LS & the RCC

[Lou Martuneac]

At my blog this morning one contributor posted the following notes on LS and John MacArthur written by a Roman Catholic theologian and apologist, Robert Sungenis. This has bearing on the discussion of LS at BB.

In order to combat what he called “antinomianism” among his opponents, MacArthur spent almost all of his 300-page work exegeting passages from the Gospels, systematically going through many of the teachings of Jesus which specified that works indeed play a large part in our standing and relationship with God. This is not surprising. Catholic theology has always maintained that the Gospels deny faith alone theology most emphatically. Yet from another perspective it is quite ironic that MacArthur chose Jesus’ teachings as his best attack against the faith alone theology of Zane Hodges. The attack on Hodges is in direct contrast to MacArthur’s most recent joint venture, Justification By Faith Alone, which is a mere 20 pages attempts to refute Catholic theology by pointing out various passages in the Gospels that teach a faith alone theology. In this attempt, MacArthur cites only four passages which he feels illustrates his point. We find it contradictory that MacArthur can amass a 300 page volume emphasizing Jesus’ teaching on works from faith, yet refrain from calling such teaching heresy. Yet he and his colleagues do not hesitate to affirm that Rome’s joining of faith and works, even under the auspices of God’s grace, is “another gospel” deserving of anathema. Like most Reformed theologians, MacArthur has found himself trying to walk the razor-thin edge between the gospel of Hodges and the gospel of Rome (Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, 597).

My contributor noted,

“It is of concern to me that a Roman Catholic theologian is finding himself comfortable with MacArthur and Lordship Salvation. When one reads Sungenis, we see that he is not only comfortable with MacArthur on the issue but with other Reformed theologians as they emphasize works so much. One cannot avoid seeing the fact that there are similarities between MacArthur's soteriology and Rome's.”

There are many who see Lordship Salvation as the first cousin of Roman Catholicism. At another blog I frequent one man had this to say (in the opening of a longer comment) about LS in which he draws the connection.

When one gets faith wrong and makes it a work or quality of the soul, they then must have faith as a gift of God. In order for that to happen they then need regeneration to precede faith. With that then they load all sorts of expectations upon the soul desiring to come to Christ. This is probably why MacArthur indicates one cannot be saved without “unconditional surrender…full exchange of self for the Saviour.” His subsequent books do not clarify or moderate these kinds of statements but only reinforce them.

This is wrong and an unbiblical definition of faith and what one must do to be saved. It demands certain qualities be present in the soul. That is clearly works! It is very disheartening to see people that would endorse MacArthur’s position. They should point out its errors. These are not merely over statements as in question and answer sessions. MacArthur has made his position very clear. It is not classic Calvinism, but Puritan.

He has been accused by others of bordering on a Roman Catholicism works salvation… . Of course, from MacArthur’s viewpoint, all these qualities are part of faith so he repeatedly states that “salvation is by faith alone.”

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Lou,

You keep posting these things, but I keep finding differences in your attack on JM and JM's own words....at least those on his website. And your trying to build a connection between ROme and JM is..well...funny. hahaha. I hope the Roman Catholics adopt the teaching of JM in regards to justification. hahaha!

QUESTION: Can a person be saved who does not consciously count the cost of following Christ at the time of conversion?

A person might be truly born again without explicitly considering the cost of following Christ, but no one can be saved who counts the cost and is unwilling to pay it. Again, I am certain that no one understands the full implications of Christ's lordship at the moment of conversion; in fact, none of us ever reaches full knowledge of such spiritual realities in this life. But the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a true believer prompts some degree of surrender to Christ's authority even at the inception of the new birth.

And,

QUESTION: Why do you use language like "forsake everything," "death to self," and "unconditional surrender"? The absoluteness of those demands is intimidating. Aren't you afraid you'll turn people away from Christ?

Actually, it was Jesus himself who said, "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33 KJV). And he said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:23).

Jesus also preached, "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off ... and if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off ... and if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell" (Mark 9:43-47). And, "I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.... He who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:35, 38). And, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).

It was Jesus, after all, who first stated, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).

We could go on and on quoting from Jesus' hard sayings, which he often preached to unbelieving multitudes but never offset with any qualification. Clearly he was insisting on wholehearted commitment. He did not soften his demands with words that would accommodate the halfhearted.

Our Lord was certainly not fearful that people would be turned away by such hard demands. He said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me" (John 6:37). Likewise, I am confident that those being drawn by the Father and convicted by the Holy Spirit will not be turned away by the straightforward truth of his Word.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I've not read JM. So I can't really comment on his discussion in his book. However, from my readings of Catholic theology it seems that the catholics look at salvations as a package deal (my words not theirs).
Their salvation as I see it based on the Catachism etc...
1. God provides for redemption of man kind by the sacrafice of his son.
2. God elects (though the total RCC thought about election I honestly don't know but they do beleive God has chosen us either universally and or individually. More study is required of me to understand what they are actually saying)
3. God provides grace to those he has chosen (his work not ours) giving Faith to the believer in order that they might believe.
4. The only reasonable responce to faith given (not taken or believe outside of the grace already given to believer) is to accept the faith and believe.
5. By the very fact of belief in a faith that has been given the christian is then responding to faith by works which works together with faith for salvation. One without the other it is then void. Works also works in the maintaining of the Christian faith and is a measure against apostasy.

That is how I understand Catholic Soteriology.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I've not read JM. So I can't really comment on his discussion in his book. However, from my readings of Catholic theology it seems that the catholics look at salvations as a package deal (my words not theirs).
Their salvation as I see it based on the Catachism etc...
1. God provides for redemption of man kind by the sacrafice of his son.
2. God elects (though the total RCC thought about election I honestly don't know but they do beleive God has chosen us either universally and or individually. More study is required of me to understand what they are actually saying)
3. God provides grace to those he has chosen (his work not ours) giving Faith to the believer in order that they might believe.
4. The only reasonable responce to faith given (not taken or believe outside of the grace already given to believer) is to accept the faith and believe.
5. By the very fact of belief in a faith that has been given the christian is then responding to faith by works which works together with faith for salvation. One without the other it is then void. Works also works in the maintaining of the Christian faith and is a measure against apostasy.

That is how I understand Catholic Soteriology.

Keep studying...lol Roman Catholic soteriology is a system of so-called grace through the RCC itself. There is not an area of salvation where the RCC, IMO, that has not usurped God's role.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Keep studying...lol Roman Catholic soteriology is a system of so-called grace through the RCC itself. There is not an area of salvation where the RCC, IMO, that has not usurped God's role.

I pulled my points straight out of the CCC. The RCC believes that it has authority on the teaching of scripture and salvation. That grace is enacted by God through the teaching of his word and by default the sole authority on earth to teach acurately is the RCC (by their understanding). So grace comes through the teaching of the Church but it is God himself that provides it and gives the christian the ability to beleive. Again Straight out of the CCC.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I pulled my points straight out of the CCC. The RCC believes that it has authority on the teaching of scripture and salvation. That grace is enacted by God through the teaching of his word and by default the sole authority on earth to teach acurately is the RCC (by their understanding). So grace comes through the teaching of the Church but it is God himself that provides it and gives the christian the ability to beleive. Again Straight out of the CCC.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm just pointing out what they teach. But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the RCC believes that there is no salvation apart from it? Or that the RCC is saying that Salvation can only come from them? Either point I think they would say you are mistaken. They believe there is a grace for people not apart of their Church and they can be saved. They also say that they are not the despencers (so to speak) of salvation but the transmitter of its teaching. But the will state salvation comes from God alone.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm just pointing out what they teach. But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the RCC believes that there is no salvation apart from it? Or that the RCC is saying that Salvation can only come from them? Either point I think they would say you are mistaken. They believe there is a grace for people not apart of their Church and they can be saved. They also say that they are not the despencers (so to speak) of salvation but the transmitter of its teaching. But the will state salvation comes from God alone.

I'm not saying it..they do. And I am not mistaken on this. The grace is GOd's, they say, but mediated through the church and its sacraments. Surely you have read this. And yes, they officially believe there is no salvation outside the RCC.

 

[webdog]

QUESTION: Why do you use language like "forsake everything," "death to self," and "unconditional surrender"? The absoluteness of those demands is intimidating. Aren't you afraid you'll turn people away from Christ?

Actually, it was Jesus himself who said, "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33 KJV).

Key: DISCIPLE. This is sanctification, not justification.

And he said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:23).

Key: AFTER ME. He didn't say "To Me". Discipleship. Sanctification, not justification.

Jesus also preached, "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off ... and if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off ... and if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell" (Mark 9:43-47).

Key: This is speaking of BELIEVERS, those who already are set to enter the Kingdom. Sanctification, not justification.

And, "I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.... He who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:35, 38).

Key: following after Me, not coming to Me. Funny, because Luke adds "daily" to that equation, so if this is in regards to justification and not sanctifiation, NO person who ever lived did so "daily", and there is no salvation.

And, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).

Key: Verse 29 that he has left out. The foundation is there (faith). Sanctification, not justification. An unregenerated person CAN'T know the cost of loving Christ more than their own father or mother. Only with the Spirit who indwells us can this be understood.

Thank you for brining more of LS's errors to light

It was Jesus, after all, who first stated, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).

Key: AFTER putting his hand to the plow. Sanctification, not justification.

We could go on and on quoting from Jesus' hard sayings, which he often preached to unbelieving multitudes but never offset with any qualification. Clearly he was insisting on wholehearted commitment. He did not soften his demands with words that would accommodate the halfhearted.

I'm glad he didn't. In J Mac's own words he is stating Jesus REQUIRES a "wholehearted commitment" for salvation. An IMPOSSIBILITY for an unregenerated person to do.

Our Lord was certainly not fearful that people would be turned away by such hard demands. He said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me" (John 6:37). Likewise, I am confident that those being drawn by the Father and convicted by the Holy Spirit will not be turned away by the straightforward truth of his Word.

Hard demands?!?!?! Try IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS!!! An unregenerated person can't even understand, lest meet such demands!!

 

[convicted1]

Re: Ls & Rcc

Me thinks LM has an axe to grind in regads to LS??

Willis

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Me thinks LM has an axe to grind in regads to LS??

Willis

Yep...for some reason he thinks this is very important to post multiple threads about.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Key: DISCIPLE. This is sanctification, not justification.

Key: AFTER ME. He didn't say "To Me". Discipleship. Sanctification, not justification.

Key: This is speaking of BELIEVERS, those who already are set to enter the Kingdom. Sanctification, not justification.

Key: following after Me, not coming to Me. Funny, because Luke adds "daily" to that equation, so if this is in regards to justification and not sanctifiation, NO person who ever lived did so "daily", and there is no salvation.
Key: Verse 29 that he has left out. The foundation is there (faith). Sanctification, not justification. An unregenerated person CAN'T know the cost of loving Christ more than their own father or mother. Only with the Spirit who indwells us can this be understood.

Thank you for brining more of LS's errors to light

Key: AFTER putting his hand to the plow. Sanctification, not justification.


I'm glad he didn't. In J Mac's own words he is stating Jesus REQUIRES a "wholehearted commitment" for salvation. An IMPOSSIBILITY for an unregenerated person to do.
Hard demands?!?!?! Try IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS!!! An unregenerated person can't even understand, lest meet such demands!!

I agree with JM on this 100%. Unless a man forsake all things to follow Jesus, he cannot be his disciple. Where are the Christians who are not disiples of Jesus.

Your wack and hack job of the Scripture was hard to stomach.

 

[annsni]

Me thinks LM has an axe to grind in regads to LS??

Willis

Ya think?? :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Me thinks LM has an axe to grind in regads to LS??

Willis

We should all have an axe to grind concerning false doctrine.

 

[webdog]

I agree with JM on this 100%. Unless a man forsake all things to follow Jesus, he cannot be his disciple. Where are the Christians who are not disiples of Jesus.

Your wack and hack job of the Scripture was hard to stomach.

That was a quick reply...hence the sustantative post You may as well not replied...

Somebody "hacked" Scripture, all right. I'm glad there are those willing to stand up to modern day theological "heroes" (and I'm not referring to myself) who spew such garbage.

You believe an unregenerated person can meet such demands? I thought you believed in the "T"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm not saying it..they do. And I am not mistaken on this. The grace is GOd's, they say, but mediated through the church and its sacraments. Surely you have read this. And yes, they officially believe there is no salvation outside the RCC.

This is what they say.

(see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

And yes their view of the sacraments is that grace comes throught them. Remember the 5 points I listed above. That is how they see it.

BTW on a side note how do you determine that scripture is the inspired word of God and if so how do you determine which books are inspired?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is what they say.

And yes their view of the sacraments is that grace comes throught them. Remember the 5 points I listed above. That is how they see it.

BTW on a side note how do you determine that scripture is the inspired word of God and if so how do you determine which books are inspired?

A discussion of the canon should be done on its own thread.

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."

Unam Sanctam AD 1302
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That was a quick reply...hence the sustantative post You may as well not replied...

Somebody "hacked" Scripture, all right. I'm glad there are those willing to stand up to modern day theological "heroes" (and I'm not referring to myself) who spew such garbage.

You believe an unregenerated person can meet such demands? I thought you believed in the "T"?

I believe and testify that unless a person repent and believe the Gospel, they cannot be saved. And I testiy that unless a person forsake all to follow Jesus they cannot be His disciple, in agreement with Holy Scripture.

 

[webdog]

I believe and testify that unless a person repent and believe the Gospel, they cannot be saved. And I testiy that unless a person forsake all to follow Jesus they cannot be His disciple, in agreement with Holy Scripture.

...so that means you do or don't believe an unregenerated person can meet such demands

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...so that means you do or don't believe an unregenerated person can meet such demands

Have you read my statement of faith? It's out there, publically, for all to read. As a reminder, it is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. You ask me if an unrengerate as the ability to forsake all. THe unregenerate do not have the ability in themselve even to believe on Christ, let alone repent and forsake all to follow Him.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )
LCBF, Chapter 9: Free Will, Article 3.