The Priority of Lordship

[skypair]

webdog,

I truly appreciate your post #14. I had the same "journey" as a saved teen and, through obedient to my parents, would not have been picked out as saved then even though I gave my life to Christ at age 16.

Anyway, all of that post really blessed me. Thanks! :jesus:

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Thanks for the Welcome

Welcome to the BB :thumbs:

Your post is dead on. LS is not dealing with the results of salvation, but what is required to BE saved. Good post.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been lurking for months. This thread looked like a good jumping in point.

For those who might object to my referencing my own book on the Lordship issue: I am not ashamed to mention and link people to it at Amazon.

I say that as nicely as I can, but this is an important subject. I have some degree of understanding about the doctrinal concerns and practical ramifications of Lordship Salvation (LS).

In the archives of my blog site there are many related articles that come from my on line debates at various web sites. At Pulpit Magazine (a GTY web site) I had a protracted discussion with Nathan Busenitz about LS and his review of my book. Nathan (who is a real gentleman) is Dr. John MacArthur’s personal assistant. Nathan contacted and invited me to participate in the series of articles and discussion threads they were beginning on Lordship Salvation (Oct. 2006).

Nathan contacted me because a pastor reviewed my book, and his review was posted at Sharper Iron. This was my response to his review. In Defense of the Gospel: Martuneac Responds to Wood’s Review. This gained the attention of the men at Grace to You, hence the e-mail from Nathan to me.

These on line debates and discussions generated a great deal of attention for, and discussion about my book.

I hope you do not mind my mentioning all of this.

Important note for all readers: Both Sharper Iron and Pulpit magazine are administered and moderated by men dedicated to the promotion and/or resurgence of Reformed Theology (Calvinism) and Lordship Salvation. These sites deal with other subject matter, but theologically they are what I describe. You will find other voices their such as mine, but the forums are dominated by men who are Reformed in their theology.

Kind regards,

LM

 

[skypair]

Martin:

That is well said.

One way I put it is to say that Lordship advocates place behavior right along side believing. They do understand Romans 10:9-10's "believe," but they skew its meaning.

Following is a brief and slightly edited portion from my book In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Lou -- welcome to BB. :wavey:

Very helpful analysis you gave! Thanks!

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I've never studied the so-called "Lordship Salvation". If lordship salvation is teaching that there are so called requirements for salvation....... then the only requirement I know of is to be born again... and believe. I do however believe that one who is born again will make Jesus Lord of their life.

Hello:

LS advocates do not require the actual performance of "good works" (Eph. 2:10) to get saved. This is where LS is unlike Roman Catholicism’s sacramental system (I grew up in the RCC).

The requirement LS calls for is an upfront commitment to do and perform the good works expected of a believer. The problem is that they are asking a lost make commitments to things he can't possibly understand or comprehend while he is yet lost.

LS demands from a lost man full-surrender and commitment of life in "exchange" for salvation. That doctrine adds to the Bible’s definition of saving faith.

Here are a few examples from Dr. MacArthur, LS’s best known, most prolific writer and apologist for the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. Remember, it is the requirements for salvation that is the crux of the debate. Read how LS advocates define the requirements.

“Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 87.)

“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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)

This is Dr. John R. Stott:
“Jesus never concealed that fact that in His religion there was a demand as well as an offer. Indeed, the demand was as total as the offer was free. If He offered mankind His salvation, He demanded their submission. Jesus gave no encouragement whatever to thoughtless applicants for discipleship.” (Basic Christianity, p. 109.)

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Thanks

Lou -- welcome to BB. :wavey:

Very helpful analysis you gave! Thanks!

skypair

Thanks I appreciate the welcome. More later.

LM

 

[Andy T.]

This is one area where I don't tow the Reformed line, but I would put myself closer to MacArthur's position than I would Zane Hodges.

There are excesses on both sides. The excesses on the Lordship side are beliefs that the true Christian walk is always a progession and that believers will never fall into sustained sin. The excesses on the non-Lordship side are these cryptic "two churches" and "two Gospels" doctrines, Millennial Exclusion, and the belief that someone does not need faith to be saved. Though I believe a true Christian can fall into sustained sin and even die in that state, I do not believe that a true Christian will ever renounce his faith altogether and become an atheist, for instance. I've read some non-Lordship writings that advocate this very thing.

 

[webdog]

LS advocates do not require the actual performance of "good works" (Eph. 2:10) to get saved. This is where LS is unlike Roman Catholicism’s sacramental system (I grew up in the RCC).

The requirement LS calls for is an upfront commitment to do and perform the good works expected of a believer. The problem is that they are asking a lost make commitments to things he can't possibly understand or comprehend while he is yet lost.

While on the surface they seem quite different, they are actually strikingly similar when you delve deeper into LS.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

This is one area where I don't tow the Reformed line, but I would put myself closer to MacArthur's position than I would Zane Hodges.

There are excesses on both sides. The excesses on the Lordship side are beliefs that the true Christian walk is always a progession and that believers will never fall into sustained sin. The excesses on the non-Lordship side are these cryptic "two churches" and "two Gospels" doctrines, Millennial Exclusion, and the belief that someone does not need faith to be saved. Though I believe a true Christian can fall into sustained sin and even die in that state, I do not believe that a true Christian will ever renounce his faith altogether and become an atheist, for instance. I've read some non-Lordship writings that advocate this very thing.

Andy:

Agreed!

Both the Lordship, and what is commonly known as the Free Grace position, can have their extremes.

In my book I mention that there are inherent problems with Hodges' Mental Assent Only theology.

I also detail thoroughly that many Lordship advocates have a real problem with accepting the reality of the "carnal" Christian.

Take care,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To be Accurate

While on the surface they seem quite different, they are actually strikingly similar when you delve deeper into LS.

Yes, partially, but in fairness and for accuracy sake I draw the distinction that I have above.

LM

 

[webdog]

Would it be safe to say the "P" in TULIP is LS? I always assumed this, but was never sure.

 

[Andy T.]

Would it be safe to say the "P" in TULIP is LS? I always assumed this, but was never sure.

Maybe - it depends on how one defines the P. If you define it as an always progressing sanctification, then it would be Lordship. If you define it as someone will always persevere in their faith (i.e., they won't ever totally reject their faith), then it would be something less than Lordship.

 

[webdog]

This is one area where I don't tow the Reformed line, but I would put myself closer to MacArthur's position than I would Zane Hodges.

There are excesses on both sides. The excesses on the Lordship side are beliefs that the true Christian walk is always a progession and that believers will never fall into sustained sin. The excesses on the non-Lordship side are these cryptic "two churches" and "two Gospels" doctrines, Millennial Exclusion, and the belief that someone does not need faith to be saved. Though I believe a true Christian can fall into sustained sin and even die in that state, I do not believe that a true Christian will ever renounce his faith altogether and become an atheist, for instance. I've read some non-Lordship writings that advocate this very thing.

I agree with you on this aspect for the most part. I would only say that instead of being "closer" to Macarthur's position, I would rather be in the middle. Its equally dangerous to advocate a works type salvation and a "just say a prayer and you are saved" without faith salvation.
Your position about a true believer dying in sin is not orthodox for your position, but your statment about renouncing ones faith kind of contradicts this, as doing that is sin.
This is why I can't say I can honestly label my theology, nor would I want to.

 

[webdog]

Maybe - it depends on how one defines the P. If you define it as an always progressing sanctification, then it would be Lordship. If you define it as someone will always persevere in their faith (i.e., they won't ever totally reject their faith), then it would be something less than Lordship.

I thought "p" states that a true believer WILL persevere to the end, meaning if you die in a state of disobedience, you were never saved to begin with.

 

[Andy T.]

Your position about a true believer dying in sin is not orthodox for your position, but your statment about renouncing ones faith kind of contradicts this, as doing that is sin.

I distinguish the two by the fact that we are saved by faith. If you don't have faith, then you can't be saved. If someone outright denies their faith and says they do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, then they were never saved to begin with. Their original "faith" was not real. One of the excesses of the non-Lordship side is they never account for a false conversion. I also reject the excess of "mental assent" only salvation. Faith involves more than just mental agreement with certain facts.

 

[Andy T.]

I thought "p" states that a true believer WILL persevere to the end, meaning if you die in a state of disobedience, you were never saved to begin with.

Many Reformed folk ascribe to this. But there are other Reformed who reject this notion. I will say this - I don't think true Christians living wretched lives of sin and dying in that state are as common as some non-Lordship advocates think. But I do account for the fact that this can happen in a true believer's life.

 

[reformedbeliever]

If you agree with this, you are not an LS advocate
This thread is a little confusing to me. RB (calvinist) doesn't seem to agree with LS...but Allan (non cal) seems to agree. Is there a full moon?
I really appreciate your open heart and mind, RB. You remind me of myself a couple years ago in regards to soteriology.

BTW, we can't "make" Jesus Lord of our lives...if we are His, He IS. We can live by the sin nature, but positionally, if we are "in Christ" we are His.

Thank you brother. I have a lot to learn. I understand that we can't make Him Lord of our lives..... it was a matter of speech. I think if we ever quit growing in the Lord....... we have died...
I'm not sure how much I agree with LS or disagree...... this is one area I may have to study. As it is....... i'm spending too much time on theology and not enough time in evangelism. There are a lot of lost people out there... and I think I may be spending less time here. God bless you brother.

 

[webdog]

I will say this - I don't think true Christians living wretched lives of sin and dying in that state are as common as some non-Lordship advocates think.

In my family it is. My sister died a few years ago in this state. If I hadn't seen her life prior to her doing her own thing, and dying in that state, I would not have believed she was saved. The sin nature is a very powerful thing, and the choice given to us either to live by the power of the Spirit or the sin nature is a very real thing.

 

[Andy T.]

Sorry to hear that, Webdog.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Works are works are works, whether you try to say you have to have works to get saved, stay saved, or if you try to backload them onto being saved by saying, "Well, if you're truly saved, you'll do so-and-so", or "a saved person wouldn't do that."

We are commanded to be obedient, we are commanded to be righteous or to be justfified, but if we fail to follow such commands, we don't become unborn. We'll have to answer for it one day, though.

As to making Jesus Lord, you can own a car, or you can make it your idol. Either way you have it, but you, the individual, have made it lord of your life. The same holds true of Jesus: We can make him Lord now, or one day, when he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, we will stand ashamed.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I distinguish the two by the fact that we are saved by faith.

Actually, we're saved by grace.

If you don't have faith, then you can't be saved.

If you don't believe, you can't be saved. However, to believe, you do have to have the faith that the one in whom you are believing has the ability to save.

I like to use "faith" as a verb to make the point. If you believe that the easy chair in which you're sitting will continue to hold your weight, you are "faithing" it. However, if you faith it, then sit in it and it crumbles, you are no longer believing that it will hold you, but you did truly believe that it would.

If someone outright denies their faith and says they do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, then they were never saved to begin with.

Mind showing this in Scripture? Many people who believe, later deny it, for varying reasons. (In many cases with which I am familiar, the person eventually comes back, because it's simply rebellion, but this is anecdotal and is not based on Scriptures.)

How many children truly believe in Santa Claus, then later deny him? Does this mean they never believed in the first place?

One of the excesses of the non-Lordship side is they never account for a false conversion.

One can only be converted after one is saved. "Converted" means to turn back on the right track. One cannot be on the right track in the first place, unless they are saved.

So, there are many, many false conversions in that sense, but I don't think that's what you are talking about.

There are many, many people who sincerely believe in the Lord Jesus, who later rebel. There's nothing false in their original believing. Often, this apostasy, comes about due to hypocricy within the church.

I also reject the excess of "mental assent" only salvation.

Then you reject Acts 16:30-31: What must I do to be saved? Believe (aorist; punctiliar; mental assent) on the Lord Jesus and you will (no doubt about it!) be saved.

Faith involves more than just mental agreement with certain facts.

Faith is a noun, and it's a lifestyle.