Lou Martuneac
New Member
Following is my initial reaction to the article LS: Is it false?
1) On the peripheral- the writer, Reformed Baptist (RB), has acknowledged (more than once in recent days) he has never read any of John MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. This is becoming a common pattern of LS apologists at BB. For weeks they put up a passionate defense of LS as defined by John Macarthur but have NEVER read any of his major works on the subject. They try to sanitize and defend statements that come from books they have NEVER read. We are, therefore, guided to what essentially amount to Cliff’s Notes on Lordship salvation. This will reluctantly have to suffice for a reaction.
2) The article makes the same error of omission that is very common in any discussion around or defense of Lordship Salvation. That error is the failure to draw a clear distinction between the results of (discipleship) and requirements for salvation. LS advocates consistently steer the debate toward the results of salvation and away from the Lordship advocate’s stated requirements FOR salvation.
They prefer to address what should be the results of salvation, but for men such as me, that is NOT where the crux of the controversy lies. They will find an argument with the heretical and reductionist views of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES, but NOT with me. IMO, a genuine conversion should produce genuine results. However, a promise, the resolve or intention to perform the results and/or the actual performance of the results of a conversion are not the condition or requirement FOR salvation.
Documented examples of how LS advocates define their requirements FOR salvation verify and affirm that LS is in fact based on works.
3) The appearance of a particular debate tactic, a logical fallacy, is very common in the debate over Lordship Salvation. IMO, RB is only mimicking what he has been reading from some LS advocates and simply utilized this tactic because he has been exposed to it without realizing what it is. The logical fallacy people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the Lordship debate, it appears in MacArthur’s books and in RB’s article.
RB Closed with,
Those who advocate Lordship Salvation, such as RB, see only the “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ GES “Crossless” Gospel decry all others as advocates of Lordship Salvation. There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation, but neither of the extremists on either side of the debate, including RB, seems willing to acknowledge this.
4) The failure to fully define the terms as they are defined by Lordship Salvation advocates. I appreciate that Ed Sutton has already pointed out the lack of definition issue in a previous posting. What one will find with LS is that its advocates will use terms that are biblical, but their definition often time is not fully disclosed. To understand the egregious errors of LS you must insist they define their terms precisely and in unvarnished terms.
In RB’s article he uses terms, but fails to fully define the terms as they are defined and applied by the LS advocates. This leads to the tragic possibility that one might fall into the trap of LS because he/she thinks LS is defining terms as the Bible does without realizing the LS advocates are forcing the Bible into conformity with the LS presuppositions.
One of the most significant terms that need to be defined as LS defines it is repentance. In a separate posting I will demonstrate from the Lordship advocates how their definition of repentance confirms LS is a works based message to the lost for salvation.
For more see- When Lordship Advocates define Their Terms: It Comes Up Works
LM
1) On the peripheral- the writer, Reformed Baptist (RB), has acknowledged (more than once in recent days) he has never read any of John MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. This is becoming a common pattern of LS apologists at BB. For weeks they put up a passionate defense of LS as defined by John Macarthur but have NEVER read any of his major works on the subject. They try to sanitize and defend statements that come from books they have NEVER read. We are, therefore, guided to what essentially amount to Cliff’s Notes on Lordship salvation. This will reluctantly have to suffice for a reaction.
2) The article makes the same error of omission that is very common in any discussion around or defense of Lordship Salvation. That error is the failure to draw a clear distinction between the results of (discipleship) and requirements for salvation. LS advocates consistently steer the debate toward the results of salvation and away from the Lordship advocate’s stated requirements FOR salvation.
They prefer to address what should be the results of salvation, but for men such as me, that is NOT where the crux of the controversy lies. They will find an argument with the heretical and reductionist views of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES, but NOT with me. IMO, a genuine conversion should produce genuine results. However, a promise, the resolve or intention to perform the results and/or the actual performance of the results of a conversion are not the condition or requirement FOR salvation.
Documented examples of how LS advocates define their requirements FOR salvation verify and affirm that LS is in fact based on works.
3) The appearance of a particular debate tactic, a logical fallacy, is very common in the debate over Lordship Salvation. IMO, RB is only mimicking what he has been reading from some LS advocates and simply utilized this tactic because he has been exposed to it without realizing what it is. The logical fallacy people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the Lordship debate, it appears in MacArthur’s books and in RB’s article.
RB Closed with,
In that statement you can see the false dilemma. Lordship Salvation vs. Easy-Believism. There is an alternative to the works based LS and the so-called “Easy-Believism,” but LS advocates fail to see it and/or will not acknowledge it. Why is that?
Those who advocate Lordship Salvation, such as RB, see only the “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ GES “Crossless” Gospel decry all others as advocates of Lordship Salvation. There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation, but neither of the extremists on either side of the debate, including RB, seems willing to acknowledge this.
4) The failure to fully define the terms as they are defined by Lordship Salvation advocates. I appreciate that Ed Sutton has already pointed out the lack of definition issue in a previous posting. What one will find with LS is that its advocates will use terms that are biblical, but their definition often time is not fully disclosed. To understand the egregious errors of LS you must insist they define their terms precisely and in unvarnished terms.
In RB’s article he uses terms, but fails to fully define the terms as they are defined and applied by the LS advocates. This leads to the tragic possibility that one might fall into the trap of LS because he/she thinks LS is defining terms as the Bible does without realizing the LS advocates are forcing the Bible into conformity with the LS presuppositions.
One of the most significant terms that need to be defined as LS defines it is repentance. In a separate posting I will demonstrate from the Lordship advocates how their definition of repentance confirms LS is a works based message to the lost for salvation.
For more see- When Lordship Advocates define Their Terms: It Comes Up Works
LM
raying:
