MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

[skypair]

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?"

Didn't you hate that? We are of one spirit on this one, bro!

skypair

 

[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).

As you will note, JJ, I "listed" two passages from the Gospels, AND two passages from the Epistles.

As to your (inexplicable?) differentiation between "salvation" and "eternal salvation" (which was soundly debunked on another thread by another poster).... The term "salvation" comes from the root of the Greek word soteria. The meaning of that word does not change from passage to passage. Now, if you contend that the context dictates a different usage, then please show me how (pretend I'm from Missouri). As to my understanding of the context to which the Gospel writers quote Jesus, and to which Paul speaks, I do not see the use of "salvation" as parsed as you seem to -- though in your theological mindset I can see why you would understand the passages in this way.

JDale

 

[skypair]

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 --- perhaps it would go better if we acknowledge that when one turns from self and trusts one's life to Christ, one has made Him Lord of all that one comprehends as "self." Often a young person will grow up realizing there were areas of their lives they never anticipated that God would want charge of (true in my case) but the believer eventually sees the wisdom of turning those areas over as well.

skypair

 

[JDale]

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.

Thanks Oasis (aka Desert mirage

) -- and you are right -- I didn't mean to imply that McArthur or Tozer ever said a Christian cannot sin. I have heard some, however, who misapply this idea and draw that false conclusion.

JDale

 

[skypair]

It doesn't surpise me that you don't agree, and what surprises me even less is you have given a Scripture that totally refutes your own theory. Revelation 21:7 says "He who overcomes . . ." it gives zero indication that "all" children overcome. There are a great many Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments alike that show us that not all children receive the inheritance.

JJ --- "He who overcomes..." This means 2 different things in 2 different dispensations.

In the church age, overcoming is believing on Christ. "Faith is the victory that overcomes the world" as the hymn says.

In the tribulation, overcoming will be overcoming Satan. I see this in Rev 2:26 for instance, "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:" These are basically Catholics who convert during the trib -- who will have overcome the very harlot herself! -- who may even die as martyrs -- who will rule over nations in the MK and NOT receive an inheritance in NJ. Study the other 6 "overcomers" in Rev 2-3 and see that 2 show NJ inheritances and 4 show MK inheritances (or I'll show you if need be).

skypair

 

[JDale]

If works are not a guarantee then how can you say a person has to prove they are saved or show they are saved or whatever you want to call it by their works? Works are not a guarantee, therefore there are going to be folks whose works don't measure up at the JSOC and will suffer loss at that time. And Scripture tells us that its actually the majority that will experience loss at the JSOC not the other way around.

And here, JJ, is where you err. A Christian doesn't have to "prove" he/she is saved -- if a person is saved, he/she WILL as a matter of course, bear fruit (of the Spirit), grow in grace and knowledge, AND do the "good works" which they were DESIGNED for (btw -- you keep throwing out Ephesians 2:8,9 -- read verse 10!).

THis does not mean there won't be rough patches, times of stagnation, even wandering...but the one who is "saved" will continue to give these evidences...will "repent" and return. If not, they were never truly saved (or they may be apsotate -- but that's been discussed ad nauseum on other threads)....

JDale

 

[skypair]

Lordship Salvation is a false gospel through the addition of conditions and calls for upfront commitments from a lost man to, as JM demands, "Full surrender...a willingness to die for Jesus' sake."

But we see that this is easy to fall into if one holds to begin with, a theology that has already added to the gospel, right? The "gospel of election."

In fact, it is almost a necessity that the "gospel of election" add some feature by which one can KNOW one is saved! Taking away the decision point, the "choice," how else is one to know one is "elect??"

Lordship Salvation tears at the very heart of the gospel; it corrupts the “simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

This, then, is the very key!! Even Calvinists are often saved by the true gospel of Christ but have moved away into the "gospel of election."

Thanks, Lou, for your long "coattails" helping me to proclaim this. :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

==That statement is amazing only because how misleading it is. Lordship salvation calls people to take the focus off themselves and put it on Christ, to deny self and to follow Christ, etc. That is hardly a man-centered message.

I think the ambiguity comes from this, martin --- here you have a theology that says man cannot choose salvation but which at the same time says he MUST commit/choose a Lord. In this, even JM reveals his own doubts about Calvinist sotierology.

And why couldn't an "elect" person be allowed to continue in sin so long as he/she was "elect?" It is "all God, no man," right? God has His plan John Doe -- who are we to challenge what He is doing with John Doe, "elect?"

==Since Lordship Salvation advocates do not believe in a works-based salvation that accusation is totally false.

Do you now see that LS brings "works" into play in regards to salvation? Someone defending it might not see it but someone outside might look at it as "reverse Catholicism" -- works after salvation but still a requirement.

skypair

 

[J. Jump]

As to your (inexplicable?) differentiation between "salvation" and "eternal salvation"

Well it certainly may be inexplicable to you, but that certainly doesn't make it so for everyone else. Just because you don't see it and or understand it doesn't make it false. So that's hardly an argument.

(which was soundly debunked on another thread by another poster)....

Really mind pointing me to which post it was, because I totally missed it and need to go back and re-read it obviously.

The term "salvation" comes from the root of the Greek word soteria. The meaning of that word does not change from passage to passage. Now, if you contend that the context dictates a different usage, then please show me how (pretend I'm from Missouri).

This is exactly what I have been talking about. And I don't need to show you. Just look at the Scripture and the way the word is used. Salvation is used in regard to eternal salvation which has to do with the Spirit. Salvation is also used in regard to the soul, which has to do with the coming Reign of Christ. Salvation is used in regard to the body. Salvation is used in regard to getting in a boat, etc.

What one must do is look at the context of the passage to determine what is being spoken of. Eternal salvation or the salvation of the spirit is spoken of as a one-time event with which the results carry out unchanged into the future. This can be seen in Acts 16:30-31 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

So any text where salvation is used outside of a one-time faith in The Substitute it is not speaking of eternal salvation. Hence all the conditional statements and all the warnings to believers are not talking about eternal salvation, because in those passages it is talking about a salvation process. Contextually that is not eternal salvation.

We have to let Scripture tell us what it is talking about not the other way around.

As to my understanding of the context to which the Gospel writers quote Jesus, and to which Paul speaks, I do not see the use of "salvation" as parsed as you seem to -- though in your theological mindset I can see why you would understand the passages in this way.

Again just because you don't see it and or understand it, doesn't make it false. And you can hardly expect someone to change theological positions based on what you can and can not see and understand. Right?

if a person is saved, he/she WILL as a matter of course, bear fruit (of the Spirit), grow in grace and knowledge, AND do the "good works" which they were DESIGNED for (btw -- you keep throwing out Ephesians 2:8,9 -- read verse 10!).

Thanks for proving my point for me. I love it when that happens. Verse 10 debunks fully your statement here. It says we SHOULD do the good works. It doesn't say that we WILL do the good works. There is a HUGE difference between SHOULD and WILL. The tense of the verb is subjunctive, which means its not a guarantee. It may or may happen. When we understand this and then compare Scripture with Scripture we actually see that there will be "saved" individuals that don't have good works and that will suffer loss at the JSOC.

 

[J. Jump]

JJ --- "He who overcomes..." This means 2 different things in 2 different dispensations.

In the church age, overcoming is believing on Christ.

That's not entirely true according to Scripture. We are to overcome the flesh, the world and the enemy. That is what our overcoming is. That is accomplished as you say by believing (faith that works) on Christ. Christ being the Lord, Messiah, Annointed King.

Faith in Jesus as the Substitute only starts our journey to overcome, it doesn't make us overcomers.

 

[skypair]

As to your (inexplicable?) differentiation between "salvation" and "eternal salvation" (which was soundly debunked on another thread by another poster).... The term "salvation" comes from the root of the Greek word soteria.

I think what he is referring to -- and I agree -- is Rom 5:10, "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." That is, we are reconciled eternally [eternal salvation] with God but "much more" saved in this life if we live His [kingdom] life daily. This is how JJ would distinguish in scripture/context which were talking about eternity and which were talking about our "conversation" here on this earth.

It brings up the interesting issue that we are already "resurrected" into the bodies we now have. We have bodies of "terrestrial glory" on account of the "new birth."

I totally agree with what I think JJ is saying about there being an eternal inheritance and an inheritance now.

skypair

 

[JDale]

Yes all believers are overcomers, but can you show me that John is saying that all "believers" is the same thing as all "saved" people. Contextually believers are the ones that are living by faith after eternal salvation has been taken care of. The Bible also speaks of unbelievers not in the sense of eternally damned, but unbelieving in what is supposed to be believed in after eternal salvation is spoken of.

So, you contend that there are "saved" folks who "don't believe?" In other words, you believe that there are "unbelieving believers?"

THat belief not only contradicts common sense, it contradicts Scripture.

JDale

 

[JDale]

JD --- perhaps it would go better if we acknowledge that when one turns from self and trusts one's life to Christ, one has made Him Lord of all that one comprehends as "self." Often a young person will grow up realizing there were areas of their lives they never anticipated that God would want charge of (true in my case) but the believer eventually sees the wisdom of turning those areas over as well.

skypair

I certainly agree with your nuanced and more precisely worded clarification here SP -- Thanks!

JDale

 

[J. Jump]

So, you contend that there are "saved" folks who "don't believe?"

Absolutely. Scripture tells us there are such. Now not believing as far as on The Substitute, because obviously if they are saved they have believed on The Substitute. Whether they are believing on Christ as the Messiah, the Annointed One, the King, etc. that's a totally different matter.

In other words, you believe that there are "unbelieving believers?"

No that's an oxymoron. There are unbelieving "saved" people.

 

[J. Jump]

I think what he is referring to -- and I agree -- is Rom 5:10, "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." That is, we are reconciled eternally [eternal salvation] with God but "much more" saved in this life if we live His [kingdom] life daily. This is how JJ would distinguish in scripture/context which were talking about eternity and which were talking about our "conversation" here on this earth.

It brings up the interesting issue that we are already "resurrected" into the bodies we now have. We have bodies of "terrestrial glory" on account of the "new birth."

I totally agree with what I think JJ is saying about there being an eternal inheritance and an inheritance now.

skypair

That's not what I was talking about The salvation to come is the salvation of the soul in regard to having a position of rulership during the 1,000-year reign of Christ. We will either have salvation during that time or we will not be saved during that time meaning we won't rule and reign with Christ.

This was the message of the Gospels and this is the majority of the message of the Epistles. Christ came offering His Spiritual Kingdom, not eternal salvation. Israel rejected that. The offer was taken away from the nation of Israel and given to a new nation that would bear the fruits of it.

Gentiles were now in a place to receive that offering, but in order to be in a spiritual position to entertain that offering they must be spiritually saved (eternally saved) through faith in the Substitute. Once our spirits are made alive then we are in a spiritual position to understand the spiritual position that is being offered to us. We must have a faith that works in order to be found worthy of this position. And if all the conditions are met then we will receive the inheritance in that coming day. If we don't meet the conditions then we will suffer loss.

Salvation is about eternal salvation. It's about salvation in regard to the coming kingdom. Those two contexts are different. They are different messages. They must be kept separate. When one starts mixing the messages or contexts then mistakes are guaranteed to follow.

That's a very brief look at the difference Scripture lays out for us.

 

[Martin]

I think the ambiguity comes from this, martin --- here you have a theology that says man cannot choose salvation but which at the same time says he MUST commit/choose a Lord. In this, even JM reveals his own doubts about Calvinist sotierology.

==What God commands in salvation (belief, repentance, etc) He also provides. When God draws a man to himself He also gives that man a new heart, the ability to believe, etc (Ez 11:19-20, Eph 2:8-9). Please show me where MacArthur doubts Calvinistic soteriology.

And why couldn't an "elect" person be allowed to continue in sin so long as he/she was "elect?"

==Because when a person is saved they have a new nature, a new heart, they are now born of God. The result of this is that they can't practice sin anymore (1John 3:9-10).

It is "all God, no man," right? God has His plan John Doe -- who are we to challenge what He is doing with John Doe, "elect?"

==You don't understand Calvinism.

Do you now see that LS brings "works" into play in regards to salvation? Someone defending it might not see it but someone outside might look at it as "reverse Catholicism" -- works after salvation but still a requirement.

==That is nothing but a strawman argument. Lordship advocates do not believe that works, before or after salvation, aide in a person getting or staying saved. Works are a natural result of salvation not a cause or a foundation. So, it seems to me, that you not only don't understand Calvinism you also don't understand Lordship salvation. I was once where you are. I disliked Lordship salvation advocates and I used many of the arguments you are now using (the Catholic one was one of my favorites). When I discovered that many of my opinions of Lordship were wrong, well, many of my arguments fell like a house of cards.

 

[Martin]

It's hard to catch up on this thread but I'm trying.

==I know what you mean. Its like a juggling act and I am not a good juggler.

1) we church are supposed to separate ourselves from BELIEVERS living in sin IAW 1Cor 5:11.

==First the passage does not state that the person is a believer. Paul calls him a "so-called brother" or one "named a brother" (depending upon your translation). The point is that Paul is not saying the man is saved and he is not saying that the man is not saved. In other places, however, Paul makes it very clear that those who practice sin will not inherit God's Kingdom (1Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:5-7). John makes the same point (1Jn 2:3-6, 3:9-10, etc). Any person living in sin should be given NO assurance that they are saved.

2) The scripture does NOT tell us to teach "Lordship Salvation" as a doctrine to combat "easy believism."

==The Scriptures only teach Lordship salvation (Rom 10:9).

Basically, JM is establishing his doctrine on extrabiblical grounds.

==Have you read either of MacArthur's two books on this?

"The Gospel According to Jesus"

"The Gospel According to the Apostles" (or Faith Works).

 

[Martin]

You say all saved folks are believers and that all believers are overcomers. If that is a true statement can you show in Scripture where that connection is made and how that corresponds with the very text that you used in Revelation, which in no way says that all are overcomers. The verse in Revelation is a conditional statement. If this then that. The if is not a guarantee as you suggest.

==John says, in 1John 5:1,4-5, that believers overcome the world.

Notice:

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for whatever is born of God overcomes the world...Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God"

In Revelation chapters 2, 3, and 21, there is no reason to believe that John is using the term any differently.

There is only one way to read the verse. The verse says we would or should (depending on which translation you are using). But the Greek tense of the word is such that it's not a certainty but a possibility. Should is actually a better translation of the Greek. We SHOULD walk in the good works, but that doesn't mean we WILL walk in them. You are saying we WILL, but that's not what the verse says. Again there is only one way to read it and that's the way it is written.

==It seems to me that the best way to understand Eph 2:10 is "would". However even if you think "should" is better it changes nothing. Believers should walk in the works that God has prepared them for.

1John 3:5-10 clearly tells us that believers, those who are born of God, practice righteousness.

More than a few verses can be used to establish the fact that believers will live changed lives.

Well if John Mac and Charles Ryrie say it is must be true then huh?

==My point was, as I think was very clear, that not just Lordship folks come to the same conclusion from passages like Eph 2:10.

Good works SHOULD accompany salvation, but there is a chance they won't.

==Do you believe a person can be saved and continue to practice sin?

Those that cried Lord, Lord and then listed all their "good" works expecting to be praised by the Lord were indeed saved. There's no way to explain them as unsaved folks. The text just doesn't allow it, nor does context.

==That is certainly an amazing understanding of that verse. Not to mention creative.

The people mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 will (a) not enter the Kingdom of God, (b) have not done the will of the Father, (c) are not known by Christ, (d) are removed from the presence of Christ, and (e) practice lawlessness.

On the other hand, Scripture tells us that those who belong to Christ (a) enter the Kingdom of God (Rev 21:7, etc), (b) have done the will of the Father (Matt 7:21), (c) are known by Christ (Jn 10:14,27), (d) live in the presence of God for eternity (Rev 22:3-5), (e) practice righteousness (1Jn 3:9-10).

The two lists are not compatable. Matthew 7:21-23 cannot be refering to any class of believers. Period.

I didn't say James couldn't talk about how faith results in works. By the way there isn't a true faith and a false faith.

==James disagrees. He talks about a faith, without works, that will not save (Jms 2:14).

But James is speaking about faith in the present, not in the past. Eternal salvation is a past matter. If he was talking about eternal salvation he would have used past tenses as Paul did in Ephesians 2:8-9.

==The Bible does use present tense terms to refer to salvation (Jn 5:24).

 

[Hope of Glory]

I apologize in advance for the indentions. I spent an hour responding, and it all disappeared. So, I redid it in Word, and it automatically indented.

==John says, in 1John 5:1,4-5, that believers overcome the world.

Acts 16:31 answers the question, “What must I do to be saved?” The answer? “Believe [aorist; punctiliar action, not durative] on the Lord Jesus and you will [indicative; it will happen] be saved.” Plus nothing.



If you add works, whether to get saved, stay saved, prove you’re saved, or whatever, you’ve got a contradiction, and the Bible is worthless and may as well be thrown in the trash can.

==It seems to me that the best way to understand Eph 2:10 is "would". However even if you think "should" is better it changes nothing. Believers should walk in the works that God has prepared them for.

Well, you can say that if you want, but I fail to understand why you would want to understand it in a way other than the way it is written.



“That we should walk” is subjunctive. It may or may not happen.



Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works…” Not subjunctive. It’s a fact.



So, we may or may not walk in these good works.



That’s the way God wrote it, that’s the way I believe he meant it.

More than a few verses can be used to establish the fact that believers will live changed lives.

Then perhaps you could share some of them. You’ve shown one that we ought to live changed lives, but not that we will.

==Do you believe a person can be saved and continue to practice sin?

Absolutely! A saved person can commit every sin in the book. That’s why the Bible includes great catalogs of sins, along with accompanying warnings, that are aimed at saved people. Unsaved people don’t have to worry about them, as they’re already headed toward the lake of fire! But, saved people can suffer consequences of these actions.

The people mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23 will (a) not enter the Kingdom of God, (b) have not done the will of the Father, (c) are not known by Christ, (d) are removed from the presence of Christ, and (e) practice lawlessness.

(a)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]It’s talking about the Kingdom, not simply being saved (b) they haven’t done the will of the Father, but they have done good works in the name of the Lord (c) John 2:24 tells us that he knows all men. Why this “contradiction”? (btw, I know there’s no contradiction, but it certainly contradicts what you are espousing (d) There will be many cast into outer darkness (e) lawlessness is simply doing what is right in one’s own eyes. You can’t tell me that you don’t see saved people living lawless lives and trying to justify it by using excuses. Gossiping, adultery, coveting, etc. All sorts of sin.

On the other hand, Scripture tells us that those who belong to Christ (a) enter the Kingdom of God (Rev 21:7, etc), (b) have done the will of the Father (Matt 7:21), (c) are known by Christ (Jn 10:14,27), (d) live in the presence of God for eternity (Rev 22:3-5), (e) practice righteousness (1Jn 3:9-10).

(a) Revelation 21:7 tells us that those who overcome inherit all things (b) Obedience (works) has zero to do with whether or not one is saved (c) who are “his”? (d) You got this one right, but it doesn’t happen until after the Millennial Kingdom (e) Once again, talking about those who are faithful. Those who are faithful, will, by definition, practice righteousness.

The two lists are not compatable. Matthew 7:21-23 cannot be refering to any class of believers. Period.

Matthew 7:21-23 cannot be referring to anyone but saved people. According to Scriptures, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

==James disagrees. He talks about a faith, without works, that will not save (Jms 2:14).

Wow! How do you explain the contradiction between James 2:14 and Acts 16:31?

==The Bible does use present tense terms to refer to salvation (Jn 5:24).

John 5:24 is talking about aionian life.


[FONT=&quot]What salvation is that speaking of?[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Hope of Glory]

One of the things that I see causing so much confusion is using different words synonymously, when they're not synonymous.

Aionian life/saved spiritually

Lost/unsaved
Hell/lake of fire
[FONT=&quot]Christian/saved
Believer/saved
Elect/saved
Saint/saved

There are also words that we use today in ways that were not used when the KJV was translated, but the modern usage has permeated our understanding of Scriptures.

For example, "aionian" cannot mean "forever". I always assumed that "eternal" was simply poor translation. However, although "eternal" means "without beginning or ending" today (and we often use it simply to mean "without ending"), you should do an etymological search on the origins of the word. It did not have its present meaning until the 18th century.

Adoption, hell... there are so many.

We need to use period context as well as textual context. Any text out of context is a pretext.
[/FONT]