Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed

jd:

1) The Epistle to James. You seem to have ignored what I posted earlier in this thread. Are you going to dodge this as well? Let’s look at it 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: Is he conditioning salvation on “submission, resisting the Devil, purifying one self, and humbling?”

Can you answer that question?


LM

 

jd:

Rarely have I encountered fear in doctrinal discussions. Fear (cowardice), however, is the only reasonable explanation for your trying to run, dodge and hide from SkyPair's and my simple questions. You can't even bring yourself to answer a question, because you are afraid of what the answer will reveal.

You posted JM's LS distinctives, but you never read MacArthur, therefore, you never really understood what he was teaching. You thought a few sentences from his website was all you needed to fully understand Lordship Salvation. You found out you did not really understand LS, and now instead of coming to grips with that, you try to evade it.

Now, you won't read my book, even when I offer a free copy. Reading my book would show that I provided numerous biblical responses to the errors of LS, but you don't want to concede that. You prefer to perpetuate a falsehood.

Can you name any book you have read that answers LS? I have to figure you have not.

You have reduced your self to dodging questions. Is that intellectually honest? 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? Is this the honest way to deal with a discussion of Lordship Salvation or any doctrine?

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:

LM

 

jd:

Many words and still you are trying to dodge and evade the core question. This fear of yours is understandable.

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.

You are still trying the political gamesmanship 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. The O'Bama-Clinton side of the Democratic debate this evening was a good example.

So, let’s make this easier for you. This scenario is fair, and you should not feel that you must react with more evasion. Try to address the question.

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

PS: You wrote, “That is a big pile of cowpie.” Your reactions are showing.

 

To All:

I posted the following in the John MacArthur & Dispensationalism thread.

Bob:

Good words. The article John MacArthur & Dispensationalism: And Our Response is transcribed, but I also suggest men order the tape.

You’d be surprised how many people in the Lordship Salvation discussions have NEVER read any of the major works by the major figures in the Lordship debate. They do not like to hear this, but what many of them “like” a certain personality, and refuse to consider that the person they “like” and trust, might possibly be wrong on the Gospel.

This is what canadyjd is going through, and I have seen it numerous times in the past. He has not, and refuses to read MacArthur’s books as a study. He thinks reading a few non-descript paragraphs at a web site is all he needs to read to understand John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation (LS). IMO, jd has already seen some things that have concerned him and this is why he will not answer even the most basic question in a clear, unvarnished way.

I have always agreed that John MacArthur has made valuable contributions that all of us can be grateful for. His LS interpretation of the Gospel, however, is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3). He has a good reputation, well thought of by many, so when the LS issue arises, people who “like” him, just do not want to dig too deeply because it may reveal something they do not want to come to grips with. I commend TCGreek, he did the work and found that there are areas in JM’s interpretation of the Gospel that are of concern to him. At first he would not even consider the possibility.

In my book I note how MacArthur tells of a man who refused to read because he saw that he might have to choose sides. That is part of jd’s problem, only worse because he has chosen sides without understanding what he has chosen to side with. I had the exact same experience as MacArthur with an American missionary in South Africa. Here is the excerpt from my book,

A long time ago I thought I could understand a man’s theology by doing a cursory read. I was wrong. My initial review of JM's The Gospel According to Jesus (TGATJ) in 1988 showed me some danger signs. I read some men who objected to LS. It was not until later, when I was thrust into the middle of the debate, that I did the hard work of buying and reading all of MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. (I did the same with Zane Hodges over his “Crossless” gospel) What I found was even more disturbing than what my initial read uncovered. MacArthur's unorthodox viewing of James 4:7-10 as an “invitation to salvation” is buried in one of his appendices.

I have ordered taped sermons preached by various men and transcribed them verbatim, word-for-word, so that I could study their message and give a fair analysis. After drawing some conclusions I phoned them to discuss what I heard and transcribed. I told them I wanted to be fair in my book, it was non-threatening. One would not discuss any of it, one was defensive, but gave honest answers, the third had an explosion within 30 seconds of my call: shouting and ranting. I had to politely say goodbye, and hung up. I can tell of pastors meeting to discuss this and the lead LS man in that meeting having verbal explosions, stomping around the room, and making crazy accusations against two of the men in the room.

My experience has shown a pattern among many men in the LS camp. If you question their LS interpretation of the Gospel, sincere doctrinal questions, they bristle and take offense that they are even being asked to explain what they believe. In my book I tell of a missionary saying to me that to question his pastor friend’s view of Lordship Salvation is to, “question the Lord’s anointed.”

If MacArthur was clear and orthodox on the Gospel, why do you suppose the IFCA called MacArthur for an open interview to discuss what he had written? They questioned his stand in regard to dispensationalism. They were shaken by a number of his polarizing statements in TGATJ. Two of his Master's Seminary faculty members expressed concern with TGATJ. (See IFCA Interview & Report)

Over the years a number of men have resigned from the IFCA over various doctrinal issues with JM. MacArthur’s, now recanted, views on the eternal sonship of Jesus, raised a huge flap in the IFCA. Year after year, JM signs agreement to the IFCA doctrinal statement. The problem is that he signs that statement and it is widely known that while MacArthur signs, but does not agree with portions of it.

To reiterate: men like jd do not want to dig too deep, do not want to read MacArthur’s LS books because it may force them to make a decision they do not want to make. It is bad enough for them to defend a personality and his doctrine that they do not understand, it is worse to be propagating a works based, non-saving Lordship message to unsuspecting believers and not even realize it.


LM

PS: I may create a new thread on this subject.

 

jd:

No you didn't. You answered a question, but not the question I asked. The question is:

You wrote, "condition on something." "Something;" What? The question is whether or not the Gospel conditions "the reception of eternal life" on “unconditional surrender…submission”

You wrote, "MacArthur ties it to the reception of 'eternal life'." I know what you are trying to accomplish. You want to steer this to what should follow the reception of eternal life. On that we would largely agree that genuine results should follow a genuine conversion.

The question on JM's 6th has to do with whether or not MacArthur requires “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life.

As I have noted before, many times I have interacted with LS men who try to steer clear of the LS requirements for salvation in preference for discussing the results of salvation. You are no different in your attempt at an answer.

My question is a closed ended question. A simple “yes” or “no” is all that is required. It is not a trap, it is a legitimate question based on the statement MacArthur made in his 6th distinctive.

So,

LM

PS: I just answered your four questions. It is saved in MS Word. Once you give a clear answer, I'll post mine.

 

jd:

Alright, so another way to say you will not answer the question, but let’s proceed. What you believe has not been the question. The question was designed to allow you to agree or disagree with JM’s 6th. For days you refused to do so.

Yes, repent and believe, not Calvinism's definition though, but still no answer.

Wrong, regeneration does not precede faith or repentance, and still no answer.

Agreed, but still no answer.

Salvation should result in whole-hearted commitment and unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. You are still not answering.

His LS message clearly invokes and demands a commitment made by the lost man to receive the gift of eternal life. I can drop off the word “upfront,” and still commitment is required for and before salvation is received, according to LS. “Upfront” for salvation is accurate, and still no answer.

Yes, I understand the 5-point Calvinistic underpinnings he draws from.

MacArthur does use the word “exchange.” He wrote,

In the section JM is clearly referring to the salvation experience, the moment of the new birth. The word “exchange” is used twice in that section of his book. He is speaking of how to be born again. JM conditions salvation on “wholehearted commitment, a desire for him at any cost, unconditional surrender,” in “exchange for the Savior,” salvation.

The “part of that process” you have described as a “transaction,” is the reception of eternal life, that moment in time when a lost man is born again. You described that event as a “transaction,” an “exchange.” You are defining faith in terms of the lost man offering an “exchange” of personal “whole-hearted commitment” and “unconditional surrender” for what Jesus Christ will give him, i.e. salvation. The “exchange” of commitment and surrender is, as JM states, “…the sine qua non of saving faith.”

This “exchange” of man’s commitment for, as you stated, “the reception of eternal life,” is exactly the works based message, that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), which I have been saying it is. Offering commitment, surrender, obedience or anything else for salvation is to barter with the Lord for the free gift. That is works salvation, a false gospel.

You have stated what you believe the Gospel is, which is the Lordship Salvation view. Still, however, you do not answer the question.

That faith is a gift of God that will not be deficient in any way. It will always include whole-hearted commitment to Jesus Christ.

Faith is NOT a gift of God. This is another extra-biblical position from the presuppositions of 5 point Calvinism. As I have noted a number of times: Genuine conversion should result in genuine results, which is “whole-hearted commitment” to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands.

Still, no answer.

Sorry, but MacArthur uses “commitment.” Actually he reinforces it by stating, “whole-hearted commitment.”

I’ll revise the question by removing “upfront commitment,” and replace it with your definition, “transaction in which a person exchanges.”

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require a “transaction in which a person exchanges” (now JM) “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?​

Now the question is consistent with yours and MacArthur’s position on the Gospel. The affirmative answer to that question confirms that Lordship Salvation is in fact a message that conditions the gift of eternal life on a commitment from a lost man as a “transaction” in “exchange” for eternal life. The very “Barter System” I have stated LS is.

That is works salvation!


LM

 

jd:

Your determination to evade the defining question is remarkable. The circle-logic of five-point Calvinism is your escape mechanism, and it is sad you use it to avoid giving a clear, precise answer.

You never read MacArthur's books, you misunderstood him, so you defend what you misunderstand from the Calvinistic pre-suppositions that undergird Lordship Salvation's corruption of the Gospel of grace.

Now the question is consistent with yours and MacArthur’s position on the Gospel.

The affirmative answer to that question confirms that Lordship Salvation is in fact a message that conditions the gift of eternal life on a commitment from a lost man as a “transaction” in “exchange” for eternal life. The very “Barter System” I have stated LS is.

That is works salvation!


LM

 

jd:

What is event to any objective reader is that you have dodged, ducked and evaded the question on MacArthur's sixth distinctive.

You never read his books and finally found out that you did not understand what he is teaching. This is why you will not answer.


LM

 

jd:

Having never read MacArthur's or my book(s) you sure take a pretty high personal opinion of your understanding of that which you never read. Not only have you never read MacArthur's LS books, you can't name any book you have read that answers LS?

You have, however, learned just enough to realize you did not understand LS and JM's view of it. This is why you refuse to answer the one simple, unambiguous question on his 6th distinctive.

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 you refuse to give a “Yes” or “No” answer, and go on record about what MacArthur wrote in his 6th distinctive? Is this the honest way to deal with a discussion of Lordship Salvation or any doctrine?


LM