MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

Actually, Adonai is rendered uniformly (in the KJV, ASV, RV, and NKJV) as Lord in the OT, to the best of my knowledge, but I admit I do not speak Hebrew, in any form and have to rely on what I've learned from others. God is the rendering of El, Elah, or Elohim, or in the case of the Hebrew Adonai YHWH, as Lord GOD (all caps), although most versions render the use of YHWH alone when not in the above combination usually as LORD, again, all caps. BTW, that is how one can tell in the OT, in English, the difference between the words Adonai, Elohim, and YHWH. And the Orthodox Jew will not speak the tetragrammon, but will, pronounce it as either Adonai or Elohim, I also believe, depending on the combination, and in fact renders Adonai YHWH as Adonai Elohim, despite its being contrary to the Hebrew langauge. And I have heard, but again cannot confirm, that Yeshua haMaschia (as I learned to 'spell' it) is the Hebrew for 'Lord, the Christ', as haMaschia is the Hebrew for the Messiah, or Annointed.

BTW, the NT was still written in Greek, so the version you are citing is still a translation, and here, I would say, one that is not correct.

Ed

 

I believe you are talking about the "foolish virgins" and the churches in Rev 2-3 and 2Thes 2 who have folks left behind in the rapture, right?

They "believe in vain," they "draw back," is how Paul put it in Heb 10.

skypair

 

Now it seems you are talking about the difference between the OT message and the NT message. The OT saints rule with Christ in the MK --- they came into the kingdom you speak of which really is justification, "given the righteousness of God."

The NT believers get both kingdom and eternal life at one and the same time. We will NOT be reigning on earth in the MK. We will be worthy to be taken out pretrib and return with Christ to set up the kingdom for Israel (re: the judgment seat, Mt 19:28 and Rev 20:3.

skypair

 

Why? Why not you answer to why one cannot choose salvation for oneself but CAN choose the make Christ Lord? And MUST do it in the same moment that he can't choose salvation??

But before they were "effectually called" they were still elect. Again, why can't they sin all they want?

And I will second LM's rejoinder to that. :laugh:

Well, let's look at 2 theories Calvinists love: 1) "Perserverance of the saints" Now right there you have the saint perservering and NOT God preserving as free will believe. 2) Now you have its ugly twin, Lordship salvation. Same animal. "Either Christ is Lord or He is nothing" -- that is, either you are saved or unsaved. If He isn't "Lord" then you were never saved/"elect" to begin with. I believe that is how the rationale goes, is it not?

skypair

 

Sounds reasonable to me, skypiar. I'd say you are on the right track. And I'll add a bit more fuel to the fire. (Or derail a thread, maybe.)

There is no real qualitative difference between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lordship Salvation! All, in some manner, despite the protestations to the contrary, attempt to backload works into salvation. All could well be considered as modern day Galatianism.

Ed

 

Yes you could use the example of the foolish virgins and the churches. I don't believe in a split rapture though.

Yes those have either believed in or drew back. However it's not a believing in vain or drawing back from eternal salvation, as some might think.

Scripture doesn't support this statement. The kingdom and eternal salvation on not a package deal. One is eternally saved by believing in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ The Substitute.

One is saved for the kingdom by believing in Christ Jesus the Annointed King and being obedient to His instructions. There's a lot more that goes along with that, but we must be found worthy to hold a place in His coming kingdom.

The kingdom is two fold. There is an earthly kingdom which will be governed by Israel, so on that you are correct, but there is also a heavenly realm of rule, which will be occupied by some of the OT saints, who were looking for a heavenly land (Hebrews) and those NT saved individuals that were found worthy. Christ and His bride will rule from the heavenly realm over the earth in the stead of Satan and his co-horts, who currently rule from the heavens. This is the spiritual kingdom that was offered to the nation of Israel, an offer which they rejected and is not put forth for acceptance or rejection by saved individuals post Jesus' death.

 

Like LM said, it is closely related to Calvinism in that 1) Cism calls it "perserverance of the saints" implying the saints effort, not "preservation" as if God was responsible. 2) It goes also to the heart of the point of whether someone who is saved "unconditionally" (not by one's own choice) can ever know he/she is saved.

skypair

 

I'm glad you stated it that way, because that's what has Biblical support. We cannot take credit even for our works, because it is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good purpose. That's even more of a reason not to pose Lordship as a prerequisite for salvation, but evidence. I also get the "lack of evidence" idea, too. Makes no difference to me how one puts it.

Ittuit:

I confess I was speaking from personal experience. My ex-wife made a great show of being a Christian. She did the whole praise and worship song things, even taught sunday school off and on. But she had an ongoing affair with a co-worker (who was living with his ex-wife because she was trying to reconcile). She was engaged in this before, during and (of course), after our marriage. She lived to please her flesh, and when challenged by me, refused to submit to scripture. To their discredit, some at her church (a Southern Baptist Church, no less), including the pastor, knew at least most of what was going on and nobody confronted her about it.

So I wasn't talking about smoking or wearing slacks when I said "consistently living a fleshly life".

 

Now this I can agree with. Salvation is the turning of one's soul/conscience over to the control of God. It is a totally new perspective of who we are and who we serve. It is He that works in our to "conform us to the image of His dear Son" through sanctification. If this is JM's final word, then I like it! :thumbs:

skypair

 

Hey Jump -- how you doing this fine Thursday morning?

Nor me.

This is a pretty serious divergence from othodoxy, Jump. Maybe you could explain it.

You mean you haven't found it "to support this statement," Jump. But it does. Right now they are "package" in that we are justified and sanctified simultaneously. What do you think qualifies a person for one but not the other?

So "works" = kingdom, faith = eternal life??

Sounds like you are saying there are 3 parts to the kingdom --- earthly, 1st heaven, and 3rd heaven. 1) Jews rule earthly -- 2) OT saints were offered the 3rd heaven/atmosphere some OT saints and worthy NT saints -- and 3) 1st heaven where Christ and His "unworthy" bride" rule (I assume this last is what you designate "eternal life?").

Then I see that this 1st heaven (#3) was rejected by Israel and is not offered "post Jesus' death" -- so how can anyone rule there?

Well, first off, Israel rejected Christ's earthly kingdom -- but they will accept it one day and those who "looked for it" (Heb 11) will be resurrected into it postrib.

Second, 1st heaven will be populated by angels who preach the gospel from there (Rev 14) when Satan and his demons are cast out. And I believe in the New Earth that NJ will occupy much of that realm, but, no, I don't see anyone in glorious bodies floating around in air with no physical inheritance.

And the "unworthy bride" either converts during the trib and goes into the MK OR doesn't and goes to the lake of fire.

skypair

 

Good Points

Yes, very good!

Hi:

I appreciate your concern and interest.

You may have missed my notes here and in another thread. It is imperative to distinguish the real issues in the Lordship Salvation debate. The requirements to be born and again the results from having been born again are two completely separate issues in the Lordship debate.

The controversy is NOT over what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. I am in substantial agreement with any man who believes saving faith should result in some level of genuine commitment to the Lord and growth in the Sprit and Word of God

The debate and controversy is over what Lordship advocates insist are the requirements for salvation, i.e. what must a man do to be come a born again child of God. That is the crux of the Lordship debate. It is here that Lordship Salvation corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3), creating a false gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

In their zeal to address the doctrinal problems and excesses of the Easy-Believism/Mental Assent Only camp the Lordship advocate errs to the opposite extreme.

This is a sample from the Introduction to my book:

When you get in to, as you say, “the evidence of salvation,” I am in substantial agreement that there ought to be some sign of genuine conversion in the form of a changed life. The problem comes when one tries to measure that level of change as if it in some way may or may not validate the conversion experience. At what point does one conclude that a man who professes Christ as Savior, but has issues with a besetting sin (Heb. 12:1) was never saved in the first place? How does one measure that, and come to that kind of conclusion?

I am speaking of the natural course of most Christians who do have their peaks, valleys and middle ground as they go through their life as a believer. I am not making excuses for a man who professes Christ, but lives more like the Devil. Lordship advocates are always quick to point the most extreme examples of sinful behavior to build a case for their solution, which is a "saving faith" that includes an upfront commitment to the Lordship of Christ to become a born again Christian.

I think we all agree that a new believer, throughout his walk with God, will experience some level of spiritual growth. That growth may evidence itself in tangible outward expressions for all to see. Spiritual growth for others may be more inward that is not readily apparent as the outward displays reveal. If, however, there is growth, there is a man who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him, and is working to bring him to maturity in Christ, right up to and including his ultimate glorification as he enters his Heavenly, eternal home.

Regards,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

No Magic at All!

OK:

My question was,

I am still looking forward to Martin's reply on the question.

There is no magic in those words, but those words are part of Lordship Salvation's defintion of saving faith for the reception of eternal life.

This is not a trick question. Refer to the quotes in my question because they are from the writing of pro-lordship advocates who insist these elements must be included in the form of commitment in the faith that saves, NOT just following conversion, but FOR conversion.

Let me further clarify: If a lost man prayed to receive Christ, and he believed his commitment to the lordship of Christ was necessary for him to be born again; was he saved?

So, with that in mind, this question is directed to all who care to answer...

LM

 

Not the Final Word

Sky:

JM's The Gospel According to the Apostles is the closet he has come to orthodoxy on the gospel.

It is not, however, his final word. In Hard to Believe JM went right back to many of the disturbing and controversial positis that are found in both editions of The Gospel According to Jesus.

Here are some examples:

In every one of those quotes JM is speaking of how to get saved, not what should follow salvation. He is preaching a commitment to good works to get saved. That is a false gospel! This theme runs like a thread thorugh his Lordship books.

Furthermore, JM has never edited, explained or eliminated the problem statements in the versions of The Gospel According to Jesus.

The IFCA, of which JM is a member, published The Nature of Saving Faith in 1989 because of what they found in The Gospel According to Jesus.

For your consideration.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Busy enough to be cloned about five times and still need more help Hope you are doing well.

Well the very short explanation is the author of Hebrews is talking about a salvation that comes after eternal salvation. The author is speaking to folks that are already eternally saved. And the salvation that is spoken of is spoken of in a present and/or future aspect not a past aspect.

I would be more than happy to point you to some resource material that would go much more indepth than time or space allows here. Just PM me.

No seriously there is no support for it. If there is please let us see it. Sanctification is always presented to my knowledge as a present process that is ongoing and not complete. Eternal salvation is spoken of as a one-time event that occurs in a person's past with which the results carry out into the future as a done deal. Two totally different things.

If sanctification was complete at the moment of salvation there would be absolutely no need for us to stay here on earth. We would be saved and then taken out.

We are here to go through the sanctification "process".

Again please provide some Scriptural evidence from the OT and NT that says sanctification is a one-time event that happens at the same time we are eternally saved. Talk about straying from orthodoxy This is the first time in almost 20 years of being saved that I have ever heard this.

And I would be interested to see if there are others on this board that agree with you.

Well what I "think" on the matter is of no matter. It only matters what Scripture says. Scripture says that one is eternally saved by God's grace through faith apart from works. We know through the teaching of Scripture that our faith must be in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died in my place a sinner.

If I believe that then I am saved, contrary to what others might say. That is what Scripture says about the matter.

Sanctification on the other hand is a cooperative process between the Holy Spirit and the saved individual. One must walk in the Spirit, put to death the deeds of the flesh, take up his cross daily, keep His commandments, etc., etc.

Not exactly. If you are looking for an equation it would look something like this:

faith in The Substitute = eternal salvation
faith that works = kingdom salvation

No there is only two parts. There is an earthly part and there is a heavenly part. The third heaven houses the throne of God and universal rules proceeds from there, of which the earth is a part of. But when speaking of earthly rule and what parts humans will play in it Scripture only speaks of earthly rule and rule from the heavens, which is the sphere that Satan and his co-horts are currently ruling from, but to the thanksgiving and praise of God that rule is about to end!!!

Israel didn't reject Christ's earthly kingdom, because that wasn't what was being offered to them. That was already promised to Israel long before Christ Incarnate walked the earth. The earthly kingdom is theirs and can not be taken away. They will one day rule the earth in a physical sense.

Christ was here offering the spiritual aspect of the kingdom. The kingdom of the heavens. That is the offer that Israel rejected and because of their rejection it was taken away from them and given to a new nation that will produce the fruits of it. We as saved individuals are now in a position to accept or reject that same offer. Unfortunately most reject it

And Hebrews 11 talks of those that were seeking a heavenly land not an earthly land. They knew they were pilgrims (foreigners) in a strange land (earth).

Actually the world to come will not be subject to angels, we see this in Scripture. We are to be the nation of kings and priests. Now angels will have some role to play I guess, but I don't know what role that will be. They will not be ruling over the earth however, because that is man's position. That is they way it was supposed to have been (Gensis 1). And that is the way it will be in the future.

New heavens and new earth are after the MK. Not much is given to us as far as what will and will not happen on the new earth and in the new heavens.

Again Scripture doesn't speak of an unworthy bride. You are either part of the bride of Christ, or you are not. Now it does speak of worth and unworthy saved people. Or overcomers and those that are overcome. Or those that are faithful and those that are unfaithful. Or those that are obedient and those that are disobedient, etc.

 

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesas.htm

 

Probably.

I agree 100%. It is the latter controversy in which I see no connection whatsoever to Calvinism. Calvinism asserts the perserverence of the saints (although I prefer preservation, not perserverence, myself). Just the name alone tells you they're already saints. They didn't become saints (get saved) by perservering.

So if anyone makes a connection between LS (in the sense of it being a requirement for being saved) and Calvinism, it is either a mistake on the part of the Calvinist who is claiming there is a connection, or it is a mistake on the part of the non-Calvinist claiming the two are connected. They aren't.

 

No wonder you never represent our views in the right light Webdog. You have been studying from someone that does the same thing. Now it all makes sense. I just read two paragraphs and this website has already mis-spoke regarding what we believe. I can only guess that the others would agree that they have been mis-represented. I know I certainly have, but that comes as no big shock :wavey:

 

Yeah, I'm not really shocked you would say that...