Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

[J.D.]

Lordship Salvation is a message that FOR salvation the lost must promise to perform these results.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!! A sinner's promise has nothing to do with salvation. It is the sinner's new-found hatred of sin that is evidence of genuine conversion. Why do you keep lying about LS?

 

[J.D.]

what should be the natural results of faith in Christ, what should be the results of a genuine conversion.

Actually, this is an intersting admition from you. You admit that we emphasize the RESULTS of genuine conversion. But how is it that we emphsize results and yet demand "up front" committment? If it is up front, how is it then resultant?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Actually, this is an intersting admition from you. You admit that we emphasize the RESULTS of genuine conversion. But how is it that we emphsize results and yet demand "up front" committment? If it is up front, how is it then resultant?

JD:

I mean this sincerely, but you are exhibiting a lack of understanding over what LS is and where the dividing lines are. Furthermore, either a lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation of what I have been saying for two decades.

First of all, “admission?” I have since 1988 always identified that there is a difference in the debate between the results of and requirements for salvation.

Second, I am demonstrating to readers that LS men prefer and always rush to discuss results and tend to avoid discussing LS’s requirements for salvation.

Third, your two questions demonstrate that lack of understanding what the crux of the debate is over, which I detailed in this thread several times. Please go back and read it again.

Fourth, my full comment was,

“What the LS apologists do is keep trying to focus on the what should be the natural results of faith in Christ, what should be the results of a genuine conversion.”

And, to reiterate, I wrote that not as an admission, but a help to readers to know that LS advocates try to steer away from dealing with LS's requirements for salvation in preference for the results of salvation because that is where there is little controversy in their teaching.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!! A sinner's promise has nothing to do with salvation. It is the sinner's new-found hatred of sin that is evidence of genuine conversion. Why do you keep lying about LS?

Here again you demonstrate the very thing I have been saying. You are steering away from requirements to become a Christian in preference for thoughts on the results/evidence of having become a Christian.

What you have failed to address is LS, as defined by MacArthur, which conditions the reception of eternal life on a decision/commitment by a lost man to "turn from sin,", i.e. to stop committing sin and to start obeying.

Will you be willing to make a commitment to discuss ONLY what LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires of a lost man to be born again?


LM

 

[Rippon]

My father was saved litening to Ernest Angely. Would you say his ministry is "true and biblical"?

That was not my point and you know it. It jsut threw a monkey wrench into your thinking that numbers coming to Christ = flawless ministry.

Listen Sp, I mean Wd, where did I say that many people coming to Christ = flawless ministry? Quit making stuff up. I said it was shameful to make an analogy between the bogus "ministry" of E.A. and that of John MacArthur. Got that? Deal with what I say, not the words you try to insert in my mouth.

I said that the ministry of John MacArthur extends 40 years. It is a solid, God-honoring ministry. J.MacArthur has lead a consistent Christian walk, and has labored in a clear exposition of the Word. There is no conceivable way for someone to liken E.A's "ministry" to that of John MacArthur.Contrasts yes, comparisons --certainly not!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Here is John MacArthur from all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus:

“One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”

This is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up,” (James 4:7-10).

John MacArthur’s LS “invitation to salvation,” to the lost from James 4 is the LS invitation to being born again. JM is documenting what he believes is a necessary requirement for the reception of eternal life; how to be born again. He finds those elements in James 4:7-10. He believes those elements are the conditions that the lost must commit to FOR salvation.

That is what he says; it is in print, in his own words, in his own books.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Here is John MacArthur from all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus:

“One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”

This is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up,” (James 4:7-10).

John MacArthur’s LS “invitation to salvation,” to the lost from James 4 is the LS invitation to being born again. JM is documenting what he believes is a necessary requirement for the reception of eternal life; how to be born again. He finds those elements in James 4:7-10. He believes those elements are the conditions that the lost must commit to FOR salvation.

That is what he says; it is in print, in his own words, in his own books.


LM

 

[Goldie]

Hi, I'm back. Posted one post and then "vanished" as things got really busy. Hope I have more time to post now.

Just wanted to say - I'm glad to see this discussion here.

I've been reading up on Lordship Salvation recently, and the way I see it, it's obviously a works based salvation - and one sees a lot of it in churches and on various forums and websites, as opposed to true saving faith through the grace of Jesus Christ. What I've come to learn is that all one really needs to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved - Jesus has done all the work. So simple, anyone can be saved, yet sadly, many people take the "you must repent of your sins" route first - which equates to works salvation, i.e., Lordship Salvation. Biblical repentance means a "change of mind", i.e., to turn from unbelief to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet this word (repentance) is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted to mean that one has to turn from ones sins. So in effect, if you really think about it, if one can effectively turn from one's sins in order to be saved - then why would you need a Saviour?

Regards,
Audrey

 

[canadyjd]

Dr. MacArthur LS teaches that lost men must be "willing to turn from sin" to be born again. The use of phrases such as, “salvation begins…” confirms this.

First, John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be "willing to turn from sin". That is an invention of Lou Martuneac.

Secondly, the context of MacArthur's quote is "salvation begins from a human standpoint". Notice how Lou Martuneac leaves the context of the quote in an attempt to make MacArthur sound as if he is saying something that he is not.

The truth is that MacArthur believes and teaches a person is "born again" or "regenerated", prior to faith, and that faith (a gift from God) is the response to the work of Holy Spirit. Salvation is appropriated by faith, but it is all a gift of God.

This is further, irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac is intellectually dishonest in the way he presents MacArthur's views.

Lou Martuneac has proven by his own distortions that he cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Will you be willing to make a commitment to discuss ONLY what LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires of a lost man to be born again?

Will Lou Martuneac ever make a commitment to accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches?

It has been demonstrated in this very thread that Lou Martuneac has claimed two completely contradictory views of what MacArthur believes concerning regeneration (being born again).

Lou Martuneac claims MacArthur believes regeneration (being born again) occurs prior to faith (Lou Martuneac believes it to be unbiblical), and in the same breath Lou Martuneac will claim MacArthur believes and teaches a man must have faith including commitment to works prior to being born again.

Lou Martuneac is in an argument with himself.

It has been demonstrated in this very thread that Lou Martuneac cannot (will not or is unable to) accurately state the context of a quote from MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus", despite exhalting himself as the only "expert" on the subject and lecturing everyone else not to disagree with him.

Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

You Have It Exactly Right

Dear BB Readers:

Once again a MacArthur/LS apologist demonstrates that he does not recognize or understand what MacArthur is writing and is teaching. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The apologist wrote,

“John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’.”

The Grace to You website, which posts an article by Dr. MacArthur, that is touted as his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again. The statement is written by MacArthur and it is discussing the Gospel, the plan of salvation, the LS interpretation of how a lost man receives the gift of eternal life.

“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

I already posted this link, but since LS apologists continue to post comments that reveal an on-going lack of understanding of the LS message that they seek to defend, I will link to it again- John MacArthur’s Position on the Lordship of Christ

In that article, by Ps. George Zeller, you will read additional documentation of MacArthur’s view that repentance for salvation requires a lost man to “turn from sin.” Here is that portion.

Dr. MacArthur tends to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance, and to confuse faith with that which faith ought to produce. He confuses saving faith (which takes place in a moment of time--Rom. 13:11; Eph. 1:13) with discipleship (which is a lifelong process). As Miles Stanford has said, "Lordship salvation is not the childlike faith of John 3:16. It rightly insists upon repentance but wrongly includes a change of behavior IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Saviour, but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith" (Miles Stanford, in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus).

MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance "inevitably results in a change of behavior" (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, "true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose" (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

You Have It Exactly Right

Hi, I'm back. Posted one post and then "vanished" as things got really busy. Hope I have more time to post now.

Just wanted to say - I'm glad to see this discussion here.

I've been reading up on Lordship Salvation recently, and the way I see it, it's obviously a works based salvation - and one sees a lot of it in churches and on various forums and websites, as opposed to true saving faith through the grace of Jesus Christ. What I've come to learn is that all one really needs to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved - Jesus has done all the work. So simple, anyone can be saved, yet sadly, many people take the "you must repent of your sins" route first - which equates to works salvation, i.e., Lordship Salvation. Biblical repentance means a "change of mind", i.e., to turn from unbelief to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet this word (repentance) is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted to mean that one has to turn from ones sins. So in effect, if you really think about it, if one can effectively turn from one's sins in order to be saved - then why would you need a Saviour?

Audrey:

Thanks for posting your note above. You have it EXACTLY right!

Your notes above are succint, and right on target. LS conditions salvation on a lost man's commitment to "turn from sin" to stop sinning and keeping that commitment to stop sinning. That is what MacArthur says, in his own words, as I have documneted from his own books.

By the way, I just wrote a new article you will appreciate. It is titled, Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?

I take a theme that is in all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus and for example I noted that,

“You can read those quotes, apply them to a personal evangelism setting, and you have a lost man being told that he must come to Christ with a promise to 'leave (stop committing) sin,' and follow Jesus at any cost to receive the gift of eternal life.”

Thanks again for posting your comment above, it is a blessing to read one who understands the works based, non-saving message of Lordship Salvation. I am going to repeat your excellent comment here in the tread under my new article.

Kind regards,


LM

PS: I used to live in South Africa.

 

[webdog]

Listen Sp, I mean Wd, where did I say that many people coming to Christ = flawless ministry? Quit making stuff up. I said it was shameful to make an analogy between the bogus "ministry" of E.A. and that of John MacArthur. Got that? Deal with what I say, not the words you try to insert in my mouth.

I said that the ministry of John MacArthur extends 40 years. It is a solid, God-honoring ministry. J.MacArthur has lead a consistent Christian walk, and has labored in a clear exposition of the Word. There is no conceivable way for someone to liken E.A's "ministry" to that of John MacArthur.Contrasts yes, comparisons --certainly not!

npetre...I mean rippon...here are your words...

Why is it Lou, that if ( according to your authority) John MacArthur is preaching a false, non-saving message -- that multitudes of folks around the world have been saved through his ministry over the last 40 years?!The reason?Because his ministry is true and a biblically saving one. Have you ever seen him on Larry King? His message is straight and true to the Word of God. His message is God-honoring.

"straight and true" is pretty close to flawless, is it not?

...to which I replied to you...

My father was saved litening to Ernest Angely. Would you say his ministry is "true and biblical"? I'm sure there are those who come to Christ listening to Osteen, too.

...to which you replied...

Now you are comparing Ernest Angely with John MacArthur?! Shame on you. No wonder you can't interpret Scripture correctly since you have lost all reasoning.

I think we can see who is being dishonest and avoiding what is actually said.

 

[J.D.]

From LM's quote of "Ps." Zeller (what does "Ps." mean?):

But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR?

Once again, you've got it completely wrong. How is "turning from sins" a behavior? You are putting words in JMac's mouth that he never said. "Turning from sin" is an attitude that leads to a change in behavior. I think that's what JMac said, as Zeller himself admits:

MacArthur is more accurate when he says, "true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose" (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.

Or should he (Zeller) have said "to quote MacArthur accurately for a change, ...."

When are you going to stop lying about John MacArthur and Lordship Salvation in general?

 

[Havensdad]

From LM's quote of "Ps." Zeller (what does "Ps." mean?):Once again, you've got it completely wrong. How is "turning from sins" a behavior? You are putting words in JMac's mouth that he never said. "Turning from sin" is an attitude that leads to a change in behavior. I think that's what JMac said, as Zeller himself admits:

Or should he (Zeller) have said "to quote MacArthur accurately for a change, ...."

When are you going to stop lying about John MacArthur and Lordship Salvation in general?

AMEN!

J Mac. always defines repentance as a change in attitude/focus which RESULTS in a change of action. If one says they have "Changed their mind", but their actions do not change, they are either self deceived, or a liar.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Hi, I'm back. Posted one post and then "vanished" as things got really busy. Hope I have more time to post now.

Just wanted to say - I'm glad to see this discussion here.

I've been reading up on Lordship Salvation recently, and the way I see it, it's obviously a works based salvation - and one sees a lot of it in churches and on various forums and websites, as opposed to true saving faith through the grace of Jesus Christ. What I've come to learn is that all one really needs to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved - Jesus has done all the work. So simple, anyone can be saved, yet sadly, many people take the "you must repent of your sins" route first - which equates to works salvation, i.e., Lordship Salvation. Biblical repentance means a "change of mind", i.e., to turn from unbelief to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet this word (repentance) is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted to mean that one has to turn from ones sins. So in effect, if you really think about it, if one can effectively turn from one's sins in order to be saved - then why would you need a Saviour?

Regards,
Audrey

Goldie:

I posted your comment here over at my blog and it drew a very good reply that the writer wants you to read. You can read it at...

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-lordship-salvation-barter-system.html


LM

 

[Rippon]

"straight and true" is pretty close to flawless, is it not?

Rip : Flawless is perfection.None of us us are flawless this side of heaven. You have certainly evidenced that. Don't you use own flaw-ridden words as if they were the words from someone else.Honestly WD, get it right next time.

My point still stands. When you equate MacArthur's ministry with someone the likes of E.A. -- you being silly in the extreme ( as well as being extremely disrespectful).

 

[canadyjd]

Dear BB Readers:

Once again a MacArthur/LS apologist demonstrates that he does not recognize or understand what MacArthur is writing and is teaching. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The apologist wrote,

“John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’

Lou Martuneac continued: The Grace to You website, which posts an article by Dr. MacArthur, that is touted as his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again. The statement is written by MacArthur and it is discussing the Gospel, the plan of salvation, the LS interpretation of how a lost man receives the gift of eternal life

.“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

To all:

I have read the quote from MacArthur several times. I still do not see the words "to be born again you must turn from your sins".

When Lou Martuneac claims that this quote from MacArthur is "his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again." he is putting his intellectually dishonesty on display for all to see.

The above post by Lou Martuneac proves Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly state what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered to be a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.
peace to allraying:

 

[webdog]

Lou Martuneac should not be considered to be a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

This ad hominem is getting quite old. The same could be said of you.

 

[canadyjd]

This ad hominem is getting quite old. The same could be said of you.

It could be said of me, but it wouldn't be true as it is with Lou Martuneac.

I have not presented myself as an expert on John MacArthur and LS.

Even so, I can clearly see that what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches is easily demonstrated to be untrue by a simple comparison to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website.

Anyone without an agenda can easily see it as well.

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur and yet he cannot (will not?) accurately state the context of a quote from MacArthur's book which he often uses to smear John MacArthur with allegations of teaching a "non-saving", "works based" message that "frustrates grace".

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur but has given two contradictory statements concerning when MacArthur believes regeneration (being born again) occurs.

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur but will not acknoweldge that MacArthur on dozens of occasions in his book specifically states or alludes to his belief that salvation is completely a work of God, and is not based on any works of man.

Lou Martuneac has not let that fact stop him from a continuous smear of John MacArthur by comparing him to heretics and accusing him of teaching a non-saving message.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

Your selective self-righteous indignation doesn't change that.

peace to youraying: