Comments on: Lou and Lordship (Part 2) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Shane http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1686 Shane Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:11:25 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1686 JOHN Interesting points John. I'm not an Arminian, though at one time I was, and I was somewhat a student of Wesleyan theology. Objectively, both sides have caricatured each other. It's like the Republicans and Democrats. Actually it's interesting that John Wesley had a strong belief in total depravity and original sin. And he did say that the truth was a hairsbreath away from Calvinism.He also believed in prevenient grace, which means that no sinner could come unless God drew him first. Though I now do believe in eternal security I still have a great respect for the Wesley brothers as evangelists and men of great piety. Have you ever read "Life in the Son" by Robert Shank? It's a book opposing perseverance of the saints. I disagree with it now, but it was well written in a scholarly fashion. Good take John, grace and peace. JOHN
Interesting points John. I’m not an Arminian, though at one time I was, and I was somewhat a student of Wesleyan theology. Objectively, both sides have caricatured each other. It’s like the Republicans and Democrats. Actually it’s interesting that John Wesley had a strong belief in total depravity and original sin. And he did say that the truth was a hairsbreath away from Calvinism.He also believed in prevenient grace, which means that no sinner could come unless God drew him first. Though I now do believe in eternal security I still have a great respect for the Wesley brothers as evangelists and men of great piety. Have you ever read “Life in the Son” by Robert Shank? It’s a book opposing perseverance of the saints. I disagree with it now, but it was well written in a scholarly fashion. Good take John, grace and peace.

]]> By: John http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1661 John Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:21:42 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1661 @ Shane = yea I should've been more clear. Oh, I'm fully aware of what your saying and the "legalism trap" that would be counterintuitive to FG and that antinomianism is attributed to the (hyper)Calvinists. But, most Calvinist reject that claim and would see that the salvation and repentance both came from God anyway and since God is giving you those things, repentance being concomitant with faith would be "part of the package." This is why many Calvinists believe and have no prb with regeneration before faith, as Dr. Piper does. The Arminian position has 2 sides it could take and yes one would be more strict, but b/c of their stance on free will, the other option would be that they could compartmentalize "the faith/believing" and "the repentance" as two distinct operations of their own will and having total surrender as another component of their will they can accomplish once mature. If it really is a matter of our volition and acceptance, its easy to see how you can say "no 1 sec Christian can totally surrender" and that they only need to believe. If they only need to believe for justification, repentance can come later with more understanding ... The Calvinist wouldn't need to compartmentalize true repentance, faith, and regeneration b/c God would be able to grant them that 100% commitment the FG says we are unable to do (yes we are unable but what is impossible with man is possible with God). @ Shane = yea I should’ve been more clear.

Oh, I’m fully aware of what your saying and the “legalism trap” that would be counterintuitive to FG and that antinomianism is attributed to the (hyper)Calvinists.

But, most Calvinist reject that claim and would see that the salvation and repentance both came from God anyway and since God is giving you those things, repentance being concomitant with faith would be “part of the package.” This is why many Calvinists believe and have no prb with regeneration before faith, as Dr. Piper does.

The Arminian position has 2 sides it could take and yes one would be more strict, but b/c of their stance on free will, the other option would be that they could compartmentalize “the faith/believing” and “the repentance” as two distinct operations of their own will and having total surrender as another component of their will they can accomplish once mature. If it really is a matter of our volition and acceptance, its easy to see how you can say “no 1 sec Christian can totally surrender” and that they only need to believe. If they only need to believe for justification, repentance can come later with more understanding …

The Calvinist wouldn’t need to compartmentalize true repentance, faith, and regeneration b/c God would be able to grant them that 100% commitment the FG says we are unable to do (yes we are unable but what is impossible with man is possible with God).

]]> By: Brian Mann http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1658 Brian Mann Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:54:02 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1658 let me correct myself; I probably won't be doing the blog thing anytime soon, in fact it's not in the plans; It's hard to blog these days and pastor when anything can be used to stir a controversy in the church. Even so, pray that I will do a good job at pastoring, loving God's people and even those who oppose us at the present time. Thanks again for your blog, it encourages pastors like myself who care about these important issues. Blessings. let me correct myself; I probably won’t be doing the blog thing anytime soon, in fact it’s not in the plans; It’s hard to blog these days and pastor when anything can be used to stir a controversy in the church. Even so, pray that I will do a good job at pastoring, loving God’s people and even those who oppose us at the present time. Thanks again for your blog, it encourages pastors like myself who care about these important issues. Blessings.

]]> By: Brian Mann http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1657 Brian Mann Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:47:56 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1657 Thanking God for the blog. Just an update, I had to close my blog down for the time being; I appreciate you listing me on the blog roll, but of course you can delete me for now. I will let you know when I start up again. Reason for the blog deletion at this time is that someone in the church I pastor took an article and is using it against me. For the sake of the body at this time I chose to lay low per se. Even so, please pray for me and the church. And may God bless this ministry of yours continually. Thanking God for the blog. Just an update, I had to close my blog down for the time being; I appreciate you listing me on the blog roll, but of course you can delete me for now. I will let you know when I start up again. Reason for the blog deletion at this time is that someone in the church I pastor took an article and is using it against me. For the sake of the body at this time I chose to lay low per se. Even so, please pray for me and the church. And may God bless this ministry of yours continually.

]]> By: Shane http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1640 Shane Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:53:50 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1640 John Of course 5 point Arminians such as John Wesley and those from the holiness churches would place an even stricter emphasis on personal committment than Calvinists. There's the danger of losing your salvation. John MacArthur has said in the past that a true believer can commit suicide. A true Arminian would say if you commit suicide your heading to Hell! Zane Hodges would have nothing in common with John Wesley. Most Reformed people don't seem to be aware of Christianity outside their own theological persuasion. John
Of course 5 point Arminians such as John Wesley and those from the holiness churches would place an even stricter emphasis on personal committment than Calvinists. There’s the danger of losing your salvation. John MacArthur has said in the past that a true believer can commit suicide. A true Arminian would say if you commit suicide your heading to Hell!
Zane Hodges would have nothing in common with John Wesley. Most Reformed people don’t seem to be aware of Christianity outside their own theological persuasion.

]]> By: Nate B. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1639 Nate B. Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:39:23 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1639 Lou, Thank you for your comment. This will probably be my last for the evening, just because I'll soon be leaving the office and heading home. I think, at some point, we may be talking past each other a little bit here. When lordship advocates, including John MacArthur, use the term "<em>saving</em> faith," they are speaking about that which results in <em>salvation</em> (and thus includes both <em>belief</em> and <em>repentance</em>). Because lordship teaches that <em>repentance</em> involves submission to the authority of Christ, saving faith necessarily includes that same submission (or surrender). This is what John MacArthur is talking about when he uses terms like "commitment" and "follow." He is speaking of something internal, not an external work. On the flip side, because you assert that <em>repentance</em> does not involve submission/surrender to the authority of Christ, you do not see "the requirements for salvation" including any kind of submission or surrender. Again, I believe the issue is the <em>nature</em> of repentance. If repentance and belief are both necessary for salvation, and repentance includes surrender, then surrender is necessary for salvation. But if repentance does not include surrender, than it is not necessary for salvation. I believe biblical repentance includes surrender. You assert that it does not. This is what I believe is the crux of our disagreement. And it is the reason I keep focusing on repentance. Thanks, NB Lou,

Thank you for your comment. This will probably be my last for the evening, just because I’ll soon be leaving the office and heading home.

I think, at some point, we may be talking past each other a little bit here.

When lordship advocates, including John MacArthur, use the term “saving faith,” they are speaking about that which results in salvation (and thus includes both belief and repentance).

Because lordship teaches that repentance involves submission to the authority of Christ, saving faith necessarily includes that same submission (or surrender). This is what John MacArthur is talking about when he uses terms like “commitment” and “follow.” He is speaking of something internal, not an external work.

On the flip side, because you assert that repentance does not involve submission/surrender to the authority of Christ, you do not see “the requirements for salvation” including any kind of submission or surrender.

Again, I believe the issue is the nature of repentance.

If repentance and belief are both necessary for salvation, and repentance includes surrender, then surrender is necessary for salvation. But if repentance does not include surrender, than it is not necessary for salvation.

I believe biblical repentance includes surrender. You assert that it does not. This is what I believe is the crux of our disagreement. And it is the reason I keep focusing on repentance.

Thanks,
NB

]]> By: Lou Martuneac http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1636 Lou Martuneac Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:54:59 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1636 Nathan: I carefully avoided using the phrase, "exclusion of faith." I know that you do not exclude faith. You wrote, “Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up “the requirements for salvation.” Look back at my chapter, <i>What is Saving Faith</i>? My definition of faith is, "trust, confidence or dependence." I define “believe” in a separate chapter. Following is John MacArthur's definition of saving faith from the original edition of <i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i>: “Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (p. 87.) I cannot express agreement with that definition of faith. LM Nathan:

I carefully avoided using the phrase, “exclusion of faith.” I know that you do not exclude faith.

You wrote, “Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up “the requirements for salvation.”

Look back at my chapter, What is Saving Faith? My definition of faith is, “trust, confidence or dependence.” I define “believe” in a separate chapter.

Following is John MacArthur’s definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus: “Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (p. 87.)

I cannot express agreement with that definition of faith.

LM

]]> By: Nate B. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1635 Nate B. Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:31:32 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1635 Lou, Thanks for your note of clarification. I am not trying to emphasize repentance to the exclusion of faith. It is simply that, by and large, I agree with your understanding of faith. And I think most lordship advocates do too. Like you, we would say: "The Bible teaches that a man is saved by God’s grace when he repents and places his faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ." The lordship camp would agree 100% with that sentence. Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up "the requirements for salvation." Your quote... <blockquote>Faith without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on repentance leads to Easy-Believism. Repentance without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on faith leads to Lordship Salvation. Tendencies to emphasize one side of the repentance/faith theological coin more than the other can lead to an out of balance view of the gospel and to the corresponding extremes.</blockquote> ...does not accurately portray either Easy Believism or Lordship. When it comes to Easy-Believism, it is not that they deemphasize repentance as a requirement for salvation...it is that they exclude it altogether. On the flip side, Lordship does not exclude or deemphasize faith in salvation. Not at all... We must repent <em>and believe</em>. Every lordship advocate I know says this, emphasizing both. (I would be happy to provide examples if you would like.) The reason more time is often spent explaining repentance is because that is where the controversy primarily lies. As in our discussion, the necessity and nature of <em>repentance</em> ends up becoming the key issue. With Free Grace, the issue is its <em>necessity</em>. With you, the issue is its <em>nature</em>. Thanks, NB Lou,

Thanks for your note of clarification. I am not trying to emphasize repentance to the exclusion of faith. It is simply that, by and large, I agree with your understanding of faith. And I think most lordship advocates do too.

Like you, we would say: “The Bible teaches that a man is saved by God’s grace when he repents and places his faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The lordship camp would agree 100% with that sentence.

Faith (or a turning to God in belief) and repentance (or a turning from sin) are what we believe make up “the requirements for salvation.”

Your quote…

Faith without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on repentance leads to Easy-Believism. Repentance without a corresponding understanding or emphasis on faith leads to Lordship Salvation. Tendencies to emphasize one side of the repentance/faith theological coin more than the other can lead to an out of balance view of the gospel and to the corresponding extremes.

…does not accurately portray either Easy Believism or Lordship.

When it comes to Easy-Believism, it is not that they deemphasize repentance as a requirement for salvation…it is that they exclude it altogether.

On the flip side, Lordship does not exclude or deemphasize faith in salvation. Not at all… We must repent and believe. Every lordship advocate I know says this, emphasizing both. (I would be happy to provide examples if you would like.)

The reason more time is often spent explaining repentance is because that is where the controversy primarily lies. As in our discussion, the necessity and nature of repentance ends up becoming the key issue. With Free Grace, the issue is its necessity. With you, the issue is its nature.

Thanks,
NB

]]> By: John http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1633 John Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:27:34 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1633 After reading both sides of the argument This dialog between seems to have a deeper conflict rooted in Calvinism and Arminianism. Being convinced that the Gospel is truly Calvinistic I agree with Nate B and Dr. MacArthur whole heartedly. I'm not sure how a Calvinist could believe otherwise. By no means, is Lordship salvation restricted to just Calvinists, b/c I know many Arminians as well that scoff at the notion of FG. However, it is easier to see and understand how someone of that tradition would be more inclined to be swayed that way. After reading both sides of the argument

This dialog between seems to have a deeper conflict rooted in Calvinism and Arminianism.

Being convinced that the Gospel is truly Calvinistic I agree with Nate B and Dr. MacArthur whole heartedly. I’m not sure how a Calvinist could believe otherwise.

By no means, is Lordship salvation restricted to just Calvinists, b/c I know many Arminians as well that scoff at the notion of FG. However, it is easier to see and understand how someone of that tradition would be more inclined to be swayed that way.

]]> By: Lou Martuneac http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1632 Lou Martuneac Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:21:48 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/31/lou-and-lordship-part-2/#comment-1632 Nathan: I really wanted to contribute more today, I have much in mind, but not able to get it on paper at this time. I believe our point of departure on repentance is over the <b>application</b> of the definition. You wrote, “To turn from sin, then, is to turn from that rebellion. And to stop rebelling, by default, is to start submitting. <b>Submission</b> is an inward response, that will result outwardly in good works.” My concern is with demands for the outward “good works” in the form of an upfront promise of submission and surrender in exchange for salvation. This is what Dr. MacArthur calls for in his definition of Lordship Salvation. That is making an application that repentance does not define or necessitate. Submission should be the natural result of salvation. As I have said right along, we must not make the results of repentance, or even a promise for the results of repentance, the requirements for salvation. There are, of course, other areas where I sharply disagree with the Lordship gospel. Areas such as it interpretation of “believe” in Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31. There are separate chapters in my book devoted to addressing the errors of Lordship Salvation with each of these passages. LM www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com Nathan:

I really wanted to contribute more today, I have much in mind, but not able to get it on paper at this time.

I believe our point of departure on repentance is over the application of the definition.

You wrote, “To turn from sin, then, is to turn from that rebellion. And to stop rebelling, by default, is to start submitting. Submission is an inward response, that will result outwardly in good works.”

My concern is with demands for the outward “good works” in the form of an upfront promise of submission and surrender in exchange for salvation. This is what Dr. MacArthur calls for in his definition of Lordship Salvation. That is making an application that repentance does not define or necessitate.

Submission should be the natural result of salvation. As I have said right along, we must not make the results of repentance, or even a promise for the results of repentance, the requirements for salvation.

There are, of course, other areas where I sharply disagree with the Lordship gospel. Areas such as it interpretation of “believe” in Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31. There are separate chapters in my book devoted to addressing the errors of Lordship Salvation with each of these passages.

LM

http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com

]]>