Common Questions about Lordship (Part 1)
October 12th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Within days after the initial publication of The Gospel According to Jesus, I began to receive mail from readers. In the first few weeks alone I answered more letters about this book than I had ever received on any other subject. In the years since, my staff and I continue to respond to similar comments and questions. Here are some responses that represent the issues most commonly raised:
Question: Does the lordship view teach salvation by works?
No, absolutely not. God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:25) when He changes the heart at the moment of regeneration (Titus 3:5-7), and makes the sinner into a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we are saved unto good works (Eph. 2:10). We are freed from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2) and made slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:22). Works (meaning “acts of obedience”) are not a precondition for salvation. But they do characterize the lives of those who have been genuinely saved (Rom. 8:5-9).
Question: If your view of salvation is correct, how can we lead people to Christ and offer them immediate assurance? You seem to be saying that people need to seek assurance in their works.
First of all, I do not believe it is the task of the evangelist to “offer assurance.” That is the Holy Spirit’s work: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16).
Having said that, however, I do believe there is an immediate aspect to assurance, grounded in the promises of the gospel. How did the thief on the cross know he was saved? He had the Lord’s own promise. We find many promises in Scripture that assure believers of their eternal destiny (e.g., John 3:16; 1 John 5:1). Those promises offer objective assurance to genuine believers. Even a brand-new believer can look to such promises and find a measure of assurance.
Other Scripture passages speak of subjective means of assurance. For example, 1 John 2:3 says, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.” This aspect of assurance grows and deepens as one walks consistently with the Lord. And Christians who persist in sin for a time forfeit this aspect of assurance for as long as they are grieving the Holy Spirit.
Both the objective and subjective means of assurance are spoken of in Romans 15:4: “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance [subjective] and the encouragement of the Scriptures [objective] we might have hope.”
Also it is important to understand what Scripture is teaching about subjective assurance. It is not that we seek assurance in our works, but that we gain assurance from sensing the Spirit’s work in us. Again, it is the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
We do not gain assurance by convincing our intellect that we are saved. True assurance is not an academic issue. There are no formulas that can bring it about. It is an important part of the lifelong growth process of the Christian life.
Question: You acknowledge that believers can and do sin for extended periods of time. How can such people know whether their sin is a temporary failure or proof that they are unsaved?
Obviously even in Scripture we see that believers sometimes sinned grievously and over long periods of time. David is one example (2 Sam. 11–12; Ps. 51); Lot is another (2 Peter 2:7–9). Christians who sin in such a fashion should not expect to enjoy assurance, however. Of course, true believers do not lose their salvation when they sin (cf. Rom. 8:35–39), but even David testified that he had forfeited the joy of salvation (Ps. 51:12).
When believers sin, they dishonor Christ (1 Cor. 6:15–17), they grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), and they subject themselves to the discipline of a loving Father (Heb. 12:5–7). If they can continue in sin without experiencing divine discipline, something is terribly wrong, as verse 8 explains: “If you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.”
Moreover, our Lord established a process for dealing with sin among believers:
If your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst (Matt. 18:15–20).
Notice that the discipline process Jesus outlined is specifically intended to answer the question of whether a person in sin is a true brother or an outsider. “If he listens to you [if he repents], you have won your brother” (v. 15). But ultimately, “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (v. 17)—that is, regard him as an unbeliever and pursue him evangelistically. The Lord goes on to state that he personally mediates his rule on earth through this process (v. 20).
No one who persists in willful, deliberate sin and rebellion against the Lord should be encouraged with any promise of assurance. If you know someone like that who professes faith in Christ, follow the process of Matthew 18 and call that person to repentance. But do not encourage him or her with the promise of security. Such a person may be clinging to a false hope.
Question: I love Christ, but I struggle constantly with sin in my life. Should I doubt my salvation?
No. The perpetual struggle with sin was even Paul’s experience (Rom. 7:7–25). All of us struggle continually with sinful thoughts, sinful attitudes, sinful habits, and sinful desires. It is those who do not struggle—those who deliberately and eagerly revel in their sin—who need to have their false sense of security shaken.
Question: Where in the Bible is it taught that all believers will be spiritually fruitful? Does this mean there is no room for failure in the Christian life?
Of course we all experience some degree of failure, but ultimate failure—returning permanently to unbelief and wanton sin—is not possible for true Christians. Romans 8:29–30 guarantees that every believer will be ultimately conformed to the image of Christ. The Spirit of God indwells each believer (Rom. 8:9). We have been made completely new (2 Cor. 5:17). And we are being transformed into the image of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). Each of those truths guarantees that we cannot experience ultimate failure.
The inevitability of fruit-bearing is repeatedly emphasized in Scripture. The basic principle of creation, stated in Genesis 1:11, is that everything bears fruit of its own kind. Here are just a few verses that expressly underscore this truth:
Proverbs 12:12—“The wicked desires the booty of evil men, but the root of the righteous yields fruit.”
Jeremiah 17:7–8—“Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD and whose trust is the LORD. For he will be like a tree planted by the water, that extends its roots by a stream and will not fear when the heat comes; but its leaves will be green, and it will not be anxious in a year of drought nor cease to yield fruit.”
Matthew 3:10—“Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Matthew 7:17–19—“Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Matthew 12:33—“Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.”
Matthew 13:23—“And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”
Luke 6:43–44—“For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.”
John 15:5—“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.”
Romans 7:4—“Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God.”
One reader cited the thief on the cross as an exception to this rule. But that thief bore more fruit in a few minutes than many churchgoers bear in an entire lifetime. His repentance was manifested by a striking change in behavior. He did count the cost; he acknowledged that his cross was just and deserved. And he did bow to Christ’s lordship; “Lord” is how he addressed the Savior. That dying thief was no example of inactive, fruitless faith.
Very helpful on the assurance issue. JM posits both objective and subjective elements here.
“It is those who do not struggle—those who deliberately and eagerly revel in their sin—who need to have their false sense of security shaken.”
It seems, doesn’t it, that times of inner doubt/turmoil are actually a sign of a true believer? IOW, it is the spiritually sensitive who are most attuned to their sin, etc. If one is not concerned at all, they may be in that state of false security.
Another thought is that this seeking for assurance is never meant to be an individual matter. Doesn’t the Bible teach believers to submit to the watchfulness of spiritual leaders? (Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12, etc.)
While not exactly on topic, I would like to give a shout out to Jodie. While I would disagree with the totality of your position, I would like to commend you for your even headedness and the grace you have displayed throughout this debate. I have much respect for you.
Mr. MacArthur, I do hope in your next installment of “Common Questions” you will not perpetrate the misrepresentation that “Lordship Salvationist” do not teach that one can loose their salvation. I have seen that claim made by a few posters concerning this topic. The Calvinistic branch of Lordship Salvationists might not, but the Arminian branch certainly does. (I would like to add that I have major disagreements with Arminian theology.)
Now then, you write:
“Of course we all experience some degree of failure, but ultimate failure—returning permanently to unbelief and wanton sin—is not possible for true Christians.”
I am in basic agreement with that statement. I think though that you are being unclear with the phrase “some degree of failure” for the simple fact that “some” can imply either a little or quite a bit. While I imagine that you would agree with that, the statement (Of course we all experience some degree of failure, but ultimate failure—returning permanently to unbelief and wanton sin—is not possible for true Christians) is confusing and lends itself to being a jello type position. From what I have read here the Lordship Salvation position would not deny that Christians can in fact commit “wanton sin.” King David would be an example, as would his son Solomon. Would you not define Solomon’s sin as wanton sin? If so, then your statement is proven partly false. If not, then just how would you define Solomon?
The Lordship position on “fruit bearing” is also very confusing. Although it might not be the intent, it is certainly implied that anything less than 100% is not satisfactory. What makes the LS position more confusing is when confronted with this, it has been my experience that the “jello” type thinking comes into play, and a denial is given from the LS position. That would be fine if the position could remain consistant with itself. While Jesus was not talking about mathmatical precision (He was using a figure of speech) He himself did say that there would be different levels of fruit bearing — some thirty, some sixty, some one hundred. I would contend that the “thirty” would look considerably less than the “one hundred.” Are we to exhort our brothers and sisters on to more and more fruit? Yes, indeed we are. But never by implying that those we are exhorting are not Christian if they don’t respond in the time frame we deem necessary. I am nost saying that **is** the stated position of LS, but it is something that comes through to the listeners.
Thank you very much for taking this post into consideration. May you and all on the team here have a blessed and wonderful day.
Gojira
Re Gojira’s words: The Lordship position on “fruit bearing” is also very confusing. Although it might not be the intent, it is certainly implied that anything less than 100% is not satisfactory. What makes the LS position more confusing is when confronted with this, it has been my experience that the “jello” type thinking comes into play, and a denial is given from the LS position. That would be fine if the position could remain consistant with itself. While Jesus was not talking about mathmatical precision (He was using a figure of speech) He himself did say that there would be different levels of fruit bearing — some thirty, some sixty, some one hundred.
Blessings! First, I confess no formal training in the principles of logic and debate; so please forgive me if I seem long in getting to the point; or perhaps in the the view of some never quite making a point.
None the less here is another 2 cents worth of comment.
We must remember it is God’s standard we face. Of course “anything less than 100%” is not “Satisfactory”. It is called sin–missing the mark(God’s high and perfect standard of righteousness). But God gives grace to the humble, those who forsake our wicked ways (2Chron2:14). He saves the humble and is our light in the darkness (Psalm18:27-28). The humble He guides in justice and teaches them His way (Ps25:9). God knows our hearts and He knows what fruit is being borne. In our own hearts, our conscience will shut our mouths before the righteousness of God (Rom3:19).
We believe Him, and therefore love Him, to the praise of His glory; and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise; we are His purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:12-14); God has chosen us, appointed us to bear fruit, and that it will remain; and we are commanded to love one another (John 15:16-17). None of it is our merit even though the elect are absolutely involved in the process.
He has promised that those who do not bear fruit will be cast out into the fire (Matt 13:38-40); which is a clear indication that the elect will bear fruit, while those who are pretenders, their “fruit” will be found to be as dead as their faith (James 2:17-26).
Mr. MacArthur gives thorough scripture of God’s Word on the matter of Salvation and our loving response to God’s saving grace, lordship, mercy, love, etc..ALL bound in the One Jesus. He is not separate in His offices, but ONE. My Saviour is my Lord, my Lord is my Saviour. I do not have one without the other. God is One. (James2:19..)
WLITNOTL
I appreciate, Dr. MacArthur, that you clearly explained that the promises found in God’s word can be “looked to” by even a new believer for a “measure of assurance”. And you stated your belief in the subjective side of the equation with care: “Of course we all experience some degree of failure, but ultimate failure—returning permanently to unbelief and wanton sin—is not possible for true Christians.”
But the “some degree of failure,” however inoffensive in causing unnecessary contention, has some serious drawbacks. I grew up in a touchy-feely Catholic Church that constantly stressed the RCC teaching that grace is the solution to all our concerns for this world and the next. The loving Catholic person was able to do the works and sacraments expected of him or her only by God’s grace. And in that post-Vatican 2 world, “some degree of failure was expected.”
The problem is that that teaching doesn’t satisfy the Christian who reads his bible and finds a far more undeniably absolute tone in portraying the black and white need of personal holiness. Your troops are brought to their feet by those black and white sections of the Bible, and the “some degree of failure” idea simply doesn’t satisfy the observant reader. In truth, there isn’t room for shades of gray in what are really the great NT demands for black and white assurance of discipleship rather than regeneration. (1 John 2:15, John 14:15 and many more)
In fact, in my view your view of accountability actually deflates the message of God’s chastisement on His own people. True grace always results in God’s judgment on the object of His love. (Rev. 3:19) A true Christian always receives from both ends of the “continuum” of God’s attributes: mercy and blessing as well as chastisement and even wrath. (Heb 12:7-8) Although I realize you spoke of the reality of chastisement, please consider the obvious, that heavy focus on being saved versus not being saved has become a stiff distraction from the straightforward scenario of here and now discipline.
Paul said, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” 1 Cor 11:30 What can the word apostasy mean if it doesn’t include this type of behavior. In God’s eyes, these people had, like King Solomon, betrayed the Lord by their actions and needed to be brought home.
Paul also speaks of those who failed to “hold on to” faith and a good conscience: “Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Tim. 1:18-20
Pastor MacArthur, if ever there was a place in Scripture for one of the NT writers to articulate even a small bit of your theology it is here. But here again the puritan idea has to be read into the text.
In his next letter to Timothy, Paul writes, “Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.”
2 Timothy 2:16-18
If anything this is even more clearly a discussion about a man, the Hymenaeus of both passages, that Paul considers to be a believer “wandering” dramatically from the faith. Yes, you and your supporters may again take the opportunity to read your theology into this passage. But the clearest teaching which addresses the illegitimacy issue is still one that fails to validate your premise:
“If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.” Heb 12:7-8
Obsession with the question of whether one is authentically saved distorts beyond recognition the sharp warnings of the NT. There is a sense in which True Christians are left off the hook by focusing on that puritan obsession.
Yes, you referred to and quoted many passages. But strictly speaking these only softly and vaguely give support. The wise Christian will cling to the great assuring statements of the Lord of our theology:
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” Jn 11:25,26
This “theology” is the greatest testimony to God’s sovereign work in salvation.
Dr. MacArthur,
I have really come to appreciate your gift for teaching with this series of posts. I have used the many resources of Ligonier and Dr. Sproul for years and I will now add yours to my list. Thanks for Pulpit Magazine. I have informed my pastor about this great resource. This is the medium of the future (near future) and your ministry is obviously engaged.
“We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we are saved unto good works (Eph. 2:10). We are freed from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2) and made slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:22). Works (meaning “acts of obedience”) are not a precondition for salvation. But they do characterize the lives of those who have been genuinely saved (Rom. 8:5-9).”
Dr. MacArthur:
Your statement on Ephesians 2:8-10 is correct. Lordship Salvation does not demand a series of works to be performed to merit salvation. For example, praying, climbing steps on knees or getting baptized will not get anyone into Heaven. So, I would agree with your saying performing “acts of obedience are not a precondition for salvation.”
Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
In Ephesians 2:8-10 the Word of God sets out the order of things. Verses 8-9 teach that a man is saved by God’s grace through personal faith. Verse 10 teaches that since he has been born again by grace through faith, he will now be in a position to do good works ordained by God and pleasing to God.
Philippians. 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
These good works do not save; they are a by-product of repentance and saving faith. They are the evidence of genuine repentance and an unceasing gratitude for God’s mercy.
The Lordship gospel, however, demands an upfront commitment to perform the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10. Salvation (the gift of eternal life), therefore, is being conditioned on the promise of man to perform the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10. This then becomes a works based message.
Lordship Salvation demands an upfront promise for “acts of obedience” as the condition to be met for salvation. In this way your Lordship gospel places demands on the sinner that the Scriptures do not and consequently frustrates grace.
This problem arises when you present verses meant for the disciple of Christ and present them as conditions that must be agreed to through promises of surrender and commitment for the reception of salvation.
You wrote, “The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 27, 142.
In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation you wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus, p. 6.)
An even more troubling is this statement: “Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own dear Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it’s the fruit of actions, not intentions.” (Hard to Believe, p. 93.)
Promises of self denial, cross bearing and following do not result in a lost man becoming a Christian any more than praying the rosary will. Lordship salvation takes the results of salvation (discipleship) and makes these the requirements for salvation.
LM
Lou,
Think about that quote you used: “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian…”
Who wants to be a Christian? Is it a person who is in rebellion towards God?
According to Romans, nobody seeks God. (Romans 3:9-19)
So what happened to make ‘those who want to be a Christian’ exceptions to this decree?
MacArthur writes, “Works (meaning ‘acts of obedience’) are not a precondition for salvation.”
Question: If saving faith is a precondition of salvation and lordship proponents define saving faith as non-existent without works (based largely on how they understand “faith without works is dead”), how can works not be a precondition of salvation? Without works, saving faith (the instrumental means of appropriating salvation) does not exist. Inasmuch as saving faith does not exist apart from works, works (“acts of obedience”) have become a precondition for salvation.
Jim:
That is Dr. MacArthur’s quote and he is talking about those who want to become a Christian. He is taking about the reception of salvation, not the results we should expect of one who is saved.
LM
This question that Solifidian has again brought up can be addressed with “cant” that doesn’t address the core of his concern, or it could be really faced.
The idea that it is faith itself that produces works is not taught in the Bible. Only the Persons of the Trinity empower true Christian sanctification and the works that are beyond human reach.
But I’ll look forward to a substantive interaction with his question.
Lou,
Since you have repeated some of your same comments from yesterday’s thread on today’s thread, maybe we can continue our conversation here.
First, regarding the quote from page 93 of Hard to Believe:
Here is a statement from Grace to You clarifying that particular paragraph… This statement has been out for a long time, so I am surprised that you were apparently not aware of it:
*****
“A Word of Clarification about Hard to Believe
One paragraph in Hard to Believe contains a glaring error that has the potential to mislead readers about the book’s whole intent. The problematic passage is the opening paragraph of chapter 6 (page 93), which seems to suggest that salvation is the fruit of godly living. The truth is exactly the opposite.
The error was inadvertently introduced into the manuscript in the late stages of the editorial process, when (in order to simplify the book) four chapters were deleted from the original manuscript and one of the remaining chapters was severely abridged. John MacArthur approved the abridgments.
Apparently, however, in an effort to make a new transition that would smooth over the deletions, an editor involved in the process made significant revisions to the opening of chapter 6. Unfortunately, that change was not submitted to John for approval. We believe the error was an oversight, and not anyone’s deliberate attempt to tamper with the book’s theology. The result, however, severely muddled the message of the book.
A revision has been sent to the publisher for future editions of the book. In all subsequent printings, here is how the opening paragraph of chapter six will read:
Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.
Phil Johnson
Executive Director
Grace to You”
*****
Anyway, I add this here so that our readers are not confused.
Thanks,
NB
Hello fewfindit,
I would like to extend blessings back to you as well.
You write:
“First, I confess no formal training in the principles of logic and debate; so please forgive me if I seem long in getting to the point; or perhaps in the the view of some never quite making a point. None the less here is another 2 cents worth of comment.”
You did rather well in my opinion.
You write:
“We must remember it is God’s standard we face. Of course “anything less than 100%” is not “Satisfactory”. It is called sin–missing the mark(God’s high and perfect standard of righteousness).”
Yes. Indeed. God’s demands are 100% perfection, something we fail to meet every single day. That wan’t the point I was getting at though. My comment had to do with the LS position and the standard that position sets up.
You write:
” We believe Him, and therefore love Him, to the praise of His glory; and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise; we are His purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:12-14)”
In the text you have quoted, our love for Him in not mentioned. You have given what appears to be then a slight misquote.
Do we love Him? Most certainly. We love Him because He first loved us. Does our love for Him grow? Yes, Indeed it does. Love is meant to grow and become larger. But does everyone love Him in the same amount? That would be no. Not all your brothers and sisters love Him to the same degree of other brothers and sisters. That is why they are growing. For example, do you love Christ to the same degree that Paul or John loved Christ? Personally, I can only hope that one day I can love Christ to the degree that they did while on earth. Does that make you or I less loved by God? Of course not.
Can love for God sometimes grow distant? Or somewhat cold? Of course it can. Look at Solomon. For a long time his love for God wanned and cooled. Did it disappear all together? No. That would be an impossibility. But it did regress. And because of that, his fruit bearing plummeted. One thing is true, our love for God is never manifested in our sin, or a heart that slowly backslides.
You write:
“ALL bound in the One Jesus. He is not separate in His offices, but ONE. My Saviour is my Lord, my Lord is my Saviour. I do not have one without the other. God is One.”
Indeed. And no Free Grace advocate who knows what they are talking about would deny that either. In that regards, I would have to disagree with applying a Nestorian type principle to the FG position. It doesn’t hold up and they would correct in calling that a straw man.
You write:
“He has promised that those who do not bear fruit will be cast out into the fire (Matt 13:38-40); which is a clear indication that the elect will bear fruit, while those who are pretenders, their “fruit” will be found to be as dead as their faith (James 2:17-26).”
Indeed. And whether you recognize it or not, you have just provided a splendid exapmle of what I was talking about. While it may have not been your intent, you have just, at least in appearance, made salvation dependant upon fruit bearing. So I ask, how much fruit does one ***have*** to bear? Now of course you will say that is not your position. My reply would be, then why did you word it in such a fashion? Fruit bearing is the natural result of salvation, and people will bear different amounts of fruit. Some more than others, and some less than others. However, fruit bearing is not what brings or causes justification. One of the biggest problems with the LS position is the often unclear language used negates the intended message. There is only one way to be justified before God, and that is through the means of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Gojira.
Hello Nate,
I hope you are doing well today.
In regards to the clearification you offered concerning MacArthur’s book: I have seen that many times –
“A revision has been sent to the publisher for future editions of the book. In all subsequent printings, here is how the opening paragraph of chapter six will read:
Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.”
And all the Roman Catholics I have shown that to said a hearty amen. Why? Because there is no foundational difference between the two. Most of the time, I was asked who the Roman Catholic writer was. Very sad indeed.
Gojira.
Hi solifidian,
I hope that you are doing well today.
You write:
“Question: If saving faith is a precondition of salvation and lordship proponents define saving faith as non-existent without works (based largely on how they understand “faith without works is dead”), how can works not be a precondition of salvation? Without works, saving faith (the instrumental means of appropriating salvation) does not exist. Inasmuch as saving faith does not exist apart from works, works (“acts of obedience”) have become a precondition for salvation.”
An excellent question, and was also an observation made by Michael Horton in the very excellent book “Christ the Lord.”
Hi Gojira,
I appreciate your input very much. And also your sensitivty to Catholic doctrine, which is not as cut and dried as evangelicals sometimes assume. blessings.
Lou, you wrote: “The Lordship gospel, however, demands an upfront commitment to perform the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10. Salvation (the gift of eternal life), therefore, is being conditioned on the promise of man to perform the “good works” of Ephesians 2:10. This then becomes a works based message.”
I don’t think this is correct. A “commitment” is not a “work” in the sense you’re trying to portray. For Paul, a “work” is what “merits” something. You try to “earn” your wages by repeated acts. An intention or commitment is not a work in that sense. When Paul says, “Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord” he is asking for an action, but it’s not a “work.”
“Lordship Salvation demands an upfront promise for “acts of obedience” as the condition to be met for salvation. In this way your Lordship gospel places demands on the sinner that the Scriptures do not and consequently frustrates grace.”
On the contrary, cheap grace results absent a Lordship commitment. I’ve seen this over and over. OTOH, I’ve seen many led to salvation with Lordship commitments still serving the Lord faithfully, after many years.
Lou,
In yesterday’s comment thread, you accused Dr. MacArthur (and by extension lordship proponents) of teaching that regeneration temporally precedes faith and repentance. This is simply inaccurate. It is not what Dr. MacArthur teaches, nor is it what historic reformed soteriology teaches. Your insistence here indicates an ignorance about the nuances of historic soteriological dialogue.
In yesterday’s thread, we asked if you saw your position as being in common with Hodges, Ryrie, Geisler, or someone else. Your response was that you simply want to be biblical. While I appreciate your desire to be biblical, I found your response a bit condescending. It implies that other positions are not trying to be biblical (which is again, simply inaccurate. Both lordship and non-lordship proponents [of various perspectives] all claim that their goal is to be biblical). The desire to be biblical is a given. If anything, your response seems to betray a lack of familiarity with the major non-lordship positions of the last two decades. But this would be very surprising, in light of the fact that you have been involved in the debate since 1989 (according to your website).
Your use of the Hard to Believe quote, page 93, again evidences a lack of familiarity with Dr. MacArthur’s position—since that particular paragraph has been publicly clarified for some time now.
Your repeated insistence that Dr. MacArthur and the lordship camp is teaching “a works based message” is neither original nor accurate. Your claim that Dr. MacArthur confuses passages meant for disciples with passages meant for believers, is also an argument that is not original. These allegations are not new. They have been repeatedly discussed, clarified, and refuted.
While you prefer to avoid the Arminian label (per your website), your soteriological framework appears to have a decidedly Arminian bent. Reformed soteriology teaches that the ability to respond to the high call of the gospel is only possible by the power and initiative of God. Thus, the ability to repent is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25). It is a gift of His grace, and is the immediate and necessary change of heart (cleansing and renewal) that accompanies regeneration (Titus 3:5).
Your caricature of the lordship position suggests that you do not understand the reformed premise that Dr. MacArthur and others begin with. If you did, you would not accuse lordship of teaching salvation by human works.
All in all, I can only sincerely conclude that, based on your response to Dr. MacArthur’s lordship position here on this blog, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both his position and the historic reformed soteriology that undergirds it. That being said, I must admit that I have not yet read your book. Perhaps your book presents a more accurate picture of what lordship actually teaches.
As to whether or not Dr. MacArthur confuses passages intended for disciples with passages intended for believers, I look forward to discussing that with you more. In the meantime, I would point you to the vast majority of evangelical/fundamentalist commentators who see those passages as evangelistic calls. The lexical, syntactical, and contextual arguments in favor of Dr. MacArthur’s understanding of those passages are exegetically weighty, historically attested, and theologically orthodox.
If you would like us to post an exegetical defense of the lordship understanding of any given text, just let us know and we will address it in the coming weeks. Mark 8 or Luke 9 would be good ones to start with, unless you would prefer something different.
To close, I should add that we are glad to have you on the site. We hope you feel the freedom to continue expressing your opinions and objections. But, as you note on your website, you are “fair game” for criticism and rebuttal. In this case, by confusing the reformed understanding of the ordo salutis, and by accusing the lordship position of teaching a “works based message,” your understanding of Dr. MacArthur’s lordship position is seriously flawed.
Thanks,
NB
Solifidian, Gojira, and Jodie:
Thank you for your comments. I’m addressing this to all three of you, though it’s really a response to Solifidian’s question. I don’t know that I will have the time to interact with all of your different posts today, so I thought I would acknowledge each of you with this response.
Solifidian asked:
“Question: If saving faith is a precondition of salvation and lordship proponents define saving faith as non-existent without works (based largely on how they understand “faith without works is dead”), how can works not be a precondition of salvation? Without works, saving faith (the instrumental means of appropriating salvation) does not exist. Inasmuch as saving faith does not exist apart from works, works (“acts of obedience”) have become a precondition for salvation.”
I believe the answer to this is to clarify that lordship salvation teaches that saving faith inevitably results in good works, because saving faith itself involves internal heart change. That internal heart change includes a change of allegiance (from sin and self) to Christ. This change of allegiance (which comes from God’s cleansing and renewing work of regeneration) is called repentance. And repentance results in acts of obedience.
It is not Faith + Works = Salvation (which is the Roman Catholic view). Instead it is that Faith = Salvation + Works. True spiritual life results in spiritual fruit. Not the other way around.
At salvation, we are made into new creatures. We are given new desires and affections. Those desires and affections will result in a changed lifestyle. If we claim to have faith, but our lifestyle does not change, then we have reason to doubt whether our hearts have been changed. If our hearts have not been changed, then we have not been born again.
Or put another way: at the moment of salvation, we are freed from sin and made slaves to righteousness. If we claim to have faith, but continue to live in sin, it calls into question whether or not we have truly been freed from sin, and made slaves to righteousness.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies.
Thanks,
NB
Thanks Nathan,
To clarify:
“saving faith itself involves internal heart change.
That internal heart change includes a change of allegiance (from sin and self) to Christ. This change of allegiance (which comes from God’s cleansing and renewing work of regeneration) is called repentance.
And repentance results in acts of obedience.”
That is:
Saving faith includes heart change.
The heart change includes repentance.
Repentance results in future good works.
I don’t think this is the best expression of your model, because Paul says: “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” If the word beleive has, several layers down as one of its components, works, Paul’s statement is irrational.
In my opinion you said it better here:
At salvation, we are made into new creatures. We are given new desires and affections. Those desires and affections will result in a changed lifestyle.
Here the new birth, not saving faith and its components, seem to be the productive agent.
Maybe, if not today, than tomorrow you could return to this issue.
Blessings.
Hi Jodi!
I hope you are doing fine this afternoon.
You write:
“And also your sensitivty to Catholic doctrine, which is not as cut and dried as evangelicals sometimes assume.”
Very true. Many evangelicals do not understand how Vatican II changed the face of normative Catholicism.
I love the look of your blog site by the way. I’ll have to spend some time there to read your blog posts.
“blessings.”
And blessings to you, my sister.
:)
Hello again Nate!
Many blessings to you.
You write:
“It is not Faith + Works = Salvation (which is the Roman Catholic view). Instead it is that Faith = Salvation + Works.”
If I may be so bold, I would have to disagree with you here. Roman Catholicism has no problem embracing the latter. Many of their modern theologians, as well as more than a few aplolgists, would give that a hearty amen. You may or may not recall the sermon preached at the Vatican earlier this year by one of the priests. It was all about salvation by faith. The problem was that many Protestants thought the sermon was an abberation and not taken well by pope Benedict. That was the furtherest thing there could be from the truth of the situation. The sermon would have found a warm home in just about any evangelical church. (If you are unaware of the sermon in question, I will look it up for you and provide a link.)
The problem with bringing out equations is that no one would deny the positive. For example you state: “Instead it is that Faith = Salvation + Works.” My question to you then would be, can you actually name a person who would disagree with that forumla, at least as it stands? I know that I can’t. And I know for a fact that most Roman Catholics who are serious about their religion would not be in disagreement with that forumla either.
And please know that is not meant to be a slam on you, brother.
You write:
“I believe the answer to this is to clarify that lordship salvation teaches that saving faith inevitably results in good works…”
Correct. And I have read the same type of affirmation in the FG lit. as well.
You write:
“because saving faith itself involves internal heart change.”
I would disagree with that. It isn’t faith that changes the heart. That would be God.
I’ll have to continue this later.
One thing I’d note is that the Arminian/Calvinist distinction does not appear to me to be relevant to the debate. Arminians can logically be Lordship proponents.
Nate,
Thanks for answering my question. You wrote, “I believe the answer to this is to clarify that lordship salvation teaches that saving faith inevitably results in good works, because saving faith itself involves internal heart change.”
It makes no sense for you to use an expression such as “saving faith inevitably results in good works” when saving faith has been defined as non-existent! apart from good works. While lordship proponents like to speak of good works inevitably resulting from saving faith, results do not come from something that does not exist! apart from those results. It is very important you to understand that lordship salvation defines saving faith as non-existent! without works.
Your appeal to an “internal heart change” and “repentance” is irrelevant until you allow the identity of saving faith to exist independent of works since saving faith is the instrumental means of appropriating salvation. Your understanding of “faith without works is dead,” however, will not allow you to do that, even at a hypothetical level. Until your understanding of “faith without works” changes, you will be, de facto, promoting a variety of works/salvation (no works means no saving faith means no heaven).
While lordship proponents will argue that the works they require for salvation are not the meritorious basis of salvation, they do indeed require works to obtain salvation—they do so be defining the faith that justifies as non-existent without them. As lordship proponent Dr. John H. Gerstner has written in Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine By Which the Church and the Individual Stands of Falls , “If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work.”
For a Free Grace alternative to the lordship understanding of “faith without works,” read Dr. Niemela’s article here:
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/v6n2_1.pdf
Cordially.
Nate B,
You are indeed a patient man. There is nothing that needs clarification. The reformed & ‘lordship view’ view has been made crystal clear with these posts. The free grace camp will not accept the correct Biblical view that God so changes a sinners heart that he is convicted of sin and responds with faith and repentance. This changed heart produces gratitude, love, obedience, and deeds which flow from salvation and are very clearly not works meant to earn salvation. They are going to distort and call it works salvation no matter how we explain it. The problem is not with clarification. The problem is forcing Scripture through a theological grid that does not allow Eph. 2:10 and many other passages to be a valid and natural response from Christians.
W.H.
Requiring works for entrance into heaven, even if you call them non-meritorious works, is a variety of works/salvation. No works = no heaven. I’m not sure how it could be any clearer.
While lordship proponents argue that works don’t earn eternal life, they also argue that no one will enter heaven unless good works have been performed (Gerstner’s quote is quite clear on the matter). Works have become a non-meritorious condition of heaven.
Qualify it all you like, the bottom line is no works = no heaven.
Nathan:
I am sorry, it was not intention to seem condescending about my response to what “camp” I may be in. I did not want to infer one side is trying to be biblical the other is not. Please forgive on that.
As for familiarity: I am very familiar with Hodges and Ryrie as examples of positions which reject lordship theology. I have very serious disagreements with Hodges, some minor disagreement with Ryrie.
I have seen that those who do not agree with lordship theology are categorized as “no-lordship” or “Free Grace.” Of course, I understand lordship advocates do not appreciate the term Lordship Salvation. My point is that I do not come at Lordship Salvation from the position of Hodges and Ryrie. My approach is more unique to the debate. If you were to read my book you would find this.
As for regeneration before faith: It is undeniable that there are men in Reformed circles who believe and teach this. Piper’s quote is without question places regeneration “new birth” before faith and repentance. This is wrong, but I do not dedicate a major discussion to it in my book. I have also found, at least in my circles, that men who hold to Reformed theology, especially the regeneration before faith issue, do NOT want to be pinned down on it.
As for the quote from page 93 of Hard to Believe: I have read Challies notes on the discussion with Phil Johnson. Phil states he believes an editor may have written that section. Challies suggests deliberate change to the book. Frankly, I find it hard to believe (no pun intended) an editor would tamper with and publish an author’s work without first seeking clearance.
I read Dr. MacArthur’s on line clarification of how he erred on the eternal sonship issue. I would think the section in Hard to Believe is so extreme, that Dr. MacArthur would immediately make a public correction. If he has done so, I would appreciate a link to it so I may have it on file.
Does Dr. MacArthur categorically reject that statement as it appears on page 93 in Hard to Believe?
I’ll get back to the balance of your note later.
LM
“Qualify it all you like, the bottom line is no works = no heaven.”
No, I don’t agree this is the “bottom line.” It’s a misstatement. Better would be: no works DEMONSTRATES no saving faith. That’s what “couldn’t be clearer” or James would not be in the Bible.
Hello Jazzy Cat,
You write:
” The reformed & ‘lordship view’ view has been made crystal clear with these posts.”
I would have to disagree with your use of the word “Reformed.” If LS was the “Reformed” view in its enritity, there would have been no critiques of the position given by other “Reformed” scholars.
Gojira
Hello jsb,
You write:
“No, I don’t agree this is the “bottom line.” It’s a misstatement. Better would be: no works DEMONSTRATES no saving faith. That’s what “couldn’t be clearer” or James would not be in the Bible.”
Just how many works ***does*** it take to demonstrate saving faith? If you notice, James doesn’t qualify that. Would baptism quality as a good work? If it does, then would it then apply to everyone who receives a Christian baptism? What about witnessing? Witnessing is a good work. Does it then follow that everyone who witnesses has saving faith? What about a whole life spent in doing good works? Would that “demonstrate” saving faith? There have been many Catholics who have spent their whole lives performing good works, even those who fought tooth and nail against the Reformation. Would you say that they had saving faith?
None of that is to negate the fact that good works flow from faith. But not all good works actually demonstrate saving faith.
Many true Christians also have terrible works. Consider Luther. Or David. Or Solomon.
Gojira
jsb,
Thank you for the reply. My apologies if you felt this was a mis-statement. You are, however, arguing from your understanding of James 2. As you are no doubt aware, Free Grace proponents have a fundamentally different understanding of what James is teaching in that passage.
Also, it is one thing to say that works demonstrate faith. It is altogether different matter to say that faith does not exist! apart from works.
I am simply suggesting that if works/salvation is defined as a system of beliefs wherein entrance into heaven is conditioned on works, then lordship salvation qualifies. They just say the works are a necessary condition (because saving faith does not exist apart from works); not a meritorious condition.
Cordially.
Gojira,
I consider myself reformed and do not like the term lordship salvation. I only use the term in this debate to distinguish from the antinomian, no-lordship, carnal Christian, free grace, Arminian position. Since they call anyone who believes that faith will inevitably lead to works as being lordship salvation proponents, I used the term.
Solifidian,
Thanks for making my point that your theological grid will not accept my view, but force it through your template and change it to a distorted bottom line of your liking. Actually, jsb nailed the bottom line which is no faith= no heaven.
Nathan:
You wrote, “As to whether or not Dr. MacArthur confuses passages intended for disciples with passages intended for believers, I look forward to discussing that with you more.”
It appears you have misunderstood me. My position is: Dr. MacArthur uses passages meant to give believers instruction on how they might grow as disciples of Christ(Luke 9, 14, Sermon on the Mount, etc.) and instead presents them as though they are salvation messages to the unsaved.
LM
Jazzy,
Thanks for the reply. You’re right, my theological grid will not accept your view, just as yours will not accept mine. That’s why we’re having this exchange of ideas.
I understand that you feel the expression “no works = no heaven” is a distorted bottom line and that “no faith = no heaven” is a better representation of your view, but when saving faith does not exist! apart from the works, then works become a necessary condition of heaven (no works = no heaven); although it is argued not a meritorious condition.
Cordially.
Hello again Nate.
The biggest disagreement I have with you post is that it seems to me that you did not answer the question that was asked of you. You were asked: ““Question: If saving faith is a precondition of salvation and lordship proponents define saving faith as non-existent without works (based largely on how they understand “faith without works is dead”), how can works not be a precondition of salvation? Without works, saving faith (the instrumental means of appropriating salvation) does not exist. Inasmuch as saving faith does not exist apart from works, works (“acts of obedience”) have become a precondition for salvation.””
The reason I say that is because MacArthur explicitely placed works as part of the definition of faith. That is opposed to you saying, “I believe the answer to this is to clarify that lordship salvation teaches that saving faith inevitably results in good works…” MacArthur has said one thing, and you have said another, and the question asked was not answered. I don’t mean that as a slam against you (so please do not take it as such), but as an observation.
Moving on, you write:
“At salvation, we are made into new creatures. We are given new desires and affections. Those desires and affections will result in a changed lifestyle.”
While I have no problem with the ending, I would have to say that the beginning is very ambigious. Salvation is a big term that has many sub topics: Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification just to name a few. What you are describing is regeneration. Regeneration is disctinct from and not to be confused with justification, just as justification is disctinct from and not to be confused with sanctification (and I would say that it is right here that many charges are laid against the LS position). The Historic Reformed doctrine of justification does not involve, does not have in view, a change in the person. For example, in Romans we learn that God justifies (declares righteous) the ungody ***while*** they are ungodly. It seems to me, and I am not saying this is the intent, but it seems to me that the LS position confuses things at this point. Macarthur, in one of his older works that I know of and have, crosses that line in a major way.
Gojira.
Hello Jazzy Cat!
From your blog, I would take it that is your cat.
Anyway, I hope you are having a very blessed afternoon.
You write:
“I consider myself reformed and do not like the term lordship salvation.”
I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t like it either.
You write:
“I only use the term in this debate to distinguish from the antinomian, no-lordship, carnal Christian, free grace, Arminian position.”
I would think that they would not like the way you have qualified their position. It would seem then to be a case of tit for tat. Sad.
I will say this, I find Jodie to be an excellent Christian with integrity. I would not venture that about Antonio, though. Not after reading many of his writings.
You write:
“Since they call anyone who believes that faith will inevitably lead to works as being lordship salvation proponents, I used the term.”
Hmmmm….that is sad. Not on your part, but theirs.
Regardless, I certainly do hope that you have had a blessed day in Christ and that it continues to the evenning and night.
Peace and blessings to you, Jazzy Cat.
Gojira.
Gojira, Jazzy is always a contented cat…
Jsb, Nathan and Matt W,
Since jsb has brought up an issue that used to be at the center of this debate (”no works demonstrates no saving faith. … or James would not be in the Bible.“), let me shed some light on this aspect. The famous demon’s remark can really no longer be employed in this issue of what constitutes saving faith.
While personally not at all up to speed on the Greek language or Greek rhetoric, I will still insist that the demons remark is positioned in a Greek diatribe in a way that shows James as employing remarks that he is refuting, not embracing. “Someone will say” is James way of introducing thoughts not his own, and “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” is his reentry into the text. This makes all of verse 18 and 19 a single unit of thought that can’t be attributed to James own opinion.
Hodges has argued that “the evident unity of vv 18-19 as constituting the words of a single speaker is strongly attested to in the literature on this passage.” (p64-66, The Epistle of James) He cites Calvinist scholars Robert Johnstone and R.W. Dale, but also others such as R.J. Knowling, Joseph B. Mayor, Christiaan E. Donker, Francois Vouga, Ralph Martin as concurring that verses 18 and 19 are part of a diatribe in which James is refuting the demons remark.
Peter Davids writes of the line that shows James’ return to speaking in his own voice: “The address ‘O foolish person’ is part of the strong, direct style of the diatribe” (The Epistle of James, A commentary of the Greek Text, Eerdmans p.126)
So the demons passage in James shouldn’t be seen as one of your supporting texts.
Blessings to all.
“Just how many works ***does*** it take to demonstrate saving faith?”
That’s a good question, and one that I’ve asked myself. It’s a separate question, though. At this point, all I am saying is that, from what I understand about the Lordship teaching (which comports with my understanding of the Bible), is that there is NO saving faith without works. “How many works” or the quality of same is another question.
“But not all good works actually demonstrate saving faith.”
I agree. There can be “good works” unrelated to saving faith. Good, of course, from OUR standpoint, not God’s.
“I am simply suggesting that if works/salvation is defined as a system of beliefs wherein entrance into heaven is conditioned on works, then lordship salvation qualifies. They just say the works are a necessary condition (because saving faith does not exist apart from works); not a meritorious condition.”
Well, with this formulation I would disagree. But I don’t see MacArthur teaching this. Here is a question that’s been thrown out: “If saving faith is a precondition of salvation and lordship proponents define saving faith as non-existent without works (based largely on how they understand “faith without works is dead”), how can works not be a precondition of salvation?”
I don’t see the logical problem here. Works is not a PRE condition, it’s a POST reality.
Jodie, I was referring to James 2:14-17 only.
Hello again Jodie!
I’d like to go on record as saying that it was a blessing to interact with you via your posts today. I would also like to clearify my remark about Antonio. Please know that I wasn’t questioning his salvation. My comment had to do with the way he worded many of his posts that I read in a few places. I personally find you a delight to read, and one who operates, in my opinion, as an example of Christian integrity. I found myself often humbled by the way I have seen you conduct yourself in your writings.
To Nate and the others I responded to today,
I want to thank you for interacting with me, just as I would like to thank you for providing this resource. From what I have found, there are many wonderful articles provided here. One would have to not be in their right mind to pass those things over.
Many blessings to each of you.
Gojira.
Lou,
Thank you for clarifying some of your earlier comments. Please forgive me if I read too much into what you were actually saying. The internet is a difficult place to fully catch the nuance of what is being said, since tone, facial expressions, and non-verbal communication are all absent. But I appreciate your gracious spirit and look forward to continuing our dialogue.
Like you, our desire is to be biblical. We use the term “lordship” because it is the label our view has been given by those who disagree with it; and because it helps in dialouging to give a set of exegetically-derived theological propositions a name.
But above all we want to be biblical. And we eagerly submit ourselves and our views to the inspired, inerrant, and all sufficient Word of God.
You are right that I could have been clearer when I wrote: “As to whether or not Dr. MacArthur confuses passages intended for disciples with passages intended for believers, I look forward to discussing that with you more.” What I should have said is “As to whether or not Dr. MacArthur confuses passages intended for believers, calling them to become disciples with passages intended for unbelievers, calling them to become believers.” I was not as clear as I could have been, so thank you for clarifying.
Our offer still stands, to give an exegetical defense of our view of any particular passage in the synoptic gospels (or the whole NT for that matter) which you feel the lordship view distorts. Perhaps looking at specific passages would be the best way of honoring the authority of God’s Word in this important debate.
Thanks,
NB
Hello JSB
You write:
“There can be “good works” unrelated to saving faith. Good, of course, from OUR standpoint, not God’s.”
Amen to that, brother! Amen to that! Can’t pull the wool over His eyes!
You write:
“That’s a good question, and one that I’ve asked myself. It’s a separate question, though.”
Over all, perhaps you are correct, or perhaps not. I can tell you why I would disagree. I would disagree because it would seem to me that knowing for sure if one had saving faith or not would be of the upmost importance. Personally, I think we all give the suject of faith a bad deal when we qualify it with a word like “saving.” I say that because faith is not what saves a person. Jesus Christ is who saves a person. Faith is merely the empty hand that receives Him. I would like to leave you two links from two excellent writers who are Reformed:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/danger.php
http://grace-for-today.com/138.htm
Peace and blessings to you, brother.
Gojira.
Nate:
Thank you for the kind reply. I agree that internet (non face-to-face) communication can lead to misunderstanding, which I try to be careful about when choosing my words.
This is not meant to be a plug for my book, but you might have a better frame of reference if you were to read my book. If you use the Search Inside feature on Amazon you can view the table of contents and read various excerpts.
I have read Dr. MacArthur’s four major publications, Chantry’s Today’s Gospel and Gentry’s Lord of the Saved. In my book I quote these men liberally so that they define their position for themselves. I quote Dr. MacArthur most frequently because he is the best known and most prolific writer on the Lordship gospel.
With that said: I asked an important question in regard to the portion on page 93 of Hard to Believe. My question was, “Does Dr. MacArthur categorically reject that statement as it appears on page 93 in Hard to Believe?”
Thanks,
Lou
Gojira,
It was a blessing and honor interacting with you. And since I think your a guy I’ll say, Thanks, brother, it was fun to blog alongside someone who strength clearly is the joy of the Lord. But try to read my blog, it'’ help your theology
hehehe
God bless.
Jodie
Hey jsb, gotcha about 14-17! Thanks for interacting today
[…] -Pastor John MacArthur,answering Common Questions about Lordship (Part 1) Tags […]
[…] To expand on the “Lordship Salvation” issue, or specifically on the issue of how backslidden Christians relate to the perseverance of the Saints: or even more simply, “Is a Christian who falls into sin actually saved?” or “How do you tell when a brother is saved if they seem to be not living ‘like a Christian?’” - to expand on those questions, here are some helpful thoughts from John MacArthur at the Pulpit Blog: Question: You acknowledge that believers can and do sin for extended periods of time. How can such people know whether their sin is a temporary failure or proof that they are unsaved? […]
Lou, I trust that your day is going well. I have really enjoyed and profited from the discussion on this topic. I understand that you are a very busy man, but I wonder if it would not help clarify your exact position a little better to include at least a few of the areas in which you seriously disgree with Hodges. You may have done so in your book, I am not sure.
Have a great day serving our Lord.
Lou,
Thank you for your comment. I will try to obtain a copy of your book. Perhaps we can do a full review of it at some point here on Pulpit.
Regarding the statement on p. 93 of Hard to Believe… Yes, Dr. MacArthur categorically rejects the idea that, “[Salvation] comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it’s the fruit of actions, not intentions.”
To teach salvation by works is a glaring error, as the Grace to You statement (which I cited earlier) attempts to clarify.
Dr. MacArthur believes, and has always taught, that salvation is a gift of God through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. Yet faith, if it is genuine, will evidence itself in a changed life.
In teaching this, Dr. MacArthur is in line with the historic reformed understanding of salvation. The appendix of The Gospel According to Jesus cites men like Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, and others demonstrating that this is exactly how they understood the Scriptures. Many examples from the early church fathers are also listed.
While Scripture alone is our authority, not church history, it is important to emphasize that the lordship position has been the orthodox teaching of the church since the time of the apostles. (For example, the first century Epistle of Clement teaches the importance of repentance alongside justification by faith alone.)
Anyway, I hope this helps clarify Dr. MacArthur’s position.
Thanks,
NB
Paul told Agrrippa (Acts 26:19,20) his message to all was: repent, turn to God and prove repentence by deeds.
Now, if I understand the FG position, it’s that one can “believe” unto salvation without deeds of reptentance following. That the repent command is subsequent to salvation.
However, Paul tied his message to the direct command of Jesus “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (v. 18)
Thus, Jesus and Paul preached repentance as necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Indeed, how can one be forgiven of something he refuses to give up? Some (many?) who have “believed” think they are forgiven and are not.
Nathan:
Thanks for the clarification on the Hard to Believe passage.
LM
Andrew:
Hodges represents what has been called the “Free Grace” position and champions what is known as the “Mental Assent” position.
Zane Hodges in his article located in the Grace Evangelical Society Journal entitled “How to Lead people to Christ” (Part 2), Hodges makes it clear that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is the normal context of his gospel presentation, but it is not a necessary part of the content of saving faith today.
I am going to paste some of the quotes by Hodges here. I would hope most if not everyone who reads these would be taken aback by these statements. I certainly am.
“The gospel message about the death, burial, and resurrection is the normal context for our presentation of this core objective. But at the end of the day, anyone who trusts Christ for eternal life is born again.” (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 10)
“In recent years I (Hodges) have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that troubles me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it didn’t really bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this: ‘In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.’ . . . . usually implied is the idea that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to provide for our salvation. Thus they mean to say that we are trusting in the sufficiency of his work of atonement. Let me be honest, I don’t like this way of presenting a gospel invitation.” (p. 11)
“People are not saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross; they are saved by believing in Jesus for eternal life . . . . ” (p. 11)
“Let us always point men to Christ Himself (minus his Lordship) as the object of faith, rather than to some concept that must be theologically clarified before it can really be understood.” (p. 12)
“The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it” (p. 13).
LM
Lou,
Thank you. I would hope any one of those in this ongoing discussion would disagree with those statements without reservation.
Jodie, you seem to be a proponent of Hodges’ teaching. What are your reactions to the quotes just mentioned by Lou?
Nathan:
>>Thank you for your comment. I will try to obtain a copy of your book. Perhaps we can do a full review of it at some point here on Pulpit.
Nathan:
Sorry, accidentally submitted the above before finishing it.
Anyway, I welcome a review. My book has been reviewed on another blog site.
LM
Those comments from Hodges do worry me. How can I point someone to Christ (Anointed King?!) without his Lordship. Is it not implicit in the title?
Actually, I do not think an understanding of the mechanism of the atonement is at all necessary but coming to Jesus as Lord means that the atonement is effective for us, however faulty our understanding.
[…] Common questions about the Lordship position-part 1 […]
Hi Andrew,
I’ll look at Lou’s quotes and comment tonight or tomorrow…
Andrew (and Lou if you’d be interesting in commenting),
Maybe you could clarify what concerns you about the quotes. Isn’t this essentially what MacArthur hmself says? Hodges and MacArthur both agree that we are not saved by believing facts about Christ but by believing in Him. I am the Resurrection and the Life. When we believe in Jesus’ promises about His giving eternal life and raising up in the future all who believe in Him, we are putting our faith in Jesus Himself. Hodges isn’t talking about the content of teh evangelistic presentation but on what God (repeatedly) says is the trigger by which receive eternal life.
To me this is important issue because it shows that FG is not just defending a certain tradition within evangelical America but standing on the authority of God’s word.
35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Even though John wrote his Gospel long after Pentecost he affirmed that the offer of salvation that Jesus presented was the same as he was presenting to His own readers:
29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Nathan:
You have stated above, “While Scripture alone is our authority, not church history, it is important to emphasize that the lordship position has been the orthodox teaching of the church since the time of the apostles.”
A close examination of Lordship theology raises grave concerns over whether this is the gospel of grace as taught in the New Testament, and proclaimed by the Apostles. Is Lordship Salvation the New Testament gospel; or is it another deviation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
In 1993 Dr. MacArthur released his sequel to The Gospel According To Jesus titled The Gospel According To The Apostles. In this book he claims that the present day Lordship interpretation of the gospel is the very gospel message preached by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Does the New Testament bear this out?
I have done a key word search of the New Testament (KJV) beginning with the Book of Acts through Revelation. The words I searched for are: “commit,” “surrender” and “follow.” These words appeared 54, 0 and 45 times respectively.
At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.
Of course we find the words “faith” and “repent” frequently, but never in conjunction with or in the context of commit, surrender and follow. The cross is mentioned only 11 times. Just as with faith and repentance there is no connecting of the cross to commitment, surrender or following.
We do not find the Lordship gospel of commitment and surrender in the preaching of the Apostles. That is because when Jesus preached commitment, surrender and following He was not preaching salvation. He was preaching discipleship!
The gospel is defined buy the Apostle Paul, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4).
Just as with his first book, only by redefining the biblical terms of discipleship can Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation be found in the New Testament. The Bible does not support the contention by you or Dr. MacArthur that the Apostles taught or preached Lordship Salvation.
LM
Lou,
Thank you for your comment.
The word study you’ve done is interesting, but ultimately not convincing. I don’t know what your position is on the KJV-issue, but an English word study is really not the most precise way to approach the text.
Moreover, you are misrepresenting lordship salvation to limit it only to those three terms “commit,” “surrender,” and “follow.” Not only do words like “turn” and “repent” occur in evangelistic sermons (in Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30), but the most straightforward answers to the question: “What must I do to be saved?” emphasize the lordship of Christ (Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9-10). The term “Christian” itself refers to “disciples” (Acts 11:26), which is in keeping with Paul’s ministry to go to the Gentiles and tell them “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20).
The New Testament epistles assume that a true believer will love Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; 1 Peter 1:8). Those who do not love Christ are false professors (cf. 1 John). Those who do not obey Christ demonstrate that they do not truly love Him (John 14:15), and are therefore not saved (2 John 9). On the other hand, those who truly believe will obey out of love for the Savior. Because they have the Spirit of God, they walk in patterns of obedience (Rom. 8:1-15). That is the essence of lordship salvation. It is also the message of the NT epistles.
Finally, I think it is unfortunate that you divorce the gospel accounts from the rest of the New Testament. You write, “ At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.” Why did you exclude the four gospels from your search? Passages like Matthew 10:37-38; 16:24-26; 19:20-30; the parallel passages in Mark and Luke; John 8:12; 10:27-28; 12:23-26 tie the idea of “following” together with the idea of eternal life (or salvation).
It is interesting also that you cite 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4. Out of curiosity, why did you skip verse 2, which reads: “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” This verse again is the essence of lordship. Those who “hold fast” demonstrate that their salvation was genuine. Those who do not “hold fast” demonstrate that they never truly believed in the first place (cf. 1 John 2:19).
Much more could be added to support the lordship position from the New Testament. These are just some initial thoughts I had. I hope this makes sense.
Thanks again for your comments,
NB
Nathan:
>>Finally, I think it is unfortunate that you divorce the gospel accounts from the rest of the New Testament. You write, “ At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.” Why did you exclude the four gospels from your search?>It is interesting also that you cite 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4. Out of curiosity, why did you skip verse 2, which reads: “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.”
Nathan:
I had posted a reply above, but my notes that were to follow the quotes I used from you did not appear. Not sure what happened. Was my post edited?
LM
Lou,
Please try posting your comment again.
The only part that posted was your citation of my earlier comment.
We did not edit away or delete your comments. We only delete or edit comments that are either grossly inappropriate in tone or contain explicit language.
I am actually very eager to interact with your response.
Thanks.
Nate B. for Pulpit
Nathan:
>>Finally, I think it is unfortunate that you divorce the gospel accounts from the rest of the New Testament. You write, “ At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.” Why did you exclude the four gospels from your search?the orthodox teaching of the church since the time of the apostles.” Therefore, I searched through the portion of Scripture where the Apostles were preaching and teaching, which is Acts through Revelation.
As I noted we cannot find the Apostles preaching a gospel defined by commitment, surrender and following to receive eternal life. This is because Jesus did not preach that kind of gospel message. When Jesus was preaching “follow Me,” he was preaching discipleship, which is very different from the plan of salvation.
>>It is interesting also that you cite 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4. Out of curiosity, why did you skip verse 2, which reads: “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” This verse again is the essence of lordship. Those who “hold fast” demonstrate that their salvation was genuine. Those who do not “hold fast” demonstrate that they never truly believed in the first place (cf. 1 John 2:19).Eph. 2:10). Man does not “hold fast” to get saved, we trust he will “hold fast” because he has been saved. Verse two is about the evidence of salvation, not the requirement for salvation.
LM
Nathan: (I hope this takes, the previous again lost some of my notes)
>>Finally, I think it is unfortunate that you divorce the gospel accounts from the rest of the New Testament. You write, “ At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.” Why did you exclude the four gospels from your search?>It is interesting also that you cite 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4. Out of curiosity, why did you skip verse 2, which reads: “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” This verse again is the essence of lordship. Those who “hold fast” demonstrate that their salvation was genuine. Those who do not “hold fast” demonstrate that they never truly believed in the first place (cf. 1 John 2:19).Eph. 2:10). Man does not “hold fast” to get saved, we trust he will “hold fast” because he has been saved. Verse two is about the evidence of salvation, not the requirement for salvation.
LM
Nathan:
Definite problem! Not sure what is going on, but my notes are not posting properly.
Will try from home later.
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “I don’t know what your position is on the KJV-issue, but an English word study is really not the most precise way to approach the text.”
The KJV is my strongly preferred version. If I am visiting another church and they happen to use the NKJV or NIV I will not rent my garment and run out the back door screaming “heresy.”
I allow for soul liberty and the autonomy of the local church on this issue. The Living Bible (paraphrase)and the obviously corrupted translations would, of course, be another matter.
My purpose was not to do a formal word study, just tried to find any use of the terms commonly found in Dr. MacArthur’s definition of Lordship Salvation.
LM
Nathan:
I am going to suggest that we focus our discussion on how a lost man is born again. How he becomes a child of God.
In various posts we have agreed several times about the results of salvation. For me the real issue is the conversion experience. We should be focused on the requirements for salvation, because that is nearly the entire issue I address in my book and what I am trying to address in these posts.
We both agree (and I agree with Dr. MacArthur) that following a genuine conversion there should be some level of genuine evidence of the conversion. There should be a desire to live in obedience to the commands of Christ. There should be evidence of a new nature. I am very clear about this in my book.
My concerns with Lordship Salvation are very limited in the post-conversion area. The only concerns I might like to discuss are the matters of the carnal Christian and assurance issues.
Can we agree to discuss Lordship Salvation within the context of how a lost man is born again? Not to say the results are not an important discussion, but that is a topic for a separate discussion.
By the way, I am wondering if you might consider moving our debate to a dedicated place in your site. I think many will miss it by looking at other topics the site has addressed each day.
You could pull our exchanges, begin a new location on the site and we can pick it up from there. You could direct visitors to the site to our discussiuon. I think our interaction has been helpful; there is none of the sparks and heat that appeared on the SharperIron site.
Thanks,
LM
Nathan:
I will address much of your post from the end and work my way up.
Earlier you wrote, “Finally, I think it is unfortunate that you divorce the gospel accounts from the rest of the New Testament. You write, “At no point in the New Testament from the Book of Acts through Revelation do any of these terms, commonly used by Dr. MacArthur to define the Lordship gospel, appear in a salvation context.” Why did you exclude the four gospels from your search?”
I limited my search to the Book of Acts through Revelation to keep my post within the context of your earlier statement. You set the parameters of the word search when you wrote, “While Scripture alone is our authority, not church history, it is important to emphasize that the lordship position has been the orthodox teaching of the church since the time of the apostles.” So, I searched for any indication of Lordship Salvation in “the time of the apostles” ministry, which is primarily found in the Book of Acts through Revelation.
Your statement is a recurring theme. In 1993, for instance, John MacArthur released The Gospel According to the Apostles. A close examination of Lordship theology in my book In Defense of the Gospel grave concerns are raised over whether Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation is the gospel of grace as taught in the New Testament, and proclaimed by the Apostles. My book asks: “Is Lordship Salvation the New Testament gospel; or, is it another deviation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?”
I did look back to Matthew 10 where Jesus sent out His “twelve disciples” to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus gave them power to heal the sick, cast out demons. As for the message there were to proclaim that the miracles would validate, Jesus said, “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” We do not find Jesus telling His apostles to preach commitment or surrender.
In the parallel passages- Mark 6:12 says, “And they went out, and preached that men should repent.” Luke 9:6 says, “And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.” Here Jesus commands them to preach repentance and the gospel.
If one believes the gospel message that results in eternal life requires an upfront promise of commitment and surrender, then one might claim the apostles preached Lordship Salvation. One contributor to my book warns my readers not to confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. He warns my readers not to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith, but they are not the essence of saving faith.
When one understands commitments to cross bearing and following are not messages that lead to eternal life, but are instead instruction on how to live wisely as a disciple of Christ, then we conclude the apostles did not preach Lordship Salvation.
As I noted we cannot find the apostles preaching a gospel defined by commitment, surrender and following to receive eternal life. This is because Jesus did not preach that kind of gospel message. When Jesus preached “follow Me,” He was preaching discipleship, which is biblically distinguished from the plan of salvation.
My conclusion is that Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation is not the gospel of the apostles, nor is it the gospel according to Jesus.
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “It is interesting also that you cite 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4. Out of curiosity, why did you skip verse 2, which reads: “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” This verse again is the essence of lordship. Those who “hold fast” demonstrate that their salvation was genuine. Those who do not “hold fast” demonstrate that they never truly believed in the first place (cf. 1 John 2:19).”
I know you do not believe I was trying to avoid a verse. For the record I would not “skip” a verse if I felt it might undermine my position. I always let the Bible define.
Verses 1, 3-4 define the gospel message, which is what Jesus has done for the sins of the whole world. He died, was buried and rose again.
In verse two Paul is addressing what has been done in the hearts of the believers. He says, “keep in memory” (“hold fast”) which, in my opinion, suggests Paul believes they are living for God and is evidence they have been saved. “Believe in vain” would reference a false, unrepentant conversion. This verse does not spell out the gospel; it addresses the results of the gospel.
When you say “the essence of lordship,” I would revise that to say “the evidence of living in obedience to His lordship.” I certainly agree with your statement, “Those who ‘hold fast’ demonstrate that their salvation was genuine.” I firmly believe once a man is genuinely born again, he will have a genuine desire for the “good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2:10). That, however, is getting away from a discussion of how one receives eternal life.
The gospel is not a message that tells a lost man what we must do or promise what he we will become to receive eternal life. The gospel tells us what Jesus has done to save man from sin, death and Hell. Man does not “hold fast” to get saved, we trust he will “hold fast” because he has been saved. 1 Corinthians 15:2 is about the evidence of salvation, not the requirement for salvation.
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “Moreover, you are misrepresenting lordship salvation to limit it only to those three terms ‘commit,’ ’surrender,’ and ‘follow.’”
When I define Lordship Salvation I am using the terms Dr. MacArthur uses to define his own Lordship position. In my book I thoroughly document the lordship advocates like John MacArthur, Kenneth Gentry, and Walter Chantry by letting them define their position through their own words. That way there is no chance I misrepresent them.
Before we look at how Dr. MacArthur defines Lordship Salvation I want to reiterate that we are addressing how a lost man receives eternal life. I am not addressing the results of receiving eternal life. So, here is how Dr. MacArthur defines the way in which a man is born again:
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 27, 142.
“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised and Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
Anyone can plainly see for himself that Dr. MacArthur defines Lordship Salvation as necessitating “surrender”, “commitment” and “following” in “exchange” for salvation.
When I use terms like “commitment, surrender and following” I am using the very same terms Dr. MacArthur uses to define Lordship Salvation.
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “Not only do words like ‘turn’ and ‘repent’ occur in evangelistic sermons (in Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30), but the most straightforward answers to the question: ‘What must I do to be saved?’ emphasize the lordship of Christ (Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9-10).”
Of course “repent” when defined within its biblical boundary applies to the gospel message. When we read the sermons of Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts we find no connection or reference to surrender, commitment, taking up the cross or following Christ in “exchange” for salvation. Only by redefining repentance can the Lordship gospel be found in these sermons.
Now I am gong to have to be blunt here: In my book In Defense of the Gospel I have separate chapters dedicated to a discussion of Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31.
The chapter on Romans 10:9 is dedicated to a careful examination of and commentary on this important verse. Several key words (Confess, Believe, Lord) from the verse are studied and compared. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that Romans 10:9 does not support the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel.
As for my chapter on Acts 16:31 the opening begins this way, “Does believe mean one must surrender every area of his life to the Lord Jesus Christ to be born again? Does Paul mean that the jailer must commit to a life of godly behavior to be saved? Or does Paul mean for the jailer to rest in and depend on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ? The latter is the gospel; the former are works.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 181.)
In these chapters I carefully detail how Dr. MacArthur’s use of these passages to bolster his gospel of commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation cannot be supported in the passages.
Nowhere in Scripture is making a promise of surrender to Jesus’ lordship over one’s life a requirement to receive salvation from the Savior.
By the way, you do not mention “faith” occurring in “evangelistic sermons”. Is this an oversight, or are you placing faith under the heading of repentance?
LM
PS: I trust you are relating to Dr. MacArthur what I am sharing in these posts. They are really intended for him because he wrote the articles I am responding to. Since you said Dr. MacArthur will not involve himself in these discussions I am settling for addressing his position through you.
Nathan:
You wrote, “The term ‘Christian’ itself refers to ‘disciples’ (Acts 11:26), which is in keeping with Paul’s ministry to go to the Gentiles and tell them ‘that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance’ (Acts 26:20).”
You cite Acts 11:26. There is a missionary in South Africa named Doug VanMeter. I know him personally through my three years as a missionary located not far from his ministry. Pastor VanMeter is the leading advocate for Lordship Salvation among American missionaries there. Here is an edited excerpt from a sermon he preached at a Bible conference.
He said, “…we are messed up when we teach people that you can become a believer and later on a disciple. If a person does not become a disciple, they are not a Christian. By the way, Christian comes after being a disciple; did you know that? Acts 11:26-the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. About 20 years after the church started. Christlike and we are teaching people, take Christ as your Savior and later on as your Lord. If you are doing that you are not getting saved! It is a matter of surrender; there is a cost involved.”
Are you comfortable with Pastor VanMeter’s take on Acts 11:26?
LM
Nathan:
You wrote, “The New Testament epistles assume that a true believer will love Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; 1 Peter 1:8). Those who do not love Christ are false professors (cf. 1 John). Those who do not obey Christ demonstrate that they do not truly love Him (John 14:15), and are therefore not saved (2 John 9). On the other hand, those who truly believe will obey out of love for the Savior. Because they have the Spirit of God, they walk in patterns of obedience (Rom. 8:1-15). That is the essence of lordship salvation. It is also the message of the NT epistles.”
Yes, and again I agree with these thoughts when applied to the growth and discipleship of a born again man. These, however, have nothing to do with the reception of eternal life. They are not requirements to be born again.
LM
Lou,
Thank you for your comments. If I am reading you correctly, you are agreeing that 1) true salvation results in a changed heart and a changed life; and 2) repentance is part of the gospel message as long as repentance is properly defined.
Your primary complaints with lordship salvation are: 1) that lordship advocates have confused the results of salvation with the requirements for salvation; 2) that lordship advocates have misdefined repentance; and 3) that lordship advocates have confused calls to salvation with calls to discipleship.
I am simply seeking clarification here, so as to best know how to respond to your comments. Please help me understand your position, if I a