Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed

Dr. John MacArthur wrote a series that outlines his interpretation of the Gospel that is known as Lordship Salvation. His sixth distinctive is as follows,

Reviewed:

What one must understand as they read the above by JM is that he is speaking about salvation, the Gospel message that leads to and results in eternal life. So, when you read MacArthur's statement above he is stating what he believes are the necessary requirements that must be met for the reception of eternal life.

One must also remember that JM and LS men blend and confuse the separate doctrines of salvation and discipleship. He wrote, “Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation…” This is consistent with his writing in TGATJ,

MacArthur believes a commitment to discipleship expected of a born again believer is the (sine qua non= indispensable condition) requirement for salvation. For LS men the lost must make, as JM writes a, “whole-hearted commitment” to self-denial, cross bearing and following to receive the gift of eternal life.

One must also remember that any responsible Bible teacher would reject the so-called “easy-believism” such as is found in the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin “Crossless gospel.” The answer, however, is not found in LS’s changing the terms of the Gospel to include up front surrender and commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a genuine born again believer.

An objective read of JM’s sixth distinctive demonstrates that JM's LS message is that salvation is contingent upon “unconditional surrender” in “exchange” for the reception of “eternal life.”

Remember, when you read JM’s #6 he is writing on what he believes are the necessary conditions for the reception of eternal life, to be born again.

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life? Must saving faith be frontloaded with a promise to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands?

In his books on Lordship Salvation MacArthur uses the words “grace” and “faith,” but they are redefined though Calvinistic pre-suppositions and made to conform to the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. An objective read of JM’s distinctive above is one example of how we can conclude that Lordship Salvation is a works-based, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” (Galatans 2:21).​

LM

 

Let's all be reminded that a portion of what you are getting is the extra--biblical regeneration before faith mantra.

Read the following for a complete and thorough biblical refutation of the regeneration before faith teaching that under girds LS.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?


LM

 

Question on the Matter

The Calvinistic presuppositions are not the real issue in this thread. It has to be engaged because it is interjected in mantra like fashion.

The real issue is what John MacArthur wrote in that statement. He is describing what he believes is required from a lost man to be born again.

With that in mind, here is a question for all to answer:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?​

My answer is, “No!”

I trust the Lordship Salvation advocates are willing to give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question.


LM

 

jd:

In his 6th distinctive John MacArthur is describing what he believes is required from a lost man to be born again. With that in mind, here is the question to you:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?​

My answer is, “No!”

Will you give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question?

I trust you are not going to dodge this question the same way you did last week; are you jd?


LM

 

Why Are You Dodging...?

jd:

In his 6th distinctive John MacArthur is describing what he believes is required from a lost man to be born again. That is abundantly clear in his 6th distinctive. Why are you ducking this question?

Will you give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question?

Are you afraid to give an answer to this question because you never read MacArthur's books on LS? Are you beginning to realize that in your zeal to make this a personality clash you have been mistakenly defending that which you did not at first understand JM is teaching?

Is it possible that something is beginning to become more clear to you now, and you have decided to avoid the obvious implications of what JM wrote in this 6th distinctive?

It is hard to figure exactly why are you afraid to give a "Yes" or "No" answer, and go on record about what MacArthur wrote in his 6th distinctive?

I trust you are not going to dodging this question the same way you did last week; are you jd?

MacArthur wrote,

jd: Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” (JM's words) for the reception of eternal life?


LM

Maybe you could begin by answering SkyPair's question to you. Surely you won't dodge his question too, which was,

 

jd:

We are discussing JM’s 6th distinctive on his interpretation of the “Lordship” interpretation of the Gospel. You have posted a series of his LS distinctives as if they are the proof texts for Lordship Salvation.

I can appreciate why you keep reverting back to the extra-biblical regeneration before faith position. It is the way LS advocates try to remove the stigma of what is the works based message of LS. Saved already, before faith in Christ, so calls for “commitment and unconditional surrender” are being made to a man that is born again already. This has been refuted by Zeller in his article, Does Regeneration Precede Faith? (Lurkers, be sure to read Zeller's article. It disarms jd's attempt to rationalize LS.)

That said, It is beyond any doubt to any objective reader that you are dodging and evading the issue with MacArthur’s 6th distinctive. Why are you afraid to give an answer?

IMO, because, as you admitted, you never read JM’s books on LS you are now seeing for the first time that he has made some statements that show he demands from lost men an up-front decision for, as he writes, “commitment and unconditional surrender,” as requirements for the reception of eternal life.

Because you never read his books you are coming to grips with the fact that JM is speaking in terms of the requirements for the reception of eternal life. His words are, “commitment and unconditional surrender.” You, therefore, are now faced with the fact that he is conditioning salvation on man’s promise to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple.

Why are you afraid to give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question? You didn’t read his books, but you started posting his distinctives without understanding what he is teaching. Did you actually think you could fully understand JM’s LS and defend LS by reading those snippets? You tried to defend what you did not understand. Now, you are looking for a back door, a way out, trying to hide and hope you do not have to answer either way.

I understand your dilemma: If you answer, “Yes,” then you agree with a “commitment and unconditional surrender” for salvation message. If you say, “No,” then you have acknowledged that you defended something you now do not agree with.

Any reader can see exactly why are you afraid to give a “Yes” or “No” answer, and go on record about what MacArthur wrote in his 6th distinctive? You did not understand what you were trying to defend, now you just want it to go way so you don’t have to deal with it. Is that the honest way to deal with a discussion of Lordship Salvation or any doctrine?

It appears you are going to dodge, not just my question, but SkyPair’s question as well. SkyPair asked you,

That is a harmless question. Are you going to claim Sky is twisting JM’s words? Why must also dodge SkyPair’s simple question to you?

John MacArthur wrote,

Why are you afraid to answer this question:

We can’t move on until you show some willingness to engage the meaning of JM’s 6th distinctive with an answer to the simple, unambiguous questions about JM’s 6th distinctive.


LM

PS to Readers: It is clear jd wants nothing to do with what he has found to be a problem with JM’s 6th LS distinctive. I am using this as an opportunity for those of you who lurk to gain an understanding how the LS advocates seek to defend, or in this case, seek to avoid, the polarizing statements coming from men like JM.

 

To All:

Note the use of passages from the Book of James in JM’s statement and jd’s comments. Here is sample of JM’s interpretation of the plan of salvation.

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

#1 JM says this passage is directed to those who are not saved. He says this is the invitation to salvation. The passage opens with, “Submit yourselves…” JM, therefore, is conditioning salvation on “submission,” just as he does in his 6th LS distinctive. It is irrefutable that JM is conditioning the reception of salvation on man’s submission.

jd, reverting to the extra-biblical regeneration before faith position, will say, “'the most comprehensive invitation to salvation...at those who are not saved', have been saved already because they were regenerated before faith and repentance.” So, then we have to conclude that JM has either misunderstood James or JM is preaching salvation to the redeemed. [Are you beginning to see the circle-logic?]

#2 Is the Epistle of James written to the lost or the saved? MacArthur says to, “those who are not saved.” What does the Bible say, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren…” (James 1:1-2).

Is the Epistle of James written to the lost or the saved? Not a difficult question; is it?

#3 Do we find salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9) anywhere in James 4:7-10?


LM

 

Another Approach

jd:

I can appreciate how frustrated you must be. You never read John MacArthur’s books on Lordship Salvation (LS). You were, therefore, trying to defend JM’s interpretation of the Gospel without knowing fully what his position was. Then you got wrapped in a personality contest.

So, now you’ve reduced yourself to political gamesmanship as you try to dodge a simple unambiguous question about his view of the Gospel. We see this all the time on the political talk shows. Ask a liberal democrat a question, and instead of an answer, they fire back with a question or smear tactic so they do not have to give a clear, unvarnished answer to a simple, unambiguous question.

So, let’s make this easier for you.

Let’s pretend we never heard of John MacArthur. Let’s pretend neither one of ever read a book by him, which would make us even since you never read his LS books. Let’s pretend we never visited his web site. So, now you and I know nothing of a John MacArthur or anything about his personal position on any doctrine.

With that scenario in mind let’s pretend you and I met at a Baptist fellowship or Bible Conference. At lunch, men are informally discussing some doctrines. You and I never met, I asked the table, and you specifically, this question:

What would your answer be?


LM

 

jd:

1) The Epistle to James. You have your answer, you misinterpreted the issue. But let’s look at t again. Here is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

JM says this passage is directed to those who are not saved. He says this is the invitation to salvation. The passage opens with, “Submit yourselves…” very similar to JM's 6th distinctive.

So, you say, with JM, that some of James is for the unsaved. OK, let’s agree for the sake of discussion. We, therefore, have JM stating that James 4:7-10 “is the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles…”

Taking JM’s interpretation of James 4:7-10 at face value he, therefore, conditions salvation on “submission, resisting the Devil, purifying one self, and humbling.”

2) For you to keep chanting the mantra that I never engage LS from the Scriptures is a falsehood and you know it. I have told you that my book (296) pages is cover-to-cover a review and refutation of LS from a biblical perspective. The subtitle is: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

At my blog and others both for and against LS I have posted numerous discussions of it from a biblical perspective. You have not read JM's books on LS, and not read mine either.

If I send you a free copy of my book, will you read it (cover-to-cover) and come back to BB with an honest review of it and an answer as to whether or not I engaged LS from the Scriptures?


LM