Pulpit Magazine

Posted in Lordship |

47 Responses to “An Introduction to Lordship Salvation”

1. on 25 Sep 2006 at 4:30 am   Vince Pienski

   Hello Shepherd’s Fellowship!!!
   Thanks for all you do to equip the saints!!!
   I am in debate with a brother that gives a strong arguement for 1 John being written to belivers and claims the letter address one’s fellowship with God and not one’s personal relationship. He claims one can still be a “son” however not have a great relationship with their father, it doesn’t change the fact that he is still a son. I am sure you have heard this argument before. Is there a firm argument within the text to disagree or is there a better way to handle this discussion?
   Thanks for your time, all all you do for The Name above all names, The Lord Jesus Christ.
   Vince

2. on 25 Sep 2006 at 4:37 am   Steven Adkins

   Thanks again for another really important and strong post. I really appreciatte the time and effort it takes for study, prayer, even editing, to bring this to us. Since we are blessed by God to recieve such good biblical wisdom, we should really pay attention. God has given us so much; His Grace is full. Let us Exalt Christ and His Lordship.

   Grace and Peace in Christ ALone,

   Steven

3. on 25 Sep 2006 at 9:13 am   Nate B.

   Vince,

   How does he explain the contrast in 1:6-7, or John’s strong statements in 2:11,15,19,23,29; 3:3,9-10,15,17; 4:3,8,13,20? Also, what does he do with John’s purpose statement in 5:13, which centers on “eternal life,” and not just our familial relationship with the Father?

   Knowing his arguments more specifically would make them easier to address. But to say that John does not have eternal life in mind (which is the difference between those who are saved and those who are lost), ignores both his purpose statement and his repeated use of “eternal life” throughout the letter (1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20), as well the other synonymous terms John uses for born again believers.

4. on 25 Sep 2006 at 9:13 am   Tim Brown

   Much needed.

   Thank you!

   Tim

5. on 25 Sep 2006 at 1:07 pm   C.H.H.

   Antonio? Where’s Antonio? I thought for sure he’d be here by now.

6. on 26 Sep 2006 at 2:32 pm   Antonio da Rosa

   I take issue with the pejorative term “easy believism”. Other than that, this is a post which discusses Lordship Salvation beliefs with its attending reference to proof-texts. Proof-texting is par for the course in Lordship teaching.

   The prooftexting and the stringing together of “therefore”’s based upon a statement and a prooftext is what I read often in Lordship books.

   1) Do the verses he gives show that the “gospel” calls people to repentance? in Acts 2:36 Peter says that Jesus is Lord and Christ and that the audience crucified Him, 2:37, the crowd is pricked in the heart believing the message of Peter and therefore asks what shall they do now (that they believe Peter’s message). Since they believe that Jesus is the Christ, according to 1 John 5:1, the are born of God. The repentance and baptism Peter requires in view of the audience’s culpability in Christ’s death. Acts 17:30 and 2 Pet 3:9 talk about repentance in light of Christ’s temporal judgment upon the world at the “Day of the Lord”. I have a 7 part article on Acts 17:30. Repentance will halt or avert temporal judgment. Acts 20:21 is a summary statement of Paul’s complete ministry, not merely evangelism (”How I kept back nothing that was helpful to you”).

   Repentance is absent from the gospel of John (gospel written for evangelistic purposes (John 20:31), Paul’s defense of his gospel in Galatians, and Paul’s primary teaching on justification by faith in Romans 3-5.

   2) Faith is never seen as a work, as Paul puts it into contradistinction with works (Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.) Saying that faith is a gift of God begs the question. Jesus can say “Where is your faith” to regenerate disciples, and even the Westminster Confession states “By such enormous sins … they… interrupt the exercise of faith” (V.5).

   I find in the bible regenerate people’s faith “shipwrecked” (1 Tim 1:18-20). I find Christians going “astray from the truth” (2 Tim 2:17-19), “astray from the faith” (1 Tim 6:20-21), and “wander[ing] from the truth” (James 5:19). I find God’s “righteous one” who has the possibility of “shrink[ing] back”" (Heb 10:38-39. There are those in Galatians who lose their faith in Christ for grace and rely upon the flesh and law, who severed themself from Christ (Gal 5:2), fallen from grace (Gal 5:4), and were liable to judgment (Gal 5:10). The Spirit “explicitely says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:13). You cannot fall away from something that you were not once in. I see Christian’s denying the faith and therefore are “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). I see Christian widows who “turned aside to follow Satan” (1 Tim 5:14-15). I see Demas (2 Tim 4:10), Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), and a number of unnamed people (2 Tim 4:16) abandoning Paul for wordly ambitions. Finally we have Christians who are “in opposition” who are in a “snare of the devil” and are held “captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:24-26).

   3) Faith in a person is meaningless if it is not attached to a proposition. When Jesus says that we must believe on Him, He is entreating our faith in His ability to guarantee eternal life and resurrection to the believer in Him for it. In John 11:25ff, Jesus says that as the Life He guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him, as the resurrection, He guarantees resurrection to the believer in Him. He then asks Martha, “Do you believe this“? He was asking her if she believed that Jesus guarantees her eternal life and resurrection. Furthermore, another expression of saving faith is believing that Jesus is the Christ (John 11:27; 20:31; 1 John 5:1). Faith in Jesus is faith in specific propositions concerning Him, that, as the Christ, He guarantees eternal life and resurrection to the one who believes in Him for it, the one who takes Him at His word.

   When one says that they “trust” someone, that necessarily breaks down to believing propositions. If I say that I trust the babysitter, this is shorthand for saying “I believe that the babysitter will act honorably, appropriately, professionally, and with the best interests of me and my child.” When I say that I am trusting Christ, or believing in Christ, this is short hand for saying “I believe that Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to me”.

   4) To go to Romans 6 to prove that man is a changed person AND ACTS that way is a futile effort. The language in Romans 6 is ABSOLUTE language: “died to sin” (6:2); “our old man was crucified with Him” (6:6). It is plain wrong to interpret this information as “experiential” death and crucifixion, for the language is ABSOLUTE. Men sin, last I checked. Therefore he is not absolutely “experientially” dead to sin! That this is “positional” language is abundantly clear from the entreaties that Paul makes to our will to “reckon [ourselves] dead to sin [experientially in light of our positional death]” (6:11), and to “not let sin reign in [our] mortal body” (6:12) and “do not present” our members as instruments of unrighteousness but “present” ourselves “to God” (6:13). Paul says we must give diligence to live as we truly are positionally. He entreats us to reckon ourselves dead to sin, stop presenting our members as intruments of unrighteousness and present ourselves to God. If we don’t we will not be sanctified. Sanctification is a co-operation between man and God. If we do not obey Paul’s commands here in Romans 6, we will not be sanctified.

   5) Sanctification DOES require post-regenerate dedication. Every entreaty of the will given in the Epistles are for our growth in sanctification. The warning passages of Hebrews discuss the dangers of not progressing in sanctification. We do have everything that pertains to life and godliness! But we are required to “add to [our] faith” (2 Pet 1:5) so that we can be sanctified. If a Christian does not add these sanctifying virtues to his faith he is blind, short-sighted and “has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” (2 Pet 1:9). When we are saved, we are not on auto-pilot! Discipleship takes hard works. If salvation is equated with discipleship, then the same is conditioned on works.

   6) Faith + submission is not “faith alone”. Christ asks us to merely rely upon His grace, His work on our behalf, His promise. Commitment to Christ as a condition to receive eternal life makes salvation a contract: God’s part, imparting eternal life, man’s part, submission to God. In reality, faith in Christ is the passive instrument of reception. It is merely the hands receiving God’s free gift. Submission on the other hand would be a contractual proviso. Once man is regenerate by receiving the absolutely free gift of eternal life, he is initiated into a brand new relationship with Christ. He is required to obey, persevere, and endure. If he doesn’t, he will experience God’s temporal chastening and wrath and loss of privelege and honor at Christ’s coming. If he does, he will experience a greater intimacy with Christ now and be rewarded in at Christ’s judgement seat.

   7) None of the “prooftexts” given that a Christian will always or indefectably love Jesus prove that all true Christians will do so. Is it impossible for Christians to get caught up in the things of the world? Are the advocates of Lordship Salvation so pious as to claim that this has never happened to them? John says that when we are enamored by the things of the world that at that moment we are not loving God (1 John 2:15). Can we say that we are “loving” Jesus when we sin? Jesus identifies loving Him with obeying his commandments (John 14:21). At the moments we sin we are not obeying his commandments. Lordship Salvation believes that true Christians can be caught up in episodes of sin. During this time interval, the wayward Christian is not loving Christ.

   loving Christ entails having and keeping His commandments
   loving Christ is necesary for eternal life
   ———-
   eternal life is contingent on keeping His commandments, IOW, doing works

   8) If one is assured that he is saved by inspecting his own works, then he can never have certain assurance of salvation. John says that we can “know” that we have eternal life. Therefore, we must not gain our assurance by inspecting our works.

   It is apparant that the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints with its corollaries temporary/spurious faith has scattered doubts and stabbed at the faith of many.

   John MacArthur has stated in one of his radio programs:

   “You may be a spiritual defector who hasn’t defected yet!”

   Perseverance theology has grounded assurance of salvation subjectively on self. This has, to a great extent, spawned debilitating doubts in the congregations where teachers proclaim this doctrine.

   Calvin does not agree that assurance comes from introspection:

   “But if we have been chosen in Him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves… Christ, then is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election.” (Institutes III.xxiv.5)

   He furthermore states:

   “Doubtless, if we are to determine by our works in what way the Lord stands affected toward us, I admit that we cannot even get the length of a feeble conjecture: but since faith should accord with the free and simple promise, there is no room left for ambiguity” (Institutes III.ii.38)

   Jesus states “He who believes in Me has everlasting life”. If you believe Jesus then you have everlasting life. It is as simple as that.

   8) 1 John 2:19 does not say what this post implies it says.

   “The special deceptiveness of the “many antichrists” was that they had once been part of the same fellowship to which the apostles themselves belonged: they went out from us. No other meaning than this one is really suitable in this context. The us which is repeated four times in this verse obviously is in contrast to the “you” of the following verse, which is emphatic in Greek. Here we meet for the first time the “we” – “you” – “us” contrast which we also meet in a similar context in 4:4-6.

   It completely distorts the text to treat the us of verse 19 as though it meant simply “us Christians.” The antichrists had most definitely not left the church or churches to whom John writes, for if they had they would no longer been a problem! On the contrary, the apostle is clearly concerned about the exposure his readers have had, or will have, to these men. One of the claims they must have had, which gave them a false aura of authority, was that they originated in the same sphere where the apostles themselves operated, in all probability a reference to the Jerusalem church.” (Zane Hodges, Epistles of John, 108)

   I agree with John MacArthur’s concluding statements, that the issue is not a trivial one.

   Charles Ryrie has said

   “The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9)” (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation).

7. on 26 Sep 2006 at 4:47 pm   Jodie Sawyer

   Thank you for re-addressing these matters, gentlemen! I just counted 11 uses of the term easy-believism. This is both offensive and laughable because of its obviousness as the inaccuracy of the propagandist.

   In fact, when Reformed-minded bloggers look into our Free Grace model what they are invariably highly offended at is our stress on the eternal ramifications for genuinely redeemed people of drifting from Christ.

   For example, the ever-controversial Free Grace view of the “darkness outside” being a location for undeserving (but regenerate) servants instead of unregenerate people. In my view, one of the epic errors of the MacArthur-Piper model (hopefully not too broad a category for your blog) is the insistence on gilding the redeemed. That is, your treatment of the redeemed as if they could never be the object of God’s temporal wrath (see especially Romans), or recipients of a negative admonishment at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

   What Dr. MacArthur’s church document fails to do is demonstrate from the Scriptures his conclusions as thoroughly as Wilkins and Hodges do theirs. I would appreciate very much a clearer answer to the Free Grace question: if the free offer of eternal life is really the costly call to discipleship where is the “key” (in all of the NT but especially in John) that clearly locks the different terminology together as being focused on the same experience?

   God bless.

8. on 26 Sep 2006 at 6:44 pm   Jerry Morningstar

   Antonio - you state that repentance is not part of the gospel or essential to salvation, eternal life, etc. - yet when the Gentiles are accepted into the church - the event is described in these terms: ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance unto life.’ [Acts 11:18]

   The Holy Spirit clearly links repentance with life - not some temporal aversion of judgment but eternal life.

   One other passage that clearly identifies the essential nature of repentance in salvation:

   In Acts 3:25, 26 - Peter refers to the Abrahamic covenant in which the blessing of salvation comes to us thru Christ. Christ is the seed thru whom all the families of the earth are blessed [i.e. with salvation]

   Notice how he defines this salvation in v. 26: ‘God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.’

   One of the earliest references to the promise of salvation is Gen. 12:3 placed within the context of God’s promises to Abraham. This blessing then gets defined for us by Peter as none other than repentance - that we would be turned from our wicked ways.

   I don’t think it is safe to say that one is ‘blessed’ by Christ unless they have turned from their wicked ways as referred to by Peter. Repentance is part and parcel of the conversion experience. It is not a synonym for faith. On the one hand the sinner must turn from something [repentance = turning from sin]. On the other hand he is turning to something [to Christ in faith]

   By the way - many other dispensationalists have seen the essential nature of repentance to salvation. Harry Ironside for one, has written an excellent devotional treatment on the doctrine of repentance - simply titled, ‘Repentance’.

9. on 26 Sep 2006 at 7:03 pm   Mark La Roi

   What a wonderful post! I just heard Kay Arthur say the same thing and this post came to mind because I read it earlier but failed to post a “thank you”.

   Thank you!

   A valuable hymn:

   “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe…”

10. on 26 Sep 2006 at 7:07 pm   jsb

    My goodness, we have it from Paul that, in obedience to the command of Jesus, he preached, first and foremost, repentance, in order that those who heard may “receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith.” That’s what Paul did. He preached repentance for forgivness of sins.

    This may be found in Acts 26:16-20. Jesus told Paul he was appointed to: open eyes, turn from light to darkness, from the power of Satan to God, forgiveness of sins, and sanctification – the whole package.

    “So then,” Paul explains to Agrippa, and us, “I was not disobedient…I preached that they should repent…”

    Why is this so unclear?

11. on 26 Sep 2006 at 9:02 pm   The_Armchair_Theologian

    Wowzer. I haven’t encountered the idea that I can “out muscle” Jesus’ attempts to save me in a long time.

    In the end, that’s essentially what they’re saying… I agree with JSB.

    If God initiates salvation

    If God grants faith unto…uh, repentance?

    If God grants the Holy Spirit to change hearts and produce conviction of sin/desire & power to seek righteousness,

    Then,

    How in the world can a person out muscle God? How can you leap from the Shepherds’ hand?

    This is straight up silly talk.

    BUT, I gotta admit that I’m REALLY interested on Simon’s take on this! In fact, I think I’ll play devil’s advocate and join him in arguing WHATEVER he decides, just to make this whole debate more entertaining.

    Then again, I’m guessing Simon’s more concerned with the state of Belgian politics than arguing with some “free-grace” boyz about

    whether Chris-chins
    can sin like Flynn
    and still be in
    with da tru breth-rin?

    I think I’ll sit this one out. *sigh*

12. on 26 Sep 2006 at 9:51 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    the reader must be aware of a cogent biblical fact that necessarily places a huge burden of proof upon the Lordship Salvationist:

    Nowhere in the Bible is the reception of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification conditioned on an act of repentance.

    The Traditionalist must string together texts and arguments in order to support his unbiblical assertion that repentance is a theologically binding requirement for the possession of eternal salvation. In his arguments, the fallacy of special pleading is a common trait, for there is no clear text that makes his point.

    The Lordship Salvationist cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.

    If this is such an important element in the discussion of the critical components of the gospel message it is odd – no, it is incredible – that not a single verse clearly conjoins a command to repent with a resultant appropriation of: eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification.

    Isn’t the reception of eternal life/justification of utmost importance to a lost sinner on his way to hell? I mean, listen – the information on how a person is initiated into a relationship with God is of dire necessity! Wouldn’t you think that an issue of such great import would be properly clarified by the God who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)? Isn’t it unbelievable that in the whole canon of scripture, that if eternal well-being is contingent partly on an act of repentance, that no text whatsoever conditions a result of eternal salvation on such an act?

    The apostle John, who is not unfamiliar with the doctrine of repentance, as he presents it more than any other New Testament writer other than Luke (10 mentions in Revelation), nevertheless is conspicuously silent on repentance as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life in his Gospel that was written for an express purpose of evangelism (John 20:30-31).

    Would it not be a major error of inestimable proportions that if repentance is indeed a necessary requirement for eternal life that John the apostle would not include a single reference to it as a condition for salvation, yeah, even further, fail to mention it even once in the whole of his gospel written so that men could have eternal life?

    The evidence in regard to this chilling and absolute silence of the Fourth Gospel in mentioning repentance in conjunction with the indisputable instrument of eternal life’s appropriation, faith into Jesus for it, can have only 1 of 3 possible ramifications:

    1) John, the disciple who leaned “on Jesus’ bosom”, the apostle “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23), was not aware that the free reception of eternal life was in someway conditioned upon an act of repentance by the unsaved and thus presented an inadequate and therefore faulty testimony in this matter.

    2) John, the apostle “who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24), purposely omitted a crucial component of the promise of eternal life for reasons that could only be speculated upon (the first one that would come to mind is some form of mal-intent).

    3) John, who knew that “which was from the beginning”, who declared what he “heard” and saw with his “eyes”, who revealed that which he “looked upon” and his hands “handled, concerning the Word of life”, who bore “witness” and declared to us “that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to” him (1 John 1:1-2) did not consider, did not believe, and was not under the conviction that repentance was a necessary requirement for the appropriation of eternal well-being.

    If we agree to the following:

    1) John told the truth
    2) John wrote his gospel with a purpose of evangelism

    and admit to the following (which cannot be denied):

    3) John did not require repentance in his Gospel as a condition for the appropriation of eternal life, as he did not even mention it once in the whole of his discourse; repentance being shockingly absent from its whole.

    We must necessarily come to this conclusion:

    4) Repentance is not a theological necessary condition for the reception of eternal life.

    [Note: “The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately.” (Zane Hodges, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 2000, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1″)]

    Furthermore, we must consider our dear brother, the apostle Paul. The idea of repentance is a category strikingly absent from him. In his whole discussion of justification by faith in Romans 3-5, there is not even one mention of repentance as a condition for eternal salvation. It is also noteworthy to share that Paul only mentions repentance 5 times in his epistles (half as many as John), although he wrote 13 (possibly 14) out of the 27 New Testament books. And none of these passages in which he speaks of this doctrine does he regard repentance as a condition for the reception of eternal salvation.

    In addition, what is even more damaging to the Traditionalist position is the utter absence of repentance in the book of Galatians. This epistle is Paul’s defense of his gospel wherein he heralds clear and loud the essential tenet that righteousness is imparted through faith alone in Jesus. It is indeed significant that repentance is absent in a book where Paul is presenting and defending the gospel message he received directly from the Lord. For Paul, faith alone into Christ is the sole theological requirement for justification and eternal salvation.

13. on 26 Sep 2006 at 11:25 pm   The_Armchair_Theologian

    Well, at times like this I ask WWRS? (What Would Rabindranath Say?)

    Hmmm…

    “To be outspoken is easy when you do not wait to speak the complete truth.”

    A little Rabindranath for y’all.

    As for getting involved, apparently I don’t have to since we’re not talking about the same thing. I honestly don’t have a clue what you’re going on about Antonio:

    “The Lordship Salvationist cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.”

    I was unaware that anyone here was even suggesting such a thing.

    Nobody is suggesting that an text “explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life”. All repentant people are not saved, but all saved people are repentant. I’m glad we completely cleared that up forever. (and since I’m dreaming, I want a Porsche…no wait…a godly wife…hooray!)

14. on 27 Sep 2006 at 5:51 am   Jerry Morningstar

    Antonio - I have to say that I find your approach to Scripture very unorthodox. The idea of supporting your ideas [Hodge’s] with a supposed argument from silence in John’s gospel on the word repentance is a moot point with me.

    Do we reject the Holy Spirit’s language and inspiration in the book of Acts? What do you do with Peter’s words in Acts 3 defining salvation as being turned from our wicked ways? What do you do with the Holy Spirit’s words in Acts 11 describing the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles as having been granted the repentance unto life? What do you do with Acts 26:20 and Paul preaching that they should repent and turn to God?

    It seems to me that if one comes to the Scriptures and recognizes that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ - there is no question here.

    If all we had were John’s gospel - we could argue there but because I take the whole NT to be the inspired Word of God [as well as the OT] - I find the use of such an argument to be demonstrative of how weak the case actually is.

    Such a view of repentance has never been considered a part of orthodox Christianity in the past. It is a novel view of Dallas dispensationalism and will not stand the test of time because an honest, unbiased reading of the Scriptures will not support it.

15. on 27 Sep 2006 at 6:12 am   Jodie Sawyer

    Of course Free Grace people are all for the preaching of repentance.

    Jerry—

    The perfect example is Ironside, who always preached repentance in evangelism, but at the end when offering the gift of eternal life clarified that the two calls were fully separate. He preached, “Some people say, “Well, but must I not repent?” Yes, you may well repent, but that is not the gospel.” This was an ideal strategy!

    Just because John leaves it out of the offer of eternal life doesn’t in any way reduce its priority as a universal NT message. In fact, by leaving it out of what is free–eternal life–John (the Son of Thunder) was likely protecting the authority of that stern and majestic message! Isn’t it obvious that repentance is tamed when left as an unobtrusive doormat to conversion–worse, a doormat not even observed by John in his Gospel focused on coming to faith in Christ.

    Coupling repentance with conversion is a ludicrous position no matter how many people hold to it.

    Also Jerry, FYI, you brought up Acts 11:18–

    Here’s Hodges beginning a discussion on Acts 11, and that particular verse.

    Begin QUOTE
    __________________________
    …(I)f we thought that the reference in Acts 11:18 was a reference to eternal life, then we are left with a surprising and implausible idea in this context. We must infer in that case that the Jerusalem Christians just now realized that Gentiles could be eternally saved! But this is so unlikely as to be almost fantastic.

    After all, had not the Lord Himself commanded the Gentile mission in His Great Commission to the apostles (Matthew. 28:19; Mark 16:15)? In fact, even the Old Testament taught that Gentiles could be saved (see the quotations in Romans 15:8–11). In the Jerusalem church, of all places, this truth must surely have been known. Indeed, before he spoke, Peter is not criticized for preaching to Gentiles, but for eating with them (Acts 11:3)! …
    ______________________
    END

    Repentance (both OT and NT) is a dread warning about temporal wrath, not eternal condemnation.

    God bless.

16. on 27 Sep 2006 at 6:25 am   Jodie Sawyer

    This is not an argument from silence.

    Goofy analogy:

    Let’s say George Jones published an article called, ‘My Five Favorite Christian Songs’, and the songs were all Gospel Songs and Traditional Hymns.

    Now let’s say that someone we’ll call Christian #1 reads it and says that this article shows that Jones thinks Christian rock was of the devil. Then Christian #2 says the article shows Christian rock songs weren’t among Johnny Cash’s top favorites of Christian songs.
    Gentlemen, Christian #1 is arguing from silence but Christian #2 isn’t.

    The difference is that Christian #2 noticed and respected the parameters set down by the writer himself, while Christian #1 made up his own parameters.

    In his Gospel, John tells us his parameters clearer than probably any other NT writer. (Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.Jn20:30,31)Afterall, he was a disciple of John the Baptist! But he kept mum on repentance not inadvertently but to teach the agreed upon apostolic teaching, just as all the Apostles were doing in their ministry.

    Repentance is a NT message that is diluted by making it into a silent partner to belief. Where John discusses discipleship in his Gospel it is in perfect rapport with Luke and the other NT writers. (But he certainly never weaves discipleship into the offer of eternal life.) John is the authority on how to receive eternal life because he explicitly claims to be writing for that purpose and no other NT writer makes a similar claim to that topic.

    Again, this is not an argument from silence.

    God bless.

    Jodie

17. on 27 Sep 2006 at 6:28 am   Jodie Sawyer

    oops. Read George Jones instead of Johnny Cash in my goofy analogy above. I switched horses midstream!

18. on 27 Sep 2006 at 6:50 am   jsb

    “The Lordship Salvationist cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.”

    This is a mere lawyer’s trick. It is the lawyer with a weak (or losing) case who insists on framing the issue with a self-made, microscopic specificity and won’t engage the opponent in any other context. But such issue framing always points to a foundational weakness. Once the issue is framed any other way, the house of cards falls. This is why the arguer here won’t move from the two lines posted above. Once he does, he’s cooked. But that does not mean anyone else has to accept such limiting language, wich is on the order of the “Point to a single Scripture with the word ‘Trinity’ in it” type of argument.

    The first command out of Jesus’ public ministry mouth was “Repent.” Peter and Paul preached repentance as the precursor of salvation. (Acts 3:19; Acts 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:10 etc.) We could go on. To ignore such explicit biblical evidence because it does not meet an arbitrary micro-standard made up out of whole cloth is not a legitimate argument.

    Another arbitrary constraint is the insistence upon relying upon one Gospel (John) or one epistle (Galatians) to the exclusion of the commentary of all of God’s revelation. Thus, the entire witness of the Word is missed.

19. on 27 Sep 2006 at 7:05 am   Jodie Sawyer

    jsb,

    Your argument would work if Antonio were arguing that repentance was not an authoritative NT message. Antonio is making a more narrow argument, that repentance is not needed to become regenerate. Narrow arguments are only lawyerly in the best sense, that is of being useful and limited.

    God bless.

    Jodie (HK Flynn)

20. on 27 Sep 2006 at 7:48 am   jsb

    Jodie, I do understand Antonio’s argument, viz., that repentance is not needed, etc. What I don’t accept is how he has framed it. I don’t see why anyone must accept that frame. It’s the frame itself that’s arbitrarily narrow. The issue re: repentance/salvation is legit; not the way it’s been argued.

21. on 27 Sep 2006 at 10:31 am   Nate B.

    Antonio wrote: Nowhere in the Bible is the reception of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification conditioned on an act of repentance. …
    If this is such an important element in the discussion of the critical components of the gospel message it is odd – no, it is incredible – that not a single verse clearly conjoins a command to repent with a resultant appropriation of: eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification.

    Response:

    Jesus said: Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46–47)

    Peter said: Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:21)

    Paul said: Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:30–31)

    Paul wrote: For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. (2 Cor. 7:10)

    Nate asked: Antonio, additional verses could easily be added to this list. How then does your position redefine the straightforward reading of these texts, so as to conclude that they do not link repentance with forgiveness and salvation?

22. on 27 Sep 2006 at 12:44 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    Luke 24:46 ff

    Luke 24:46-47
    Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

    Here we have Luke’s rendition of the Great Commission. Here the Lord said “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” The Great Commission was not a commission to evangelize. This is taken for granted. In order to be an effective disciple of Christ, you must first be born again! The Great Commission was a commission to disciple those who believe. This ministry is to be done with reference to every nation.

    Matt 28:18-20
    And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

    In Matt 28:18-20 the Lord told the disciples to make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that He had taught them. We don’t conclude from this that baptism and discipleship instruction are conditions of eternal life, do we? In the same way, the Great Commission in Luke concerns discipleship. Repentance is indeed a condition of on going fellowship with God and of the forgiveness associated with that fellowship (e.g., Luke 5:32; 15:4-32). We know from 1 John 1:9 as well that all believers need ongoing fellowship/familial forgiveness from God. While we are completely forgiven at the moment of regeneration positionally (Acts 10:43), we need ongoing forgiveness in our experience.

    Evangelism is only part of the picture, the starting point. In both these commissions this is taken for granted. We must make people disciples! We do so by first giving the message of eternal life, of course, but then by preaching repentance, forgiveness of sins, and teaching the new believers from the nations to observe all things that He has commanded.

    The fact of the matter is that there is not ONE text in the New Testament that uses repentance or any of its cognates to denote a condition for the reception of eternal life and/or justification. Not one!

    The verb used in Luke 24:47 and translated “preach” is the Greek verb kerusso, meaning “to proclaim aloud, announce, mention publicly, preach.” Yet John certainly does not preach repentance (or any of its cognates) in his gospel, which was composed, by the way, for the express, written purpose of bringing people to faith in Christ and thus eternal life (John 20:30,31), the only explicitely evangelistic book in the canon. You don’t preach a doctrine by being silent about it. Compare this to how explicit Peter is on the subject (Acts 2:38; 3:19).

    John was there when Jesus spoke those words in Luke 24! In light of Christ’s command to preach repentance, John did not do so! It isn’t as if he doesn’t know about repentance. He uses the word “repent” some 10 times in the book of Revelation. Besides Luke, John mentions repentance more than any other New Testament writer (even Paul!). It is significant that John was commanded to preach repentance but does not in his gospel, which was written for evangelistic purposes. John had plenty of opportunities to preach repentance as well, starting with his discourse on John the Baptist.

    You don’t preach a doctrine by being silent about it. Compare this to how explicit Peter is on the subject (Acts 2:38; 3:19). John was there when Jesus spoke those words in Luke 24! In light of Christ’s command to preach repentance, John did not do so in his gospel written for evangelistic purposes!

    The Great Commission of Jesus Christ to His disciples communicated to them that they must be about the business of teaching the works and commandments that are required of born-again servants of the Lord, as well as doctrine vitally necessary to their growth.

    The parallels of the Great Commision in Luke and in Matthew are striking and their message is complimentary.

    So often in our readings of the Bible, we get caught up in lack of discernment. This happens to me frequently when I am not using the logical rules of hermeneutics.

    One of the first principles of hermeneutics is the rule of affirmation. “Everything is identical with itself, or what it is, and we may affirm this of it.”

    Negatively stated, “It is erroneous to affirm the identity of two things unless Scripture does so”. One must never say that two things are identical just because the reader finds them similar. In order for them to be identical, it must be affirmed that they are.

    That is why one must distinguish between “like” or “similar” issues, for the understanding comes in the distinctions not in the similarities. This is “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

    So often, in my estimation, people use the words of Jesus or the writings of the New Testament authors in senses that are not warranted by the context. No greater danger in Bible exposition can occur than when this practice is used in soteriology. Jesus was definitely interested in getting people saved. Not doubt. But this was not his greatest emphasis. He desired that those who have received the free gift of eternal life would grow, mature, and be abundantly fruitful, to His and the Father’s glory. The greatest emphasis in His teaching is discipleship/Christian life truth, not soteriological truth.

    When theologians are not careful to abide by the law of affirmation, they fall into grievious error. This can be illustrated by the “biblical and theological mixologist”: He throws a variety of scriptures and texts into a blender (a little of this, a dash of that, a pinch of this) and hits puree; the cocktail that is produced is a synthesis of soteriological and sanctification truth which is fatal, for eternal life is free, but discipleship truth expounds the hard nature and works of the servant of Christ. This cocktail is fatal.

    The Water of Life is a pure and absolutely free gift. To add any other element to its reception (which is by simple and uncomplicated faith alone in Christ alone) is to subtly add poision to it.

23. on 27 Sep 2006 at 12:54 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    Acts 3:21

    I like the “repent and return”.

    Does Peter condition eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification on repentance here?

    I can’t find that in the text. We have nothing here but your bald presumption.

    I find that Peter is commanding repentance so that

    ” times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”

    Maybe you can make a case that this means eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation. I would be very interested to see the “key” you would use in equating this phrase with the reception of eternal life. But I believe I could make a stronger case that this is Peter re-offering the Messianic Kingdom conditioned on National Israel’s repentance and return to God.

    Nevertheless, repentance is again named without a conjoining result of eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification.

24. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:00 pm   Jodie Sawyer

    jsb,

    Is the frame you object to Antonio’s reliance on John, Galatians and Romans? Isn’t that just one book more than the frame used by Calvin and Luther? The Catholic bishops certainly argued that the Reformers were taking portions of the Scriptures out of context and that their model was the only one authorized. Like the Reformers, AR certainly has a fully worked-out model of the NT, as anyone can see by looking at his first comment above, since it mostly references the epistles to Timothy, Acts and the epistles of Peter in addition to John. It seems to me that in general Antonio spends quite a bit of time on what are considered (but I wouldn’t agree) FG problem texts. (the darkness outside, the parables, James, 1 John, Acts)

    God bless.

    Jodie (HK)

25. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:15 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    Acts 17:30, 31

    I have written a 7 part response to Matthew Waymeyer’s treatment of Acts 17:30, 31 as a support that repentance is necessary for eternal life.

    These can be found here:

    Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7

    Breifly,

    The command to repent is a universal command to all in the world in light of Christ’s coming judgment in that Great and Terrible “Day of the Lord”. This is none other than the judgments on the earth during the Great Tribulation.

    Repentance halts or averts temporal judgment for as long as that repentance persists. Ninevah is an example in case. They repented at Jonah’s preaching and Ninevah was spared. Later, well over a century later (612 BC) Ninevah was overthrown, but long after the forty-day time frame specified in Jonah’s preaching. The climactic judgment came well after the city had resumed its wicked ways, and this “overthrow” fulfilled the later prophecy of Nahum.

    What God seeks from man while His judgment tarries is repentance. This is commiserate with his universal command. A worldwide repentance could postpone the Day of the Lord for as long as such a repentant attitude prevailed.

    Repentance is to return to harmony with God, and avert or halt temporal judgment. Temporal judgment is what we have in view in Acts 17:30-31, it is none other than the Day of the Lord.

    These concepts are illustrated here:

    Jer 18:7-8
    7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
    NKJV

    Concerning Judah:

    Jer 18:11
    11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”‘”
    NKJV

    But the opposite possiblity is also true:

    Jer 18:8-10
    9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
    NKJV

    God does not want any individuals to perish but that all come to repentance.

    Furthermore, repentance is again named without a conjoining result of eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification.

26. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:30 pm   jsb

    Jodie

    “Is the frame you object to Antonio’s reliance on John, Galatians and Romans?”

    No. Read my original post again. It’s his demand to meet his, and only his, criterion on this issue. That’s what’s arbitrary.

27. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:34 pm   Nate B.

    Regarding Luke 24:46-47

    Antonio,

    Whether or not you see the Great Commission as a call to evangelize, you are still left with a Greek construction that explicitly ties repentance together with the forgiveness of sins. (Since you brought up the Greek word, “kerusso,” I think it would be helpful to look at a few other Greek words in verse 47.)

    A literal rendering of the Greek: And proclaiming in His name repentance for the forgiveness of sins unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (You can see the Greek online by going here.)

    “metanoian eis aphesin hamartian” is literally rendered “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”

    “eis” meaning for, unto, or towards indicates that there is a direct relationship between “aphesin hamartian” (”the forgiveness of sins”) and “metanoian” (”repentance”). It is grammatically undeniable. According to Abbott-Smith the preposition “eis” expresses “entrance, direction, [or] limit.” In this case then, the “forgiveness of sins” is either entered into, directed from, or limited by “repentance.”

    You can attempt to deny or explain away what the verse is actually saying (by diverting the discussion to Matthew 28 or the Gospel of John. Perhaps we can discuss those sections of Scripture at a different time.) The point here remains: The Greek construction in this verse explicitly links repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Grammatically, there’s just no way around that fact.

28. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:38 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    It is the knee-jerk reaction of 21st century readers of the Bible to import into the word “salvation” (Greek = “soteria”) and its cognates the meaning “salvation from hell” each time he reads it in the New Testament. Yet the word merely means “deliverance”. It is up to the context to decide what kind of deliverance is being referred to.

    If I said to you “trunk”, could you by my mere utterance of the word be able to determine the import of it? Could I mean “the storage compartment in the back of a car,” or “the long protruding appendage of an elephant,” or “the wooden storage compartment in my attic” or “the woody axis of a tree” or “the body of a human excluding the head and limbs” or “the thorax of an insect”? Unless the word is used in a context, you would not be able to comprehend the meaning attached to it.

    In a word study of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) we find that the Greek word “soteria” and its cognate “sozo” (save) in their contexts, where they are found about 363 times, means “deliverance from temporal calamaties” – such as circumstances that cause death, enemies, troubles; both individually and nationally - in the greatest majority of the times they are found, upwards of 98% of occurences. Only a relatively few passages have spiritual contexts to the salvation being discussed. Yet even in the instances that the terms “save” and “salvation” carry a sense of spiritual salvation in these minimally few OT passages, there is no explicit instance where the term appears solely with a spiritual nuance. In a study Rene Lopez of Dallas Seminary did of each occurrence of the words, he could not find even one instance where the words in their contexts had a justification-salvation-only meaning.

    What does this say about the Greek reader of the New Testament? That he obviously would not consider the meaning “salvation from hell” for the Greek words “soteria” and “sozo” (salvation and save, respecively) as the first, knee-jerk option when he read it.

    If one were to do a lexical/word study of “soteria” in the Septuagint and other Koine Greek they would find that it has a very broad range which can include things as healing, health, well-being (both spritual and physical), prosperity, good fortune, triumphant endurance, deliverances from the afflictions of earthly life, moral and personal welfare, rewards in an eschatological dimension, and lastly, deliverance from hell (which would be the least likely assumption of the Greek reader!).

    Dr. Earl Radmacher wisely relates:

    ———-
    Have you ever said something to a friend only to discover later that while he heard what you said he missed the meaning? This often happens when we read the Bible. How easy it is to bring a meaning to a Bible passage that was not what the writer had in mind. When we do that, we missed the mind of God and are in serious danger of following the enemy of our souls. To protect ourselves from that danger we need to study the meaning of words and how they are used in their contexts. And this is especially true of the word salvation.
    ———-

    Commentators of Paul err when they assume, rather than demonstrate, their interpretation of the word “salvation” and its contextual concept within this passage.

    “[2 Cor 7:9, 10 is a] repentance passage… that relate[s] to Christian experience.

    In 2 Corinthians 7:8-12 Paul is pleased to note that his previous letter to the church had produced ‘repentance’ (2 Cor 7:9, 10), leading to a correction of the situation for which he had rebuked them. This correction was thus a ’salvation’ (Greek - ‘deliverance’) from the former situation and from its undesirable consequences.

    But not all the problems at Corinth had been straightened out by Paul’s letter. Yet he hopes that he will not have to come to them in a spirit of rebuke and discipline to deal with those who are involved in sins of which they have not repented (2 Cor 12:20-21). Naturally he is appealing for immediate repentance in such cases.” (Zane Hodges, Harmony with God, 120).

    Again, repentance is named without a conjoining result of eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification.

29. on 27 Sep 2006 at 1:59 pm   Pulpit Magazine

    Antonio,

    I responded above to your comments about Luke 24 (see above). Unfortunately, I’m going to have to hold off on responding to your other three rebuttals until later (simply due to some other tasks I need to finish this afternoon).

    But, as we get further into our discussion of this important issue, we will deal with these (and other) texts in more depth. At that time we will have the opportunity to go through a detailed study of the grammar and context of each of these passages.

    Thanks,
    NB

30. on 27 Sep 2006 at 2:06 pm   Antonio da Rosa

    Nate,

    oh. you got me! (j.k.)

    Repentance is linked with the forgiveness of sins. Have I ever given you the impression that I did not think so?

    Repentance and forgiveness of sins is essential for Christians to have harmony with God. Repentance may result in the forgiveness of sins and is required for ongoing personal fellowship and harmony with God. As Matthew states that Christians need to be taught to observe all things that Christ commands (obedience), Luke, with his overiding theme of fellowship in both his epistle and Acts (just see all the emphasis he gives on repentance, table fellowship, fellowship, and harmony with God), speaks to the Christians need for ongoing forgiveness for the continuation of fellowship and harmony with God.

    It seems that you are shouting at me Greek words and the such.

    I would also like to inform you of a textual problem in Luke 24:47. Whereas in the majority of the existent manuscripts (80%) the passage is rendered “repentance and the forgiveness of sins”, a small minority (which often differ from each other) contains “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”.

    It really doesn’t matter though to me. I prefer the witness of the greatest majority of manuscripts, but either way, it doesn’t matter.

    If you equate forgiveness of sins with eternal life, you commit a category error. Forgiveness is not a judicial issue between man and God, but a personal issue between man and God. It is a issue of personal harmony between two factions. When sin occurs in the life of the believer an estrangment is produced by that sin. Repentance removes the estrangment and forgiveness is bestowed, and when forgiveness is received, God and man can continue in fellowship.

    Again, we have in Luke 24:47 repentance named yet no conjoining of a result of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification. And your argument that this is eternal salation must presume much, for repentance in this passage obviously is not a condition for eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation.

    Also, will you as the moderator please ok two of my comments that are awaiting your approval?

    I appreciate it.

    Nate, thank you for your discussion.

    Antonio

31. on 27 Sep 2006 at 2:12 pm   Matt Waymeyer

    Nathan,

    You are correct regarding the problem that Luke 24:46-47 presents for the Free Grace position. In these two verses, Jesus sets forth the core truths of the gospel (Christ died and rose from the dead), man’s necessary response to the gospel (repentance), and the salvation that results (the forgiveness of sins). And for most people, that pretty well settles the issue. It is true that Jesus does not actually use the words “eternal life,” but if the church is to exhort the unbelieving nations to repent in order to receive the forgiveness of sins (as Jesus says), that certainly means that repentance is a condition for eternal life.

    In my reading of Zane Hodges on this issue, I have found him to be more than a little difficult to follow. According to Hodges, it is a “serious mistake” to “place eternal life and the forgiveness of sins into the same category” (Harmony with God, 70). Forgiveness, Hodges says, is not a judicial issue between man and God, but rather a personal one (ibid., 72, 97). Along the same lines, Hodges distinguishes between justification and forgiveness by stating that the former “establishes a man’s legal standing before his judge,” whereas the latter “enables him to have communion with his God” (The Gospel Under Siege, 118).
    In Hodges’ view, “in terms of man’s eternal destiny, the real issue is not forgiveness but eternal life” (Harmony with God, 67).

    Perhaps this is how Hodges gets around the clear teaching of Luke 24:46-47—I’m not totally sure. The problem is that, in contrast to what Hodges says, forgiveness is a judicial issue. Romans 4:5-8 indicates that the forgiveness of sins is a fundamental component of forensic justification. More specifically, this passage teaches that justification consists negatively of the forgiveness of sins, and positively of the reckoning of divine righteousness. Forgiveness is clearly judicial. Furthermore, Colossians 2:13-14 says: “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” The forgiveness of sins is a judicial act necessary to establish a relationship with a holy God, not merely a personal act necessary to improve that relationship (also see Heb 10:14-18).

    Hodges calls it a “serious mistake” to place eternal life and the forgiveness of sins into the same category. Unfortunately for Hodges, the apostle Peter commits this very mistake in Acts 10:43. In fact, Acts 10:43 shows that the forgiveness of sins and eternal life not only can be placed in the same category—they can be used interchangeably. The two are inseparably linked as key components of salvation itself. That’s why Jesus told Paul that He was sending him to the Gentiles “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18; also see Acts 13:38-39). This can also be seen in Ephesians 1:7-8a and Colossians 1:14, where Paul uses the noun “forgiveness” is used in apposition to the noun “redemption.” This means that the words “forgiveness” and “redemption” refer to the same work of God, and more specifically, that forgiveness is an integral part of redemption. Put simply, the forgiveness of sins cannot be separated from salvation in the way Hodges says it can.

    Anyway, despite the Free-Grace attempt to use the so-called silence of John to silence the words of Jesus in Luke 24, I think your point stands.

    mw

32. on 27 Sep 2006 at 3:57 pm   Jerry Morningstar

    Jodie - a couple of responses. I don’t know where you were quoting Ironside but these are taken from his book, ‘Except Ye Repent’

    “there are not wanting [lacking] professed preachers of grace who, like the antinomians of old, decry the necessity of repentance lest it seem to invalidate the freedom of grace.” [Except Ye Repent, p. 11]

    “Which comes first, repentance or faith . . . So intimately are the two related that you cannot have one without the other. The man who believes God repents.” [p. 16]

    “True forgiveness is by faith, but there can be no faith without repentance, and no repentance without faith. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” [p. 46]

    Repentance is a change of heart about sin and one’s condition before God - so it is not a work - but true repentance will evidence itself in corresponding works/ actions [Matt. 3:8]

    Also - I would not grant that the concept of repentance is missing from John’s gospel - merely the particular word - metanoia

    Repentance would have been implicit in the idea of belief

    To suggest otherwise is to unnecessarily pit John against the rest of the NT witness that repentance is part of salvation - i.e. Peter, Paul, Jesus [Acts 3:19, Acts 26:20, Luke 24]

    That i would not recommend

    You mentioned Hodges view on Acts 11:18 - ‘Well then God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance unto life.’ Hodges suggests that ‘life’ in the context of the Gentile’s conversion must not refer to eternal life because the Jews should not have been surprised by it. I simply find no credibility in such an assertion.

    The whole flow of Acts supports the idea that the church was slow to evangelize Gentiles and Peter had to have a vision to prepare him for his encounter with Cornelius. He then had to defend his actions of baptizing them noting that they already had the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t consider this a trick passage - pretty straight forward.

33. on 27 Sep 2006 at 8:47 pm   Jodie Sawyer

    Jerry,

    Thanks for the quote. I’ve heard similar ones. Since I believe Ironside believed repentance was a change of mind, those quotes are interesting but not conclusive. He said this too:

    “Looking into your own heart for a ground of confidence is like casting the anchor in the hold of a ship. Cast it outside and let it go down into the great, tossing ocean of strife and trouble, until it grips the rock itself. Christ alone is the rock, and He is the manifestation of the infinite love of God for sinners”

    I actually knew someone who heard him teach this and relayed it to me verbally. (Though the quote is from the Web)

    At any rate I do think Hodges view of repentance is far more defensible than the change of mind view or the repentance as necessary for salvation view. Of course I believe it is necessary but for different reasons–because God commands it most importantly.

    Brother, we don’t pit John against the Gospels or other NT writers. Discipleship is costly, eternal life is free. This is the apostolic teaching.

    Discipleship isn’t optional but regenerate people lapse sometimes dramatically, and sometimes dying in their rebellion. (like King Solomon did)

    That’s why when Peter was warning believers that the should be sure of their calling/election he said other wise he has forgotten he has been cleansed of his former sins–an odd thing to say of possibly unregenerate person. And John in his first epistle tells us that he who hates his brother is a murderer. Another odd thing to say of an unregenerate person, since unregenerate folks don‘t have Christian brothers. The Scriptures seem to me to very tightly support the view that true believers sometimes deserve God’s temporal wrath. And I resent that this view of mine being called easy-believism by an important Christian leader like Dr. MacArthur.

    God bless

    Jodie

34. on 27 Sep 2006 at 9:04 pm   The Lordship Debate Continues « Fundamentally Reformed

    […] I just want to let you know about a very important discussion going on about Lordship Salvation over at Pulpit Live (a magazine/blog produced by John MacArthur’s church).  The first article was posted Monday and they are posting one article a day.  In the comment thread, one fast learns just how important an issue this still is.  The latest post gives a brief history of the whole Lordship debate.  I highly recommend these posts as worthy of your attention. […]

35. on 28 Sep 2006 at 5:54 am   Jerry Morningstar

    Jodie - I appreciate your comments. The Ironside quote you just gave - I Have no problems with. Lordship salvationists [I never use this term in preaching btw] believe that Christ alone is the basis of our salvation. We believe in the historic solas - faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone. I believe it is one’s commitment to the thrust of Scripture that leads inevitably to a lordship position.

    John the apostle writes his gospel so that we might believe [John 20:30, 31]

    He wrote his epistle so that we might know that we have believed [I John 5:13]

    what kinds of things did he say to look for?

    I Jn 2:3 - ‘By this we know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments’

    I John 3:10 - ‘By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious; anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God’

    The straight reading of those passages tells us what the genuine fruit of salvation is.

    i.e. John may not use the word metanoia in his gospel - but he blows the trumpet loud and clear in his epistle that if a change of life has not occurred - no salvation has occurred.

    Where I think there may be some genuine misunderstanding is that, no lordshipper believes that Christians stop sinning altogether. Christians do stumble - and sin - everyday. But the difference is that genuine Christians feel conviction - they get back on track. They hate their sin and fight against it. If a person has no desire to fight against their sin - then it is evidence of an unregenerate heart.

    Also - if a true Christian falls away for a period - God promises to bring discipline into their life [Heb. 12:6]

    personal testimony: I grew up with a non lordship gospel. I believed that one should just believe in Jesus and live life however they wanted to - and so I did. As a teenager - I played in rock bands - and did the whole party scene with a passion. I was getting drunk 3 times a week - smoking pot, etc.

    But I felt conviction - and I started to pick up my Bible and read and I was blown away by the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23

    He said: ‘Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me, “Lord, Lord … and i will say, depart from Me you who practice lawlessness’

    I was cut to the heart - I knew He was talking to me - I repented and got right with Christ - started going to church and walking with the Lord

    I am utterly convinced that one only has to read the Scriptures with an unbiased mind and they will come to a lordship position

    John 14:15 - Jesus said if you love Me you will keep my commandments

    Can a person be a believer and not love the Lord? [I Cor. 16:22]

    The non-lordship position is propped up with all sorts of specious arguments

    I have read Hodge’s and Ryrie’s books on this issue and I just don’t find them convincing.

    Jodie - I appreciate your tone of discussion and gladly count you a brother. You evidence a great love for the Lord. My grandfather was a Hodgeite and did not want me to attend Master’s seminary. In fact - the last words he spoke to me before he died was to state that when He accepted Christ it was as both Savior and Lord. I think he wanted to reassure me that he knew where he was going. I’ve seen much fruit of the non-lordship view in my own family [parents and brothers] and it’s not good.

    Lord’s blessings

    Jerry

36. on 28 Sep 2006 at 11:28 am   Jodie Sawyer

    Jerry,

    Thanks, your sincerity does come through loud and clear. I’m glad you’re following the Lord now. I’m sorry about your family.

    (I’m guessing they aren’t under Hodges teaching anything in the FG field because of its emphasis on self-examination.)

    It seems like you have a somewhat notably distorted understanding of Hodges if you think his teaching has anything to do with your young beliefs. (“I believed that one should just believe in Jesus and live life however they wanted to - and so I did.”) Were there Christian teachers in your life that encouraged these ideas? It’s truly perplexing that you would connect that type belief with Free Grace.

    Also, if there are FG bloggers out there who think that LS teaches that people never go astray I’ve not run across them.

    I don’t think there is such a thing as a neutral reading of the NT because of satanic deception but I’ll say this that the FG model is far more explicitly taught than your own. And its model fits the Scriptures with less loose ends and anomalies.

    Christ uses one set of terminology to describe receiving the free gift of eternal life and another set to describe discipleship. Why isn’t there a place in scripture where the two are clearly equated?

    The problem with your “straight reading” of 1 John is it ignores the context. And your model seems blind to even the possibility that the Apostles were well aware of true apostasy from proper living and doctrine.

    In his epistle, John clearly approves of the spiritual maturity and authority of his readers, saying “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.” And that’s why he uses the same affectionate term used by Jesus in the Upper Room, “little children,” and reminds them of their victories, “you have overcome the evil one” and even “you are of the truth and there is no lie in the truth.”

    I don’t think 1 John is best understood as a test of anything but as a reassuring and very motivating letter about how faithfully abiding in Christ will be rewarded at the great judgment seat of Christ. It is a brilliant way of helping the church rebound from the crisis and distractions of apostasy. As you know, Ephesus, with its idol worship and Paul’s prophesy of apostasy, is where most scholars think John addressed his first epistle. Obviously, after Paul’s warning/prophesy the leaders of E. must have attempted to put into practice his advice. When the apostasies occurred, they very likely wondered if the apostles blamed them. I believe 1 John is the answer.

    18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
    20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

    Jerry, please notice that John is making it clear that he is not wondering about the theology and lifestyle of his original readers, but is completely confident they are on track with the Lord. You may like to read a very short post I did on the differences between John and 1 John.

    God bless.

    Jodie

37. on 28 Sep 2006 at 11:36 am   Jodie Sawyer

    (By satanic deception, I mean that the truth of the Gospel is revealed by God and no other, and that there is a general over-all web of lies that Satan uses to keep people from the truth that eternal life is received by bare unadorned faith in our Saviour.)

    js

38. on 29 Sep 2006 at 12:48 pm   Bob Wilkin

    The idea that “The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience,” makes works a condition of regeneration. Under this way of thinking, believing in Jesus is not the condition of new birth! The author then makes a false dichotomy saying that the gospel that Jesus proclaimed was “not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer.” Why the word “just”? Is that included, but not enough? While faith is indeed neither a decision or a prayer, both seem vital to Lordship Salvation’s gospel. By his own statement MacArthur indicates that Lordship Salvation equates believing in Jesus with “submissive obedience.” I’m glad MacArthur is a conservative and that he once believed the faith-alone message. I’m saddened by the works-salvation that he now proclaims.

39. on 29 Sep 2006 at 1:55 pm   Nate B.

    Bob,

    Thank you for comment. You are mistaken when you write that the lordship position “makes works a condition of regeneration.” Regeneration is a work of the Spirit that necessarily results in a changed life (Titus 3:4-8; Eph. 2:8-10).

    As I noted to Solifidian on a different thread:

    It is a complete misrepresentation of lordship salvation to claim that the lordship view makes human effort, human achievement, or human merit a precondition for or basis of salvation.

    The lordship view teaches that salvation is solely a work of God, not of man. Just as the command to believe demands a human response, and yet is a work of God (John 6:29); so also the command to repent demands a human response. But the ability to respond is fully a work of God in the heart. It is not the result of human willpower or ingenuity.

    The desire to transfer one’s allegiance (from self to Christ) in the sinner’s heart is no less a work of God than the willingness to embrace the facts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. If repentance is considered a “human work,” than belief must be as well. And yet the Bible describes neither one as something that can be credited to human initiation or determination. They are both the work of God; and they both go hand-in-hand.

    It seems to me that non-lordship advocates often confuse the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) with actual repentance. Repentance itself is a change of allegiance, which takes place at the moment of conversion. The fruits (or results) of that repentance are seen in the active obedience of a believer’s life. Salvation then is not based on good works, but it does inevitably result in good works. In other words, justification is not based on sanctification. But justification does begin the sanctification process. If a person lacks evidence of sanctification (”fruits of repentance”), it calls into question whether or not they have actually been justified (cf. Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 3:10).

    Thanks again for your comment.

    - NB

40. on 01 Oct 2006 at 9:31 pm   Blogspots « Musings of a Random Nature

    […] Pulpit Magazine Online has begun a series of posts on Lordship Salvation. I had to write a significant paper on this topic in Seminary, so it isn’t a new issue. Just one that keeps coming up and confusing people. […]

41. on 08 Oct 2006 at 5:05 pm   Pulpit Magazine » 2006 » October » 09

    […] An Introduction to Lordship Salvation […]

42. on 10 Oct 2006 at 8:01 pm   sixsteps | 2 Samuel 6:13 » Salvation & Lordship are inseparable

    […] -Pastor John MacArthur.…article continued here.This was the first post in a series on Lordship Salvation. Tags […]

43. on 12 Feb 2007 at 7:46 pm   Kubecki.com » Blog Archive » Random Thoughts - 9/26/2006

    […] Pulpit Magazine has started a series on Lordship salvation vs. No-Lordship (a/k/a “Free Grace” or easy believism) salvation. This was the issue that John MacArthur addressed in The Gospel According to Jesus. The series begins with an intro to the concept of Lordship salvation, and has been followed up by a passage from Zane Hodges, who is a big advocate of the no-Lordship side. The short version: To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation. […]

44. on 12 Jan 2008 at 11:24 am   Peter Smythe

    What I see is typical par for the course from the cheap grace advocates:

    1) Accuse LS of teaching ‘works salvation’ simply because an LS person actually thinks faith means trust in God.

    2) Reduce Jesus’ evangelistic ministry to one gospel

    3) Continually throw out new terms and redefinitions while accusing the other of doing that same tactic

    I guess this lying for the cause that continually goes on from the FG side is easy; after all, if faith doesn’t really change your behavior at all, you’re free to say whatever you want knowing the LS person might actually have a conscience about lying about you.

45. on 04 Jun 2008 at 4:56 pm   Lou Martuneac

    Greetings:

    Sorry I am late to the discussion, but…

    I want to dispel the misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement in general.

    The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences” in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).

    The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.

    Once the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.

    Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel. May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

    The article will help them understand that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and especially Antonio da Rosa do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the Free Grace community.

    The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.

    Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.

    LM

46. on 21 Sep 2008 at 10:58 am   Anthony

    Turning from sin to be saved is works-based salvation(Read Jonah 3:10). We are saved by grace through faith, not works(see Ephesians 2:8-9). We turn from our sins and live for Jesus AFTER we are saved, not in order to be saved. There is a big difference. If one had to turn from their sins to be saved, then salvation would not be a free gift and it would not be received by faith alone. There is a fine line between the prerequisites for salvation and the results of salvation. Turning from sin and following Jesus as Lord and Master of one’s life is a RESULT of salvation, but not a prerequisite.

47. on 22 Sep 2008 at 11:59 pm   thenonconformer

    “Perhaps one of the greatest heresies of our day arises from a theological ignorance with respect to the Bible’s teaching on sanctification. While .. Many (Falsely) simply operate under the assumption that obedience, repentance, love for God’s law, and mortification of sin are unnecessary addendums to true faith, reserved for a special class of “spiritual Christians”, yet still optional for those “carnal Christians” who embrace Christ as Savior but refuse Him as Lord. How does (anyone,) Ryrie respond to the New Testament texts, especially in the gospels, which so obviously teach that both a change of mind and heart are necessary consequences of justifying faith? … While inconsistent dispensationalists can and do believe in the necessity of repentance, the logical conclusions of classic dispensationalism yield the kind of devastating errors which sees faith as nothing more than a change of mind with regards to the facts of the gospel. ” http://covenantgrace.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-of-puritans-believed-that.html

    Ongoing continual personal repentance foir sins is not optional.. a necessary subjection

    (1 Cor 9:27 KJV) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (Heb 12:9 KJV) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

    (Eph 5:24 KJV) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    (1 Pet 3:1 KJV) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (1 Pet 3:5 KJV) For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website