Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

[nunatak]

He is smearing his teaching of Lordship Salvation.

Lol, that's pretty funny.

However much I have enjoyed reading canady's posts, I agree with webdog. Lets focus on doctrines and issues, not people.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Nunatak:

Thanks for attempting to restore balance to this thread.

The issue is doctrine, NOT personalities. The problem is that there are some folks who are fiercely loyal to personalities and are intolerant of any criticism of that personality’s teaching. Any one who has read my book sees that I have treated all personalities in the LS camp with dignity and respect. I have to say some things about their doctrine that is hard for those who are loyal to and love certain personalities to accept graciously. I understand that, and outside of reminding them that I have no axe to grind with the personalities involved, I will not reply to any personal attacks on my character, integrity or motives. My reputation and motives belongs to God, and God knows the truth.

That being said I want to reiterate a comment from the previous page. It is imperative to understand one of the keys to the errors in LS, and to understand what LS is, one must understand that LS advocates blend and confuse the separate and distinct doctrines of salvation and discipleship. They treat the two as one and the same.

LS views the behavior that should be evident in the life of a of the born again disciple of Christ as the conditions that must be committed to and performed for the reception of eternal life. LS front loads faith in Christ with promises to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian.

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 a promise to perform works.

LM

 

[canadyjd]

(post #51) Lou Martuneac said:

Lordship Salvation’s condition to become a Christian includes the lost man’s, “willful obedience in turning from sin.” That is to say, the lost man must make a commitment to stop sinning and start obeying to be born again. Without that upfront commitment he cannot be born again. That is frontlaoding faith and conditioning salvation on the promise to perform works!

(post #58) Lou Martuneac said:

One proof that Lordship Salvation as defined by John MacArthur is a works based message is found in his view that James 4:7-10 is, in his words, "an invitation to salvation." That is why I was able to post an article from the single page in all three editions of TGATJ that he conditions eternal salvation on a lost man's commitment to the good works expected of a born again Christian.

Thanks to jdlongmire for post (#60) John MacArthur addresses this point:

Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand. I do not believe that an incomplete presentation of the gospel--in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name; if that’s all you presented, and you didn’t talk about Lordship, and you didn’t talk about being a disciple, and you didn’t talk about repentance, and you didn’t talk about turning from sin-even an incomplete presentation of the gospel-now listen-could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that? Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about submission, they’d be coming to that submission.(emphais mine)

John MacArthur clearly, and specifically, says that a person whom God is saving will be saved even if they don't understand anything about discipleship or commitment. There is no "front loading" faith with the commitment to do good works.

Further irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac is either ignorant of the contents of John MacArthur's beliefs, or Lou Martuneac is being intellectually dishonest in the way he presents John MacArthur's views of LS.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

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.(ephasis mine)

and another quote from Lou Martuneac.

Whether he either neglected to disclose or is unaware of is that Lordship Salvation is rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions. He assumes that this fact is lost on those who reject the works-based Lordship gospel. If he acknowledged and/or knew that Lordship Salvation depends on the extra-biblical belief that regeneration (i.e., salvation) precedes faith, he would understand that LS advocates view regeneration/salvation occurs prior to personal faith in Christ. (emphasis mine)

Please notice the completely contradictory positions from Lou Martuneac which he claims are "irrefrutable evidence" that John MacArthur teaches a works based salvation.

He repeatedly states that MacArthur believes and teaches a lost man must "front load faith" with commitment to do good works prior to being "born again" (regenerated).

He then acknowledges that MacArthur believes a man is regenerated (born again) prior to faith, though dismissing it as an unbiblical doctrine.

This is further irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac is intellectually dishonest in the way he presents what John MacArthur believes and teaches about LS.

peace to youraying:

 

[Revmitchell]

The term "works" gets used and abused in recent years. Our response to God has nothng to do with "works" what ever that response may be. I have to hand it to those of reformed theology. While they hold to this same flawed view of "works" they are at least consistant about it when they insist regeneration comes prior to salvation whether you want it or not.

On the other hand those who hold to this flawed view of "works" and oppose the reformed theology are not being intellectually honest. ( not meant as an attack just stating facts )

God can require anything from us in response to His offer of salvation and it still stays outside of the perameter of "works". In John 1:12 scripture tells us that those who "received" Him it is those whom he gave the power to become the sons of God.

In order for some to mantain intellectual honesty they would have to refer to this "receiving" as intellectual works. And in this age among some 'intellectual works" is acceptable where as physical works is not. Yet both are a response to God's call to salvation. Where is the consistancy in this?

The case cannot be made scripturally that the repsonse required by God is works. For one it is His requirement and two it is a separate issue from His atoning death. No matter how you divide it up there is still some sort of response.

Also, some have made poor attempts to equate a commitment to God ( making Him Lord of your life) with keeping the law. These two also are separate issues. To combine these two is to obfuscate the bigger issue.


Ephesians2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Grace being unmerited favor and Faith the repsonse to the message of the delivery of that unmerted favor ( the cross ). Intellectual honesty for some would mean imposing the lable "works" on faith. For those of the reformed pursuasion the intellectual honety is in tact but still the definition of "works' is in error.

God can atone for our sin through the cross and still require a specific repsonse from us.

While I disagree with McArthur's definition of "works" still his views are being misrepresented in the op.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)

LS is just such a dangerous and "perverse" doctrine. It is especially dangerous because it originated and is being propagated by men, like MacArthur, who are otherwise sound in certain other areas of their teaching. Because of this built in trust many do not suspect, and therefore, do not read MacArthur's LS apologetics carefully and with discernment. I can take any one of his three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus and agree with much that is contained. However, there are elements that are clearly antithetical to Scripture that turn the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith into a man-centered, works based message. It is there! It is, however, often couched in terms that appear orthodox, it is rooted in the extra-biblical presuppositions of Calvinism, and that makes it difficult for some to detect.

Lordship Salvation is a false, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of eternal life on the lost man making an upfront commitment, a promise to perform the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) that should be the result of a genuine, born again disciple of Christ. That is works!


LM

 

[Rippon]

It is there! It is, however, often couched in terms that appear orthodox, it is rooted in the extra-biblical presuppositions of Calvinism, and that makes it difficult for some to detect.

That's funny.Calvinism is reckoned by you to contain dangerous doctrines. But these dangerous doctrines are not clearly seen because they appear to be orthodox.So it's up to you and like-minded zealots to clue in the clueless who can't tell Calvinism from non-Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

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.

Go trash some heretics for a change of pace.

 

[canadyjd]

LS is just such a dangerous and "perverse" doctrine....Lordship Salvation is a false, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of eternal life on the lost man making an upfront commitment, a promise to perform the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) that should be the result of a genuine, born again disciple of Christ. That is works!

Please notice that Lou Martuneac continues to smear John MacArthur with the same old smear that has been proven to be false by Lou Martuneac's own words.

Lou Martuneac continues to refuse to address his own contradictions to his central argument.

Lou Martuneac cannot accurately state the context of quotes which he repeatedly uses to smear MacArthur, even though he would have everyone believe he is an expert on what MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac never addresses scripture in depth as John MacArthur does, even though he presents himself as the final authority of what doctrines are biblical and unbiblical.

Lou Martuneac can only make outrageous, slanderous attacks on John MacArthur, and anyone who dares to disagree with Lou Martuneac.

Lou Martuneac can not be taken seriously as a scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

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.

Go trash some heretics for a change of pace.

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.

 

[webdog]

Please notice that Lou Martuneac continues to smear John MacArthur with the same old smear that has been proven to be false by Lou Martuneac's own words.

Lou Martuneac continues to refuse to address his own contradictions to his central argument.

Lou Martuneac cannot accurately state the context of quotes which he repeatedly uses to smear MacArthur, even though he would have everyone believe he is an expert on what MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac never addresses scripture in depth as John MacArthur does, even though he presents himself as the final authority of what doctrines are biblical and unbiblical.

Lou Martuneac can only make outrageous, slanderous attacks on John MacArthur, and anyone who dares to disagree with Lou Martuneac.

Lou Martuneac can not be taken seriously as a scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

:1_grouphug:

peace to youraying:

 

[Rippon]

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

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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Back to the Topic of Discussion

Looks like its time to refresh the thread back to its original intention...

Following is another example of Lordship Salvation as expressed by Dr. John MacArthur, but this time from outside his major apologetics, such as The Gospel According to Jesus.

“The saving faith in Jesus Christ that the New Testament teaches is much more than a simple affirmation of certain truths about Him…. Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, and it has certain indispensable elements that the New Testament clearly teaches. Saving faith in Jesus Christ involves the exercise of the will. Paul told the Roman believers, ‘Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed’ (Rom. 6:17). Salvation begins (from the human standpoint) with a person’s willful obedience in turning from sin to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Saving faith also involves the emotions, because, as in the verse just mentioned above, it must come from the heart as well as from the mind.” (Romans, pp. 204-5, bold added)

Dr. MacArthur is stating what he believes are necessary requirements to be born again. The use of phrases such as, “salvation begins…” confirms this. His Lordship message to the lost is that for salvation they must make an up-front commitment of absolute “submission” to live in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the free gift of God on a commitment to performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

In his new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong Dr. J. B. Hixson (Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance) addressed the above quote by MacArthur. Hixson’s response is found under a chapter titled, The Performance Gospel, pp. 304-5.

“MacArthur’s citation of Romans 6:17 in support of the notion that willful surrender and obedience must accompany saving faith is unconvincing. To be ‘obedient from the heart’ is simply another way of expressing what it means to believe. The ‘form of teaching’ to which Paul referred was the very teaching he had been putting forth, namely that righteousness comes by faith rather than keeping the Mosaic Law. The verse cited says nothing about obedience vis-à-vis turning from sin and submitting to the Lordship of Christ. Furthermore, the suggestion that saving faith involves emotions, based on Paul’s reference to heart is a strained appeal to the alleged distinction between the heart and the mind that is common among proponents of a performance gospel.”

There are numerous examples, such as the one here from John MacArthur, that remove any doubt that Lordship Salvation is a man centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).


LM

 

[webdog]

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

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.

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.

 

[nunatak]

“The saving faith in Jesus Christ that the New Testament teaches is much more than a simple affirmation of certain truths about Him…. Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, and it has certain indispensable elements that the New Testament clearly teaches. Saving faith in Jesus Christ involves the exercise of the will. Paul told the Roman believers, ‘Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed’ (Rom. 6:17). Salvation begins (from the human standpoint) with a person’s willful obedience in turning from sin to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Saving faith also involves the emotions, because, as in the verse just mentioned above, it must come from the heart as well as from the mind.” (Romans, pp. 204-5, bold added)

As a new convert and one who believes, albeit in ignorance, in sola gratia, I see some points in what Macurthur says here that cause me some concern.

Salvation is by grace alone. But I do not believe Christ can be Savior and not Lord.

Did I "willfully obey?" Did I submit myself totally? Yes, I answer hesitatingly. But I did after many years in heresy where I tried to earn salvation by living a lifestyle worthy of eternal life. I spent many years in unbelief, and even preached another gospel. I am the least worthy to be called of God. And yet, God did call. Without Christ, I can do nothing. And nothing that I have done has been done outside of Christ. Christ is all, and I am complete in him.

I say further that I have a queer feeling at his bothersome use of the term "saving faith." I hold to sola fide, not sola "saving" fide. Why does he insist on saying over and over SAVING faith? Is there a scripture that backs this up, that proves his usage?

I believe that a call to salvation is a call to discipleship. I don't understand why all the rigmarole concerning it, from Macaurthur or LM.

 

[canadyjd]

Looks like its time to refresh the thread back to its original intention...

Following is another example of Lordship Salvation as expressed by Dr. John MacArthur, but this time from outside his major apologetics, such as The Gospel According to Jesus.....

To all:

I have already given irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac will not (is not able to?) accurately quote MacArthur in context from MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus", or from MacArthur's website.

Lou Martuneac has contradicted himself as to his own foundational argument against MacArthur concerning when MacArthur teaches a person is "born again".

Lou Martuneac has not given anyone reason to believe that his quotes from MacArthur "outside his major apologetic works" can be trusted to be accurate or in context.

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

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Salvation is by grace alone. But I do not believe Christ can be Savior and not Lord.

You are in agreement with MacArthur.

Did I "willfully obey?" Did I submit myself totally? Yes, I answer hesitatingly. But I did after many years in heresy where I tried to earn salvation by living a lifestyle worthy of eternal life. I spent many years in unbelief, and even preached another gospel......

May I suggest you read post #60 on page 6 of this thread and/or read MacArthur from his website, "Grace to you"

I say further that I have a queer feeling at his bothersome use of the term "saving faith." I hold to sola fide, not sola "saving" fide. Why does he insist on saying over and over SAVING faith? Is there a scripture that backs this up, that proves his usage?

I cannot speak for MacArthur on this. One passage comes to mind, however.

James 2:14 "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?"

The wording is such that the answer is "no, that faith cannot save him", i.e. it is not "saving faith".

I believe that a call to salvation is a call to discipleship.

Again, that is MacArthur's position, and he supports it from scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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. His Lordship message to the lost is that for salvation they must make an up-front commitment of absolute “submission” to live in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the free gift of God on a commitment to performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

J. B. Hixson correctly address MacArthur's view.

MacArthur’s citation of Romans 6:17 in support of the notion that willful surrender and obedience must accompany saving faith is unconvincing. To be ‘obedient from the heart’ is simply another way of expressing what it means to believe. The ‘form of teaching’ to which Paul referred was the very teaching he had been putting forth, namely that righteousness comes by faith rather than keeping the Mosaic Law. The verse cited says nothing about obedience vis-à-vis turning from sin and submitting to the Lordship of Christ. Furthermore, the suggestion that saving faith involves emotions, based on Paul’s reference to heart is a strained appeal to the alleged distinction between the heart and the mind that is common among proponents of a performance gospel.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I say further that I have a queer feeling at his bothersome use of the term "saving faith." I hold to sola fide, not sola "saving" fide. Why does he insist on saying over and over SAVING faith?

MacArthur, speaking for LS, uses “saving faith” because he is talking about what elements he believes must be in the faith of a lost man that will result in his being born again.

You are honing in on the crux of the doctrinal controversy. LS front-loads faith Christ with the addition of a commitment to "turn from sin," i.e. "stop sinning," and to start obeying.

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.

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


LM