The Priority of Lordship

UnVarnished Terms

Martin:

You demonstrate one of the biggest concerns I have with most Calvinists. You speak of one the 5 points without stating and explaining it plainly.

You note above, for example, is a subtile way of saying you believe in Irresistible Grace (IG) [the 'I' in TULIP]. For those who may be unfamiliar with IG, here is a defintion:

That is IG in unvarnished language.

A proper understanding of grace makes the term "irresistible" totally incompatible. One preacher said, “If grace is irresistible it is not grace at all.”

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Rationalistic Fatalism

To All:

I would rather this thread were not turned into a discussion of Calvinism, but I went that route. That said, I am going to lay out Calvinism in unvarnished terms.

The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.

Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken.

One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome of any.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Irresistible Grace Explained

The ability of individuals to reject Christ's offer of salvation answers irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that man can be reproved over and over, and resist the working of the Holy Spirit in his heart. What was your experience? Did you accept Jesus Christ the first time you heard the gospel? Or was it like so many others: several exposures to the gospel over a period of years until you finally realized you were lost, without hope, and that you needed and desired to be saved. Many believers would tell you they were not converted the first time they heard the gospel or read a gospel tract. In fact, very few people are saved at the time they are first exposed to the gospel. There are undoubtedly cases such as that, but those cases are very few. Normally a man will hear the gospel several times, initially reject the free “gift” before finally accepting Christ.

The Holy Spirit does strive, but a time comes when He may strive no more.

This certainly does not sound like irresistible grace. It is plain: God calls and men refuse. People do resist the call of God and thereby resist and reject His grace.

Notice the word often in Proverbs 29:1. God is not in the business of making one invitation, giving only one opportunity to be saved. A man can “harden his neck” even after many reproofs by God.

The verse teaches that men can and do reject Christ.

The above passage is from the preaching of Stephen to the Jewish religious leaders just before they had him stoned. Note that verse fifty-one plainly says that these men “resisted” the Holy Ghost. They had surely seen and heard Jesus Christ Himself preaching, and came away resisting the Holy Spirit. Verse fifty-two shows that even their fathers, the Jews, had resisted the Holy Ghost from Abraham down to the time of Christ.

God's grace was rejected. It was not irresistible. One preacher said, “If grace is irresistible it is not grace at all.”

LM

 

Hi , LM . Your little definition of Irrestible Grace was on the weak side . The Spirit doesn't cause the sinner to cooperate . It's a monergistic work . Later in your supplied definition it was said that '"it doesn't depend on man's cooperation ." That's contradictory . Methinks a strong nonCal wrote it -- you perhaps ?

I think Martin was perfectly clear when he spoke of the drawing of the elect without fail . It is demonstrated quite well in John 6 .

God has indeed predetermined the destiny of all human souls . ( That's why He goes by the Name of GOD But means are ordained by the Lord in His Word . The Reformed Creeds and confessions are in harmony with the Scripture on that .Witnessing , praying , and missionary work among many other efforts are all very compatible with Calvinism .

The Holy Spirit will get those who are the elect -- without fail . Spiritual arrests will be made to bring them in union with the Lord . No matter how much rebuffing of the Holy Spirit goes on before regeneration -- the elect soul will be drawn irrevocably to the Lord .

You misunderstand Calvinism LM . You are caught-up in terminology which you define in your own way -- You attach a certain meaning which Calvinists do not . That's not a fair way of representing our views . Stick with what we name it -- effectual calling .

The same unfortunate ( and sometimes deliberate ) misunderstanding attaches itself to the "L" in the TULIP . We prefer to call it special redemption , specific redemption , or particular redemption . But your side focuses on the word 'limited" and loses sight of the real significance behind the First Article .

 

Most people who are well studied on Christian history seem to be firm advocates of Lordship salvation. Coincidence? I doubt it. From the writings that I have read, mainly the Puritans and some pre-modern era preachers such as Tozer, Reidhead, Ravenhill, et cetera , all seem to teach lordship salvation and repentance as neccesary for salvation.

Not to mention such people as Spurgeon who would make such outrageous claims as "Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself, be sure of that!"

Good thread though. I look forward to seeing more responses as this issue is battled out. :thumbs:

P.S. The rammifications of this issue are HUGE. How one takes a stand on this issue has severe consequences in evangelism. Having said that, stick on this thread and battle these issues out, keep an open mind, and remember , we need what the Bible teaches, not what man wishes.

I suggest MacArthur's book - Hard to Believe . From what I hear, he does a very thorough treatment on this topic.

 

No Misunderstanding

Rippon/All:

There is no misunderstanding! Changing TULIP to softer more palatable terms does not change or water down TULIP’s extremes.

In my experience the only definition a Calvinist will accept of TULIP is one that will validate the extra-biblical, rationalistic fatalism that is inherent in Calvinism.

You wrote,

You will, however, acknowledge that genuine evangelistic effort will not make a difference in the ultimate, as you say, “predetermined” outcome of either group.

As for the definition I posed: It is drawn from the writing of Calvinists I have read and interacted with.

The Dangers of Reformed (Calvinism) Theology are many.

You give a classic example of one of Calvinism’s dangers when you wrote,

What you are saying is that God, in eternity past, predestined (chose) a certain select group of souls to Heaven and all the rest He predestined (chose) to the Lake of Fire and abandons them on that course with no hope of redemption. That is “Double Predestination.”

Incidentally: The usage of the word “predestination” appears in the Bible only 4 times (Eph. 1; Romans 8). It is never in reference to the moment in time when a lost man is born into the family of God. It is always in reference to the future growth and ultimate glorification of a believer. The Calvinist’s presuppositions, however, forces into these passages a definition to support the 5 points.

I am not going to be drawn into a protracted debate that has gone on for centuries and is never going to be settled this side of Heaven. This thread was opened to discuss Lordship Salvation.

My goal (when I encounter these subtle introductions of Calvinism) is provide clear, unvarnished definitions and show the dangerous practical applications of Calvinism (such as hyper-Calvinism) for those for are unsure of what Calvinism is.

Because of the resurgence of Calvinism in Baptist circles: My hope is that unsuspecting people will be shown what Calvinism is, and understand the dangerous extremes it leads to (such as Lordship Salvation & Regeneration before Faith).

This way more people will be able to recognize Calvinism when it is being introduced. Become better able to expose and refute it, and more effectively warn others of Calvinism’s doctrinal and practical extremes.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

It appears you have not read Hard to Believe? I have.

When some thought The Gospel According to the Apostles cleared up some of his earlier problem statements, Hard to Believe erased any doubt that MacArthur had NOT moderated his position.

It is filled with some of the most extreme Lordship issues of any of his four books on Lordship Salvation.

LM

 

Once again you state the obvious and ignore the issue. Maybe you could just show me where BELIEF comes from God, eh? You know -- instead of it being the person hearing the gospel's responsibility.

Acts 17:26 -- "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

You left something out --- God's "drawing." Both God and Jesus "draw all men to Myself," John 12:32. IF God "draws" them AND they actually "come"/believe of their own freewill, they are said to be "given" to Christ (Col 1:13).

AMEN!! Finally you make a good confession!!

Neither --- "drawing comes first!! In fact, you pervert scripture because "drawing" is in Jn 6:44 and you leave it out!! Don't give up you day job just yet, Martin! :laugh:

Those who are drawn are raised up on the last day. What does that mean?[/quote] It means "drawn - "come" - "given"

Where do you find that? If they are drawn and they come, then they are raised up in the last day (given).

At least you are prepared to allow your own ignorance on this point. But indeed, the scripture says all men are drawn and then says they must "come"/believe as you aver before they are "given" to Christ per Col 1:13. See, this makes perfect sense because until they are justified before the Father, they cannot be righteous enough to be sanctified "in Christ."

It can in the context of theology where definitions are assigned by those who cnnot comprehend them any other way! But in scripture, the literal, common sanse usage rules unless it makes no sense. In this case -- in most cases -- Christ is trying to "reveal" truth, not conceal it so "all men" means "all men" and "whosoever" means "whosoever," etc.

It is NOT hard to comprehend that all who knew about this prophecy was concerned about a rival king. Later Caiphas said "better one man die for the whole nation." Yes, all Jerusalem was troubled in that day about a rebellion of the Jews! "All" means "all" as in "all the populous upon hearing this.

skypair

 

I think that about sums it up. :thumbs: Unfortutunately, I have noted before that Calvinism is "fatalistic" and derives its "power" from the Greek debate between fate and freewill. That is, since there is a god involved, our own ignorance and depravity dictate that someone else is making things happen -- especially things they can't, in their own minds, explain!

skypair

 

So the Spirit is not God?? Is that what you are saying, rippon??

That's what "monergistic" means to you, isn't it? Do you believe in man's cooperation and monergism at the same time??

Martin was "befuddled" by the word "all" in John 6:44 as you no dount are too.

Actually, scripture says "foreknows," Rom 8:29

Oh, I'm sure they are! The false always LOOKS so real on the outside, doesn't it.

That's "feint hope." That you can keep on rejecting Christ but if tomorrow you get run over by a Mack truck, you could never have been saved anyway. So let's just put off our salvation for when it is more convenient.

Last time I checked, it was Calvinism that had the elaborate terminology. How is it you think it isn't really YOU that has terminology issues?? How is it YOU don't think you are just a "subverted hearer" of the word, 2Tim 2:14? "...charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." Even the term you argue over -- "effectual calling" -- is a "fabrication" of Calvinism!!

skypair

 

I'm not understanding this. Are you implying that if the majority of people believe LS...it's must be true? If so, I would counter that even more are catholic. Does that make catholicism true?
For the record, it's a looong stretch to claim the majority believe LS. The majority of believers are not calvinists, and most definately not LS advocates.

 

webdog, I think a lot of people have gotten caught up in this, not ever having thought through it, and become tacit, if not open, avocates of Lordship salvation by default. It sounds good and a couple of cute sounding phrases, but that simply are not Biblical, are things like "Make Him Lord of my life" or "If Jesus isn't Lord of all, then He isn't Lord at all." He is Lord! He is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and nothing any of us have done is the cause of that.

God made Him Lord;

God made Him the Savior.

God made him Lord of all!

Amen! and Amen!

Ed

 

The Subtelty of Lordship Salvation

Hi Ed:

In most cases you are correct above. Many unsuspecting people buy into Lordship Salvation (LS) because it was packaged in such a way that it seems Scriptural. The LS position rightly addresses the problems with the Easy-Believism movement. All of us should take a stand against that.

LS, however, combats the errors of Easy-Believism by changing the terms of the gospel in the hope that the disturbing results of EB will go away.

I can read vast portions of most pro-LS books and have no problem, but the departures from the Bible are there, and can be caught, if one reads with their spiritual antennas up.

I have been in conferences where a man, with great subtlety, presented LS, and most in the group missed it. Once I bought he sermon tape and played it back for a group of pastors who wee at the live presentation. When I paused it at the crucial points the men were astounded not just at how wrong what was be said was, but that they had missed it.

The errors and extremes of LS are carefully woven into the fabric of books and sermons that are, for the most part, orthodox. This is how many do not catch the problems that are inherent in LS.

Kind regards,

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Perhaps there may be problems inherent in LM

 

And how do you know this?

 

Read with Caution

To All:

Below is a listing of books that were written to promote and defend Lordship Salvation. Some will be familiar, others not. In some the sole source of discussion is devoted to LS. Some have elements of LS within.

Before I get into the listing, please allow for a bit of a shameless plug.

My book is In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation]​

I have dealt with Lordship Salvation since 1989. In the pages of my book I deal extensively with this subject and address many of the questions that comprise the debate.

Key Bible passages and major doctrines such as: faith, repentance, and belief are studied in depth. Related issues such as: Calvinism, carnality, discipleship and contending for the faith are given serious consideration.

I clearly document the extremes of Lordship Salvation directly from the books of it most noted advocates. This way there is no grounds for claiming Straw Man, which is a common response of Lordship advocates to nearly any refutation of the Lordship interpretation of the gospel.

This book is easy to read and systematically organized. This way it becomes a useful study guide as it exposes and refutes the errors of LS, while providing the biblical answers.

[END- Shameless plug]

The best-known and most prolific advocate for LS is Dr. John MacArthur. He has written four major works on LS. They are:

The Gospel According to Jesus
The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition]
The Gospel According to the Apostles
Hard to Believe

Another man to be VERY cautious about (even well-beyond the LS issue) is Dr. John Piper. He has not written on LS any where near to the extent that Dr. MacArthur has, but Dr. Piper is a committed advocate of LS.

The rest are listed by Author/Title.

Alderson, No Holiness, No Heaven!
Belcher, A Layman's Guide to the Lordship Controversy
Boice, Christ's Call to Discipleship
Blanchard, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
Chantry, Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic
Chrisope, Jesus is Lord
Clark, Today's Evangelism
Crenshaw, Lordship Salvation: The Only Kind There Is
Day, Lordship...What Does it Mean?
Gentry, K. Jr., Lord of the Saved
Gross, Christianity Without a King
Horton, Christ the Lord
Koerselman, What the Bible Says About Saving Faith
Lescelius, Lordship Salvation: Some Crucial Questions and Answers
Reisinger, Lord and Christ
Reisinger, Today's Evangelism
Tozer, I Call it Heresy

LM

 

What LS Requires for Salvation is Where the Error is Found

To All:

When you read any book, remember: the Lordship interpretation is often presented as the answer to Easy Believism. The MAIN THING is that the LS gospel is in error when it is discussing the REQUIREMENTS FOR SALVATION.

Watch for this: On the results that should follow a genuine conversion to Christ, most LS men are right on biblically. It is when Lordship men touch on what they believe are the requirements for salvation that their position becomes a false gospel through the additions.

Watch these: These men are writing about how to become a Christian, NOT what should be the result of becoming a Christian.

There are many more examples, but these should suffice.


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

The DaVinci Code is also a book, and I'll bet it outsold yours. Therefore it must be true, right?

 

It didn't Take Long

It usually does not take long for some in the Lordship camp to move their comments from a doctrinal discussion to the personal level. This is unfortunate. A smiley face is just a facade for the real intent of comments like the one above.

Christian men can disagree sharprly, but at the same time disagree charitably.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Hmm, Belcher , Boice , Blanchard , Chantry , Clark , Reisinger , and Tozer ( among others ) seem to be the cream of the crop when it comes to fine preachers/teachers/theologians . I would like to be associated with these godly men .