MacArthur's 6th distinctive of LS

[Amy.G]

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

Isn't this exactly what LS is about? The full commitment to the object of ones faith, which is Jesus?

 

[webdog]

Isn't this exactly what LS is about? The full commitment to the object of ones faith, which is Jesus?

You can fully commit to Jesus as the only way to salvation without making an upfront commitment to a lifetime of discipleship. One cannot know the ramifications of following Christ UNTIL they have faith in Christ.

 

[canadyjd]

You can fully commit to Jesus as the only way to salvation without making an upfront commitment to a lifetime of discipleship. One cannot know the ramifications of following Christ UNTIL they have faith in Christ.

Well, Jesus told us the costs of discipleship in His call to faith. In they crucified the Master, we will suffer as well.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

...so basically it's his presupposition, as regeneration prior to faith is just that.

That is what MacArthur believes scripture teaches, yes. He basis his beliefs on scripture.

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?

That is a good question, and a weakness to the Lordship view. I can't speak for MacArthur (since I haven't looked to see if he addresses the question specifically), but I believe God disciplines us for our sin, and that brings forth maturity in our faith. It isn't that we become "perfect" at conversion. We still must grow. The more we experience the presence of God in our lives (even when He disciplines us for sin) the closer we walk with Him.

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.

I agree. I don't see MacArthur claiming we have "full understanding" but "full commitment". Our passions are toward our Lord, not the world (though MacArthur says Christians can and do sin)

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

I can't add to what Amy G. said above.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

That may be the most cogent thing I have ever seen you post. Well done.

This is the area of MacArthur's view where I want further clarification. There must be an allowance for maturing in the faith. Not everyone who comes to faith in Jesus Christ has an immediate understanding of "Lordship" over every aspect of their lives. That would leave little room for spiritual growth.

Thank you, jd. And later last night I was watching a movie about the Mormons that seemed to speak to this LS issue. It seems what the Mormon leader in the picture and JM are trying to do is establish some kind of secular Christian rules that professed Christ's will naturally follow them in.

IOW, the problem to JM is that he does not see fruit of salvation in others' converts but does -- has been able to influence --- his own. Bahvior is not necessarily a sign of salvation. It could merely be a sign of JM's influence causing many to hypocritically practice what he teaches. He's not teaching to go do anything wrong -- it certainly bring into the equation that you are repenting of "self" unto God for salvation.

But I certainly believe that he seems to require those in need of salvation -- who admit that they can't save themselves -- to make a commitment as if they could save themselves by repenting of sins and making Jesus Lord.

And I would point out the repenting needs to be of self, not of sins. After we are saved we repent of sins seeking God's help to overcome them. But prior to salvation, we don't have God's power to overcome them so repentance before salvation is contradictory to salvation in Christ. Repentance of sins by the unsaved suggests we can save ourselves by getting rid of our sins. Do you follow that line of reasoning?

skypair

 

[KSeeker]

Here's how I think of LS. I believe that it is false teaching that has totally ruined the true "gospel message" to the lost world.
Think about this: Salvation is a free gift, correct? Eph 2:8-9 (quoting that scripture a lot recently) So, LS would be like me giving my friend "bob" a gift. Normally, a gift is given without anything asked in return...that's the nature of a GIFT. But when I gave the gift to "bob", saying, "here bob, take this gift, but you have to serve me for the rest of your life and commit everything that you own to me" , the gift is no longer a gift. "bob" is paying for the gift if he has commit everything that he has to me. Do you see the comparison? Salvation cannot be a free gift if we are expected to make Jesus the Lord of our life in order to receive it.

 

[canadyjd]

Thank you, jd. And later last night I was watching a movie about the Mormons that seemed to speak to this LS issue. It seems what the Mormon leader in the picture and JM are trying to do is establish some kind of secular Christian rules that professed Christ's will naturally follow them in.

There you go again, skypair. I ought to take back the nice thing I said about you.:smilewinkgrin: You simply cannot, with sound reasoning, compare what John MacArthur teaches to the Mormons.

IOW, the problem to JM is that he does not see fruit of salvation in others' converts but does -- has been able to influence --- his own.

Show me from anything John MacArthur has written where he is judging the converts of others. I don't see him judging at all. He is laying out what he sees as the biblical basis of Lordship Salvation.

You seem to think you can see the motivations of a man's heart, which you cannot. It is just another way to smear the man without addressing scripture (which you failed to do in your post.)

Bahvior is not necessarily a sign of salvation.

Jesus and Paul disagree with you.

It could merely be a sign of JM's influence causing many to hypocritically practice what he teaches. He's not teaching to go do anything wrong -- it certainly bring into the equation that you are repenting of "self" unto God for salvation.

Now who is judging the converts of others? Not only can you see the motivations of John MacArthur's heart, but you now call his converts hypocrites. Have you met anyone that belongs to his church?

And I would point out the repenting needs to be of self, not of sins. After we are saved we repent of sins seeking God's help to overcome them. But prior to salvation, we don't have God's power to overcome them so repentance before salvation is contradictory to salvation in Christ. Repentance of sins by the unsaved suggests we can save ourselves by getting rid of our sins. Do you follow that line of reasoning?

If you "repent of self", skypair (I don't necessarily agree with your use of the terms) then what is left? Commitment to Christ?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Here's how I think of LS. I believe that it is false teaching that has totally ruined the true "gospel message" to the lost world.
Think about this: Salvation is a free gift, correct? Eph 2:8-9 (quoting that scripture a lot recently) So, LS would be like me giving my friend "bob" a gift. Normally, a gift is given without anything asked in return...that's the nature of a GIFT. But when I gave the gift to "bob", saying, "here bob, take this gift, but you have to serve me for the rest of your life and commit everything that you own to me" , the gift is no longer a gift. "bob" is paying for the gift if he has commit everything that he has to me. Do you see the comparison? Salvation cannot be a free gift if we are expected to make Jesus the Lord of our life in order to receive it.

You misunderstand the teaching of Lordship Salvation. John MacArthur holds that repentance and faith are gifts of God's grace. Since God knows how to give good gifts to His children, He would not give the gift of faith that is defective in any way. Since God requires Lordship, God will always give the gift of faith that includes Lordship.

Once a person has been regenerated and come to faith, and has Holy Spirit indwelling, commitment to Jesus Christ is not an attempt to "pay God back" for salvation. It is the fruit of our passions that have been turned toward our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We serve Christ willingly, lovingly and most of all humbly in the light of what He has done for us.

And, BTW, Jesus is the one who said we must commit all we have to Himself.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Here's how I think of LS. I believe that it is false teaching that has totally ruined the true "gospel message" to the lost world.
Think about this: Salvation is a free gift, correct? Eph 2:8-9 (quoting that scripture a lot recently) So, LS would be like me giving my friend "bob" a gift. Normally, a gift is given without anything asked in return...that's the nature of a GIFT. But when I gave the gift to "bob", saying, "here bob, take this gift, but you have to serve me for the rest of your life and commit everything that you own to me" , the gift is no longer a gift. "bob" is paying for the gift if he has commit everything that he has to me. Do you see the comparison? Salvation cannot be a free gift if we are expected to make Jesus the Lord of our life in order to receive it.

KSeeker:

You have it pegged!

All jd was able to do is repeat the extra-biblical Calvinistic presuppositions that regeneration (salvation) precedes faith, and faith is a gift of God.

Here are two articles that answer those extra-biblical teachings:

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

The Danger of Teaching that Faith is the Gift of God

jd also wrote,

“Once a person has been regenerated and come to faith, and has Holy Spirit indwelling, commitment to Jesus Christ is not an attempt to ‘pay God back’ for salvation.”

What jd and MacArthur believe is that the lost man has already been regenerated, i.e., born again before he ever expresses faith, repentance or belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. So, when they speak of, as JM demands, “whole-hearted commitment” they believe they are gaining that commitment from a man that has been born again already. This is how the LS men theoretically disconnect works from their message.
When you follow their logic they preach the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel, but are seeking decisions for “commitment” from those who have already been born into the family of God.

But here is the real twist. LS is a message that they insist must be acted upon with an upfront commitment to the lordship of Christ and full-surrender in “exchange” for the gift of eternal life. BTW, MacArthur uses the word “exchange”. He, therefore, is preaching a “barter” system gospel. This is what you landed on in your comment above.

See- Lordship Salvation’s “Barter” System.



LM

 

[KSeeker]

Ok. I personally do not study man's doctrine. I try my best to remain in God's word and rely on His spirit to teach me. Thanks though.

 

[KSeeker]

Question? How do you delete your profile?

 

[skypair]

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

MB --- this is an excellent point. Many denoms try to appear righteous in this life by their bahavior (something JM appears to be dabbling into with LS) but they have omitted to actually be saved in eternity.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Jesus, Himself, qualified the gospel call with teachings concerning the costs of discipleship. How do you reconcile those teachings.

I would like to see that passage(s), jd.

I believe that the gospel call is distinct from the "follower's" or "discipleship call." Didn't one of those passages say that if a man hate not his mother and father ... he cannot be my disciple? Another said (John 6, I believe) "many of His disciples followed Him no more." Neither of these mean that they lost their salvation. They merely show that there is the spiritual level of followership/discipleship and there is the physical level where the flesh is committed -- is laid on the altar, Rom 12:1 -- to what one understands is Godly calling to ministry.

skypair

 

[skypair]

You simply cannot, with sound reasoning, compare what John MacArthur teaches to the Mormons.

Are you familiar with the term "sacral society?" Almost every former society operated this way and it is, therefore, a very great temptation for men! Sacral society means that societies try to impose their religion on their people through government. Calvinists and Reformers (and Catholics before them) saw religion and government as the "two swords" that Jesus told the disciples "is enough" just before Peter whacked off the Centurion's ear!

So what I am saying is that JM is suggesting a progression within his own church toward this kind of thing. D. James Kennedy was similarly motivated. If I were to guess, I would say JM's and DJ's eschatology may be similar. Does JM believe that the church is "perfecting" the world for Christ's return. How does one do that without imposing, in some way, a Christian ideals on society? Calvin did the same thing, right?

Show me from anything John MacArthur has written where he is judging the converts of others.

Comparisons are judgments.

If you "repent of self", skypair (I don't necessarily agree with your use of the terms) then what is left? Commitment to Christ?

More like "turning" to Christ, jd. In the tender state of your "new birth," Paul says that you don't even know what body you shall be (1Cor 15:37) -- what the new birth has committed you to. All you do know is what one poster's monicker offers "God'swaybestway." You have come to live in His kingdom. It is doubtful that you trusted in Christ because, for example, you wanted to become a minister or a monk. That would sorta be NOT "turning from self" but rather, asking God to approve your "self's" plans, right?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

I would like to see that passage(s), jd.

I believe that the gospel call is distinct from the "follower's" or "discipleship call." Didn't one of those passages say that if a man hate not his mother and father ... he cannot be my disciple? Another said (John 6, I believe) "many of His disciples followed Him no more." Neither of these mean that they lost their salvation. They merely show that there is the spiritual level of followership/discipleship and there is the physical level where the flesh is committed -- is laid on the altar, Rom 12:1 -- to what one understands is Godly calling to ministry.

skypair

I'm just going to address one thing here . John 6:66 : From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him . ( TNIV )

That means that they were never saved in the first place . They did not lose their salvation ( that's an impossibility for those who He has granted faith to believe ) .

See also 1 John 2:19 : They went out from us , but they did not really belong to us . For if they had belonged to us , they would have remained with us ; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us . ( TNIV )

 

[skypair]

I'm just going to address one thing here . John 6:66 : From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him . ( TNIV )

That means that they were never saved in the first place . They did not lose their salvation ( that's an impossibility for those who He has granted faith to believe ) .

See also 1 John 2:19 : They went out from us , but they did not really belong to us . For if they had belonged to us , they would have remained with us ; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us . ( TNIV )

Those could be rendered other ways, rip. If your pastor started preaching "free will," I suspect that you would leave, too. You don't understand "free will" much as those is John 6:66 couldn't fathom drinking blood and eating human flesh!

In the latter case you offer --- we are not all "arms" in the body. We even have preferences in what kind of music we will subject ourselves to in church. So, yeah -- they weren't "of them" but we don't know if it was a salvation issue or not in all cases, do we?

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

I would like to see that passage(s), jd.

Matt:10:38-39 "and he who does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me (39) He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."

Matt:16:24-26 "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.(25) For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. (26) For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forteits his soul? Or what will a man give in exhange for his soul?'"

I reject your understanding of discipleship and salvation. Both are included in the "call". The second verses quoted here (very similar to the first) must certainly be seen as refering to salvation (not just discipleship) since the thing that is lost is the "soul".

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Are you familiar with the term "sacral society?" Almost every former society operated this way and it is, therefore, a very great temptation for men! Sacral society means that societies try to impose their religion on their people through government. Calvinists and Reformers (and Catholics before them) saw religion and government as the "two swords" that Jesus told the disciples "is enough" just before Peter whacked off the Centurion's ear!.........So what I am saying is that JM is suggesting a progression within his own church toward this kind of thing.

This from the man who claimed if I disagree with his understanding of scripture, God would consider that to be blaspheming Holy Spirit. What you said is pure nonsense. You have no shame in your smear of someone you disagree with on matters of scripture.

Comparisons are judgments.

I notice you failed to apologize for judging MacArthur's followers to be hypocrites, when you obviously never met a single one of them. Apply your words to yourself, skypair, you might find a hypocrite a little closer than you want to acknoweldge.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

This from the man who claimed if I disagree with his understanding of scripture, God would consider that to be blaspheming Holy Spirit. What you said is pure nonsense. You have no shame in your smear of someone you disagree with on matters of scripture. I notice you failed to apologize for judging MacArthur's followers to be hypocrites, when you obviously never met a single one of them. Apply your words to yourself, skypair, you might find a hypocrite a little closer than you want to acknoweldge.

Our conversation seems to have taken a nasty turn over your misrepresentation of my words. Do you deny that any LS believer could be hypocrites? like Pharisees who do as JM says outwardly but do not know Christ inwardly?

I don't know where you got the first notion you mention. But I'll assume that you know that the heroes of you faith actually persecuted and burned people who disagreed with them. It you love them, why do you hate me?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Matt:10:38-39 "and he who does not take up his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me (39) He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."

Matt:16:24-26 "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.(25) For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. (26) For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forteits his soul? Or what will a man give in exhange for his soul?'"

I reject your understanding of discipleship and salvation. Both are included in the "call". The second verses quoted here (very similar to the first) must certainly be seen as refering to salvation (not just discipleship) since the thing that is lost is the "soul".

These are the exact points I have been trying to make with you regarding repentance. In order to receive salvation, you don't repent of your SINS, you repent of the SINNER.

But discipleship is a decision to be made based on spiritual maturity. In fact, today we have discipleship classes to prepare new Christians to become disciples. Paul and John Mark is an example of what happens when we are not ready to be disciples. He left Paul but later Paul praised him for his witness.

skypair