The “Crossless” Gospel at the Crossroads

[webdog]

==That is one of those "for the books" type of remarks. Theologically and historically incorrect. If it were not so tragically wrong it would actually be funny.

Many out there with such "for the books" remarks that agree with me...calvinists included. Since cal's and non cal's alike find fault with this view, ever consider the notion it might be the LS view that is historically and theologically correct?

 

[webdog]

Judging from the snippet of the response I saw, it looks like wd is trying to redefine synergy as "God requires help because God can't do it all by Himself".

From Wikipedia:

How ironic that someone who has me on ignore is trying to state my beliefs.

If anybody takes any of his posts seriously, they have bigger issues than him.

 

[webdog]

Amen brother Rippon!

...then did the Lord fail to those who aren't calvinists? Maybe we should not be so quick to pin it on God, eh?

 

[Amy.G]

...then did the Lord fail to those who aren't calvinists? Maybe we should not be so quick to pin it on God, eh?

The Lord didn't fail you Webdog, there's still time! :laugh:

 

[webdog]

The Lord didn't fail you Webdog, there's still time! :laugh:

:applause: Cute :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Since I didn't create myself...my answer is God, too, which is my point exactly. Everything we have, and everything God requires from us is given to us by God.

Awww web, you don't mean this I know. Using this line of reasoning, sin comes from God too, since He created you. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[canadyjd]

Requiring faith is not requiring "help" whatsoever, it's requiring obedience as taught throughout Scripture.

I am glad you agree that obedience is required. I believe J. Mac has affirmed that position as well.

Isn't that what the LS debate is about? Whether obedience is required, expected, AND will always accompany a true profession of faith?

I know you keep saying J. Mac requires "upfront commitment" prior to salvation. From reading his website, I find the opposite taught. He clearly affirms salvation by grace through faith as a work of God, and not of man. He clearly teaches there is "no prepatory work" required (i.e. rejecting the notion of an "upfront commitment".)

I have no problem with you or Lou disagreeing with the position that commitment to Christ ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY accompanies a true profession of faith. That can be debated.

The continuing misreprentation of J. Mac's position as requiring an "upfront committment" to Christ prior to salvation is the very "straw man" that Lou has accused others of making toward him. It prevents any true debate from taking place, since the parties cannot even agree on what the other believes and teaches.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

Awww web, you don't mean this I know. Using this line of reasoning, sin comes from God too, since He created you. Is that what you are trying to say?

Sin originates from within in the same way faith does.

Think about what you are saying. Faith doesn't orginate from within...but sin does? How can we be held accountable for sin, but not having faith in Christ? The problem your theology arrives at is God desiring sin, as npetreley believes.

 

[webdog]

I am glad you agree that obedience is required. I believe J. Mac has affirmed that position as well.

Isn't that what the LS debate is about? Whether obedience is required, expected, AND will always accompany a true profession of faith?

I know you keep saying J. Mac requires "upfront commitment" prior to salvation. From reading his website, I find the opposite taught. He clearly affirms salvation by grace through faith as a work of God, and not of man. He clearly teaches there is "no prepatory work" required (i.e. rejecting the notion of an "upfront commitment".)

I have no problem with you or Lou disagreeing with the position that commitment to Christ ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY accompanies a true profession of faith. That can be debated.

The continuing misreprentation of J. Mac's position as requiring an "upfront committment" to Christ prior to salvation is the very "straw man" that Lou has accused others of making toward him. It prevents any true debate from taking place, since the parties cannot even agree on what the other believes and teaches.

peace to youraying:

I would venture that even you believe that faith being a requirement, and discipleship being a requirement for salvation are not even in the same ballpark.

 

[webdog]

Many out there with such "for the books" remarks that agree with me...calvinists included. Since cal's and non cal's alike find fault with this view, ever consider the notion it might be the LS view that is historically and theologically correct?

Edit to add theologically in-correct

 

[Martin]

Many out there with such "for the books" remarks that agree with me...calvinists included. Since cal's and non cal's alike find fault with this view, ever consider the notion it might be the LS view that is historically and theologically correct?

==First, what Calvinists reject Lordship Salvation (as it is called)?

Second, Lordship Salvation is the view of the majority of protestant teachers during and since the protestant reformation. And this is not just among Calvinists, we see this belief we Wesley and others like him.

Third, I do not consider Lordship Salvation incorrect since it is Biblical. I find no support in Scripture for the idea that a person can have the Lord Jesus as Savior and not as Lord. It is just not there! We are called to confess Jesus as Lord, we are called to be His sheep who follow Him (ie..not ourselves), we are called to be His subjects while He is our Master. Those who reject Lordship Salvation, mainly the extreme rejectors such as Hodges/Wilkin, are teaching something that the Bible just simply does not teach.

Fourth, in case you are not aware there was a time when I was in the non-Lordship camp. I disliked the ideas MacArthur was promoting, strongly disliked them. I wrote posts on old, now out of comission, boards in the late 90s denouncing MacArthur and Lordship Salvation. I had an entire website dedicated to promoting the non-Lordship view. My views were much more in line with Ryrie, but I did read Hodges/Wilkin/Bing/Dillow/Evans, etc. What happened? Well it was not Calvinism. What happened was I began to get very uncomfortable with the way the non-Lordship view caused me to understand certain Scriptures. It just did not fit, and the more and more I studied and prayed the less and less it fit. Then, one cold morning, I went for a walk in the woods behind the house I was living in at the time. I remember it well, and I can still recall where I was when it hit me between the eyes: I was wrong. Scripture after Scripture came flooding into my mind, I was wrong. I had been promoting a false doctrine. I asked the Lord to forgive me. I re-read the "Gospel According to Jesus" and I read the "Gospel According to The Apostles". I can't say I agreed with everything MacArthur said, nor can I say that I had a good understanding of all the various issues. What I can say, however, was that what I was reading in his books matched Scripture. No longer was I having to do backflips to get Col 1:21-23 or Rom 10:9 to say something I wanted them to say. Now I could let them speak for themselves. I could now read Acts 26:12-23 and allow it to speak for itself, and on and on I could go. It took time for me to get everything sorted out, but years later I am even more convinced of how wrong I was before that day.

Scripture just does not teach the non-Lordship view. I understand why some people have a problem with the Lordship view. However I also understand that many of their "problems" are rooted in basic misunderstandings of the issue. For example, when someone accuses MacArthur of teaching a works salvation it is clear that either (a) they have not carefully read MacArthur or (b) they don't understand what MacArthur is saying or (c) they are under the sway of teachers who are confusing them. A careful, prayerful study of Scripture on this issue, I believe, will lead most Christians to the Lordship view. That is why I hold the position, that is why MacArthur holds the position, that is why Spurgeon held the position, and on and on I could go. I may not agree with each of them on every point (and visa versa) but we agree that Lordship is a very important doctrine in relation to salvation.

 

[webdog]

==First, what Calvinists reject Lordship Salvation (as it is called)?

There are some here. Go back and re-read the threads.

Second, Lordship Salvation is the view of the majority of protestant teachers during and since the protestant reformation. And this is not just among Calvinists, we see this belief we Wesley and others like him.

I don't recall discipleship as a requirement for salvation as their view. By grace through faith, yes, but not by grace through faith AND and upfront commitment to discipleship.

Third, I do not consider Lordship Salvation incorrect since it is Biblical. I find no support in Scripture for the idea that a person can have the Lord Jesus as Savior and not as Lord. It is just not there!

I agree. However, this is not the LS that Macarthur pushes. This is NOT what is defined as "Lordship Salvation"

We are called to confess Jesus as Lord, we are called to be His sheep who follow Him (ie..not ourselves), we are called to be His subjects while He is our Master. Those who reject Lordship Salvation, mainly the extreme rejectors such as Hodges/Wilkin, are teaching something that the Bible just simply does not teach.

All of those things I agree with...BUT...after one is saved, not in EXCHANGE for salvation.

For your "fourth"...that sounds almost identical to my testimony coming AWAY from reformed theology.

Scripture just does not teach the non-Lordship view. I understand why some people have a problem with the Lordship view. However I also understand that many of their "problems" are rooted in basic misunderstandings of the issue. For example, when someone accuses MacArthur of teaching a works salvation it is clear that either (a) they have not carefully read MacArthur or (b) they don't understand what MacArthur is saying or (c) they are under the sway of teachers who are confusing them. A careful, prayerful study of Scripture on this issue, I believe, will lead most Christians to the Lordship view. That is why I hold the position, that is why MacArthur holds the position, that is why Spurgeon held the position, and on and on I could go. I may not agree with each of them on every point (and visa versa) but we agree that Lordship is a very important doctrine in relation to salvation.

Of course you would say this, but it does not make it true. Scripture teaches us that we are saved by grace through faith. Period. No upfront call to live as a disciple prior to faith in Christ. An unregenerated person has no clue what discipleship is, so how can it be required for salvation? It's a catch 22...and wrong.

 

[Martin]

I don't recall discipleship as a requirement for salvation as their view. By grace through faith, yes, but not by grace through faith AND and upfront commitment to discipleship.

==What do you mean by "upfront commitment to discipleship"? Do you mean a person first must become a disciple before he/she can be saved? Or do you mean that a person who comes to faith in Christ is acknowledging Him as Lord and becomes willing to obey Him?

All of those things I agree with...BUT...after one is saved, not in EXCHANGE for salvation.

==I do not believe, and MacArthur does not believe, that a person must do or exchange anything for salvation. The issue MacArthur is hitting at is how the truly repentant person comes to Christ. The person who is truly coming to Christ in faith, with childlike faith, is not coming with their own agenda or set of conditions. They are coming to Christ to follow Him, they are confessing Him as their Lord (Master). Anyone who tries to come to Christ setting their own conditions, rejecting Him as Lord, and wanting it their own way is not coming to Christ in faith. They are not turning to Christ. It is not about exchanging anything, or doing anything to earn salvation, it is about what the truly repentant person is like. This is totally monergistic as well, since we believe what God requires for salvation He also provides. I understand different people have different ideas about that last part, but either way Lordship salvation is not works salvation. It is not earning salvation. MacArthur, btw, would agree with everything I have just said. O, and what I have just written is Lordship Salvation in a nutshell.

For your "fourth"...that sounds almost identical to my testimony coming AWAY from reformed theology.

==Again, this is not about reformed theology. Many people who are not reformed hold to Lordship Salvation.

Scripture teaches us that we are saved by grace through faith. Period.

==I, others who hold to Lordship Salvation, Spurgeon, and MacArthur, would affirm that 100%. In fact those of us in the reformed position would probably go further in affirming that than you would since we believe that grace, faith, and salvation are a gift of God and not of man (Eph 2:8-9). We believe the whole thing is a gift from God.

No upfront call to live as a disciple prior to faith in Christ. An unregenerated person has no clue what discipleship is, so how can it be required for salvation? It's a catch 22...and wrong.

==A person who is truly coming to Christ in faith is coming confessing Him as Lord. They may not understand all that means, they may not even know what discipleship is, but they are coming to Him in child-like faith, entering an eternal relationship with Him in which He will be their Lord. That is not the spirit of rebellion or rejection. A person who upfront says they want to come to Christ to escape hell but they have no intent to follow Him is not truly repentant and is not turning to Christ in faith.

"I am certain that no one understands the full implications of Christ's lordship at the moment of conversion; in fact, none of us ever reaches full knowledge of such spiritual realities in this life. But the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a true believer prompts some degree of surrender to Christ's authority even at the inception of the new birth" -John MacArthur "The Gospel According to Jesus" pg.281.

Notice that what he says is the same thing I am saying. Also notice that he says that it is the Holy Spirit who brings about surrender in the heart of the new Christian. This is not works, this is not man centered, this is God centered, this is monergism.

Btw, what books of MacArthur have you read?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It is a false argument to equate calling Christ Lord with discipleship.

 

[Martin]

It is a false argument to equate calling Christ Lord with discipleship.

That is not what I am arguing.

"They may not understand all that means, they may not even know what discipleship is, but they are coming to Him in child-like faith, entering an eternal relationship with Him in which He will be their Lord. That is not the spirit of rebellion or rejection."

I am arguing that discipleship is a result of coming to Christ as Lord. A person does not follow Christ in order to get saved, but following Christ is a result of salvation.

______________________________________

Ps...

I will read you folks again tomorrow afternoon (EST). I have a major presentation to give in the morning and I am starting to get a tad bit sleepy (11:21pm) so I am signing off for the night.

:sleeping_2:

 

[npetreley]

Bravo, Martin.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

==Since we are not talking about specific statements/comments from Dr. MacArthur I can't directly answer your question. However I would point out that MacArthur has sought to clearify some of the statements he made in the first edition of "The Gospel According To Jesus". The sequal to that book, "The Gospel According To The Apostles", is not as heavy handed as the first book was. He has sought to clearify, and correct, statements that are found in "Hard To Believe". I think if one listens to MacArthur carefully, one gets the picture. MacArthur does not believe that a person must do anything to be saved. He believes, as I do, that faith, repentance, grace, salvation, the whole package is a gift from God. Man can take no credit for any of it. If a person has that gift, they will not live in rebellion against Christ.

Martin:

None of the disturbing statements have been explained, edited or eliminated. They have been sanitized some what, but their meaning did not change. I document some examples of this in my book.

TGATJ Revised & Expanded appeared after the original, before According to the Apostles. Hard to Believe followed.

Hard to Believe is peppered with more of these polarizing statements. Only p. 93 was edited and the explanation from Phil Johnson about the offensive paragraph in the first edition is hard to believe. Hard to Believe is at least as "heavy-handed" as the original TGATJ.

You wrote, "...the whole package is a gift from God."

Calvinism lingo for the extra-biblical teaching that lost man is regenerated, i.e. born again before faith, repentance or believing.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I do not believe, and MacArthur does not believe, that a person must do or exchange anything for salvation. The issue MacArthur is hitting at is how the truly repentant person comes to Christ.

Martin:

You are mistaken.

In his revised and expanded version of The Gospel According to Jesus please note how John MacArthur uses the term “saving faith” through this section (page 147). He is clearly referring to the salvation experience. The word “exchange” is used twice in the two sections (pp. 147-148), and also in connection with his definition of what constitutes “saving faith.”

MacArthur wrote,

“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. Seen through the eyes of this world, it is as high a price as anyone can pay. But from a kingdom perspective, it is really no sacrifice at all.”

The word “cost” is used repeatedly in the section. It is the reception of the gospel, the reception of salvation that John MacArthur refers to as “costly.” In the quote above he says salvation comes at a “high price.” To the contrary, the Bible teaches that salvation is free; it is the “gift of God.”


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

John is not that hard to contact. Something is not right here. What is the whole story?

RB:

Now you question my integrity and character. I no longer give you benefit of the doubt.

You asked if I tried to interact with MacArthur, I answered that I did and gave you some details on how his personal assistant replied to me in an e-mail. You apologized, but now you rehash this as though our first discussion and your acknowledgment of your error and apology to me never took place.

See Post #62 & 67 above

I am now calling you a liar, for your blatant, willful misrepresentation!

I have nothing further to discuss with you until you publicly repent for your public sin.

The Bible says, "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me," (Ps. 66:18) Your prayers are hindered.


LM

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

That is not what I am arguing.

"They may not understand all that means, they may not even know what discipleship is, but they are coming to Him in child-like faith, entering an eternal relationship with Him in which He will be their Lord. That is not the spirit of rebellion or rejection."

I am arguing that discipleship is a result of coming to Christ as Lord. A person does not follow Christ in order to get saved, but following Christ is a result of salvation.

______________________________________

Ps...

I will read you folks again tomorrow afternoon (EST). I have a major presentation to give in the morning and I am starting to get a tad bit sleepy (11:21pm) so I am signing off for the night.

:sleeping_2:

I was quite clear on what you said. Those who argue against it always make an attempt to equate it with discipleship at a mature level.