The Priority of Lordship

Ear Tickling

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears," (2 Timothy 4:3).
​

If one writes a book for those who want their ears tickled, it will sell.

Kind regards,

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

I fail to see how Tozer , Boice , Chantry and company were ear-ticklers . That's a new one LM .

 

That's Lordship salvation right there. When focus is put on works either to get saved, stay saved or prove yourself saved that is a works based salvation, and Biblically it is not right on, but from out in left field

 

Believe me, I do definitely understand the tenets of Lordship Salvation. And I do disagree with the same. An understanding of the 'repentance' that is necessary for or to salvation does more to overcome this false teaching than anything I know. And may I add when I hear someone reference 'committment' as required for salvation, a red flag the size of a B-52 flies immediately, for that is usually a dead giveaway.

Ed

 

Go Back and Look Again

Rippon:

You need to slow down and backtrack. The DaVinci Code book was referenced to me by the other gentleman, and it was that book (and those of its ilk) I was referring to.

Thanks,

LM

 

You Have it Pegged

Ed:

You have it exactly right, and you are one of a few I have encountered that understands this.

If folks listen for "commitment," and what context it is used in they will be able to discern if they are being introduced to Lordship Salvation.

Here is an example from John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition].

Yours faithfully,

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

In Fairness...

Hi JJ:

LS, is in fact a works based interpretation of the gospel. Of this I have no doubt and document it in my book.

I do, however, want to be fair to the LS advocates I interact with, and they are many.

I would concede that there might be some in the LS camp that view behavior ("good works" of Eph. 2:10) are necessary to "stay saved." I have not, however, encountered any in my dealings with them.

The LS men I deal with believe in eternal security (John 10:28), Kept by the Spirit (Eph. 1:13). Of course, most if not all LS men are Calvinistic in their theology, which means they hold to Perseverance of the Saints. Typically, their answer to a rebellious professing Christian is, “Never saved in the first place.” [Attention Everyone: I do NOT want to and will NOT redirect this good discussion of LS to a debate over Calvinism.]

So, in summation: There are men in the LS camp that do hold a proper balance on the life and works of the believer. You have apparently encountered some who do not. I would join you in condemning a works to “get saved or stay saved” theology.

Thanks for the note.

Yours in Him,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

This is actually a very true statement, but what John Mac and others have done is taken a kingdom message and turned it into an eternal salvation message. He is equating kingdom with eternity. That is not an equation that is made in Scripture. They are not one in the same thing.

While his statement is correct his usage and conclusions are incorrect. But there's a lot of people that equate kingdom with eternity even outside of the LS camp.

 

How about condemning the equally as untrue "prove that you are saved" by works doctrine? Can I get an amen :laugh:

 

Enjoying the Dialogue

JJ:

There has been a long standing concern with the Kingdom/Salvation issue as you point out. You can see it come out when JM deals with the Sermon on the Mount.

One item I would draw your attention to: Note that JM is using the term “full exchange.” He is referencing “full surrender” and “whole-hearted commitment" in “exchange” for salvation. This is a departure from orthodoxy.

It is statements like these that lead the IFCA to issue their official statement, The Nature of Saving Faith. The statement was issued in 1989 after a public interview with JM following the release of The Gospel According to Jesus. Go to my blog, scroll down to the two articles I wrote that address this. You find links there.

Those statements by JM even drew criticism from two men on The Master’s Seminary faculty. One of them was on the committee that drafted the IFCA’s statement, which quite clearly is a response to elements in JM’s book.

I am enjoying the dialogue with you, but I have to head out for much of the rest of the day. Took a quick look at your site, will look more later.

Take care,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

I am only marginally familiar with John McArhur's work, however, I do intend to read some more. Why? Because from the little bit that I have read, he is promoting the salvation of the soul as Lordship salvation, which is true. I don't know if he correctly identifies spiritual salvation as "believe on the Lord plus nothing", but he does seem to point the hard stuff towards ruling and reigning and not simply getting saved.

Since there are many salvations presented in the Bible, I'm thinking that he is preaching on salvation in the present tense (salvation of the soul), and others are taking it as spiritual salvation (salvation as an event).

Either way, in a sense, "easy believism" and "Lordship salvation" are both correct:

Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Period. It's an event and it's easy.

But, if you want to save your soul, you must make him Lord of your life. It's hard, and it's an ongoing process, not an event.

 

HoG unfortunately he views the kingdom as the same thing as spiritual salvation. He doesn't have an understanding of the difference between the salvation of the spirit (believe on the Substitute and you will be saved) and the salvation of the soul (faith that works - hard - Lordship - discipleship, etc).

He gets the concepts right, but misapplies them to the salvation that we already possess, not the salvation that is to come at the end of our faith (I Peter).

 

AMEN, Jump! You said a mouthful of wisdom there!

skypair

 

Hope -- you're on the right track, I think (I ususally think of the soul and spirit opposite of what you present but I recognize the thought ) Basically, you are saying that man is saved eternally by believing but he/she is saved daily, temporally by obedience, right?

I think that IS the place for LS. But it is NOT that we obey so much as that the Spirit works in us to help us obey.

Good post -- good point!

skypair

 

Yes -- I would agree. Kingdom is here and now -- salvation is living eternally in His perfect kingdom.

The problem appears to be that the demand is for perfection now as proof of salvation.

skypair

 

Lou

Don't be discouraged. There are many here who agree with you wholeheartedly (I say this because a new pastor at my favorite Presby church just reigned "effective immediately" probably on account of those who disagreed with his -- what to me is not -- deviance from Reform doctrine.

skypair

 

skypair, both HOG and JJump believe we can be saved eternally...but spend the millenial kingdom in hell. It's the doctrine of Millenial Exclusion, in my opinion just as wrong as LS.

 

I'll give an "Amen!", here. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I knew someone would come along

 

As someone who has been in publishing for about 25 years, let me enlighten you to what the publishing industry cares about: Whether or not it will sell. That trumps everything. I recommend everyone keep that in mind whenever someone says, "Hey lookie lookie, I wrote a book, and there are books that agree with me!" That doesn't mean your book is bad, but publishing a book doesn't mean diddly in favor of it being good, either.

You know why there are so many books on the pre-trib rapture that portray a pessismistic view about everything except the fact that Christians will be spared any trouble? These books sell. They sell despite the fact that they make outrageous suggestions like John F. Kennedy might be the antichrist because he had a fatal wound to his head. I think that was "The late, great planet earth" but it's been a while so I may have that confused with other books.

Even most Christian publishers don't care about sound doctrine. They don't care about truth. They care about how many books they'll sell. That's why Bibles -- YES, BIBLES, contain mistranslated passages in spite of the protests of the translators. The publisher didn't like the way the passage read and thought it might offend people, so they changed it. Even Bible publishers care about how many books they sell.