"

 

[skypair]

...what would you , Dr. Lou Martuneac, tell people in the first paragraph whom you say are extreme examples but nevertheless admit exist ?

I would tell her that her son is in danger of "sin unto death" -- that such an one as he should be "delivered over to Satan that for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the DoTL." (1Cor 5:5) It is abundantly clear that this is what we have here.

The fact is that Dr. MacArthur is right. Popular evangelism today seeks the power to make sheep of goats through transactional, decisional regeneration.

You got it backwards, pinoy. JM is seeking to get a commitment that only God can get so that he, like God, can say who is saved. JM has it right. There is a responsibility on our part to commit ourselves to God, but being a Calvinist, he can't make that "condition" upon salvation from a theology that denies such! So what he is doing here is "sliding" the "works"/obedience downstream making the entire life the condition of one's salvation! Like the Catholics before them, they just can't seem to get around that the "church" is an elect body but the individual members are not all saved/elect.

Dr. MacArthur's point seems to me to be that a regenerate soul is identified by its commitment to his Lord.

That's true! But JM will NOT allow that commitment to be part of "election"/salvation and instead pushes it back to one's entire life.

Here's an easy template of what God requires: Hear - believe - commit/convert - salvation/regeneration - discipleship.

Now look at JM's template (admittedly, I am trying to make sense of it): Convert/regeneration/salvation - hear - believe/commit/discipleship such that c/r/s is "conditionally" based on b/c/d. How can that be, pinoy?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Lou,

I should think you would see that JM is trying to make salvation look more like the free willers say it is except that he denies "personal commitment" at the point of salvation and so MUST retrieve that biblical condition somewhere in his sotierology.

I mean, I think we can give him a little credit. Of course, that "Atta Boy" has to be taken away because he does it only by adhering to the false gospel message of Calvinism the he builds LS on. :tear:

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

I have been listening to John MacArthur ever since my Bible college president, a rabid Arminian and equally rabid hater of both Calvinism and JM, misrepresented him to us in class by saying JMac doesn't believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ.
Likewise I have listened to the likes of Tony Evans, Chuck Swindoll, and the speakers at the Back to the Bible programs for the same amount of time - 12 years.
I daresay that these are men of integrity, who have established their statuses in Christendom.
Why should someone like Dr. Lou Martuneac be suddenly more believable than they are ?
Although I do not agree with everything they say, I am ready to take to task anyone who accuses any of these men of heresy.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

I should think you would see that JM is trying to make salvation look more like the free willers say it is except that he denies "personal commitment" at the point of salvation and so MUST retrieve that biblical condition somewhere in his sotierology.

I mean, I think we can give him a little credit. Of course, that "Atta Boy" has to be taken away because he does it only by adhering to the false gospel message of Calvinism the he builds LS on. :tear:

skypair

Sky:

I appreciate what you are saying, the extra-biblical presuppositions from Calvinism compel Lordship advocates to force the Gospel into conformity with the presuppositions.

At least you are dealng with what Lordship advocates like MacArthur are saying instead of evading the obvious doctrinal errors by steering the discussion away from that in preference for turning this into a personality clash and pedigree contest where there is none.


Lou