MacArthur's 6th distinctive of LS

Don't Forget to Deal with Goodman's LS Article

jd:

I'm sure you appreciate being able to verify the accuracy of what WebDog posted earlier in the MacArthur Dispensationalism thread. (See Post #22 on p. 3) Goodman’s article is a penetrating look at the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel.

Would you please indicate whether or not Goodman's article on salvation is, in your opinion, sound and correct, or not?

Please don't continue to dodge the one question about Goodman’s article. Please don't redirect. You now have quotes that are accurate and verified.


LM

 

You are a bit myo-monomantic at this point. It reminds me of a hound dog treeing his game, and the dog now feels he has everything in control just before the game drops an A-bomb on his face.

 

JA:

Why do you suppose jd does not want to give an answer to the question WebDog and I raised. It is highly relevant to the LS discussion and MacArthur's view that he is speaking for (without ever having read MacArthur's 4 books on LS).

It is possible that Goodman's article is a blunt, transparent explanation of the same thing MacArthur believes to be the plan of salvation? Could that be why jd does not want to give an answer? If it is not reflective of what JM teaches; why not? Or maybe Goodman's artcile articulates what jd believes to be the plan of salvation.

The article is either right or wrong; which is it?

Here it is again.. JArthur: Do you think it is an accurate description of the Gospel?

The following text is taken from an article titled "Warning: The Day Of The Lord Is Near" by Heath C. Goodman of Alarm Ministries in Lindale, Texas:

What do you think? Is that biblical or a departure from the faith?


LM

 

Your act isn't going over so well Lou . Try to expand your repertoire .

 

...then why don't you take a stab and answer?

 

Couple of comments:

1) Many were so young when they were saved that turning from self to God did not involve that much for Him to be "Lord" over. And even adults find new things that Christ ought to be "Lord" over. Thus, the "Lordship" aspect is ever-changing and ever a struggle in the life we see Christ working in.

2) Even at the point of salvation, I KNEW I couldn't make Him Lord over my flesh unless I received Him as Savior. IOW, "Savior" included this life and meant that I wasn't by any power of my own saying that I could make Him Lord unless He would abide in me. I did believe that I would study His word to know what He wanted me to do but I did not believe that instantly He would control everything or give me all knowledge and all power (as Simon Magus thought to buy from John and Peter).

3) And, of course, JM's last comment is but a "false alternative" in many ways. For one, no one is saved without believing that Christ's/God's authority is "germane" to salvation. There would be no reason to trust for anything One Whose authority was ineffective -- Whose promises were dubious. Second, I doubt that JM has considered that the promise of salvation is not just in eternity but in this life -- which is where he would like this "LS" to operate. Asking for salvation is confessing your own powerlessness and trusting in God's power over the issues of life.

skypair

 

Lou, what does this Goodman fellow have to do with your assertions that John MacArthur teaches a works based gospel? And what does Canadyjd's opinion of his article have to do with it? Canadyjd has shown by JM's own words that he does not teach a works based gospel (which would be really strange for a 5 pt. Calvinist anyway). The subject of all of these threads is not whether LS is a valid teaching, but rather what does JM teach. Mr Goodman has nothing to do with this discussion other than to cause a distraction and divert attention away from the topic at hand.
John MacArthur does not teach a works based salvation and CDJ has done an excellent job of proving that.

 

Since I brought up Mr. Goodman's viewpoint, I did so to show what LS is from someone OTHER than MacArthur. The difference between Goodman and Macarthur, IMO, is the fact Macarthur veils his viewpoint, and is not as upfront about what LS entails as Goodman. Why? Who knows. Maybe he doesn't want to offend anyone.

 

I have never known McArthur to be leary of offending anyone. And no case can be made to prove John veils his points. People speak in different ways. This is an assumption.

 

You don't see a problem with this?

Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.

Is "submission to Christ's supreme authority" germane to the saving "transaction"?

What about...

This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

Who is doing the "presupposing"?

 

canadyjd;
You quoted this;

My opinion of this statement above isn't very high. It's in direct contradiction of scripture.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

In order that we might have the righteousness of Christ with which to cover our sins. We have to submit to the righteousness of God.
MB

 

I highlighted the key to that. Is one a slave prior to faith in Christ? JM is using a verse for those that are already believers to support his view in becoming a believer. The summons to submission is NOT at the heart of the Gospel invitation...but happens UPON receving the Gospel invitation.

Also...

Who is doing the "presupposing"? Scripture tells us exactly what faith is, and needs no presupposition. Yielding to Christ's authority is needed to yield to the Gospel call?

 

I should have been more specific. One is not a slave to Christ before faith in Christ...that was my point, and the point of the text.

No bait and switch...but I thought the natural man cannot understand? How can they understand a total commitment in the natural state?

...and this is my contention with LS...that is NOT the Gospel invitation! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved is the Gospel invitation.

How can a "spiritual corpse" know the cost of discipleship?

 

...so basically it's his presupposition, as regeneration prior to faith is just that. For arguments sake, why do believers struggle with sin, if the whole hearted commitment to follow Christ at any cost has been place there by God?

Faith is the evidence of that which is hoped for and not seen. It is not a full understanding of everything that takes place after the fact.

The only commitment needed is the full commitment to the object of ones faith.

 

One of the problems I see with those who propound Lordship salvation is a personal one for each of them.

Are you yourself fully committed to Jesus Christ as Lord?
Are there no areas in your life that are lacking?

How do you measure up to the following Scripture:

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Is He the Lord of your life in this area?

And a hundred others. How about your relationship with your spouse, your children, your wallet, the speed limit, your appetite at the dinner table?

In a nutshell : When I hear it or read it, it sounds an awful lot like the old Methodist "wholly sanctified unto the Lord" theory of sinless perfection.

And I believe that is just what it is, in disguise.

Who among us is perfectly given over to the Lord in every area of their life?

Or, Just how much sin does it take in a given period of time (say a day) before it proves that He is not Lord of my life?

One sin? one hundred? 7 times 70?


HankD