MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

Sorry, I don't buy it. THe scriptures clearly teach "The just shall live by faith." to "believe" in Christ yesterday but reject Him as Savior/Lord/Subsitute today or tomorrow is NOT the Biblical understanding of "eternal salvation."

Furthermore, to say that there are "ubelieving saved people" makes even less sense -- in the scriptural sense. When we are called to salvation, we are called to commitment -- to discipleship. "Eternal salvation" does not belong to those who merely "make a decision" like someone who decides to, say, take out the trash.

"Say, today I think I'll go to the altar and get saved and go to heaven when I die....and never go to church again or pray, or read the Bible, or even walk in obedience to Christ."

Your view short circuits what God has predestined that His disciples should walk in, and it could potentially make the Gospel a mockery before men.

JDale

 

Good advice.

Why do men twist the words and meanings of those justified through our Lord Jesus Christ? Is John MacArthur of obedience Lordship? Why do those of this ilk attribute to we in the Body of Christ a belief of "non-lordship doctrine"? Both Lordship Doctrines of the Church began in the first Century. He is the same Lord, and He is Lord of all, of those of the "Kingdom Church", and those of the "Body Church" to be brought together when the "Kingdom Comes". We'll be there with our Lord to meet those "under obedience Lordship" when the "Kingdom does come".

 

Sorry to get ahead, before you have time to answer my above, but decided to answer this post, as just presented to Hope of Glory.

Amen, and believe all know Repentance is necessary. But we are to understand one's gospel repentance, and not to be of the other gospel repentance as we turn to Him. Today we are called to repentance, and not to repent. We are not Israel so all today find our repentance in Him. This has to do with how Israel is justified (and those of old), and how we are justified.

So very difficult for me to understand that people today equate themselves with those of the "Kingdom that will come". Why do we today attempt to be justified as the Jew, and as was Abel, Noah,and the rest, as they lived. All these good people had to wait until death, and until the name of The Lord Jesus Christ became known to man. They had to wait until the Cross to be justified through faith.

 

Again the question is so? Just because you don't buy it doesn't make it untrue. I'm not sure why you would want someone to drop their theological view based on the idea that you don't buy it. Again that's hardly an argument.

Actually a better rendering from the original language is By faith the just shall live. But even as it is written here The just shall live by faith we can still gain some understanding. Yes we should live by faith, but it's not a guarantee that we will. If we are walking by faith ie the Spirit and not the flesh then we will live.

Well let's just go to Scripture to see if it supports your statement. Acts 16:30-31 What must I do to be saved? Answer: Believe and you will be saved. That's it we are saved by God's grace through faith. That's it. That's as simple as the message gets. If you believe Jesus died and shed His blood in your place as your Substitute you are saved. That's it. End of the matter. That's what Scripture says. Anything else is just the words of man.

Again Scripture says it belongs to those that believe in The Substitute. We can either believe Scripture or not.

As to discipleship yes we are called to discipleship, but that's AFTER eternal salvation is a done deal, not a part of a package deal. Discipleship is not a guarantee in the life of the saved. Eternal salvation has not cost on our part, yet discipleship is EXTREMELY costly. See those are two different contexts and they are not talking about the same thing.

I haven't given you my view I have given you Scripture. Yes God preordained the works that we SHOULD walk in them, but the decision to do what has been set before us is ours. We can either walk by the Spirit or we can walk by the flesh. Why do you think we are told to put to death the deads of the body, and why are we told to walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh if those are guaranteed things according to your view? If that is what we WILL do after salvation there would be no need to tell us to do them. Talk about making no sense.

You are more than welcome to your stance. It is not my job to convince that something is Truth. Since you do not want to deal in the Scriptures I see no point of continuing on.

 

The Bible says salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, why do you add the but? There is not but in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Repentance that is spoken of in most places, especially in the Gospel is talking about a national repentance. It is a call for the entire nation of Israel to repent. So are you saying that everyone of the citzens of the US has to repent before we can be saved? Man we are in BIG trouble.

Again you are mixing messages and contexts. My encouragement to all of us is to leave the period where God placed the period. It's there for a reason.

Where is that Scripture?

This begs the question then why are you putting a "but" where God put a period?

By the way your I John quote doesn't say anything about works showing a person is eternally saved. Again the context of I John is not eternal salvation. John is speaking to saved people about something that is relevant to them at that point in time. He's not speaking about their past salvation.

We must go with Scripture and not try to make Scripture say what we want it to say. Right?

It's a subjunctive verb. There is only ONE way to read it. A subjunctive means it may or may not happen. There is no way you can get around that. You can either believe it or you can ignore it. Besides the word "would" is not a word that is a definite. It can't be because the Greek word is not a definite. If God wanted to give us the picture that works were a certainy then He could have done that with an indicative, not subjunctive.

We must go with Scripture and not try to make Scripture say what we want it to say. Right?

I John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

There is nothing in that verse that says all saved people will do good works.

I John 3:9-10 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Again your point is not proven. Who are the ones born of God in this context? Well John tells us . . . Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:

Eternal salvation is believing on Jesus as The Substitute not believing on Him as the Christ. John is talking about faith in His being the Annointed Ruler that will one day ruler the earth. Again different contexts and it certainly doesn't prove that all saved people will do good works.

And even more proof that it doesn't prove your point is that "believeth" is a present tense verb. Eternal salvation is not a present tense thing. It's not a process, but a one-time event. Context. Context. Context.

Certainly saved individuals can. Why do you think we are warned against walking in the flesh if that is something that is impossible to do?

Who says they are not saved? Scripture doesn't say that. If it does please show me where that is.

Actually He is speaking of the kingdom of the heavens, not heaven. Those aren't the same thing. But you are correct in that He is speaking about the day of judgment.

There is nothing in that passage that speaks about relationship. He said He didn't know them in regard to their works. He didn't say anything about a relationship.

And your point is? Scripture doesn't say saved people can't practice sin. Actually we get quite the opposite picture both in the OT and NT.

Really I must have missed that. Can you give it again. And can you show me how Satan can cast out Satan? These people we casting out demons. Jesus tells us that Satan can't cast out himself. So how can an unsaved person cast out a demon where there is no power of God, because that's the only way a demon can be cast out. Further evidence that these were saved individuals.

Okay here is the text:
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.

This doesn't say that obedience is one evidence a person is saved. This says by this (obedience) we (saved people) know that we (saved people) have come to know Him (not be eternally saved).

Again just let the text say what the text says.

By the way keeping the commandments is another one of those pesky subjunctive verbs. It means we may or may not keep His commandments. There is a real possibility that the "we" spoken of (saved people) won't keep His commandments. It doesn't make then unsaved, because that was already settled in their past.

Actually it is quite the contrary. There is plenty of Scripture both in the OT and NT that says exactly that.

 

Let's see if the forum will let me post this here. Here's the word in Ephesians 2:10:

περιπατήσωμεν

Never mind different translations or different "feelings". Here's the word from the Scriptures.

It's subjunctive.

Period.

To think otherwise is to deny Scriptures.

BTW, in Acts 16:32, it's "The Word of God", not "The Word of the Lord". It's a Kingdom message being spoken of there.

"What must I do to be saved?"

"Believe in the Lord Jesus." ("Christ" was added and is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. You believe on the person, not the office, and he is Lord, whether you put him in that position in your life or not.)

So, then they spoke to him the things concerning the Word of God. After accepting spiritual salvation.

 

May I Be Clear on This

Allow me to be crystal clear. I does not matter who the man is, or his reputation, if he preaches the Lordship interpretation of the gospel, such as we find in the writings of John MacArthur, John Stott and Walter Chantry to name just a few, they are preaching a false interpretation of the gospel.

Personalities are NOT the issue, doctrine is the issue and LS is false doctrine at its core.

You can't make the problems of Easy-Believism go away by changng the terms of the gospel, which is what Lordship advocates have done.

Remember, it is the Lordship interpretation of the requirements for salvation, NOT the results of salvation that is the area of controversy.

I trust I have been clear.

Oh, and Scripture is the reason for LS only after it is run through Calvinistic presuppositional filters first.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Just Can't Distinguish

That is your reply to this, from me:

I must encourage you to try and distinguish between the results of salvation and the requirements for salvation. Most LS men I deal with have a VERY diffcult time doing that in this debate. They are so very focused on the dicispleship of the new believer, (which is a very important issue) that he can't or won't see what the LS system demands for salvation.

I have shown in the quote above that JM is calling for surrender and commitment to get saved. You find that I misrepresent him, because you are looking past the salvation decision to the discieship of a believer.

LM

 

Martin:

You responded to this,

Lordship Salvation is a false, works based gospel! It is through Calvinistic presuppositions that a Lordship advocate convinces himself he is right in claiming the Lordship gospel does not include a work of man. The erroneous regeneration before faith position is a contributor to the errors of LS.

If the LS men do not believe man can contribute to his salvation, which is true, why then does he (The LS advocate) demand from a sinner an upfront commitment to the cross-bearing, self denial and cross bearing that is expected of a born again disciple of Christ to get saved?

Martin, I'd be interested in your reply. Please remember, we are talking about what is required to become a Christian, not what follows becoming a Christian. I have already posted quotes from LS men who do call for these upfront commitments for salvation.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

If works are the evidence of being truly saved (vs. empty faith), which is the general message of James, why can't one assume that lordship is also the evidence of being truly saved? That's not lordship salvation, of course, at least not the way I think of it. It's not a prerequisite to being saved. It's evidence - after the fact - of being saved.

That makes the most sense to me. Jesus says that if we love Him we will obey His commands. In other words, one (obeying Him) will FOLLOW the other (truly loving Him, which is also the evidence, not the cause, of salvation).

In contrast, lordship lip service is probably evidence of false salvation. If you give lip service to Jesus being your Lord, yet your actions CONSISTENTLY bear out that you don't really care to serve Him, then isn't that evidence that you're not really saved? Note carefully the word CONSISTENTLY. Saved people screw up. But if you claim to be saved yet consistently live a fleshly life, I have to question whether or not you are truly saved. Fortunately it's not up to me to decide, but I'd still question it. But back to the point, it's a matter of evidence, not a matter of a requirement for salvation.

Not that it matters, but I am totally clueless as to why this has anything whatosever to do with Calvinism. Methinks that's an ax someone has to grind.

 

Martin:

Referring to the bold section: Why then does LS call on the sinner to make an upfront commitment to perform the “good works” expected of a believer?

You responded to this,

Lordship advocates consider Luke 9:23-24 a gospel passage meant for the unsaved. Lordship advocates believe “take up his cross daily” is a condition that must be committed to for the reception of salvation. If this is a salvation invitation, the sinner is being asked to be willing to die for Jesus in order to be saved.

Luke 9:24 is a conditional verse. Twice the Lord says, “For whosoever will.” Are the demands of Luke 9:24 part of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Are they prerequisites for salvation? Does verse 24 give conditions a man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Hello NP:

FWIW: LS is intertwined with Calvinism and can only flow from a Calvinistic platform in the first place.

I can cite LS advocates for you that confirm there is a strong Calvinism connection to Lordship Salvation.

For example...
Richard P. Belcher is a committed advocate of Lordship Salvation. Belcher explains the connection to Calvinism:

Kenneth L. Gentry, another Lordship advocate, wrote,

LM

 

An Opportunity to Answer

Martin/All:

Here is a close-ended question for every.

If a lost man is praying to receive Jesus Christ as his Savior, and his prayer includes a: "whole-hearted commitment" to live in “full surrender” to the lordship of Christ, to "follow Jesus in submissive obedience" and a “willingness to die for Jesus sake;” was he born again?

What, Martin, is your opinion?


LM

 

Sorry, that one won't fly, Hope of Glory. At least the last two sentences won't. (The subjunctive does.)
The sum total of evidence for "word of God" is exactly three sources, according to the UBS Greek text of Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, et. al., 1969 Second Edition. That total is comprised of 'B', l1439 (an eight century lectionary), and the "original hand" of 'Aleph'. Granted the WHNU, renders it this way, as one might expect. The "word of the Lord", by contrast, is supported by both the Beatty and Bodemer papyrii (45, 74) the 'corrector' of Aleph, 'C', 'D', 'E', 'P', 'Psi', 3 numbered uncials, 21 numbered miniscules, the Byzantine tradition, the Lectionary tradition, save the one I mentioned, 11 ancient versions other than Greek, and the renowned Chrysostom, among others. And among 'standard versions' all the translators that I was able to quickly get rendered it "word of the Lord", as well. Aland, Black, et.al., were certainly no big defenders of the KJV or the TR, but "facts is facts", and the overriding weight of evidence is "word of the Lord" for verse 32.

You are correct that there is some question as to the reading of "Christ" or not, in verse 31, in ancient manuscripts. However the claim of "oldest and best manuscripts" is a bit of a stretch to some students of Scripture. Oldest? Almost definitely, in the case fo some of the papryrii, and some of the 'great' uncials.
Best? That could be debated, and is at best, a guess and opinion. However, I suggest that the sense is not altered, here whether or not the most accurate reading is "Lord Jesus", or "Lord Jesus Christ". Paul, the same person speaking in Acts 16:31, is the one who also wrote the definition of the gospel in I Cor. 15, where he says "Christ" died for our sins, and in Phil'p 1:29 where he says "For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake," (NKJV- the NASB, ESV, HCSB, Darby, and ASV all read very similar). So it is not at all, an error, Biblically, to speak of "believing in (or on) Christ". But let's let the text speak what it says.

Ed

 

I see the connection he's making, but we must be defining LS differently. Pardon me if my definition is wrong, because I haven't studied it or cared much about it. I think that even if James hadn't written his book, there is tons of Biblical support that if you are truly saved and regenerated, good works and obedience will follow. It is almost surely not instantaneous, and some people can resist it more than others (even unto physical death, as is shown by how the Corinthians disrespected the Lord's Supper), but in general it is part of our regeneration and grows as God continually transforms us into the image of His Son.

But I see LS pitted against "easy believism", which means lordship is a condition or prerequisite of salvation, not the EVIDENCE of salvation. If you aren't obeying Jesus as Lord, then you haven't done what's necessary to be saved. This is the definition of Lordship Salvation with which I'm familiar, and it is reflected in the name itself -- Salvation by Lordship (at least in part). This is where I see no connection whatsoever between LS and Calvinism.

 

I know you asked Martin, but my answer would be, "How would I know?" There's no magic behind praying these words as opposed to others.

 

I've never said that it's an error to speak of beliving in or on Christ. I think that's necessary.

It's just the incorrect context for the passage in Acts 16:31.

As to being word of "God" or "Lord", I'll have to do some more research on it. Either could fit contextually, and either would be after initial salvation.

"Believe" on the Lord Jesus.

Then, teach the word of the Lord or the word of God.

Different aspects of the God-head.

In a brief look at the passage, I find it interesting that the Israeli Authorized Version (which I think all they do is put in the correct names), verse 32 has ADONAI, which is plural and appropriate for God the Father, while verse 31 has Lord Yehowshua HaMoshiach. So, the context supports "Word of God", apparently to them as well.

 

James has a central message of works up front shows your faith. No works equals no faith, thus lost for faith alone cannot save. James was justified as a Jew, and died in the faith that required man to do works. We are not James and why would one today wish to come as the Jew into the "Kingdom Church"?

James is right for "works" are required, but in the "Body Church" we are in the one who did the "work" for us. It is through our Lord (the son of God) whose name is Jesus, the Messiah (King of the Jews) who gave His life on the Cross in order that we may be justified, but not as those before us. Did not all before Damascus Road have to do a work physical? We don't, and if we believe we must do something to prove we are saved, beyond spiritual work, what will our Lord Jesus think of us?

By Grace we are saved through faith, and not of ourselves. We refrain from doing the work of the Body for the "works of the flesh are manifest", of "vain glory, provoking one, then another envious". If we live in the Spirit, we will Walk in the Spirit. We will naturally do the will of the Spirit, and not the will of our Body. This is not work, but Peace and Joy, as we go about doing the will of God. Will we spread the Gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, and will what we do produce fruit, good fruit? The "Body of Christ Church" does the work, as the head of the body directs. We are part of Him so it is not we that are doing the work, but Him. We can do nothing on our own that is acceptable to God.

Is Jesus talking to us?

But if we "keep our Body" giving God the glory, will we condemn the "righteous"?

What some call a "fleshly life", may be in error, and judge in error? Is it the same as His Word presents, or that of man. Can one that smokes go to heaven? Some think not, but this is not of the Word of God. Can one drink? Some think not, but this is not of the Word of God. It wasn't too many years ago that Christians condemned any woman who would wear slacks, made for a woman. Believe it or not, some still have reservations.

But I do agree with you if one lives a life consumed of the "Body sins" as stated in His Word, we can determine their end.

Isn't a "lack of evidence" a better determining factor, and then we still do not know. What of those who live exemplary lives, as some Preachers, and noted workers of the churches. We say look at all the good work these people do working day and night for God. Then we find out of the illicit affair, or child molestation, or what ever.

We can prove those not saved, or in sin hurt the cause of Christ while losing their testimony, but I don't know how by doing works we can prove anything. Many bad, or unsaved people do mountains of "good works", and perhaps even more than those saved. Take the "charitable tax" from our Tax Code, and most of the burden of taking care of the poor and down trodden would fall to the churches. We would be in big trouble then for we even in our churches, as all others, the "gift giving" would drop dramatically,

 

npetreley

I agree. To quote John MacArthur:
"At justification we surrender the principle of sin and self-rule. In sanctification we relinquish the practice of specific sins as we mature in Christ. total surrender to Christ's lordship does not mean that we make all of life's decisions as a prerequisite to conversion. It does not mean that we give up all our sins before we can be justified. 'It is not the commitment of the years of one's life on earth.' It means that when we trust Christ for salvation we settle the issue of who is in charge. At salvation we surrender to Christ in principle, but as Christians we will surrender in practice again and again. This practical outworking of His lordship is the process of sanctification."[FATIH WORKS-The Gospel according to the Apostles-pg. 109](emphasis mine).

That's where I'm at nrepreley. I was convicted of this long before I knew who or what Calvin, Luther, antimonianism, armeniansism, or any of those 10+ syllable words that get thrown around these posts meant.

As far as "works" are concerned, many make the mistake of believing they are "working" for Christ. Well, it's not about "them", it's about Christ. This is the point John MacArthur makes in his writings. I accepted Christ as my Savior at age 33. He was already Lord(Philippians 2:10). My surrender to Him has grown over the years, but it began the moment I embraced Him as my Savior. Since then He has worked through me to complete what He began.
"And those he predestined, he also called, those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorifed."-Romans 8:30 NIV
His work through me, which I willingly surrendered to, has grown over the years.