The Priority of Lordship

[Lou Martuneac]

P- is for Post

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.

Men:

Whether it is Calvinism’s Perseverance of the saint or Arminianism’s Preserved by the Holy Spirit Fall are POST-Conversion issues.

Calvinism’s Perseverance- All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end. How does one measure perseverance? Lordship advocates come to the conclusion: Ah, never saved in the first place. How is that measured and at what point is that determination made?

Arminianism’s Preserved- Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. Not all Arminians have agreed on this point. Some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ, i.e. once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

A believer’s walk with God is an important discussion, but it is not the main concern in the Lordship debate.

As I noted earlier in this thread the real crux of the debate revolves around what is required of a sinner to be born again?

Look at, and consider Calvinism's 'T' for Total Inability. That point has more to do with the Lordship interpretation of the gospel than any of the other five points of Calvinism.

Total Inability teaches that man is unable to participate, respond to or cooperate with God in the salvation process. Total inability sees lost man as absolutely unable to hear or respond to spiritual things, including the gospel. Calvinism entirely rules out the free will of man to choose and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. For the Calvinist when a lost man responds to the gospel it is seen solely as a work of God.

The connection to Lordship Salvation is not readily seen on the surface of TI, but it is there. What do you think it might be?

I'll be away until late tonight, I'll get back to you then.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Martin]

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.

==This is a common misunderstanding of Lordship salvation. In fact there was a time when I made these same type of arguments against so-called Lordship salvation. Most, if not all, Lordship proponents would agree that it is impossible for a lost person to do anything to earn God's favor (Rom 8:8). Whether that "anything" is good works or commitments to do good works. Nothing a lost person can do, or promise, will help gain them favor with God. However that is not a problem for Lordship salvation advocates because we are not teaching that a lost person can/must do those things to get saved. They can't and if they try it will not work.

Having said that, a person cannot be saved if they refuse to repent and confess Jesus as their Lord (Rom 10:9). So how is this problem solved? It is solved in the summary phrase that salvation is of the Lord. At the moment of salvation what God commands of the sinner, God provides. The whole package of salvation is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9, 2Tim 2:25, etc). At the moment of salvation the Holy Spirit draws the person to Christ (Jn 6:37), gives them faith (Eph 2:8-9) and grants them repentance (2Tim 2:25), He enters the person's life (Eph 1:13-14, Ez 36:26-27) and enables them to turn to Christ in faith (ie...repent and believe). Once this is done the person is born again, they have a new nature, and the result of that is obedience (Ez 36:26-27, 1Jn 3:9-10, etc). Repentance is required for salvation (Acts 26:18-20, 17:30) and it is clear that the required repentance is more than just a change of mind about Christ (though that is certainly involved).

In the OP I was focusing on the results of salvation and not the causes. Maybe the title of the post, along with the first paragraph, threw people off.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

There is No Misunderstanding

==This is a common misunderstanding of Lordship salvation. In fact there was a time when I made these same type of arguments against so-called Lordship salvation. Most, if not all, Lordship proponents would agree that it is impossible for a lost person to do anything to earn God's favor (Rom 8:8). Whether that "anything" is good works or commitments to do good works. Nothing a lost person can do, or promise, will help gain them favor with God. However that is not a problem for Lordship salvation advocates because we are not teaching that a lost person can/must do those things to get saved. They can't and if they try it will not work.

Having said that, a person cannot be saved if they refuse to repent and confess Jesus as their Lord (Rom 10:9). So how is this problem solved? It is solved in the summary phrase that salvation is of the Lord. At the moment of salvation what God commands of the sinner, God provides. The whole package of salvation is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9, 2Tim 2:25, etc). At the moment of salvation the Holy Spirit draws the person to Christ (Jn 6:37), gives them faith (Eph 2:8-9) and grants them repentance (2Tim 2:25), He enters the person's life (Eph 1:13-14, Ez 36:26-27) and enables them to turn to Christ in faith (ie...repent and believe). Once this is done the person is born again, they have a new nature, and the result of that is obedience (Ez 36:26-27, 1Jn 3:9-10, etc). Repentance is required for salvation (Acts 26:18-20, 17:30) and it is clear that the required repentance is more than just a change of mind about Christ (though that is certainly involved).

In the OP I was focusing on the results of salvation and not the causes. Maybe the title of the post, along with the first paragraph, threw people off.

Greetings:

There is no misunderstanding of Lordship Salvation (LS).

I can sum up what Brother Martin is saying here: he believes, as virtually every Calvinist/Lordship advocate does, regeneration must precede faith. The LS advocate believes a lost must first be made spiritually alive, i.e. born again before he can call upon the name of the Lord in faith or repentance. So, when decisions for Christ are being made, and the lost man is being asked to commit to the lordship of Christ, the LS advocate believes he is gaining the decisions from man who has been regenerated/born again already.

Furthermore, the LS advocate believes that faith is a gift God gives the lost man after he has been born again. These are extremes that flow from Calvinism’s Total Inability. In my book I address this issue in some detail because LS is rooted in Calvinism.

This is one of the most revealing portions of Martin's post:

He [the Holy Spirit] enters the person's life...and enables them to turn to Christ in faith (ie...repent and believe). Once this is done the person is born again...

We would all agree that once the Holy Spirit indwells/enters the sinner's life he has been regenerated, converted and born again. Yet, Martin says the sinner will then be able turn to Christ (although he can't because as Martin believes faith is a gift, not something he can do).

Since, according to Martin's position, the sinner has already been born again, what need is there for faith in Christ? Did his regeneration somehow fall short of resulting in his being born again? One can see the almost absurd conclusions that are drawn from a regeneration before faith position.

For Lordship advocates, most of whom are Calvinists, faith, repentance, believing and surrender is all God’s work and therefore cannot be ascribed to man performing a personal work to “earn favor with God.” Since God did the work, man could not have made the contribution. So if man cannot participate in the salvation experience, then whatever the experience is, it cannot be “a meritorious human work.” This is how Lordship advocates disconnect works from their position.

I do not want to bog down this thread with a protracted discussion of, what many consider, these extremes that flow from Calvinism. In my book I cite Pastor George Zeller who has done some very good writing on the problems with the extremes that come from Calvinism such as we see them in Martin’s post above. Please link to the following articles.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?


The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift from God.


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[webdog]

Your teachings on LS are dead on, Lou :thumbs:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

If in Unvarnished Terms

Your teachings on LS are dead on, Lou :thumbs:

Webdog:

I give a fairly thorough history of my involvement with the Lordship controversy. My first was in 1989, and then again not until 1996. From 1996 I have been steadily involved in one form or another. Throughout those years I have never allowed it to become a hobbyhorse. In most cases I was asked to address LS by those I served under.

The benefit of consistently looking at LS and reading its most notable advocates is that you come to not only understand their position, but how they arrive at their conclusions. Make no mistake about it: LS comes from a Calvinistic approach to salvation.

I knew some one would jump in with the Total Inability/regeneration before faith angle. I wrote post #9 to see if anyone would pick up on my notes there. I defined TI and then asked this question,

“The connection to Lordship Salvation is not readily seen on the surface of TI, but it is there. What do you think it might be?”

I was hoping someone outside the LS camp would have thought through and landed on the regeneration before faith. Martin, however, laid it out for everyone. What is noteworthy is that Martin’s notes are consistent with the way many Calvinists introduce regeneration before faith.

He does not explain the regeneration before faith position in unvarnished terms. If it was clearly spelled out and especially its implications made plain most folks would recoil from it. Many who once rejected LS are drawn to accept it because they were first introduced to a Calvinistic approach to salvation. That paves the way for LS.

I want to encourage everyone to read George Zeller’s articles that I link to in my post #9 above. They are penetrating. There are more very helpful articles by Brother Zeller at The Dangers of Reformed Theologyhttp://middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm.

Take care,

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[FERRON BRIMSTONE]

Take a look at this verse-

"No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other..... " Luke 16:13 esv

In this context Christ is talking about the love of money, but it can be applied to all sin.

All men are slaves to sin, our dilemma comes when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior. We now have two masters. Therefore we will hate sin even though we will still be a slave to it. If we do not hate our sin then we must hate Christ, and cannot be saved.

We must love one and hate the other, this is Lordship Salvation in a nutshell.

If Christ is not Lord of your Life then who is?

 

[skypair]

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."

I like to make this formulation:

Catholics: faith + works = salvation

LS: faith = salvation + works

Bible: faith = salvation (Rom 4:5)

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

I like to make this formulation:

Catholics: faith + works = salvation

LS: faith = salvation + works

Bible: faith = salvation (Rom 4:5)

skypair

You got the last part inverted, SP, when it comes to eternal salvation.

Bible: salvation=faith.

Now, when it comes to salvation from wrong doctrines, wrong practices, etc.

Bible: faith=salvation.

And re your reply to my post. No, I am not a 5-pointer Calvinist. The Doctrine of Grace I am an adherent of is a tad different from the Calvinist viewpoint in that the Calvinists believe, like you do, that the gospel must first be preached to the elect, heard by the elect, and obeyed by the elect before the salvation intended by God in their election can actually be worked out in them by the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe the Gospel has anything at all to do with the salvation of the elect's soul other than the fact that it brings life and immortality, already possessed by the hearer, to light.

Their salvation depends entirely on God, is OF God, and BY God.

So the elect can be anyone, anywhere, and if He is God's own, he may or may not hear the gospel in his lifetime, but God's eternal purpose for him stands and no one can change that.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Choosing to Serve Him

"No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other..... " Luke 16:13 esv

We must love one and hate the other, this is Lordship Salvation in a nutshell.

If Christ is not Lord of your Life then who is?

Ferron:

No responsible Bible believing Christian would, object to what you posted. You are addressing the choices facing every believer.

Choosing to serve Jesus Christ as Lord and Master should be evident in the life of any genuinely born again child of God. Sadly, there are many disappointing exceptions in our churches today.

We would all agree that a lost man does not make or even have a choice to serve God. He is in sin and rebellion; he is at enmity with God. The Christian can choose to serve God, or serve selfish pleasures.

You might refer to my very first post in this thread. It is there that I explain the Lordship is not over the results of salvation. The Lordship controversy is in regard to the requirements for salvation.

Yours faithfully,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[skypair]

Lou...

I like your Hodge Mental Assent Only comment. I believe that is largely the issue with Calvinism sotierology that I see (though many of them deny). But Hodge saying it lends credence to our suspicions and our observations, for sure!

Many who once rejected LS are drawn to accept it because they were first introduced to a Calvinistic approach to salvation. That paves the way for LS.

I think this provides them "assurance of salvation" that Calvies cannot have under "mental assent only" sotierology. I believed this from the moment I heard of John MacArthur's teaching of LS. And it sorta demonstrates that Calvies are aiming at sanctifying the spirits of their flock rather than getting 'em justified in their souls first. Do you deal with that distinction in your book, Lou?

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou...

I like your Hodge Mental Assent Only comment. I believe that is largely the issue with Calvinism sotierology that I see (though many of them deny). But Hodge saying it lends credence to our suspicions and our observations, for sure!

I think this provides them "assurance of salvation" that Calvies cannot have under "mental assent only" sotierology. I believed this from the moment I heard of John MacArthur's teaching of LS. And it sorta demonstrates that Calvies are aiming at sanctifying the spirits of their flock rather than getting 'em justified in their souls first. Do you deal with that distinction in your book, Lou?

Sky:

I have just a moment. I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are driving at. There is, however, a concern among many over what is a pre-sanctification for salvation sound to LS.

For just $12.47 plus shipping at Amazon you can find out if I deal with this in my book. Just kidding! :laugh: :laugh:

My book is quite comprehensive at 296 pages, including a nine article appendix. If I were to delve deeply into every angle that the Calvinism/Lordship debate comprises it would exceed 500 pages.

So, in answer to the narrow area you asked about: No, I don't deal with it in depth.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[skypair]

You got the last part inverted, SP, when it comes to eternal salvation.

Bible: salvation=faith.

Now, when it comes to salvation from wrong doctrines, wrong practices, etc.

Bible: faith=salvation.

Ah, you're right! And that works for both free will and Calvie! But to really get it right, I would have put it this way:

Bible: belief = salvation = faith in order not to get our part, belief, confused with God's part, giving us salvation and faith. Good catch though!

And re your reply to my post. No, I am not a 5-pointer Calvinist. The Doctrine of Grace I am an adherent of is a tad different from the Calvinist viewpoint in that the Calvinists believe, like you do, that the gospel must first be preached to the elect, heard by the elect, and obeyed by the elect before the salvation intended by God in their election can actually be worked out in them by the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe the Gospel has anything at all to do with the salvation of the elect's soul other than the fact that it brings life and immortality, already possessed by the hearer, to light.

Their salvation depends entirely on God, is OF God, and BY God.

So the elect can be anyone, anywhere, and if He is God's own, he may or may not hear the gospel in his lifetime, but God's eternal purpose for him stands and no one can change that.

That is, indeed, a "tad different." :laugh:

So basically, the "elect" fetus is saved even if aborted? Or the "elect" Native American of 800 AD bowing down to his totem pole for rain who gets struck in that instant by lightning (his "god" giving him more than he expected) is still saved? Now that, indeed, would be magnanimous of God --- but I don't think it works that way.

I believe what you are seeing is that Jesus lights the whole world with enough light to be saved. Any person "feeling after God if perchance he might find him" will be given the light of salvation. These, of course, do just the opposite of those mentioned in Rom 1:18-21, right? They "so by nature those things written in the law showing that the law is written in their hearts" per Rom 2.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Sky:

I have just a moment. I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are driving at. There is, however, a concern among many over what is a pre-sanctification for salvation sound to LS.

Here's what I mean:

Salvation of man is in 3 stages:

JUSTIFICATION of the soul by God instantly and eternally,

SANCTIFICATION of the spirit by the Holy Spirit progressively, and

GLORIFICATION of the body by Christ at the rapture eventually.

Justification comes first as taught by the fact that the OT saints were "given the righteousness of God" (justified) but were never indwelt by the Holy Spirit (sanctified).

My contention is that both happen simultaneously now in salvation BUT that, since the Calvinist presumes salvation by "mental assent only" (which is NOT the way to justification), their endeavor is to sanctify with the Word that which is unjustified and not even indwelt!

Justification is "reorienting your soul away from self and toward God" -- which is what repentance is. It is belief unto repentance that brings "justification unto [eternal] life." Instead of the soul being dead to God, it is His throne and the reborn soul/conscience is always aware of God's law and always endeavors to obey it by directing the spirit and then the flesh.

I somewhat disagree with the article on the "Dangers of Believing Faith is Given." The issue I see is that Calvies equate "faith" with "belief." In that context, I agree with the article. However, I believe that faith is given to those who believe and receive -- there being a scriptural distinction between the words "believe" and "faith." That faith is given agrees with what we find under spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12:9 where "To another [is given] faith by the same Spirit..." I don't fault Calvies on this issue of faith given -- only on the issue that our part is to believe and that not "in vain." Then faith is given.

Does that help?

per your "Regeneration before Faith" article: "It's impossible to be regenerated and not be saved. Every born again person is saved. It is a Biblical absurdity to suggest that a person is saved and regenerated and at some later point of time becomes a believer in Christ." Good!

For just $12.47 plus shipping at Amazon you can find out if I deal with this in my book.

I'll do it!


skypair

 

[Andy T.]

Actually, we're saved by grace.

I agree. To be more techincal - we are saved [by grace] through faith. My point was that faith is essential to salvation. However, I find it interesting that you say we saved by grace here, but then later say we are saved by mere mental assent later.

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.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here - are you saying that faith and belief are different? If so, I disagree with that paradigm to begin with. Biblically, faith and belief are the same as can be seen by comparing Acts 16:31 and Eph. 2:8, as well as many other passages that use faith and belief in the context of salvation.

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.)

I Cor. 15:1-2 - "1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain."

So if you hold fast to the Gospel that you received, then you are saved. If you do not, then you have believed in vain and are not saved. Notice, this is not works, but your faith in Christ alone. Also, I never said that "many people who believe, later deny it..." I'm not saying that this happens all time - that people believe in vain - but it does happen, as Paul indicates in this passage as a real possibility. And I agree that people can rebel in sin and still be saved, but they will never renounce the Gospel. They may have doubts about being saved and their faith may be severely weakened, but they will never renounce it. If they do renounce it fully, then they believed in vain and were never saved from the start.

Also see Colossians 1:23 - "23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

Again, one must continue in the faith and not moved away from the hope of the Gospel. Not continue in works, but continue in faith and the hope of the Gospel. A true believer will never fully renounce their faith in Christ to save them.

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

This is a pointless analogy, since our faith in Christ is categorically different than belief in Santa Claus. Kids don't believe on a Santa to save their very souls.

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.

Your experience is different than mine. I have not seen "many, many" people who have "sincerely" believed who later rebel. I have certainly seen some who rebel. But many, many? I don't know. Also, how do we know if someone has "sincerely" believed or not? Do we know their hearts?

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.

Acts 16:31 is not the only verse in Scripture about salvation. Also, the Greek word study I have does not say "mental assent". It says to be convinced of or to trust in. Notice that Paul doesn't say believe in the facts of the Gospel only. He says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He says to believe on a person, not just facts. Sure, the facts of the Gospel - death, burial and resurrection - are essential to this, but it does not stop with mere agreement with the facts. Ultimately, you are trusting in a person, the Lord Jesus Christ, to save you from your alienation from God caused by your sin, which Christ bore in his body for you. This is involves more than just disinterested mental agreement with the facts. Our trust in Christ is and essential part of our saving faith. Eph. 1:12-14: "12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[b] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."

Also, 2 Cor. 1:9-10: "9 Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, 10 who delivered us from so great a death, and does[a] deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us,"

Also, Luke 18:9: "9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" - showing that turning our trust in ourselves and our works to trusting in Christ is essential to being saved, as the Publican went away justified and not the Pharisee.

 

[skypair]

Lou...

....not sure if you are just away or if you missed by post #53 above. Any comments? :saint:

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

....not sure if you are just away or if you missed by post #53 above. Any comments? :saint:

Sky:

Saw it, but have been at work 12+ hours Monday. Work til 5 today, will try for tonight, I leave for business trip Weds 6am, back Saturday.

I'll get to it.

For now, your justfication, sanctification, glorification looks good.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

My contention is...since the Calvinist presumes salvation by "mental assent only" (which is NOT the way to justification), their endeavor is to sanctify with the Word that which is unjustified and not even indwelt!

Sky:

Actually the Calvinists I interact with would utterly reject the "Mental Assent Only" position that is synonymous with Hodges.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Martin]

I can sum up what Brother Martin is saying here: he believes, as virtually every Calvinist/Lordship advocate does, regeneration must precede faith.

==I guess you could put it that way. However I would not consider a person "born again" until they have repented and believed in Christ. That repentance and faith, that the person expresses, is given by the Holy Spirit who enables that person to believe and repent (etc). Is that the idea that "regeneration must precede faith"? I suppose, in a way, it is. However I am more in agreement with John MacArthur's position when he says:

"From the viewpoint of reason, regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance. But the saving transaction is all a single, instataneous event" -"The Gospel According To The Apostles" pg 62.

So while I do believe that "regeneration...must initiate faith and repentance", and that "regeneration must precede faith", I also believe that it all happens in one instant. It is not over a period of time, it happens at the same time. However, as MacArthur rightly states, "regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance".

I think RC Sproul's statement on this represents a common "Calvinistic" understanding of this:

"Regeneration is the gift of God's grace. It is the immediate, supernatural work of the Holy Spirit wrought in us. Its effect is to quicken us to spiritual life from spiritual death. It changes the disposition of our souls, inclining our hearts to God. The fruit of regeneration is faith. Regeneration precedes faith" -Pg1514 "The Reformation Study Bible" (ESV)

These are extremes that flow from Calvinism’s Total Inability. In my book I address this issue in some detail because LS is rooted in Calvinism.

==Actually Total Depravity, or Total Inablity as you put it, is not unique to Calvinism. This belief is also held by Reformed Arminians and Arminius himself. For example Arminius once stated:

"Christ does not say, Without me ye can do but little; neither does He say, Without me Ye cannot do any arduous thing; nor Without me ye can do it with difficulty: But He says, Without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, Without me ye cannot complete anything; but Without me ye can do nothing!" -Disputation 11, "On The FreeWill of Man and its Powers"

Arminius expressed the belief that the lost person's fallen condition has rendered the free will of man towards God "not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by Divine grace". The belief in Total Depravity is common to all who are reformed not just all who are reformed in the Calvinistic manner.

the sinner has already been born again, what need is there for faith in Christ? Did his regeneration somehow fall short of resulting in his being born again? One can see the almost absurd conclusions that are drawn from a regeneration before faith position.

==Without faith a person cannot be saved. The Holy Spirit produces faith and repentance in the heart.

For Lordship advocates, most of whom are Calvinists, faith, repentance, believing and surrender is all God’s work and therefore cannot be ascribed to man performing a personal work to “earn favor with God.”

==Lordship salvation is not only common among Calvinists. The belief in Lordship salvation can be seen among those who are holiness and Arminian.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Answering Calvinism's Out of Order Salvation

Martin/All:

I have to come back later to deal with this, but for now let me redirect everyone to Brother Zeller's detailed response to Calvinism's regeneration before faith.

See/Read: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Incidentally, it does not matter whom or what camp may be sympathetic toward regeneration before faith. Calvin, Arminian, MacArthur, etc. Wrong is wrong.

This is important because it relates and contirbutes to the errors of Lordship Salvation.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Martin]

it does not matter whom or what camp may be sympathetic toward regeneration before faith. Calvin, Arminian, MacArthur, etc. Wrong is wrong.

==That is true, just because someone holds to a doctrine does not mean that doctrine is true. However I believe this belief does hold up. After all the alternative belief is that salvation is something man can do with only the assistance of God. In that view God is reduced to sitting around waiting for people to come to Him. In the Reformed view, as in Scripture, salvation is of the Lord. The Lord is Sovereign and He controls every aspect of salvation. Another aspect of this alternative to "Lordship Salvation" is antinomianism which allows believers to become unbelievers, in belief and/or action, and still have assurance of their salvation. Such teaching is unBiblical in its milder form (Ryrie, etc) or in its extreme form (Hodges, Wilking, etc).