Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

[webdog]

The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

The above highlighted is an impossibility for an unregenerated person to comprehend. Someone without faith in Christ cannot, will not understand what it takes to "love Him and serve Him". That is what discipleship is...for a regenerated person (which does NOT precede faith in Christ).

 

[nunatak]

You know, somebody said to me, “Well, I didn’t know all about Lordship when I was saved. Am I not saved?” No. The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

According to the entire quote, the man was regenerated.

 

[J.D.]

This is from JDL's post # 60, quoting JMac:

I am saying that explicitly, that a call to salvation is indeed a call to discipleship.

I couldn't agree more and this is the key to understanding Dr. Ketchum's misunderstanding of vocational election (see Lance Ketchum's threads on election). I really wanted to bring this argument into those threads but I didn't have time back then to develope it.

Dr. Gill actually agrees that election is unto vocation, but Gill, like MacArthur, does not separate salvation from discipleship or vocation. Vocation, discipleship, and sanctification are all aspects of one call to salvation. They cannot be treated as separate, unconnected phases of the Christian experience.

 

[canadyjd]

There is no Scripture supporting pre faith regeneration...so I don't know how Macarthur could cite "many passages".

That is truly your opinion. Many disagree and point to numerous passages in support. I believe there was a thread here once that discussed many of them.

So, we can disagee. What happens next? Some folks start accusing other Christians of heresy. Some folks start accusing other Christians of teaching a "works based salvation" that is clearly contrary to what is really being taught.

That is my point all along. Some folks are being intellectually dishonest in the way they are presenting the beliefs of others. Those people cannot be trusted to accurately and truthfully engage these issues. Those people cannot be considered serious scholars, author's, bloggers, or contributors to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

According to the entire quote, the man was regenerated.

...according to the entire quote, the understanding of that was needed to be regenerated, an impossibilty to understand for someone NOT regenerated...
The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

 

[webdog]

That is truly your opinion. Many disagree and point to numerous passages in support. I believe there was a thread here once that discussed many of them.

So, we can disagee. What happens next? Some folks start accusing other Christians of heresy. Some folks start accusing other Christians of teaching a "works based salvation" that is clearly contrary to what is really being taught.

That is my point all along. Some folks are being intellectually dishonest in the way they are presenting the beliefs of others. Those people cannot be trusted to accurately and truthfully engage these issues. Those people cannot be considered serious scholars, author's, bloggers, or contributors to the BB.

peace to youraying:

First, that is Scripture, not my opinion. The Bible says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ AND be saved. That's as plain as day.
"If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense"
Second, LM is a good contributor to the BB, blogs, et al. Just because you don't agree with the man, doesn't give you the right for that kind of ad hominem. Since I disagree with you, would you appreciate those underhanded remarks made against you? I doubt it. Fact is, Macarthur holds to pre faith regeneration, and LS snowballs from that point. Starting with a faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

You claim that the book of James doesn't apply to us. What other books of the Bible do you reject?

I'm not used to reading reckless, emotional misrepresentations like that from you.

Who James addressed his letter to is very apparent in the first few verses of the book. "Brethren." Right?

James 4:7-10 does not apply to unsaved. MacArthur's LS, however, twists what James is encouraging for born again disciples of Christ into an evangelistic appeal to the lost that they must commit to in exchange for salvation. JM says that passage is an "invitation to salvation," the invitation that contains what is necessary to receive eternal life, to become a Christian.

This all part of Lordship's taking what should be evident in the life of a disciple of Christ and then turning those conditions into conditions that must be committed to, front-loaded into faith, for the lost man to be born again.

That is a works-based message and no amount of claiming "misrepresentation" can negate the works gospel of Lordship Salvation as MacArthur defined it in his personal interpretation of James 4:7-10.


LM

 

[J.D.]

I'm not used to reading reckless, emotional misrepresentations like that from you.

Who James addressed his letter to is very apparent in the first few verses of the book. "Brethren." Right?

James 4:7-10 does not apply to unsaved. MacArthur's LS, however, twists what James is encouraging for born again disciples of Christ into an evangelistic appeal to the lost that they must commit to in exchange for salvation. JM says that passage is an "invitation to salvation," the invitation that contains what is necessary to receive eternal life, to become a Christian.

This all part of Lordship's taking what should be evident in the life of a disciple of Christ and then turning those conditions into conditions that must be committed to, front-loaded into faith, for the lost man to be born again.

That is a works-based message and no amount of claiming "misrepresentation" can negate the works gospel of Lordship Salvation as MacArthur defined it in his personal interpretation of James 4:7-10.


LM

I was just wondering which books of the Bible are specifically addressed to unbelievers?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I was just wondering which books of the Bible are specifically addressed to unbelievers?

JD:

I wrote,

Who James addressed his letter to is very apparent in the first few verses of the book. "Brethren." Right?

James 4:7-10 does not apply to unsaved. MacArthur's LS, however, twists what James is encouraging for born again disciples of Christ into an evangelistic appeal to the lost that they must commit to in exchange for salvation. JM says that passage is an "invitation to salvation," the invitation that contains what is necessary to receive eternal life, to become a Christian.

This all part of Lordship's taking what should be evident in the life of a disciple of Christ and then turning those conditions into conditions that must be committed to, front-loaded into faith, for the lost man to be born again.

That is a works-based message and no amount of claiming "misrepresentation" can negate the works gospel of Lordship Salvation as MacArthur defined it in his personal interpretation of James 4:7-10.

Before you redirect away from the Book of James, may I suggest you devote some time and comments toward whether or not James 4:7-10 is, as MacArthur insists, is an "invitation to salvation," meant for the lost.


LM

 

[J.D.]

JD:

I wrote,
Before you redirect away from the Book of James, may I suggest you devote some time and comments toward whether or not James 4:7-10 is, as MacArthur insists, is an "invitation to salvation," meant for the lost.


LM

I'm just trying to point out that it's a common, yet weak, argument to say that because a passage is addressed to "brethren", it therefore does not apply to the lost. The fact is, all of scripture is addressed "brethren" in one form or another (to the saints, to the twelve tribes, to the church, etc.), yet the Gospel of salvation is contained within the pages of those books that are addressed to the brethren. Every verse with which we witness to the lost was addressed to the brethren.

But I'm not going to try to defend JMac's application of a particular scripture to this or that type of person. I think the problem here is that you are picking out pieces of a puzzle and reconstructing them to look like the picture you want to paint of JMac.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I'm just trying to point out that it's a common, yet weak, argument to say that because a passage is addressed to "brethren", it therefore does not apply to the lost. The fact is, all of scripture is addressed "brethren" in one form or another (to the saints, to the twelve tribes, to the church, etc.), yet the Gospel of salvation is contained within the pages of those books that are addressed to the brethren. Every verse with which we witness to the lost was addressed to the brethren.

But I'm not going to try to defend JMac's application of a particular scripture to this or that type of person. I think the problem here is that you are picking out pieces of a puzzle and reconstructing them to look like the picture you want to paint of JMac.

JD:

No one needs to reconstruct anything MacArthur is writing on LS. It is in print, and his meaning is clear. He is calling on the lost to make an upfront commitment to perform the "good works" expected of a born again disciple of Christ in exchange" for salvation.

This is Lordship's over reaction to the obvious errors of the reductionist interpretation of the Gospel, such as Hodges' Crossless gospel.

In any event, let's take MacArthur's obvious interpretation of James 4:7-10 out of our discussion. IMO, the passage is not meant for, or addressed to the unsaved. To contend that it is for the lost is to have created a message of faith, plus works.

What is your opinion of James 4:7-10? Is it an evangelistic message to the lost?


LM

 

[nunatak]

I am a new convert, but imo the gospel message of salvation should be preached to ALL men, not just "sinners."

 

[nunatak]

...according to the entire quote, the understanding of that was needed to be regenerated, an impossibilty to understand for someone NOT regenerated...
The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

Webdog, I am trying to follow your line of thought. Do you mean that a sinner must be regenerated first, then confess Christ as Lord?

 

[canadyjd]

JD:

No one needs to reconstruct anything MacArthur is writing on LS. It is in print, and his meaning is clear. He is calling on the lost to make an upfront commitment to perform the "good works" expected of a born again disciple of Christ in exchange" for salvation.

In his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus" MacArthur is very clear. At least 23 times in the 1st 150 pages, MacArthur either specifically states that salvation is completely a work of God that cannot be earned by human works, or he alludes to the work of Holy Spirit in the salvation process. He gives numerous passages of scripture to support his position.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

There is no Scripture supporting pre faith regeneration..."

I Cor. 12:3 "....and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit".

Surely Paul is not saying that people cannot mouth the words "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself says that many will call Him "Lord" that will not enter the Kingdom.

Paul must be saying that no one can come to saving faith except by the power of Holy Spirit.

John 3:7-8 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (8)The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

If you hold that regeneration and being "born again" are interchangable terms, then this passage certainly supports pre-faith regeneration. Here, Jesus says that the will of God, Holy Spirit, is the determining factor in whether someone will be born again, or not. People cannot predict it, or even understand it fully. (they "do not know where it comes from and where it is going)

Also notice the "whosoever" of John 3:16 has already been qualified by the will of Holy Spirit in causing someone to be "born again".

I Peter 1:3 "...who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope..."

What was the reason we were born again? It was because of the great mercy of Almighty God.

I Peter 1:20-21 "For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (21) who, through Him, are believers in God."

Matt. 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Again, "all things" must include the salvation of men. All means all, right? Especially since the context supports it. To know God (or rather to be known by God) is to have salvation. Notice the will of Jesus Christ in determining who knows God the Father.

And there are others.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

One must first understand that MacArthur applies the extra-biblical presuppositions of five-point Calvinism to the Gospel. Those presuppositions lead them to believe that lost men are regenerated, i.e., born again apart from and prior to faith in Christ.

Lordship apologists either do not reveal these presuppositions, or once revealed they believe that their presuppositions negate what is the obvious works based message of Lordship Salvation. One need only look at MacArthur's view of James 4:7-10 to see that he is conditioning the reception of eternal life on the commitment to and performance of works FOR salvation. It is noteworthy that most LS apologists at BB are avoiding a personal discussion of James 4:7-10 as MacArthur defines it.

Then, if you have MacArthur’s latest edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, in the first chapter you will note that he is conditioning salvation on the sinner’s commitment to perform what is expected of a “slave” (disciple) of Christ. He says the Gospel is, “an invitation to slavery…begins with unconditional surrender.”

MacArthur addresses in the chapter what it means to be a disciple of Christ. He references passages that are applied and speaking to disciples, those who had already been born again. The application is about how one who is saved should live as a disciple “slave” of Jesus Christ. That is a solid interpretation of what should be the life and commitment to Christ of a born again Christian. I agree with any man who says this is, “what it means to be a Christian.”

MacArthur, however, twists these passages into a message of what is required to BECOME A CHRISTIAN. That is where Lordship Salvation departs from the truth and becomes a “false Gospel” that conditions eternal life on works.


LM

 

[webdog]

Webdog, I am trying to follow your line of thought. Do you mean that a sinner must be regenerated first, then confess Christ as Lord?

Confess...no. Commit? Yes.

 

[canadyjd]

To all:

As Lou Martuneac continues his smear of John MacArthur, I would like to take a minute to point out something.

Early in this thread, I asked Lou about a quote from MacArthur's book which he frequently uses. This was his response.

(Post #28)“(John MacArthur quote: That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised and Expanded Edition], p. 148.)

Lou Martuneac said: On that passage canadyjd asks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadyjd
Would you please show us from MacArthur's book exactly what that person is RESPONDING to?

Lou Martuneac responded to my question with:

This is why men who have not read any of MacArthur’s major apologetcs on Lordship Salvation should do their home work, by reading what the man has to say, FROM his books, before trying to defend that which he does not understand.

The answer is the title of his book:

Lou Martuneac claimed the person MacArthur was speaking of was responding to the gospel.

What I then demonstrated was that Lou Martuneac did not (would not?could not?) accurately state the context of this quote. You can see the full explanation on post #

Lou Martuneac has not yet responded to the fact that he could not?would not? accurately state the context of the quote.

We now have irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac is either ignorant of the contents of MacArthur's book or Lou Martuneac is intellectually dishonest in the way he presents MacArthur's views.

What is more amazing is than the fact Lou Martuneac doesn't even attempt to answer the obvious error he has made in one of his central arguments, he has to audacity to simply move on to the next, out of context, smear of John MacArthur.

I am certain everyone without an agenda to push can make a decision as to whether Lou Martuneac is a credible source of information about John MacArthur.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

canady...LM is not smearing John Macarthur. He is smearing his teaching of Lordship Salvation. Would you please stop with the smearing of Lou Martuneac if you want to be taken seriously?

People who live in glass houses...

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Web:

I know you are well aware that John MacArthur is not the only passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation. He is, however, the best known and most prolific apologist for it. There are others who teach the same works-based message.

Please see Another Example of Lordship's Man-Centered Message


LM