MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

I'm afraid, Martin, you have been deceived by Macarthur's "empty words". :tear:

 

Lot?......

 

The no-lordship teachings are dangerous to the individual who is self decieved into thinking they are saved when they live in violation of God's Word

Does that apply to Lot or doesn't it? OT or NT is irrelevant.

 

Martin what you are doing is what a lot of other people in Christendom inside and outside of the LS debate do and that is equate the kingdom with eternal salvation. They are not one in the same thing. So while you have accruately said that no corrput person will inherit the kingdom that is not talking about eternal salvation. Those are two totally different concepts and contexts.

Lordship salvation is errant, because it is putting works into an equation where they can not go. Our works NEVER enter the picture of eternal salvaiton before, during or after.

Lordship has to do with something "after" eternal salvation is completed and only then. Lordship is related to discipleship. And discipleship is not dealing with eternal salvation.

 

Since you continue to avoid the issue of Lot, the teachings of Paul and Jesus state we are saved by grace through faith. We are not saved by making Christ Lord over all areas in our lives. This isn't what faith entails. Faith is the evidence of what is hoped for and not seen...that Christ is who He says He is, and He did what He said He did. Period. You do this, you will be saved. Putting Christ first in all areas of your life is a step in sanctification...not justification.

 

Hello Martin. I think there are two different things being confused here. A Christian that lives a debauched lifestyle should not be embraced, 1 Cor 5:13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

How do we deal with sinners who have made a confession of faith yet live a lifestyle of the world, tell them they are going to Hell unless they quit? How long or how egregiously they rebel against Christ's authority has nothing to do with it has it? There are instances of Christians dying because of their sins so I think it is wrong to say that someone who calls on the Name of the Lord will not be saved regardless of the way they live.

"If you love Me you will obey my commands." But not everybody all the time a? Some are worse than others but all are Prodigals, sons of their Father. It is allowing these people into your Churches, I can't say I have witnessed this, that causes the problems, if there are problems.

This is wrong because Paul tells those homosexuals they are not homosexuals anymore because they had been washed and sanctified even though they continued in homosexual practices.
1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

When a man is born again he has a new nature with inclinations towards God and power to overcome, to a large degree, many of our old loves. We won't find that power by our own effort to be good but we will if we recognise our new nature and are aware of the old one still knocking about and trust in Christ, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Php 1:6.
That's what I think anyway. 1CO 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

We are free from any law, Jesus died for my sins.

john.

 

Well it looks like you already have your mind made up despite what Scripture says. By the way none of those Scriptures prove your point. Sorry.

Inheritance is something that comes at the end of a period of time. The free gift of eternal salvation is something that we possess right now, not something we are waiting on. That alone is enough to refute your stance, but as I said it looks like your mind is already made up. Hopefully no one else will fall on the wrong side with you

And this is meant as no offense as I am sure you are a very nice guy and we would get along great should we sit down for a visit. However works in a person's life are not a guarantee as you suggest.

 

McArthur has a long history of teaching so thoroughly that he teaches himself into a corner. On the other hand, he isn't the first person to note that American Evangelicalism has a decades (maybe over a century?) long history of "dividing Christ."

The first person I ever heard this from was A.W. Tozer, who in the mid-20th century preacher the sermon "I Call It Heresy!" The subtitle was "An Evangelical Heresy: A Divided Christ."

The thrust of what he identified as heresy was the concept that one could "accept Christ as Savior," but somehow put off "making Christ Lord" of their lives until some later date. Tozer condemns that kind of message as "heresy." Frankly, I concur.

I have heard this type of preaching all my life. In the SB Church I grew up in, in Durham, NC,I remember many times (I can't count them all) the invitation was given for salvation, for "rededication," and most often with these words: "Perhaps at some time in the past you've accepted Christ as Savior, but you've never made Him Lord of your life. Won't you do that now?"

I heard that message far beyond just the church I grew up in though. Churches I attended in college, and not just SBC churches, but also IFB churches and beyond.

Often disagreements about "Lordship Salvation" are a matter of how one defines "Lordship," and of semantics. IF one teaches that Christ can be Savior but NOT Lord, indeed Tozer and McArthur is right -- that's heresy. If one teaches that Lordship means one will not sin (or not sin in a certain way -- which I've heard even on this forum) then that too is an aberration from Biblical truth. If one teaches that Lordship is maintaining a faithful, obedient, humble and GROWING relationship to God in Christ Jesus, THEN we are talking Biblically.

For one to claim that they are "saved" and yet live in continual sin is nonsensical. For one to claim salvation and yet bear no fruit, experience no growth, exemplify no change spiritually in their lives -- that too is foolishness.

Given the tendency of McArthur to trap himself in his own words, I can understand why some eye his views with suspicion. On the other hand, to say that "repentance in unnecessary for salvation," or that "Christians need not bear fruit," or that "requiring one accept Jesus as Lord for salvation is works" as some opponents of "Lordship Salvation" charge is both patently unbiblical and defies logic and common sense.

JDale

 

JD I asked you on another thread to back up that statement with Scripture. You haven't done it on the other thread, can you back up this statement with Scripture in this thread?

It's easy to make statements and it's easy to agree with folks such as Tozer and/or McArthur, but please show me in Scripture where that statement is fact.

Thanks. I await your reply.

 

I think part of the semantics would be "Lord of what?"

You can be saved without making him Lord of your life.

But, no matter what, one day he will be Lord.

 

JJ:

I think you have me confused with someone else, as I have never addressed "Lordship Salvation" on any other thread before, and have only posted here the first time today.

As to your question, I don't remember a question about this topic, nor do I know what you specifically asked me to prove with Scriptural evidence. Could you be more specific?

If you are referring to "Lordship Salvation," as I understand its meaning, these are just a few of the passages that I find most compelling with regard to the necessity that Christ must be "Lord" in the life of the individual disciple: Matthew 7:11,12; Luke 6:46-49; Romans 10:10-13; 2 Peter 3:18, etc.

Peter emphasizes again and again in his letters "the LORD and Savior Jesus Christ..." Jesus is NOT Savior OR LORD, He is SAVIOR AND LORD -- or he is neither.... Luke 6:46 is the clearest teaching of the Lord Himself on the subject: "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

JDale

 

Indeed -- what is meant by "Lord?"

No, one CANNOT be saved without receiving Christ AS Lord -- and in fact, Jesus ALREADY IS LORD -- He's not just "going to be..."

JDale

 

JD I believe it was in the "Other Denominations" area where we visited previously and no the thread was not entitled LS as such, but many of these same issues were being discussed in that thread that are being discussed here.

And you have done the same thing here that you did there and that is just giving a list of texts. However is none of those texts does it equate the salvation as being eternal salvation. And eternal salvation is rarely mentioned in the four gospels, because that is not the message that was being presented.

What I was looking for was an explanation on your part showing how any of the texts that you want to use are speaking of eternal salvation.

I'll look forward to your reply again. Let's just take your Luke text since that is actually the one you typed out. Please show how Luke 6:46 is talking about eternal salvation. And then explain to me how my obedience (which is a work on my part) is in agreement with Ephesians 2:8-9 which says that eternal salvation is not by works (my obedience).

 

JDale

Hi JDale,

I agree with you on the above. Good thoughts.
As for John MacArthur, I've never heard him say, or read in any of his or Tozer's books, the belief that a Christian will not sin.