Lou and Lordship (Part 1)
October 30th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This is part one of a multi-part response to Lou Martuneac’s book, In Defense of the Gospel (Xulon, 2006).
It seems to me that there are three basic positions on the lordship issue. And they each center around two essential questions (which in reverse order are): 1) What does it mean to repent? and 2) Is repentance necessary to saving faith?
To the first question, the lordship camp answers that repentance is a change of heart (from love for sin and self to love for Christ) which results in a change of behavior (John 14:15). To the second question, lordship advocates unequivocally answer “yes.”
Proponents of Free Grace define repentance similarly: a change of heart that results in a change of behavior. They see repentance as an important step for believers to take after conversion. But they definitely do not see repentance as part of what is meant, biblically, by saving faith.
A third group (led by men like Charles Ryrie) limit repentance to a change of mind only. Thus, while they see repentance as a necessary part of saving faith, they define repentance in such a way that it is almost synonymous to simple belief (meaning intellectual assent).
Enter Lou Martuneac.
From my own interaction with Lou, he seems like a really nice guy. His tone has always been gracious, and his desire to be biblical certainly seems sincere. Though his background (as a Fundamentalist Baptist missionary) is very different than mine, his appeal to the Scriptures as the final authority in all things is one I wholeheartedly applaud.
To the second question above, Lou answers “Yes.” Repentance is necessary to saving faith. But to the first question, Lou offers a unique perspective. On the one hand, he finds Ryrie’s understanding of repentance weak and lacking. But, on the other hand, he finds the lordship understanding of repentance to be over-the-top and unbiblical.
In his book, In Defense of the Gospel, Lou lays out what he believes to be the mediating, biblical approach: that repentance is something more than a mere change of mind but something less than a full change of heart.
But here’s the thing…
Lou is trying to defend middle ground that doesn’t exist. Either repentance is a change of heart (the lordship view) or it is not. The law of the excluded middle leaves no room for Lou’s attempt at theological funambulism. (I will expand more on this later, demonstrating that this is not the “false dilemma” [cf. page 127 of his book] Lou might want it to be.)
So here’s the bottom line… (which surprised me as much as anyone)
After reading his book, I am convinced that Lou Martuneac is, in actuality, a proponent of Lordship Salvation.
There, I said it.
I know, I know… this is probably not what most of you expected to read. Most of all, I’m guessing Lou is probably choking, yelling, or laughing hysterically right now. (Maybe all three.) Sorry for the shock, Lou.
But it’s true… after reading his book, I’m convinced. And over the next few days I will attempt to demonstrate, from his book, why I believe Lou Martuneac holds the lordship view. Or at least why his arguments leave his readers with no logical or biblical alternative other than the lordship position.
Granted, Lou would never call himself a lordship advocate. He even wrote a book subtitled, “Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.” But I think this is due, primarily, to his misconceptions about what lordship teaches, his antagonism toward a Reformed soteriology, his “deeper-life” approach to sanctification (and subsequent misunderstanding of the nature of discipleship), and his genuine (though off-target) desire to divorce any hint of human merit from salvation.
In spite of all this, the repentance Lou promotes is, essentially, the repentance of lordship advocates. Thus, because he sees it as necessary to saving faith, I am left with only one conclusion:
Whether he realizes it or not, Lou Martuneac is teaching a lordship gospel.
(Part 2 to come tomorrow.)
Before I get accused of being either intellectually dishonest or in a state of total denial, I suppose I should quickly clarify what I mean when I say that Lou is teaching a lordship gospel.
I am not saying, of course, that Lou is actively or openly promoting what he considers to be the lordship salvation view.
I am saying, rather, that Lou’s description of repentance is strikingly similar to the lordship description of repentance; and though he tries to distance his definition of repentance from the lordship model, he is not ultimately able to do so in a way that is either theologically or logically tenable. If his views on repentance are taken to their logical (and biblical) ends, they necessarily result in a lordship understanding of what repentance is.
Because his arguments regarding repentance correspond with or lead to the lordship understanding of repentance (as I will show tomorrow), and because he considers repentance necessary to saving faith, his view (by default) is a lordship view.
The reason, I believe, that Lou has such a difficult time with men like John MacArthur and John Piper is not primarily due to his understanding of repentance (which is the key issue in this debate). Rather, it stems from other issues, such as his distaste for Calvinism and his misconceptions about what lordship advocates are actually promoting.
NATE B
I’m curious what do you see is the major diffence between Zane Hodges’ view of LS and Dr.Charles Ryrie? I have read many of Dr.Ryrie’s books and I find many of them to be excellent. In his study Bible I don’t see the antinomianism that he is accused of holding. He has an incredibly high regard for the Bible, personal holiness and his views on divorce are as strict as any evangelical I’ve seen. I’m not as familiar with Hodges, but he seems more extreme to me. By the way, if you have the chance, you should read Ryrie’s notes in his study Bible on James 2. I think you would be surprised. Grace and peace.
Thank you Nate B.,
I’ll look forward to your further unfolding of Mr. Martuneac’s study.
Although from your thoughts so far, I’m a bit surprised to hear you say that repentance is a change of heart–rather than mind. From my study, and insights given to me by my sem. prof., Calvinist (or Classical Theisitic) thought articulates an anthropology that elevates the mind/will as the primary component that defines man vs. the affections, which typically (and historically) Calvinist thought has denigrated to be the negative/weak component which constitutes man.
Which Reformed writers have influenced you the most, Nate B. (contemporary [besides MacArthur], and historic)?
Riveting. I can’t wait…so far, so good.
I have to admit that I am wary of the “cult of personality” thing that happens sometimes, whether with a theologian, or a pastor, etc, becuase I always want to exalt the fullness of perfection, Christ Jesus, not a mere man. Having said that, I cant tell you how much I appreciate John’s ministry, and this website is certainly part of that. I am young, 27, and I must admit that I pray heavily that I and other young men will make a radical commitment to the Bible in the way that John has in his ministry.
I look foward to seeing John thursday at Southern Seminary.
Grace and Peace in Christ,
Steven
[…] Nate Busentiz begins his review of In Defense of the Gospel in Lou and Lordship (Part 1) […]
A quick question. Isn’t heart and mind often used interchangably in scripture to some extent? I ask this because it would seem to me that a change in mind would also equal out to be a change in heart; it affects the way a person is headed.
Rob
Dear Visitors:
To view the statement I prepared in advance of today’s opening review of my book please click over to my blog site. Later I will address Nathan’s initial assessment.
Kind regards,
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
This is going to be a great exchange. Thanks to Nathan and Lou for starting the discussion.
From what I’ve read of Lou’s posts, the two issues I haven’t seen dealt with are:
1. The passage in Acts 26 wherein Paul states that “forgiveness of sins” is based upon “repentance” (in direct obedience to the command of Jesus);
2. The conflation of a “commitment” to obedience with obedience itself. The two are not the same, and Lou has made this assertion without support.
I hope these will be dealt with specifically, as right now they seem to me to cut out the heart of Lou’s argument.
Shane,
Thanks for your insights on Ryrie, I’ll have to look at his study notes. My comments here relate to his position, as I understand it, from So Great Salvation.
Bobby,
I defined repentance as a “change of heart” (per the Lordship view) only because I was trying to differentiate it from Ryrie. Lordship sees repentance as having an intellectual, emotional, and volitional element (mind, heart, will). Whereas Ryrie’s view, as I understand it, limits repentance almost totally to the intellectual.
Steven,
Thanks for the reminder about personality cults. That is a good word, and helpful to remember. This discussion is not ultimately about “MacArthur vs. Martuneac.” It is, rather, about how we understanding the nature of saving faith (the gospel).
Robert,
Heart and mind are used interchangeably in Scripture, which is why the lordship view has a difficult time with Ryrie’s limited definition of repentance. Great observation.
Lou,
I notice that you’ve started a similar discussion about this over at your blog. I think that’s great, and I look forward to reading your responses. I do hope you feel the freedom to respond here as well, in the comments section.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the encouraging word.
JSB,
Excellent insights. We will be addressing both of those things in future posts (the first indirectly, and the second more directly).
Thanks to all for your comments.
NB
Lou,
Thank you for your book that handles the issue of “Lordship Salvation” graciously and fairly. I would prefer the moniker “Surrender Salvation” which more accurately describes that position, because the Free Grace position believes that Christ’s lordship is essential to salvation. Christ could not have saved us unless He were Lord. The issue is how much of His lordship must one understand and must one surrender to it. So calling Free Grace “non-lordship” seems unfair and derogatory, thus unchristlike. No one in the FG camp refers to themselves as “no-lorship.”
Similarly, “easy believeism” is a misnomer, because I think most all in the Free Grace movement would say it is not easy to believe (that I am destined to hell, that Jesus paid a price for my sins, that He lives to give eternal life, that His promise will save me today, etc.). Free Grace proponents would say instead that it is simple to believe. The opposite of simple is complex. Surrender Salvation does indeed make it complex to believe when it includes the many conditions of discipleship in their requirement for salvation. On the other hand, simple salvation means that a person can believe the promise of John 3:16 and be eternally saved. John 3:16 does not say “whoever behaves in Him has everlasting life.”
This idea that works can sufficiently validate one’s salvation is unprovable. What is a good work? Getting up in the morning and going to work to provide for your family? If so, then many pagans are doing good works. In fact, even a satanist will hold the door for an old lady. Many cultists live good lives. Many Christians live less than good lives. This notion is so relative it becomes useless. Where is the definitive list of sin in Scripture that disproves one’s salvation? Who on earth will presume to make that judgment? Good works can not prove salvation and evil deeds can not disprove salvation as long as unbelievers are capable of doing good and believers (like King David) are capable of doing bad.
The answer to the Surrender Salvation concern that there are those who profess to be Christians and don’t live like it is this:
1. They may have never believed in Christ as Savior.
2. They may have believed, but struggle with sin, as we all do to different degrees because sanctification is not instantaneous.
3. They may have believed, but fail to understand (or were not taught) that the Christian must give an account for how he/she uses his/her life at the judgment seat of Christ.
4. They may have believed, but never understood that the worshipful response to the freeness of God’s saving grace is to offer ourselves as sacrifices to Him. Another way of saying this is that we commit ourselves to a life of discipleship, not as a requirement for salvation, but as a result.
Charlie,
Welcome to the discussion. It’s good to have you join us, especially since Lou relied on your work Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response in his recent book.
While Lou uses your work to identify what he perceives as weaknesses in the Lordship view, he is equally eager to distance himself from the Free Grace view (which is what I believe you promote).
Lou himself contends that he is attempting to find a middle-of-the-road position between Free Grace and Lordship. Yet, at the same time, he is not satisfied with Ryrie’s model, since he finds Ryrie’s understanding of repentance incomplete.
My guess is that you (as a Free Grace advocate) and I (as a Lordship advocate) would define repentance pretty similarly… as a change of allegiance from sin and self to Christ which results in obedience. The difference between us would be whether or not we think repentance is necessary to saving faith. You would say, “no,” and I would say, “yes.”
Lou attempts to define repentance differently. But ultimately I do not think he is successful. In fact, I think his arguments lead him (necessarily) to understand repentance in the same way that you and I both understand it.
The question then is, does he see repentance as necessary to saving faith. Since he does, then the gospel he is promoting is (by default) a lordship gospel.
Again, I think our camps (Free Grace and Lordship) generally agree on the definition of repentance (as long as repentance and the “fruits of repentance” are kept separate). The issue that separates us is whether or not it is necessary to saving faith.
Anyway, these are some quick thoughts.
Thanks,
NB
John Piper has an excellent definition of repentance on pp. 40-41 in his new book, What Jesus Demands from the World (Crossway, 2006). Piper’s understanding adequately summarizes and represents the Lordship understanding of repentance:
CHARLIE B
You made some excellent points that put the issue in a different perspective. Grace and peace.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for your reply. That is the same problem I have with the Free Grace position. Excellent quote from Piper, by the way.
Rob
Hi Charlie,
If I may, I would like to ask you a question concerning the latter part of your post.
>4. They may have believed, but never understood that the worshipful response to the freeness of God’s saving grace is to offer ourselves as sacrifices to Him. Another way of saying this is that we commit ourselves to a life of discipleship, not as a requirement for salvation, but as a result.3. They may have believed, but fail to understand (or were not taught) that the Christian must give an account for how he/she uses his/her life at the judgment seat of Christ.
It looks like my post cut off.
The gist of my question to you, Charlie, is do you affirm, along with others in the Free Grace movement, that belief in eternal security, at the moment of faith, is nessessary for receiving salvation?
Thank you for considering my question.
Robert
Nate,
Since you are familiar with my doctoral thesis on Lordship Salvation, my view on repentance is best articulated there. Lou is capable of speaking for himself.
One of the problems for both sides is the insistence on a narrow definition for the troublesome, poorly translated word, repentance. Repentance must be defined by the context. Sin is not always the object. The English word leads us toward the idea of penance for sin, but sin is not necessarily implied by metanoia itself. Ancient literature uses it of someone who repented for NOT murdering someone. I prefer the meaning “change of heart.” The object of that change must be taken from the context. In the old King James, God repents many times, which shows how the word was at least understood then.
If understood in this way, then repentance can be seen as sometimes overlapping with faith in that faith is indeed a change of mind/heart, because a person who didn’t think they needed salvation, now understands he does, or who didn’t understand Christ’s provision, now does. I view faith as the more specific word, and repentance as a more flexible word that has some overlap with faith. Picture a small ball (faith) inside of a larger ball (repentance).
So to say that one is Lordship simply because he believes that repentance is necessary to faith is an oversimplification that needs definition.
The essential issue is whether repentance means a turning from sin. So far, it seems all agree it doesn’t. Good thing, because that could never be quantified. It also seems an unlikely understanding to bring to Luke 17:4. The root must be kept distinct from the fruit, although one should lead to the other.
Robert,
You are changing the subject at hand and opening a whole nother can o’ worms!
I believe that a person is saved when they believe in Jesus’ promise to give them eternal life. I do not think they will always understand the implications of all that they believe. That, of course, will take a lifetime of sanctification. To what degree a person understands eternal life (such as specifically eternal security) and whether that suffices for salvation, I defer to God as the Judge.
Nathan:
I wanted to write a brief note, but that did not work out.
It is good that you immediately provided some level of clarification. I am pleased you noted that I have been gracious in our discussions. I want you to know at the outset of this post I am remaining gracious, but I am going to say some tough things.
Anyone who has read our discussions has noted how I have expressed agreement with anyone who believes that a genuine conversion should naturally result in a life that desires to, and shows some evidence of growing in Christ. On this matter we are in close agreement. As I note in my book I try to land where the Bible lands whether or not that identifies me with any particular system or camp. So, am I shocked? Not really, because we have largely agreed all along on the results of salvation.
The area of serious disagreement and departure is over how Lordship Salvation defines the conditions which must be met for the reception of salvation. The following appears as part of my opening statement at my blog site.
“My chief concern with Lordship Salvation is over what constitutes the gospel message that results in eternal life. Many men on both sides of the issue agree to a large degree on what should be the natural results of salvation. The agreement is that a genuinely born again Christian should have a desire to and exhibits, to some degree, a life that is in submission to his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Please understand that I am not going to get bogged down or distracted by a discussion over what we agree on.”
“The debate and controversy is over what the Bible says is the gospel message that leads to and results in the reception of eternal life, the free gift of God. This is the main concern and central theme of my book. In previous discussions I have attempted to keep the Lordship advocates focused on this topic, but most preferred to move off topic for a discussion of the results of salvation. I intend to hone in and stay fixed on dealing with how John MacArthur defines the way in which a lost man becomes a born again child of God. I do not intend to deviate from that theme….”
For me the core issue is the way Lordship Salvation defines how a lost man receives eternal life. Representing Lordship Salvation, Dr. MacArthur explains the position. Each of the following quotes are from The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition].
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . >b; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.”
“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. Seen through the eyes of this world, it is as high a price as anyone can pay. But from a kingdom perspective, it is really no sacrifice at all.”
“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.)
These selections written by Dr. MacArthur define what he believes are the mandated requirements a lost man must satisfy to be born again. There is no misunderstanding, no misconception of the position! Nothing could be clearer: Dr. MacArthur conditions salvation on the promise of “good works” (Eph. 2:10). I contend that this kind of teaching is a departure from biblical salvation. My book addresses these unscriptural interpretations of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.There are chapters from my book such as: What Is Saving Faith; Can There Be A Christian Who Is Carnal; Romans Chapter Ten; Acts 16:31; Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference and The Rich Young Ruler. In those chapters I show the sharp lines of division between John MacArthur’s Lordship approach to the requirements for salvation and the biblical plan of salvation.
With that said I do not think anybody here will consider me in doctrinal unity with Dr. MacArthur or Lordship Salvation when it comes to how a man is born again.
If you do not refer your readers to the sharp disagreements in my book with Lordship Salvation’s demands for an upfront promise of commitment, surrender, cross bearing and self-denial for the reception of eternal life, you will have censored the core message of my book through omission.
One thing I find distasteful is your weaving in the suggestion that I stumbled into being a “proponent of Lordship Salvation.” You wrote, “Whether he realizes it or not…” I do not appreciate the connotation of that remark. What is especially disconcerting is that without drawing the distinction between the requirements for and results of salvation, which I have pressed for all along, you infer I am doctrinal agreement with aspects of Lordship Salvation that I define as error and sharply disagree with.
Any objection reading of my book finds that I have defined the Lordship gospel of submission and commitment for salvation accurately. I primarily used the writings of its advocates, but primarily John MacArthur. There are no “misconceptions about what lordship advocates are actually promoting.” Lordship Salvation places requirements for salvation on the lost, which the Bible does not. A promise of commitment, surrender, self-denial and willingness to die for Jesus’ sake in “exchange” for eternal life is the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. I document this position as expressed by Dr. MacArthur in my book.
You wrote, “Lou answers ‘Yes.’ Repentance is necessary to saving faith.” That is not how I would express myself. I might state it this way, “Repentance is just as necessary to salvation as faith.” It may seem minor, but I need to clarify. In other posts I have clearly stated that I believe repentance and faith are two-sides of the same theological coin. Neither doctrine is more or less important than the other. They are both vital to the gospel message, and both are distinct.
You referred to repentance as the “key issue in this debate.” Repentance is just one of several key issues in the debate. In addition to repentance, other keys to the debate include faith, belief and discipleship.
You must not represent my position as though I am in agreement with how Lordship Salvation views the requirements for salvation. You need to draw the distinction between the requirements for and the result of salvation, which I have been doing since we began discussing this issue.
If you persist in steering the discussion, and now the direction of my book, away from the contrast of positions over how a lost man becomes a born again child of God, then we will have a difficult time going forward.
Finally, there was no deliberate attempt on my part to walk a tight rope (“theological funambulism”). I did not look to carve out a niche for myself in the debate. I did not set down the competing positions side-by-side and look for some thin line to walk and then attempt to define myself in that narrow place. I simply studied out Lordship Salvation from the men who advocate the position, compared their work with Scripture and arrived where you find me in my book.
For all those who might be interested: There is much you can read at my blog site on the areas that comprise the controversy in the Lordship debate. If on my blog site you will read Introduction by the Author you will have a better understanding of the direction from which I approach this issue.
On my site you will also find a link to my book on Amazon. You can read portions of my book on line at the Amazon site. I trust you will see that I have written with balance and clarity.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
PS: Nathan, since you find me a “proponent of Lordship Salvation” can I count on your ordering additional copies of my book for the required reading list at the Master’s Seminary?
Uh guys did you ever think that it might just be an insult to God to say that His salvation is costly to us?
His Salvation brings eternal glorious riches. Whatever hardship or chastening we endure is nothing compared to the Glory we shall receive that He has paid for entirely 100 percent and at no expense to us.
I once heard Chuck Smith talk about a layman that went to work for him and he found out later that the layman was a little upset because he wasn’t on Calvary Chapels payroll and so he called him back into his office and paid him sufficient funds for his work.
God will take into account every idle word that men speak. Especially concerning his salvation that is absolutely free and at no cost or effort from us.
He also said he sent him on his way and said he no longer wanted him to work for him.
Dear Dr. Bing:
Good to hear from you. I appreciate the notes you have entered into the discussion above.
Your dissertation was one of many books I utilized from both sides of the debate to gain an understanding of the issues. Thanks for sending it to me while I was in South Africa.
God bless you,
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
NATE B
In your introduction I believe you said that there is no real middle ground on this issue. I think it depends where you put your 2 extremes. There has been the tendency to put Zane Hodges at one end and John MacArthur at the other end. I think we have neglected the Wesleyan/Arminian wing of the LS debate. Dan Corner of evangelical outreach, a Wesleyan Fundamentalist thinks both MacArthur and Spurgeon were soft on sin. I recall John Wesley often calling the Calvinists of his day antinomian. Charles G. Finney thought the heirs of the Westminster Confession used original sin and imputed righteousness as excuses for sin (or as he probably called it ‘imputed nonsense’. Finney would have none of that,it’s perfect obedience to the moral law or eternal hell fire and brimstone. The Anabaptist or ‘radical reformers’ thought the Reformers were too linked to this world, especially the state. The Anabaptist didn’t think the Reformers or RCs resembled the Sermon on the Mount with all their violence. Also, in one sense Pelagian had sticter standards of holiness than Augustine. If you include the Wesleyan and Anabaptist traditions of evangelicalism, you would have a middle ground position. Also the late Keith Green was also quite radical on commitment. Both A.W. Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill also seem quite Arminian in their theology who were proponents of LS. I just thought I’d provide a different perspective because Pentecostals and Wesleyans do make up a significant part of evangelicalism.
If you read Psalm 51, and study the life of King David, you’ll see pretty clearly what repentance means, to God, and how a lying, murdering, adulterer was said to be a man after God’s own heart!! (Acts 13:22, 1 Samuel 13:14) King David’s sins were recorded in great detail, and his responses were as well.. when he found out he was sinning, he repented of it right away, and cried out to God, not man for forgiveness and help.. it’s a mirror of how we are to come to Christ, broken and humble, and thankful for the gift he’s given us. You’re life should start to bear fruits for Christ.. Jesus gave us examples of what that meant.. Daniel’s prayer in Daniel chapter 9 outlines how our relationship with God should be… in John 14:21 Jesus says
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
so how do we know we are living a life pleasing to God? We follow all of Jesus’ commands, not just the easy ones! That’s how we know we are saved, by a life that mirrors what He has told us to do! It’s a continual process, because in a fallen world we will never be perfect, but our attitude toward sin should be one similar to the plea of Kind David in Psalm 51
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight
He was sorry because he realized he sinned against God, and deserved death, but God forgave him, because he didn’t pass the blame to someone else, but took responsibility for his actions, and that’s what God requires of us all…
Lou,
Thanks for your comment.
I realize that you probably will not agree with my final assessment of your position. Hopefully, tomorrow’s post will help narrow the discussion to (as you define it) the “conditions of salvation.”
I’m sure it must seem to you that I am playing word games… alleging that your position is, in reality, the very position you detest.
But I assure you I am not.
In your book, you make many negative accusations against the lordship salvation view. You also make many positive arguments about what you believe to be an accurate understanding of the biblical gospel.
After reading your book, I am convinced that:
1. The negative accusations you make against lordship salvation are the result (in most cases) of a misrepresentation of what lordship actually teaches; and (in other cases) a result of your own anti-Calvinistic, “deeper life” presuppositions.
I will cover these misconceptions/misrepresentations later in my review (toward the end of the week).
(I know that you think that there is no way you could have misunderstood the lordship position [cf. p. 21 of your book]. But in fact you have, and in some very important ways.)
2. The positive assertions you make for a biblical understanding of the gospel are actually arguments that (when applied with biblical and logical consistency) actually support a lordship understanding of the gospel.
Most specifically, I believe your understanding of repentance accords with a lordship understanding of repentance.
It is this that my review will focus on tomorrow and Wednesday.
When I say that your arguments lead to a lordship view, that’s what I mean (points 1 and 2 above). Your accusations against lordship are mis-targeted, and your assertions as to what the biblical gospel necessarily lead to a lordship view.
I believe this will unfold as my review continues over the next few days. Rather than address everything in your comment above, I would prefer to wait until I unfold those things over the rest of this week.
Thanks again for your comment. I assure you, I am not trying to be dishonest with your book. I’m just calling it as I see it.
- NB
Great Post, Nathan. This is a very fascinating discussion about some of the finer points in this debate. Let me just clarify, though, that in my own (unschooled) view, I definitely don’t see repentance as something that should ideally happen after conversion. (Nathan said: “They see repentance as an important step for believers to take after conversion.”) More ideally, repentance should happen multiple times in an unbeliever’s life, as he or she stumbles toward God and His word, due to His own leading. Repentance can certainly happen at the point of conversion, as well. I take the word generally to mean an internal turning from sin, so the more the better. I do see it as in contrast to bare faith in Christ alone, which has to be focused on Christ not self. In my view, the sinner needs to rely only on Christ and not think his turning over of a new leaf is helping him to be saved. ~js
Nathan:
You wrote, “I realize that you probably will not agree with my final assessment of your position. Hopefully, tomorrow’s post will help narrow the discussion to (as you define it) the ‘conditions of salvation’.”
I probably won’t agree with your final assessment, but it is not important that I agree with your review of my book.
I do, however, believe it is very important that you quote and reflect my sentiments precisely. Just above you attribute to me the “conditions of salvation.” That quote does not appear in my post because it is not what I wrote in my earlier post.
I have often framed my position for the discussion thus: “I am more concerned with the requirements for salvation than I am with the results of salvation.” In my first post above I used the phrase “requirements for salvation”, six times. Yet, you managed to misquote me.
The revision of my statement is not a small matter in this case. Replacing “for” with “of” changes the force and intent of my statement. It is these kinds of “word games” I am troubled with.
When I speak of the core problem with Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation I speak of the “conditions (or requirements) FOR salvation.”
LM
Below is another site which is covering this discussion of my book.
www.fundamentalperspective.wordpress.com
Lou,
You’re right. The operative word is “for” not “of.” That’s a good catch… and a mistake I did not intend to make.
Just so you know, my quote actually came from a comment on your blog (under today’s post) where you said:
I’m sorry I did not make the source of my citation clear. I was not intending to misquote you. I should have added the words “the reception of” into “the conditions for salvation” in order for my quote to be fully accurate.
I will attempt, from now on, to use the phrase “requirements for salvation.”
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
Thanks, I appreciate that.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Dr. Bing,
I offer my apologies in that may initial post to you was entered technecially messup by yours truely. I should have known to use quotation marks. In light of that, I would like to offer why I disagree with your response.
You write:
“You are changing the subject at hand and opening a whole nother can o’ worms!”
I would disagree with that due to the subject matter of the thread: repentance. It is claimed by the FG position that repentance is a false addition to the gospel. However, the same could be said of those who hold to a more extreme form of FG theology. Why? Because they are adding up front belief in Eternal Security as a nesessary part of what it mean to believe in Christ. In essance, they are doing the exact same thing they critique the LS position of doing. So to me, this isn’t opening a different can of worms; it is pointing out the inconsistancy on part of the more extreme FG position.
Now I know you are aware of the scholarly presentations of that view in the FG camp. What I don’t know if you are aware of is the impact that has had on some of the more zealot of the FG leity. If you like, I could easily point you to some of the postings made on the forum at the Grace Evangelical Society web site and other blog sites where comments are made that if a person didn’t believe in eternal security at the point of initinal faith, then that person was not saved. Period.
Another add in which I see the FG position doing goes hand in hand with their eternal security views. That is the teaching that for one to be a believer, they must have assurance at the point of initinal faith. Again, I know that you are aware of the scholarly presentations of that material, but I do not know if you are aware of how that is carried out by the laity. As before, I can offer you examples of that if you wish.
To reiterate, I see both of those as additions to the gospel of Christ committed by many in the Free Grace camp. They are quilty of doing the same exact thing that they accuse those of the Lordship camp as doing. That, to me, is a double standard.
You write:
“I believe that a person is saved when they believe in Jesus’ promise to give them eternal life.”
That would seem as if you are seperating the promises of Jesus from Jesus Himself. The promise is only as good as the person who makes it.
Why do I say that you are seperating the promise from the one who made it? Grammatically speaking, that is what you just did. You pointed, not to Jesus Himself, but to the words He said. This is how I think that would work out: You could conceivably have a person who mentally agrees with the said promise, but would ignore or disbelieve the person who stated the promise. Now of course you are going to say that is crazy and far-fetched. But the thing is, the LS person would say the same about the statement you have given here. (Please note that would have to do with the statement, not with you as a person, as I personally think you are an alright kind of dude who can play some kicking bluegrass!)
(Oh, just for reference to the above, I would also have to say that faith is not simply a mental agreement. A mental agreement would certainly be present, with faith being trust or confidence.)
You write:
“I do not think they will always understand the implications of all that they believe.”
Agreed.
You write:
“That, of course, will take a lifetime of sanctification.”
Of which you would say that the believer might not experience. Please tell me, do you consider sanctification to be part of the overall view of soteriology?
You write:
“To what degree a person understands eternal life (such as specifically eternal security) and whether that suffices for salvation, I defer to God as the Judge.”
Basically, a non committial statement from you. And that is cool. I wish both Wilkin and Hodges shared the same.
Thank you for the interaction. I have your book on Lordship salvation, by the way. Although I would disagree with some of your conclusions, I certainly do think you deserve credit for a strong and clear presentation of your position.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Robert
Jodie,
You write:
“I definitely don’t see repentance as something that should ideally happen after conversion.”
Could you please clearify that? It reads almost as if you see no practical benefits flowing to us from our union with Christ. Thank you.
Robert
Sorry, Robert, I was trying to make my comment very brief because I saw it as a side issue from the general discussion of Lou and Dr Bing’s views, and ended up making it too obscure. Anyway, I totally agree that humble repentance is needed anytime we start to cling to our way and to our sin in the Christian life. In my life that happens way more than it should. The point I was trying to make is that it is a myth that we FGers think discipleship and repentance only can happen after regeneration. In my view, people often, maybe usually, start to attempt, very inadequately, to follow Jesus first, prior to even understanding what He is promising concerning eternal life. Or when someone starts to clean up their life and go to church on Sunday, maybe they decide to stop going to bars, this IMO is repentance, and often proceeds coming to faith in Christ.
So when the Holy Spirit convicts people of sin, one positive response is to make changes in their lives, this in and of itself is good. The wicked part is when we think this type of thing can earn compatibility with God Himself. That’s a scary idea. We need eternal life to make us compatible with the Trinity.
God bless.
Jodie
Robert et al;
You have inadvertently smuggled a mistaken notion into your understanding of the FG position on assurance.
Your posts assert that “the” FG position means has frontloaded the gospel by adding eternal security as a “must believe” doctrine lest one’s faith be false. This is a misstatement on what some within the FG camp are asserting about the correct definition of faith.
It is mistaken for two reasons. First, the FG movement is not monolithic. There is a spicy debate within the FG camp on the relationship between faith and assurance, and not everyone has gotten on board with this. Second, your statement is incorrect because the actual discussion is not about the doctrine of eternal security, it is about assurance, which is a different matter.
There are those within the FG camp who believe that “assurance is the essence of faith.” Whether one remains secure (as the doctrine of eternal security asserts) is a different matter, and even those who hold to the aforementioned view will grant that one can lose assurance.
I should also point out that this is not a recent innovation. In fact the “assurance is the essence of faith” view was widely accepted within British Calvinism in the 16th century. Edward Dering asserted in the 1570s that “If we be in the covenant of his grace it is impossible that wee should not feele the comfort of it.” At around the same time John Moore claimed that true faith conveyed a sense of assurance that is as certain “as if I performed [Christ’s sacrifice] in mine own person.”
This view was not called into question until the Puritan ministers in the Massachussetts Bay Colony began experimenting with “preparationism” in the 1630s. Their motives for experimenting were manifold, but they included a unique view of covenant theology, the need to preserve the fledgling colony in the face of numerous natural and manmade threats, as well as their uniquely conditioned views of what Calvinism was at that time becoming.
So just for the record, FG theology does not front load the gospel with the doctrine of eternal security. It is an easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless.
Hi Bud,
“You have inadvertently smuggled a mistaken notion into your understanding of the FG position on assurance.”
Okay.
“First, the FG movement is not monolithic.”
And I would agree with that. If you noticed, in my post I kept referring to those who take extreme views. It really doesn’t help matters when two of the primary leaders teach the very things I spoke of.
“There is a spicy debate within the FG camp on the relationship between faith and assurance, and not everyone has gotten on board with this.”
Correct. I am very much aware of that. Just as I am very much aware that two of your leaders (Hodges and Wilkin) do upload the gospel by making assurance a requirement at initial faith. Hence, they do give a double standard when critiquing the LS position. To me Wilkin presents confusion when he states he isn’t making the doctrine “assurance is of the essance of faith” a requirement but personal assurance assurance the requirement.
“So just for the record, FG theology does not front load the gospel with the doctrine of eternal security. It is an easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless.”
Really? Can you demonstrate this? I have seen that very view written about in numerous places by Wilken himself. Here is an example:
http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2006/wilkin2.html
Here is a quote from the above article that even mentions Hodges:
“The issue of when eternal life starts came to the forefront in our annual conference this year (Feb 27- Mar 2, 2006 ). Both Zane Hod ges and Bob Bryant said that if a person has never been sure that he is eternally secure by faith in Jesus, then he has not yet been born again.”
Now that seems pretty plain to me. They are making salvation dependant upon one accepting eternal security. Granted, the article does give a numerical value to those who do not yet believe that, but it would appear to be very obvious where the leadership is wanting to take the movement.
Another quote where Wilkin responds to the objection “I Know Many Christians Who’ve Died But Never Believed They Were Eternally Secure”
“Once again, this is begging the question. How do we know if another person was born again?”
And his answer? He makes eternal security the hindge.
“I should also point out that this is not a recent innovation.”
Agreed. I personally hold to what was taught by Berkhof. Please see his “The Assurance of Faith: The Firm Foundation of Christian Hope” You can purchase that from Solid Ground Christian Books.
A question for you. It would seem to me that if one makes assurance the essance of faith, then weak faith = weak assurance, little faith = little assurance, strong faith = strong assurance. If it is the essence, then it could never be more than the amount of faith.
What would your thoughts be on that?
By the way, and I am just curious about this (and yes, I have known just such a person), how would the FG position counselsomeone who was terrified to die because they have no assurance that they will not be “cut asunder” at the judgment seat and loose out on the 1000 year kingdom?
Robert
I cannot speak for Wilkins’ infelicitous choice of words. I was at the meeting and the question about the distinction between the existential experience of assurance and the doctrine of eternal security came up.
Perhaps Bob has changed his mind since then, but to the best of my knowledge the doctrine of eternal security is not on the table with Bob, but rather the existential state of being certain that Jesus will keep his promises.
Robert and Bud,
I don’t have any problem with what Bob is saying. Even if a person doesn’t have a fleshed out understanding of the doctrine of eternal security, they have to have a rudimetnary grasp of it in order to believe that “he who believes in Me has everlasting life” or, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” or “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.”
If one wasn’t quite sure of the basic idea of eternal security, none of those promises could be simultaneously embraced. It would be, he who believes in Me has tentative life! and I am the potential resurrection and the potential life!
You are not believing Jesus to be the guarantor of eternal life if you don’t believe your after life has become a sure bet by believeing in Him.
God bless.
Jodie
Anyway… I know this is controversial, and maybe I’m missing something, but that’s how I see it
Jodie
Hi Bud,
“but rather the existential state of being certain that Jesus will keep his promises.”
On the face of it, I don’t see how even those who believe that salvation would not agree with that.
However, I would suspect that you mean more than the surface reading an Arminian would give it. If that would indeed be the case, I don’t see how you could escape the charge that you are front loading the gospel with a practical understanding (as opposed to doctrinal)of eternal security.
Jodie,
I would agree that with in the FG position the subject is contraversial. I do see you as being very consistant with what is taught by the leadership.
“If one wasn’t quite sure of the basic idea of eternal security, none of those promises could be simultaneously embraced. It would be, he who believes in Me has tentative life! and I am the potential resurrection and the potential life!”
That would be true on a theoretical level, but that would also impose a preunderstanding on the part of the one you are giving the gospel to. In essence, the FG position is quilty of the same charge it gives to the LS position in regards to repentance.
[…] John MacArthur’s bulldogs over at Pulpit magazine have a new free-for-all going re: a new book entitled In Defense of the Gospel. Yours truly threw his two cents’ worth in. Check it out. […]
Hi Robert,
I’m glad you’re noticing parallels between the Puritan heirs and FG theology. I agree that there are significant similarities. For instance, we are both self-examination theologies.
But I’m afraid I’m not following how you are relating this belief in the afterlife consequesnces of believing in Christ to adding repentance as a requirement.
Also, could you unpack this a little? “…but that would also impose a preunderstanding on the part of the one you are giving the gospel to.”
Robert,
Yes, belief is not really an unrelated issue in the Lordship debate. I appreciate your critically astute observation and I share the concern that those who insist one must believe in eternal seurity may indeed be front-loading the gospel in the way we accuse Lordship folks of doing.
I do believe that our understanding of faith must encompass assurance. If one is never sure of something, has he ever really belived? Wouldn’t that be doubt, not faith. But faith that is assured of a promise can be lost.
Sometimes the gospel is presented as a person to believe, a person to believe in, or a proposition to be believed. Yes, they can’t really be separated and I had no intention of doing so. But the issue in salvation is not just believing in Jesus (healing, physical deliverance, whatever–it is believing Him for something, which is eternal life.
I believe that when a person is saved they are sanctified positionally, but practical sanctification is a process. No one is saved with all the information, understanding, and application of righteousness that a lifetime requires.
Hope this helps. Internet problems cause me to be brief.
Hi Jodie,
I have a friend who recommended you. A small world, huh?
“But I’m afraid I’m not following how you are relating this belief in the afterlife consequesnces of believing in Christ to adding repentance as a requirement.”
I’m not sure if I properly understand what you are saying here. I will offer an answer to what I think you are asking below with your question for clearification on my part.
“Also, could you unpack this a little? “…but that would also impose a preunderstanding on the part of the one you are giving the gospel to.””
What I am getting at is that requiring a belief in eternal security at the moment of initial faith is to force on the person you are witnessing to a fairly complex theological position. I very much agree with you that eternal security is the logical implication of the gospel, but that doesn’t mean that the person you are witnessing to is going to make that connection. Especially if they are an insecure person by nature.
But going back to the “complex theological position.” Which view of eternal security will they be required to belive in? Wilken himself listed three views belonging to the Free Grace camp. One of those came under the heading of a more Reformed FG perspective.
Here, let’s see what Wilkin says:
“Free Grace #1: Antinomianism
Holds to the four essential Free Grace views. Believes that perseverance is not guaranteed; apostasy is possible for the true believer; and that the believer is not under any set of rules or laws today.
Free Grace #2: Basic Free Grace
Holds to the four essential Free Grace views. Believes that perseverance is not guaranteed (however, many if not most in this view hold that all believers will produce at least some good works sometime somewhere, even though those works may not be evident to others or even themselves); and that apostasy is possible for the true believer. Unlike the above group, the basic Free Grace position holds that believers are under rules and laws today. This group tends to have a strong view of accountability and the believer’s future judgment.
Free Grace #3: More Reformed Free Grace
Holds to the four essential Free Grace views. Believes that perseverance is guaranteed (with a strong view of perseverance which excludes the possibility of carnality lasting for a very long time and which asserts that all believers will produce good works which are clearly observable to themselves and others), and that apostasy is not possible for the true believer.”
http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1991/91may2.html
Obviously, view three is going to present a different view of eternal security than the two other views, just as view two and view one will be different in not only how those doctrines will be presented, but also with how they will be practically worked out.
(I would hasten to add that those of a more extreme view of the FG position will more than likely say those of view three are not saved anyway because of the “P” word.)
So here comes the person you are going to share Christ with. Which view do they have to believe before they can be said to be saved in the eyes of the FG position? View number three is going to be articulated in a different way than views one and two and will also be carried out in a manner logically different than views one and two. And just how will the person respond to having their salvation questioned later on by a more extreme proponent simply because of the “P” word attachment?
Another question that logically arises would be: What about a person who switched from being in the LS camp to the FG camp. Chances are, they did not believe in eternal security at the moment of initial faith. Are they to be looked at as an unbeliever? And that is just the Calvinist one. What if they came over from the Arminian faction of the LS position? There is no chance that they coupled eternal security with initial faith. Were they unbelievers the whole time while they were Arminian and were not saved until they switched to the FG position?
What are your thoughts?
Robert
Charlie,
Wow! I must say that it is an honor and a blessing!
“I do believe that our understanding of faith must encompass assurance. If one is never sure of something, has he ever really belived? Wouldn’t that be doubt, not faith. But faith that is assured of a promise can be lost.”
I would very much agree with you. Assurance is part of faith. But would it be the very essence? I have no idea. Hope is part of faith to. (Let me say that hope, in the Biblical sense, doesn’t mean an uncertainity about something. For example, usually when a person say’s “Well I hope so” what they are expressing is that their expectation mught be fulfilled or it might not. Biblically speaking, hope, elpis, is the total opposite, having to do with a confident expectation.) Hope though is not exactly a by word for faith, although it is certainly part of faith. Assurance, being part of faith, could never be larger than that faith; it could however be said to be proportianit to faith. For example, weak faith = weak assurance, strong faith = strong assurance. Then you have people who mistakenly think assurance is only some type of emotional high, and they spend their lives seeking for that grand fix of elation, only to miss what was right under theor noses the whole time. Or perhpas they think assurance is something else. One thing is for “sure” though, it would be wrong to say they were not believers because they had a terrible understanding of what assurance was.
However, it would appear to me that teaching that faith is nothing more than mental assent could never really produce any type or measure of personal or subjective assurance. Equating faith as trust or confidence would. This isn’t really what you wrote about, so I will not go any further with it.
But is assurance part of faith? Yes. It certainly is. I do believe even MacArthur affirms so as well to an extent. Berkhof taught as much as well, even though you might disagree with his presentation of it. And of course, one of my heros of the faith did as well. His name was Horatious Bonar:
http://grace-for-today.com/84.htm
You are also speak of progressive sanctifiaction. I would like to submit this to you as well:
http://grace-for-today.com/1492.htm
Robert
Robert,
With all due respect to Berkhof and many others who divide faith into notitia/assensus/fiducia (knowledge/assent/faith), I think this is more an anthropological construct that a biblical one. Besides, it is a tautology anyway, since fiducia = faith.
I agree with your view of hope as an expression of faith. I direct you to the January 2007 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra which will carry my article on Colossians 1:21-23. Hope is a critical concept in understanding that warning. I develop the idea of hope in the book of Colossians as context. Also, on my website www.GraceLife.org, see the GraceNote on hope in Colossians:
http://gracelife.org//index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&dir=ASC&order=name&limit=15&limitstart=0
Robert,
I forgot to mention, on the psychologizing of faith, to see Gordon Clark’s discussion in What Is Saving Faith?.
Charles,
I hope that you are doing well today. I would also like to thank you for continuing this discussion with me. As I told you previously, I most certainly do find this to be an honor and a blessing.
“Also, on my website….”
Yes, i have read many of the things in your Grace Notes previously over the last year to year and a half. You have more than a few there that I think you have absolutely nailed. I will also have to renew my subscription to BibSac to read your article. I would imagine that it will be an expansion of the treatment you gave the verse in your Grace Notes.
“With all due respect to Berkhof and many others who divide faith into notitia/assensus/fiducia (knowledge/assent/faith)”
I hope that you do not fail to include Ryrie into that group.
“I think this is more an anthropological construct that a biblical one.”
Personally, I have no reason to disagree with you there, although I do think the above has it’s positive service. Ryrie gives it a very fair treatment, of which I am sure you are aware.
“Besides, it is a tautology anyway, since fiducia = faith.”
Ah, Gordon Clark. He is one of the people I would personally never direct anyone to.
Regardless, I would disagree with the manner in which the above is framed. Clark had to frame it that way to remain consistant with his borderline hyperCalvinistic theology and the role he gave to logic (in my opinion, extreme as well). The reason it is framed wrong is because it doesn’t match how it is used by those who advocate it. For example, Berkhop doesn’t say that faith is made of knowledge, assent, and faith. That would be crazy. Yet that would be the way Clark would have to misrepresent Berkhof to make his (Clark’s) theology work. It is positivily given as knowledge, assent and trust. The misrepresentation has to do with the “trust.” Is trust a by word for faith? It most certainly is. That however doesn’t necessitate that be it’s exclusive usage. Nor is that the way it is used in the above formula, a formula which is descriptive of the components of faith, but not a definition of faith. It’s usage in the forumla is a technical point. Trust is used to describe the active component. Why is an active component necessary? Because one is believing ***IN*** someone else. The “in” demands (believe in) something that “about” (believe about) doesn’t. One would have to “believe about” in order to “believe in” Why? one of the reasons (and we can develope this further in private or here, depending on the amount of time you have available) is this fact that pistis is used in the Gospel of John as a verb. That would indicate that there certainly is something active about faith (***However, let it be know that doesn’t necessarily imply the LS position. It is simply an honest admission on my part).
Let’s take an example. The Centurion’s faith as found in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. I don’t want this to cloud this issue, but I would personally say that the Centurion never left his house. Your solution to the problem may be different than what I would give. And that would certainly be fine. Either way, our focuse will be on the confession he made. AND WHAT A CONFESSION THAT WAS!
Okay, I have presented a believe in catagory and a believe about catagory. (The believe in catagory, by the way, is dependant on the believe about.)
BELIEVE ABOUT
We can see from his confession his appraisle of Christ as Lord. That had to do with Christ’s authority. Christ was authoritative in his very Person. He had the power at His command to heal the servant. The centurion knew that and agreed with it. Had he not agreed with it, he would have never sought Christ in the first place. He had to believe about before he could believe in. And the believing about had to be built off of what he knew, and his agreement with that knowledge.
BELIEVE IN
Here is the active component.There was something he desperatly needed and desired: his servant to be healed. Had he never “believed in” not only would his beloved servant have died, but what he “believed about” didn’t do one iota of good for what he needed. To seperate those two, for example as Wilkin does, would be total disaster. That would be doing something the Bible never does. The centurion’s “believing in” is shown in his totaly reliance upon Christ for what he (the centurion) desperately needed and wanted: his beloeved severent healed. Had he retained just his intellectual assent (believe about), his servant would have died.
Now let’s address one question (and I do this in regards to some of the more extreme LD advocates). The issue had nothing to do with the Centurion promising to do anything. Similarily, in regards to the reception of salvation, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with one promising anything, or promissing to commit to doing anything. In the reception of salvation, the issie is that one is a dead in sins kind of person who needs deliverance (salvation) from that. The issue on the table at that moment has nothing to do with any good works or any transformation. The issue has to do with God saving that person from the state of being they are in.
As before, Charlie, I look forward to hearing from you again. And if I have said anything to you that may have personally offended you in this post, I certainly do apologize, as that was not my intent.
Blessings to you, brother.
Robert
Charles,
I wish I had read before I hit post. The centurion would have also had to “BELIEVE ABOUT” that is, recognize that Christ was also a savior (deliverier) of what he needed. When he “BELIEVED IN,” the saving action on the part of Christ was given.
I hope what I wrote made sense.
Robert
From the perspective of resolving a disagreement about “the” meaning of repentance, the question needs to be asked and answered whether our basic presupposition is wrong, that “repentance is …” in all the contexts it is used.
If we overspecify the meaning of repentance in order to prop up a foregone conclusion, however common that is in debate circles, we are guilty of a dishonesty, even a bearing of false witness to the Scripture.
Hi Robert,
Hey, it’s a small world. So we have a mutual ally! Kewl! A Kc says.
I’d hoped to find a larger window of time with which to respond to your comment, but will just have to dash this off for now.
About the part you didn’t understand, the original snippet I was wondering about was something you said above: “In essence, the FG position is guilty of the same charge it gives to the LS position in regards to repentance.”
About the doctrine of eternal security, in a certain sense it depends on how we would define that doctrine doesn’t it. So moving away from the word doctrine toward the simple truth that Jesus is promising to take care of a person’s after life, I’ll quote again the three verses I quoted above:
“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”
“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.”
These promises, really the same promise, can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled. So the person would not have to have a worked out doctrine of eternal security, but in fact he might, and if so, in my opinion, he would have to either believe that even if he apostatized from the faith he would still have his eternal life. Or that God would automatically prevent him from deserting the faith. That, even though wrong, wouldn’t stand in the way either. There are probably other options, but you get my drift.
We may have a different view of the content of the minimal offer of eternal life, though. That would affect this question quite a bit.
God bless, Robert!
Hi Jodie
“Hey, it’s a small world. So we have a mutual ally! Kewl! A Kc says.”
So you do know Gojira if only by introduction? He spoke highly of you.
“About the doctrine of eternal security, in a certain sense it depends on how we would define that doctrine doesn’t it.”
No doubt about it. That was why I brought up the supposedly three different views acceptable as Free Grace. The one in particular, the more “Reformed View” which was number 3 under the Free Grace heading.
“These promises, really the same promise, can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled. So the person would not have to have a worked out doctrine of eternal security…”
That is where I would have to disagree somewhat. As I have already said, Eternal Security is the outcome. That is not in dispute. But where I disagree with you is saying that those verses “can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled.”
Let’s look at your first verse:
“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”
Believes in me is the key phrase in all three. A reader could very normally look at those verses and say the offer is valid as long as one believes. Now you and I see eternal security there, but the lost person on the street that you would be speaking with may not see it like we do. But just because they don’t see it like that, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t believe the very promises that were given. They would see that believe is in the present tense. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in Jesus; it would mean that they didn’t think your interpretation was correct. Now they would have believed, but when you place eternal security as an entrance requirment, you have to look to them as unbelievers since they would not have agreed with what you would say that have to belive in just to be saved. Jesus is the object of our faith.
“Or that God would automatically prevent him from deserting the faith. That, even though wrong, wouldn’t stand in the way either.”
But of course the Free Grace view number 3 ***would*** in fact say that he could not apostize.
In the end, it would be like saying that if one doesn’t believe in unconditional election at the moment of initial faith, then they never really believed. (I wouldn’t say that by the way, it is an example. Just wanted to clear that up, not because I think you would ascribe that to me, but because it is easy to take things in a confused manner on these blogs.)
Robert
Robert,
belief without a content is meaningless
What does it mean to “believe in Jesus”? It is to believe His guarantee to impart eternal life and to resurrect the one who believes His promise.
If you aren’t believing into Christ FOR eternal life, you aren’t relying upon Christ’s promise, for eternal life is His promise.
When you believe in Jesus, in the soteriological sense, you are believing something about Him. What you are believing about Him is that He guarantees your eternal destiny.
“Believing in Jesus”, in the soteriological sense, has a content.
That content is that Jesus guarantees the believer’s eternal well-being.
Hello Antonio,
You give a very confused presentation for someone who would follow Wilkin and Hodges into saying that faith is intellectual assent only. For example, your use of the word reliance would be another way of saying trust. So you at the onset aren’t being consistant.
“belief without a content is meaningless”
And where have I suggested otherwise?
“What does it mean to “believe in Jesus”? It is to believe His guarantee to impart eternal life and to resurrect the one who believes His promise.”
And true to the mosre extreme form of Free Grace theology, you cloud the gospel by giving a promise that isn’t dependant upon who He is. You have done the very thing that Charlie and I spoke about and even agreed upon. What you have done, in following the extremeism of GES, is to seperate the promise from the one who made it. That is a rediculious idea since Jesus said to believe in Him. However, I do understand why you do this: you have to do this so you can present faith as being only intellectual assent, yet even in your above post you could not remain consistant, which really throws the extreme GES position into a huge confusion.
Perhaps if you were to rely more upon the Biblical text and less upon treating both Hodges and Wilkin as some type of magesterial teachers……….
Robert
Hello Robert et al –
It’s interesting to read posts in which someone reacts to the content of a particular idea by this kind of comment: “you say that because you are a xyz.”
This is given a very funny spoof in C.S. Lewis’ book “Pilgrim’s Regress,” in one section of which he’s spoofing Freud. One character tells another how to answer the assertion that “2 + 2 = 4.” The proper response, Lewis spoofs, is to tell them “you say that because you are a mathematician.”
Of course I’m talking about responding to someone’s ideas by describing their supposed origin or associations.
I’m not saying we should be naive about where people are coming from. If we’re talking to an expert in Jehovah Witness doctrine, we should be aware of the kind of discussion we will probably be hearing about the Person of the Holy Spirit. However, this does not prove, by itself, that what they are about to say is false — or provide a short-cut for putting them down. The Lord Jesus allowed the meanest-motived person to set forth their case if they could (Jn 18:23).
Now, let me respond to the content of a previous post by you, Robert, in discussing the Centurion’s faith. I’m very happy you comment concerning the Centurion that the issue had nothing to do with promising anything or promising to commit to anything. You’re out from the trap of what you called extreme LD.