Lou and Lordship (Part 3)
November 1st, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
I believe that there are two key elements at stake in the lordship debate. These can be summarized by two questions. First, what is necessary for salvation? And second, what is the nature of those necessary requirements.
Lou Martuneac asserts that repentance and faith are necessary for salvation. As I cited yesterday, he writes: “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” (p. 31). On this point, Lou is in complete agreement with the Lordship camp. Like Lou, Lordship proponents assert that repentance and faith are necessary for salvation.
So where is the disagreement between Lou and Lordship?
It is in how each camp understands the nature of faith (or belief) and, especially, the nature of repentance.
Lou devotes an entire chapter to both in his book. Chapter 6 is entitled “What is Biblical Repentance?,” while chapter 7 is named “What is Saving Faith?” These are crucial questions, because how we understand the nature of each, will have direct bearing on how we understand the requirements for salvation.
Of faith, Lou says that it “is a child-like trust of God, which accepts the record He has given of His Son” (p. 125). It “cannot include any kind of meritorious works,” but “is more than simple acknowledgement” (p. 126). The faith Lou espouses is “a faith that acknowledges one’s sin, a pending judgement [sic] for sin, and one’s need of the Savior” (p. 127). It is a faith that depends solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ. And the results of this faith are a changed life: “One comes to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith to be saved from his sin. As a Christian, he then lives for Christ as his personal Savior and Lord” (p. 131).
If you are thinking that sounds pretty good… you’re absolutely right. And lordship advocates would agree with what Lou sees as the essence of belief. Yet it is in this chapter that Lou makes some of his most erroneous claims about the lordship position. (I plan to outline Lou’s serious misconceptions about the lordship position tomorrow. I believe much of the reason he is reacting negatively to “lordship” is because, in reality, he is reacting to what he imagines lordship to be, not what it actually is. But more about that in a later post.)
Today I would like to focus on his understanding of repentance.
In defining repentance, Lou cites Vine, who says, “In the NT, the subject chiefly has reference to repentance from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God” (p. 110). After quoting Thayer’s definition as well, Lou is careful to point out that repentance is “a change of mind with consequent results… [which are] amended deeds. The deeds are the evidence, not the substance of repentance. Repentance is an attitude that always results in action” (p. 111). Lou also describes repentance as that which involves the intellect, the emotions, and the will (pp. 116-118).
Lou continues: “Repentance is a change of mind about God and one’s sin. That change of mind, when it produces a change in direction from self and sin toward God, is biblical repentance” (p. 121). And later: “The natural consequence of his repentance and new life in Christ is a changed life. His behavior will change because he has a new desire in him to grow in Christ” (p. 122).
Wow, those statements sound identical to the lordship understanding of repentance!
But there is a key difference, and Lou is careful to point it out. For Lou, repentance is primarily a change in dependence (cf. p. 112). The sinner was trusting in something other than God for salvation (e.g. his own works). In repentance, he places his trust fully in Christ by turning “from his sin of unbelief and his dependence on works” (p. 119).
But Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance. It includes a willingness to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ.
Why do lordship advocates see repentance this way? Because, like Lou, they define repentance as a turning from sin. Unlike Lou, however, they do not limit sin (in this case) to unbelief. Instead, they define sin as rebellion or “lawlessness” (which is how 1 John 3:4 defines it). To turn from (or forsake) one’s rebellion is (by definition) to begin submitting.
This is unacceptable to Lou because he sees a willingness to submit to God as a human work, which then adds human merit to the gospel of grace. It is not clear why this is different, in Lou’s mind, from a willingness or (as Lou states it) “a definite, on-purpose decision” to confess sin and transfer one’s dependence to Christ. Is a transfer of allegiance (the lordship view) any more of a “human work” than a transfer of dependence? We would argue not (since they are both the operation of God’s grace in the heart). But we will leave that discussion to a future post.
Ironically, the examples Lou uses to illustrate and define repentance necessarily include a transfer of allegiance, and not just a transfer of dependence. This is what I meant earlier (on Monday) when I said that Lou’s arguments actually lead to the lordship view.
For instance…
Lou cites 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (“For they themselves shew of us what matter of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” [KJV]) and attempts to limit the Thessalonian repentance to a change in dependence. But what does it mean to serve an idol? At the very least, it means false worship. And what does it mean to serve the living and true God? At the very least, it means true worship.
Pardon the redundancy, but… at the very least, then, the Thessalonians’ repentance included a turning from false worship (idolatry) to true worship. Lou even says essentially that, when he writes: “The Thessalonian believers made a definite, on purpose decision to forsake their dead idols, turn to and henceforth serve the living and true God” (p. 113).
What is true worship? True worship is to have no other gods before the true God (Exodus 20:3-4). True worship is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30-31). To go from false worship to true worship is much more than a change in dependence; it is a change in allegiance, affection, and devotion.
A few pages later, on p. 115, Lou writes that repentance is “an acknowledgment and agreement with God about [one's] sinfulness.” This is an ironic statement if repentance is solely a change in dependence. God hates sin (Prov. 6:16-19). If I agree with God about my sinfulness, I must hate it too. If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God).
On page 116, Lou writes: “Emotionally, repentance is genuine sorrow for sin, a desire for pardon.” But can there be a genuine sorrow for something, if there is not coupled with that sorrow a desire to discontinue the offense? And if the sinner desires to stop offending God, does he not at that same moment desire to start pleasing God? Again, it is a change of allegiance (from pleasing myself to pleasing my Savior).
On the next page, Lou uses the prodigal son to illustrate the intellectual, emotional, and volitional aspects of repentance. Thus, he writes:
In Luke 15 the prodigal son had come to see what he had become through rebellion against his father and God. When he came to his senses (intellect) his thoughts (emotions) turned toward his father, then he arose (volition) and went back to his home (p. 117).
Notice that Lou himself uses the word “rebellion.” As Lou correctly observes, the prodigal knew he was rebelling (intellect), felt sorry for his rebellion (emotions), and decided to stop rebelling (volition). The decision to stop rebelling is the decision to start submitting… it is an essential part of repentance, and it is the missing ingredient in Lou’s stated definition.
By trying to remove submission (a change of allegiance, affection, and devotion) from repentance, Lou seriously shortchanges what biblical repentance actually is. Moreover, his own texts, explanations, and examples actually demonstrate what he is unwilling to concede—that a willingness to stop rebelling against God (or said positively, to start submitting to God) is an essential part of the nature of biblical repentance.
Exactly right, Nate. I wonder how Lou handles the first condition stated in Ro. 10:9? Perhaps one of you could explain (does his book have an index of Scriptural passages?)
To “confess” (agree concerning) that Jesus is LORD means what? I would submit that it means agreeing that Jesus is “master” “ruler” “authority.” Is a contrary explanation offered in the book?
Nathan,
Let me introduce myself. I am the infamous “Mike Harding” mentioned on several occasions in Lou’s book. Several years ago at our church during a national preachers’ meeting I delivered a passionate message on “The Lordship of Christ in Salvation” (Phil 2:5-11). Our pastoral staff fondly refer to the message as the “Let it bleed” sermon, since I said in that sermon that Fundamentalism has been suffering (“bleeding”) in some circles from a weak view of the Gospel (defective view of faith and repentance) and a defective view of Inspiration (KJV onlyism). Lou was not at the meeting. However, some who are actually to the theological left of Lou, complained to him about the theology of Lordship in my message. Lou and I spoke several times prior to his book and had more lengthy discussions afterward. We also have gone back and forth in a charitable fashion on SI.
I deeply appreciate your interaction with Lou’s book. In actuality I do not believe that Lou’s position is as non-Lordship as Lou thinks it is. The key area of weakness in the book is his understanding of the volitional aspect of saving faith. Though his statements on repentance are somewhat conflicting, his view of faith which I disagree with is very consistant throughout the book. I hope you can focus much of your attention on that element.
In defense of Lou’s book let me say the following. I believe that Lou points out over-statements and sometimes irresponsible comments made by some of the Lordship writers. Lordship writers must be warned of frontloading faith which gives the impression that a person is a completely mature disciple at conversion. Also, the lax attitude about biblical separation in some Lordship writers causes their theology on Lordship to have somewhat of a hollow ring. For instance, one very well known proponent of the Lordship position now uses Christian Rap in his worship services and regularly speaks at Christian Rock Festivals patterned in part after Woodstock. This is very inconsistant with a high view of God, faith, repentance, and perseverance. Those who talk the talk in their ministries are obligated to make a whole hearted effort to walk the walk and not capitulate to the hedonistic and irreverent worship of our modern pop culture.
Nathan,
I think your evaluating the ideas of and interaction with Lou has been helpful for this whole series.
I like your key elements, though I might choose different ones:
First, what is necessary for salvation?
And second, what is the nature of those necessary requirements.
Blessings.
Jodie
Great job of explaining the critcal distinctions. This series is well worth the time and work. Thank you Nate.
JSB,
Thanks for asking about Romans 10:9. Lou actually dedicates an entire chapter to that verse. I did not deal with it in my post, because it was outside of his chapter on repentance.
However, Lou’s explanation of that verse is equally inconsistent.
According to Lou, confessing Christ “means to agree with God about the Person and works of the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 164).
Lou goes on to explain that, according to Romans 10:9, confessing Jesus as Lord means accepting Christ’s deity, and that Christ’s deity includes his sovereign rulership. Lou writes:
Thus, Lou sees confessing Jesus as Lord as agreeing with God about the sovereign deity and rulership of Jesus Christ. He openly states that an acceptance of Christ’s deity (which includes His sovereign rulership) is necessary to salvation (p. 172).
So how is this not lordship salvation?
Lou asserts that while the sinner must acknowledge and agree with the deity and sovereign rulership of Christ, he is not required to personally submit to that rulership. Hence he repeatedly denounces the lordship view, “that Romans 10:9 explicitly demands personal submission from a lost man; a belief in and acceptance of the Lordship of Christ as Ruler of his own life in order to be saved” (p. 166).
How exactly Lou can say that the sinner must (personally) acknowledge and agree with Christ’s sovereign deity and rulership (over everything in the universe), and yet not, at the same time, acknowledge and agree with Christ’s sovereign deity and rulership over his own life is … well … beyond me.
The sinner cannot be in agreement with God about the deity and rulership of Jesus Christ and, at the same time, still be in rebellion against that rulership. It is simply not possible (biblically or logically).
This inconsistency is confirmed later in the chapter, when Lou cites several leading commentators on this verse (many of whom are strong lordship advocates). For example, A.T. Robertson notes that Rom. 10:9 includes a change of worship (from the idolatry of Emperor worship to true worship). As I mentioned in my post today, a change of worship is a change of allegiance. Lou also cites F.F. Bruce, who points people to Philippians 2:9 where, in verse 10, every knee bows before Jesus, the Lord. If Php. 2:9-10 is not a reference to submission, I don’t know what is.
I might say Lou is “soft lordship”, but a vocal critic of the trend seen in a growing reliance on overt calls for commitment in evangelism.
Bob Wilkin has debated Darrell Bock, who has labeled himself soft lordship. I wonder what Lou would think of that debate. Part 1 and Part 2 are in the real audio format.
Blessings
Nathan:
Before you began the review of my book you asked for permission to quote from my book “extensively.” My reply was you have my permission to keep the use of quotes from my book within the spirit and intent of the copyright statement. That statement in my book reads:
“No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher, with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.
Thus far I have been tolerant with the use of numerous quotes from my book. Most quotes are brief, but they are many. This morning’s article came right up to the line.
Now that you are continuing the liberal use of quotes from my book in your reply to other visitors you have, in my opinion, crossed the line from brief or even extensive use to reprinting an “excessive” amount of excerpts.
I am asking you to refrain from this excessive use of quotes from my book. I trust you will respect my wishes and directive in this matter.
LM
Lou,
I am sorry if I have overstepped what you believe to be an appropriate use of your material. I believe that I am within the bounds of what constitutes Fair Use when reviewing a 293 page work.
Nonetheless, I want to be careful to not to violate your trust. The last thing I want to do is conduct my review in a way that you perceive as dishonest or unethical.
The reason I quoted from your book as much as I did is that I wanted to be careful not to misrepresent you. Providing direct citations seemed the best way to do this. In this way, I believe I am following your own example (from p. 21 of your book), where you indicate that the reason you quote extensively from lordship books (most of all, from John MacArthur) is so that you will not misrepresent the lordship position.
In any case, I will do my best to respect your wishes. Like you, I desperately want our discussion to honor and exalt our Savior, Jesus Christ.
For the sake of His name,
NB
Nathan:
Thank you for listening to my concern. I did a quick count of how many times I quote Dr. MacArthur in my book. I cite him 24+/- times in the 300 pages, and few are more than two sentences.
If I feel 24 quotes in 300 pages is “extensive,” then imagine my feeling seeing 20 quotes in this one article and in the one reply to jsb.
LM
Nathan:
You have written, ““But Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”
“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (John 12:42-43).
They were not open about and would not confess a “change of allegiance.” Did they biblically repent; were they believers?
LM
Nathan/All:
Regeneration before faith is really at the heart of the current debate. Many Reformed men believe regeneration must precede faith.
Earlier you wrote, “The ability to believe and repent is only possible because of God’s regenerative work in the heart. This is why the reformed ordo salutis gives causal priority to regeneration over repentance and belief. In time, regeneration, belief, and repentance occur simultaneously. But, in terms of logical sequence, regeneration (or God’s working in the heart) occurs first, initiating the response of saving faith from the sinner.”
You wrote, “The ability to believe and repent is only possible because of God’s regenerative work in the heart.” The ability to respond to the gospel, according to you, is possible only because a man has been regenerated. Regeneration is the conversion of a lost man into a child of God. Therefore, he has been regenerated before responding to the gospel.
When you state, “Regeneration occurs first, initiating the response of saving faith from the sinner,” I have concerns. On his blog site http://www.mpriley.com/index.php Michael Riley wrote, “Regeneration logically precedes and is the cause of faith.” When I think of “initiating” or “cause” I think of it in terms of cause and effect. That indicates a sequence of events, a series of events happening in a sequential order.
This presents a major problem in that regeneration can take place at any moment, even well in advance of faith. One man has written that he sees infants being regenerated and later as adults exercising faith. Another man said, “There is a theological order, but not a chronological order.” There is disagreement among Calvinists who hold to the regeneration before faith position.
If, as many Calvinists claim, “regeneration precedes and enables faith,” then the lost man has to have been converted sequentially in time before he can express faith. If regeneration does precedes faith, then any call for an expression of faith is pointless, because that man has already been saved.
The Bible teaches faith precedes regeneration: John 1:11-13; 1 Jn. 5:1
Faith and regeneration are instantaneous: John 3:1-21 (vs. 8, 13-16)
Justification and faith are simultaneous Rom 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8, 9-13
Because he believes regeneration precedes faith, Lordship advocates can look at the lost man as though he is born again. Conversion has taken place and is followed by an expression of saving faith which they believe must include an upfront promise of submission, commitment, self-denial and a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake. All of these conditions for salvation are part of Dr. MacArthur’s position, which I document in my book. Coming to the issue from the perspective that regeneration must precede faith the Lordship advocate can condition salvation on submission to anything he wants.
On my blog appears the following article. I addressed it to Dr. MacArthur before Nathan informed that Dr. MacArthur does not engage in these discussions of his writing.
Dr. MacArthur you wrote, “We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God…. As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing these elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.”
In The Gospel According to Jesus you wrote, “Thus conversion is not simply a sinner’s decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 114.)
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged,” (John 16:9-10).
The Holy Spirit is come to convict the world of “sin” (note singular). What is the “sin” that the Holy Spirit will reprove the world over? That “sin” is explained in verse 10, which is the sin of “unbelief.” The lost man needs to be confronted with the Law to bring him/her to know the need for forgiveness through Christ. The book of Galatians is very helpful in this matter. The sin that is damning the lost man to hell is “unbelief” and the only act that will result in salvation is “belief” (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).
When you demand a commitment to discipleship (i.e. “take up your cross, losing your life for my sake, etc.”) you are requiring a decision from a lost man, which is impossible for him to make (John 15:5). This kind of gospel message frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). The Holy Spirit does not indwell this lost man, he is not regenerated. He cannot make a decision of surrender to the Lord because he does not yet know the Lord.
Thus when I read your quotes above I understand why you must come to an extra-biblical, a rational view of the order of salvation: regeneration before profession of faith rather than simultaneous to it. After repenting of the sin of “unbelief” the newborn child of God enters into the life of sanctification and begins to repent of his “SINS” (1 John 1, etc.). He sets out to live in obedience to his Lord and Savior.
Pastor George Zeller has written a document titled The Dangers of Reformed Theology. In it he has an abbreviated discussion of the regeneration before faith issue. Go to my blog and click on The Dangers of Reformed Theology and you will be directed to his article. My book has an appendix entry from Pastor Zeller that is an expanded discussion of this subject.
Following is an excerpt:
Does the Bible indicate that a person must be regenerated so that he can believe or does the Bible teach that a person must believe in order to be regenerated? Do we need life in order to believe or do we need to believe in order to have life?
The Bible clearly teaches this: believe and thou shalt live! “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47). “That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:15). The extreme Calvinist says, “live and thou shalt believe!”
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
firstly, let me say i am enjoying this series on the lordship position and i am pleased that this review (to date) has been conducted on very civil terms.
i am definitely in the Lordship camp as it appears to me to be far more logically consistent with a straight forward reading of scripture.
i don’t want to hijack these comments, but could someone briefly explain why “using Christian Rap in worship services and regularly speaking at Christian Rock Festivals” is wrong? am i missing something or does this not contradict any biblical commands?
Nathan/All:
There are many areas of agreement, which Nathan has pointed out. In past discussions I have stated I try to stand where the Bible stands whether or not that stand identifies me with a particular group or system. Was I shocked or surprised that Nathan finds me in some level of agreement with the Lordship position? Not really, and it did not embarrass me to be found in some level of agreement.
I want to let readers know that in my book of nearly 300 pages there are ample examples of clear cut differences I have with Lordship Salvation. Several chapters which Nathan has not mentioned or addressed draw these distinctions.
You wrote, “But Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance. It includes a willingness to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ.” That statement does define the point of departure.
Earlier Mike Harding wrote, “In defense of Lou’s book let me say the following. I believe that Lou points out over-statements and sometimes irresponsible comments made by some of the Lordship writers. Lordship writers must be warned of frontloading faith which gives the impression that a person is a completely mature disciple at conversion.”
Pastor Harding is right in regard to Lordship advocates frontload faith with a requirement for a commitment to begin living like a mature disciple from the inception of salvation. Some of the following are examples of the kind of “over-statements” that Pastor Harding and I have discussed.
“Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition])
Sine qua non defined means: an indispensable condition. We see that Dr. MacArthur says “forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake” is not subsequent, does not follow conversion. Therefore, the “sine qua non” (indispensable condition) of saving faith is “forsaking,” and Dr. MacArthur requires an upfront commitment to this for salvation.
“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised and Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
“Open the gates of the kingdom” can have only one meaning: How a lost man is born into the family of God. Dr. MacArthur says, “wholehearted commitment, a desire for Christ”, and “unconditional surrender,” is the “only response” that will result in salvation.
I have a major chapter dedicated to a discussion of the Rich Young Ruler. One well known theologian read my book and said this chapter was among the two “best in the book and right on biblically.”
This episode is a hallmark of Walter Chantry’s polemic and a key point in Dr. MacArthur’s apologetic. In his discussion of the Rich Young Ruler, Dr. MacArthur wrote:
“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)
In Hard to Believe he wrote:
“And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.”
Can there be any doubt that Dr. MacArthur is conditioning the “reception of eternal life” on the “willingness to give it all up?” The willingness to surrender possessions, forsaking everything is, according to Dr. MacArthur, the requirement for salvation. If the young man had surrendered his riches to the poor on the spot, or promised to do so later, would this have guaranteed for him eternal life?
Nathan, you wrote, “I believe biblical repentance includes surrender. You (Lou) assert that it does not.”
There is a fine line of difference, but it is a sharp and clear difference in this matter of submission. Submission is to the conviction of the Holy Spirit; no more, no less. A lost man cannot submit to anything else!
I do not believe repentance includes the type of “unconditional surrender” for salvation as Dr. MacArthur defines it in the quotes above.
Lordship Salvation, according to Dr. MacArthur, calls on a lost man to make an upfront commitment for submission/surrender to receive eternal life.
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou asks:
“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (John 12:42-43).
They were not open about and would not confess a “change of allegiance.” Did they biblically repent; were they believers?”
That is an absolutely superb question. It really makes one think this through. Here’s my attempt at an answer:
Looking at the Greek, one finds that the word “him” is not in the original. That’s why the KJV, quoted above, has “him” in italics. The NIV translation is closer to the Greek: “But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith…”
“The ‘Him’ or, Rev., ‘it’ is not in the text. The verb is used absolutely. Lit: ‘They did not make confession.’”
[See Vincent, M. R. Word Studies in the New Testament, 2002]
This was not a refusal to confess Christ as Lord unto salvation, but to confess the fact they HAD received Christ, publicly, before the ruling class.
And so this verse actually demonstrates Lordship Salvation. For it shows the knowledge of the believing Pharisees of the consequences of their faith. They knew they HAD made a change of allegience when they believed on Christ; to openly confess this would have had real world consequences. The verse shows just how high the stakes were, and that they were well aware of this.
Well,
In Dr. MacArthur’s defense (as I had mentioned on the previous post) among Calvinists the question would be:
“Is total surrender part of the package of salvation or another bestowing of grace?”
[--> indicates distinct time periods]
Regeneration –> Faith –> Repentance –> Surrender
vs
Regeneration –> Faith/Repentance/Surrender* (the correct choice and LS view)
In this way it is easy to see how true surrender is possible! By the way I think, it is unfair for FG view to show instances of confession and say “see there was no repentance there” when the it is implied. Meaning, at those confessions of faith (after the resurrection) you never hear them say “They believed that Jesus Christ died, rose in 3 days, and was the Son of God.” B/c its assumed and redundant, thus for the Gospel writers to have to write in surrender and faith is not necessary, but clearly assumed from other passages.
Anyways, back on topic:
FG Timeline:
Faith –> Regeneration –> Repentance –> Surrender
Somewhere in the interval “–> Surrender” God is not going to hold you accountable as a Christian for certain sins ie going all the way for Christ. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 either doesn’t apply or the full force is not demanded from them “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.”
Obviously if total surrender is not a direct fruit, characteristic, nor required of most 1 second Christians though God will hold against them the sin they commit, He will not hold their unconditional surrender as a Christian against them since that is not something required of them.
I know I have to repent for not surrendering to im, but I guess according to FG, if you follow their logic, some do not need to confess for not surrendering as a Christian (everyone has to surrender believer or not, but only Christians can dishonor the Bible and Christ’s name by their actions).
Maybe someone could put it more eloquently…
So, I’m saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Then, I’m supposed to have faith in whom? Christ.
Faith that He can save me from what? My sin.
Why do I want to be saved from my sin? God shows me my sin and puts in my heart the desire for salvation from sin. That’s repentance, is it not?
So, without repentance, what’s the point of having faith? Even if I see my sin for what it is (as an unbeliever), if I don’t desire to abandon it, why bother with faith?
And if I don’t desire to abandon my sin — to repent, then it’s obvious that God has not regenerated me. I am spiritually dead; therefore I can’t repent nor put my faith in Christ.
It seems pretty simple to me, but then again, it’s 5:30 in the morning and I should be asleep. It just amazes me sometimes that there’s so much debate over something “simple”.
To all the love the “LS gospel”,
I appreciate your hard work that you have put into defending your understanding of what the Bible teaches about Eternal Security. I would like to ask for your answer to those who claim:
At the moment of Salvation, the Holy Spirit indwells every believer until they go to be with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. And, Ephesians 1: 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
I believe conversion involves two things: (1) Repentance (2) Faith. (Heb 6:1) Repentance without faith is reformation and Faith without repentance is religion.