Lou and Lordship (Part 5)
November 3rd, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
In wrapping up this discussion, there is still much that could be said. The bottom line, however, is this: Lordship teaches that repentance includes a turning from sin (“lawlessness”—1 John 3:4), and a turning toward God (which includes embracing God not only in dependence, but also in love–cf. John 8:42; 1 Peter 1:8). Conversion is a change of dependence, to be sure. But it is also a change of allegiance (because to stop rebelling is to start submitting). The sinner who remains in rebellion toward God cannot rightly claim to have repented.
At the outset, Lou asked that this discussion be focused on the requirements for salvation. I have tried to do that as best I can. Obviously, there are other things in Lou’s book. But I have not dealt with them here because I am attempting to keep the main thing the main thing—rather than getting distracted in unnecessary side arguments.
Both Lou and Lordship agree that repentance and faith (or belief) are necessary for salvation. What we disagree on, however, is what it means to repent and believe. Lou desperately wants to exclude the sinner’s willingness to submit to Christ from the definition of repentance. But this is simply not possible to do—either biblically or logically. As we saw on Wednesday, Lou’s own explanations and examples demonstrate the impossibility of his position.
Lou believes that lordship salvation has turned the gospel into a barter system. He believes this because lordship advocates occasionally use the word “exchange.” Ironically, as we noted in yesterday’s comments, Lou himself uses the word “exchange” to support his own understanding of salvation (on pp. 112, 113). He defines repentance as an “exchange,” and says that the Thessalonians “exchanged” their dependence at the moment of conversion (in 1 Thess. 1:9). So his attack on lordship at this point is blatantly inconsistent. More importantly, though, Lou simply ignores the fact that lordship advocates themselves flatly deny and consistently denounce any such “barter system.” Lou’s conception of lordship is a straw man creation of his own imagination. His rendition of “lordship” (where salvation is conditioned on human merit) is indeed a false gospel. But it is not the gospel that lordship advocates actually promote.
Lou continues to accuse me (and the lordship camp) of putting regeneration before repentance. It is true that I give causal priority to regeneration within the ordo salutis. That is simply standard reformed soteriology. But, like John MacArthur, I see regeneration, repentance, and faith all occurring simultaneously in the moment of conversion. (John openly states this in The Gospel According to the Apostles.) For some reason, Lou seems unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that it is possible for something to be given a logical order and yet occur simultaneously.
Be that as it may, my point is that God gets the credit for repentance (2 Tim. 2:25). There is no human merit included in the equation, because repentance is the gift of God.
Interestingly, as I also mentioned in yesterday’s comments, Lou affirms that saving faith is an act of obedience (p. 247). This is a crucial point, so I’ll repeat it: Lou affirms that saving faith is an act of obedience. My question to Lou would be, who gets the credit for that obedience? If the answer is God, then Lou should have little to complain about with the lordship view. But if the answer is the sinner, then Lou himself is making human works of obedience the condition for salvation–meaning that he would be guilty of the very thing he wrongly accuses lordship of doing. This dilemma alone presents a major problem for Lou’s position.
To conclude, I would like to make three additional observations, and then this series is over. These are somewhat miscellaneous, but I believe my review of Lou’s position would not be complete without them.
First, Lou asserts that lordship is a latecomer to Christian orthodoxy. But this is patently inaccurate. Not only can it be defended from the New Testament, it is also the historic understanding of the church. Men like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other church fathers can easily be cited in this regard. Even those whom Lou cites approvingly, like D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon, preached a gospel message that was lordship. I’m happy, of course, to provide extensive quotes from these men if Lou would like.
Second, Lou argues that lordship salvation is difficult to define. In fact, he spends a whole paragraph (on p. 37) explaining why he is unable to provide a simple definition of the lordship view. To a certain degree, this is not surprising. Lou cannot provide a simple definition of lordship because he does not rightly understand what it is. At the same time, this is a significant admission, especially since lordship advocates have long provided simple definitions of their view. In chapter 2 of The Gospel According to the Apostles, John MacArthur writes:
The gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority. That, in a sentence, is what “lordship salvation” teaches. (Emphasis original.)
Again, because lordship sees repentance as that which includes a change of allegiance, it sees a willingness to yield (or submit) to Christ as necessary. This is what it means to turn from sin and turn toward God. As I have said many times in this series, to stop rebelling is to start submitting.
Third, Lou contends that he has written a clear and definitive defense against lordship teachings. But in the final assessment, this is simply not true. I want to be kind in how I say this, because I believe Lou is sincere and because I also think Lou is a nice guy. But he is sincerely wrong, and he is also confused about the issues. Beginning with his anti-Calvinist and “deeper life” presuppositions, Lou writes a theologically skewed and logically inconsistent treatise against a straw man gospel which he labels “lordship.” That, in one sentence, is my honest (though admittedly firm) assessment of Lou’s book, In Defense of the Gospel.
The true version of lordship is something much different than the “barter system” Lou wants it to be. More to the point, the true version of lordship (which rests on a full undertanding of biblical repentance) is something that necessarily results from Lou’s own explanations and examples—both biblically and logically. If he understood lordship correctly, and if he followed his own arguments to their rightful conclusions, I really believe he would embrace the lordship position.
Lou notes in his book that many of the lordship advocates he has encountered have reacted angrily to him. I hope that Lou has not sensed that reaction from me. I realize that some of my comments have been very direct. Perhaps some will think them harsh. It has not been my intention to unnecessarily offend, but rather to speak the truth in love. As Lou himself stated on his weblog, “I understand that since I have written this book I am fair game.” I hope he will take my criticisms (which I believe are fair) to heart, comparing them with the Scriptures “to see if these things are so” (Acts 17:11).
I have appreciated Lou’s graciousness throughout this discussion, and I have absolutely no personal malice toward him in my heart. I do, however, think that Lou should think twice before labeling the lordship view a false gospel. That is a serious charge, and one that should not be used capriciously—especially without having all the facts right.
Nice Nate B,
I heard your father speak at one of my retreats when I was in college and he was the bomb too!
You hit it dead on with the barter system, in which Lou presupposes that obedience is something within ourselves to give to God. Actually he presupposes there is in fact something that we can barter for as humans with God!
As I have been saying a long time, this is something that needs to be argued in Arminian, not Calvinist circles.
B/c to us Calvinist, dare I say “True Gospelites,”
even if we were to give obedience to God, as you said, we are giving something back to God something that he gave us = not much of a barter system.
Thank you for your defence brother Nate and really thank you brother Lou for your dialog as you have def. challenged me and got me to look in Scripture.
I hate to admit it, but I do agree, that I myself have erred on the side my fruit, instead of God’s free grace. Thanks for that Lou, I will forever remember now where to keep my focus.
What Have We Missed?
Nathan has chosen to limit his discussion of my book to one chapter. That is the chapter, What is Biblical Repentance? I am fine with that because it is an important issue, but not the only key issue in the Lordship debate. It has been a beneficial discussion and I will look for helpful ways to refine my work from this discussion.
We found that there is much to agree on in the doctrine of repentance. However, we have sharp disagreements in the application of repentance. You can review these disagreements in the preceding threads.
Unfortunately, as I anticipated, Nathan did not venture into other key issues in the debate. Most of them are definitely not “unnecessary side arguments.” For example, I have written chapters titled:
Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference?
Can There Be A Christian Who Is Carnal?
What Is Saving Faith?
The Rick Young Ruler
Romans Chapter Ten (v. 9)
Acts 16:30-31
Is It The Christian’s Duty To Fight For The Faith?
A Heart To Heart With Pastors And Christian Leaders
Each of the first six chapters is crucial to understanding the doctrinal and practical problems with Lordship Salvation. In these chapters I define and then biblically answer specific doctrinal and practical errors found in Lordship Salvation.
The last two chapters are my call for those who, like me, find Lordship Salvation to be a departure from the biblical plan of salvation, to take a biblical, militant stand against it. These are followed by a series of nine appendices.
I am going to post a series of short comments from and about most, if not all, of the chapters above. This will be my way of concluding the week’s discussion. I do plan to revisit some of the threads to interact with Nathan and some I did not have an opportunity to do so with this week.
Naturally, all are welcome to visit me on my blog site where you can read more on the Lordship debate. Everyone is welcome to e-mail me from my site. Furthermore, I will likely respond below to some of what appears in Nathan’s final article here.
Before I move on I do want to thank and commend Nathan for his desire to be fair and for his graciousness. If everyone will learn one thing that we surely can agree to it must be this: Christians can disagree, and disagree sharply, but can do so without resorting to the frothy and emotional rhetoric that is all too common in blogging among the brethren.
I don’t think we have very many unbelievers visiting our blog and web sites. If, however, a lost man were to stumble across one of them and happen to read some of harsh exchanges between Christians I have read elsewhere, he would not want to become one of us.
“Sir, we would see Jesus,” (John 12:21.) We all have our shortcomings, we all flop and fail. But, let’s decide that as we interact with one another, to do so in such a way, that if the world did look in on us, they would see Jesus.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
www.fundamentalperspective.wordpress.com
(I brought this forward from yesterday’s thread because it is germaine to today’s conclusion)
Nathan:
Lordship advocates can deny that they have a “barter” system, but as I demonstrated from Dr. MacArthur’s own books he does indeed demand an “exchange” of “unconditional surrender, etc.” for the gift of eternal life.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between the exchange of dependence and the exchange of submission and surrender. The Thessalonians were no longer going to depend on their idols, they would begin to depend on Jesus Christ to do for them what their idols could not do.
As for Dr. MacArtur’s system: He is demanding the upfront promise of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) to secure eternal life. He insists man must offer “surrender, submission, following, obedience, self-denial” in “exchange for salvation.” Your system not only implies, it demands the barter/exchange of the promise of good works for salvation. It’s right there in Dr. MacArthur’s book.
“The straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”
The position of offering promises of “unconditional surrender” in “exchange” for salvation is right in Dr. MacArthur’s books, which I cite for anyone to read. That position is not attributed to him, it is his position. There is no straw man.
Claiming “straw man” does not make the clear, incontrovertible evidence of the “barter” system of Lordship Salvation go away.
Would I “flatly deny this (barter) accusation”? Sure, because nothing is being bartered. The Thessalonians did not offer anything, they came to Christ empty-handed. It was a decision to forsake dependence on idols and begin to depend on God. There are no works done or even being promised. Did the Thessalonians offer or promise anything when they transferred their dependence to God? No!
On the other hand, your denial does fall flat because there is indeed a barter of “good works” for salvation. Your system frontloads and demands a lost man promise to become a committed, fully surrendered disciple of Christ. This means in exchange for salvation he promises to do the good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT define saving faith as full surrender in exchange for salvation? (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)
The Lordship system demands a commitment to a change in behavior or action; the promise of “good works” in “exchange” for salvation.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference?
How can the Scriptures teach that salvation is a free gift of God if the human cost to become a disciple, that is, to be born again, is very great as Lordship Salvation advocates insist?
Salvation is either the free gift of God, or it is costly to man. The Bible teaches that salvation is a gift from God (Romans 6:23), but that discipleship or following Christ is costly (Luke 14:26-27).
The advocates of Lordship Salvation require a commitment to discipleship as the essential requirement for salvation. Defining the Lordship position on discipleship, John MacArthur wrote:
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition].
Dr. MacArthur requires something of the sinner that the Bible does not. Lordship Salvation says that decisions and upfront promises for full surrender and obedient discipleship are required to be born again.
Salvation is the new birth, a one-time event in which a man by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5) is saved from death and Hell.
Discipleship is a process, which begins once the lost man has been regenerated, born again, through personal faith in Jesus Christ. Discipleship is a maturing and growing process of a believer for a lifetime as he yields his will to the will of God. A genuine believer desires to, “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
By their use of discipleship verses as salvation verses, Lordship teachers have gone beyond the scope of the Bible’s simple plan of salvation. It is wrong to apply the verses meant for discipleship of the believer to the doctrine of salvation for the lost.
LM
Nathan:
Today you wrote, “The sinner who remains in rebellion toward God cannot rightly claim to have repented.”
You have also written, “But Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”
Sorry for the repetition, but this begs the question I posted for you in the previous threads.
“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)
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews,” (John 19:38).
They were not open about and would not confess a “change of allegiance.” Did they biblically repent; were they believers?
LM
Lou,
Here is a question from your own words,from your first post this morning.
Just how could the lost man from your example become one of us?
Lou,hear me on this.If I as a sinful man took the weight upon myself to believe that what I did,what I said,what I taught,would be a deciding factor of a person spending eternity worshipping God,I would not ever have a restful night sleep.
Is there something that lost man can do to save himself?
Is there something you or I could do to save him?
Its all God my friend.
In Him,
Dave
Nathan,
Thanks for the great series of posts. I have held to lordship salvation and reformed soteriology for 30 years. I also greatly admire Dr. MacArthur, having read many of his books and commentaries. Recently I reread The Gospel According to Jesus and Hard to Believe. It seems to me that in several instances JM overstates his case, creating the impression the upfront commitment and willingness to surrender all is a prerequisite to salvation. (If you wish, I would be glad to post some of these passages.) And, I can understand how an unbeliever, or a new believer, or a FG reader could interpret those passages as teaching a works based salvation. I was never bothered by those passages (except for the opening words in Chapter 6 of Hard to Believe: I believe that was an editor’s error) because I interpreted them within the context of the book and all the other writings of JM. Sort of like interpreting scripture, huh?
For sake of clarity, in my opinion, JM would be better served if such statements were better explained or if more precise terminology were used. They seem to leave little or no room for practical sanctification. After all, how many people at the moment of salvation are willing to hate their family, give their lives, surrender all their riches, etc., for the cause of Christ? To my knowledge you have not interacted with this concern in any of these posts. Instead, you have defended the LS position, quite admirably I may add.
Scott
The idea of repenting without surrender is fallacious for numerous reasons.
One - suppose an adulterer hears the gospel and says, ‘I believe’ - but then continues their sinful relationship. Do we accept that profession as sincere?
I would suggest not. In fact - in a biblically functioning church - the adulterer would be put on discipline for his sin - and if he still refuses to repent - he is to be considered a pagan [Matt. 18:17]
The proper function of church discipline argues that - there must be a change of allegiance for biblical faith to occur - or else the professor eventually is put out of the church as a hypocrite.
Chuck Colson [in Loving God] has a rather interesting story about gangster Mickey Cohen - supposedly making a profession of faith in a small meeting with Billy Graham or some of Billy Graham’s men. But then he went on with his same old lifestyle of being a gangster. Someone approached him and said - you need to leave this stuff now that you are a Christian.
Cohen rejected the idea completely - he said, you have Christian ball players, Christian doctors - What’s wrong with a Christian gangster?
That is the absurdity of a position that calls for no surrender - or no repentance
Nathan, thanks for doing the lordhsip series. The timing of it has been perfect as I have been preaching thru the Sermon on the Mount and dealing with the broad road and the narrow way.
Keep defending the historic gospel of Paul, Edwards, Spurgeon, and MacArthur
Keep exposing the soul damning errors of men like Zane Hodges
Lou - thanks for your input - it has been good to be challenged from someone who loves the Word and the God of the Word.
You can continue your campaign to militantly oppose the lordship gospel - but what if in the end you are found to be fighting against God? Something to ponder.
Jesus to the multitude [Mark 8:34]: ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me - let Him deny Himself, take up his cross and follow Me,’
Let’s let Him continue to speak those words to the multitude and see what happens. He doesn’t need us to apologize for His strong demands. He needs us to faithfully preach them. The Christian/ disciple dichotomy is indefensible from Scripture and is a relative latecomer to gospel interpretation.
He is risen from the dead and He is Lord,
JM
Nathan and Lou — this has, I think, been a good and rare model of e-theological discussion. It managed to avoid the rancor that is too often found in these things, while still being strong from both sides. Well done.
NATE B
Keep in mind though that the early church father (pre-Augustine), wouldn’t have been very Reformed in their theology. They would believe that you could lose your salvation, and they would have placed more emphasis on man’s responsibility than predestination. Their theology would have been more similar to the “radical Reformers” the Anabaptists, than the Protestant Reformers. Read the book,”Will the Real Heretics Stand Up” by David Bercot. Of Course, they were also similar in some ways to RC, with their belief in baptismal regeneration.
[…] Busenitz sends final shot. […]
Regeneration Before Faith
As I noted earlier many Calvinists hold to this position. Some see regeneration occurring up to years in advance of faith. This naturally troubles most; even those sympathetic to the position in general.
For the most part we agree that regeneration, faith, repentance, conversion, justification and union with Christ occur simultaneously. I have seen the order of the preceding adjusted depending on whom you read and from what camp they come. There must, however, be some trigger that initiates the event, which encompasses them all.
Nathan, representative of Calvinism and Lordship theology, finds regeneration triggering the simultaneous event. He believes a man must be regenerated, born again, becoming a child of God through regeneration before he can express faith in Christ for salvation. The problem is quite obvious: the lost man has in this position already been justified and converted, so what need is there for saving faith?
There is a better and balanced answer. 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 Dr. MacArthur demands a commitment to discipleship (i.e. “take up your cross, losing your life for my sake, etc.”) in “exchange” for salvation, he requires 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 various quotes from men like Nathan I understand why in reality they 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.
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)Rom 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8, 9-13.
Several times in my book I speak of keeping a balance in your theology, or keeping a balance between two points of doctrine. In the matter of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will and/or his responsibility to say that there is a balance at the center would not be appropriate. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are truths found in the Word of God. They are not competing truths they are truths! They are truths that cannot be reconciled. Our finite minds cannot comprehend every truth found in the Word of God. Once you try to reconcile these doctrines you are going to go off into a theological ditch and quite possibly land in the quagmire of heresy. Only in the mind of our infinite God can these two truths be reconciled. (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 249-250.)
If you try to resolve the free will of man you go off into Arminianism, which includes: an innate ability to seek and reach out to God. If you try to resolve the sovereignty of God you go off into the errors of Calvinism, which include: Hyper-Calvinism, a limited atonement and Lordship Salvation.
In conclusion I will cite the following Pastor George Zeller:
“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
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
You are illustrating Nathan’s point, by your comments on the regeneration question, that you don’t really understand the position which you are seeking to refute.
Regardless of what one calls it, all orthodox theologies believe there must be some preceding work of God that enables the sinner to repent and believe. To deny this is to deny the clear words of our Lord, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).
Arminians recognize this in the doctrine of prevenient grace:
“Prevenient grace, as the term implies, is that grace which ‘goes before’ or prepares the soul for entrance into the initial state of salvation. It is the preparatory grace of the Holy Spirit exercised toward man helpless in sin. As it respects the guilty, it may be considered mercy; as it respects the impotent, it is enabling power. It may be defined, therefore, as that manifestation of the divine influence which precedes the full regenerate life.”
Some Calvinists prefer to refer to it as the effectual call, but only Pelagians deny some divine work by which the sinner is enabled to exercise repentance and faith. I don’t think that you believe man has this ability apart from God’s work of grace, but when you mount the arguments you do, you come close to undercutting the biblical doctrine of depravity.
But, all that aside, since both Arminians and Calvinists believe that some preceding work of grace must take place, I simply don’t see how this ties into the Lordship debate. It may be a legitimate debate on its own, but it is a moot point in this discussion.
Nathan has pinpointed the real issue–does genuine repentance and faith require a change of allegiance? Or, to use biblical words, is it true that believers have “been freed from sin and enslaved to God” (Rom 6:22)?
Nathan has taken the debate to the fountainhead. Understand this properly and all of the other issues you address in your book resolve themselves. They are secondary for both positions.
Nate. Thanks for handling this with so much grace. I think it serves as a good model. As always, I appreciate it.
Nathan,
I think you have framed the argument very well. I agree with your assessment. Practically speaking, I think Lou’s real concern is that unless a person is 100 percent perfect in his yieldedness to Christ, then that person has no real assurance of his salvation. This issue of discipleship is a very difficult one in the Scriptures. Some of the discipleship passages are clearly in a salvation context; others appear to be in a service context. The twelve themselves had moments of great failure. We have to marry the concepts of progressive sanctification, discipleship, and justification. Some of Dr. Macs wording in “Hard to Believe” can unduly cause a true believer to be very uncertain of his justification. In my opinion the editors need to do a better job.
My understanding of the requirements of salvation are to deny oneself which was Christ’s way of describing true repentance, take up his cross which again is Christ’s way of defining true faith as an unreserved trust in the person and cross-work of Christ, and follow me which is always the the necessary and inevitable (though not automatic) result of repentant faith. We are declared righteous (justified and receive eternal life) when we repent and believe. We follow Christ as continual repentant believers. All true believers follow Christ. Those who do not follow Christ have never genuinely believed and thereby do not currently believe. Yet, we are not saved on the merits of following Christ, because at the end of the day there is no human merit by which we can commend ourselves to God. Neither is there any merit in repentant faith. All the merit is in the active and passive obedience of Christ who was obedient unto death, even the death on a cross. Justification and sanctification (discipleship) are distinct concepts, but both are inseperably connected under the umbrella of “soterias” (salvation).
The one missing ingredient in your articles is your failure to address the volitional aspect of saving faith. No review of Lou’s book is complete without this. I recommend Douglas Moo’s masterful treatment of “Faith and Obedience” in his commentary on Romans. If you would devote the same intellectual expertise to “pisteuo” as you have to “metanoeo”, I think your argument would be even more persuasive. I have spoken with Lou on the phone several times. I agree with you that Lou is a nice man and very sincere. Our roots both go back to Chicago and the same church–Marquette Manor Baptist Church. I was saved at MMBC under the ministry of the late Dr. Bryce Augsberger who was the former president of Denver Baptist Seminary. Pastor Augsberger was an unashamed four point Calvinist, a strong proponent of repentance as you have defined it, and a strong and highly educated Fundamentalist.
Again, thank you for your articles and the very late evenings it took for you to write them.
Sincerely,
Pastor Mike Harding
First Baptist Church of Troy
Dave, thank you for your comment. I was going to post something along the same lines. You are absolutely correct about the theology, and that it really doesn’t impact the Lordship view. Arminians can be strongly for Lordship without any conflict.
Lou,
When John MacArthur speaks of an “exchange” he is not saying that I offer God my obedience and he, in return, offers me His salvation. That is works salvation. It is a false gospel.
John (and lordship) is saying, instead, that when I come to God as a sinner, recognizing that I cannot save myself, I come with “open hands” and an “open heart” (as others have described it on this site).
In other words, I come not only with no good works of my own, I also come with no agenda of my own. I come willing to embrace God’s gift of salvation, which is His Son. And I come willing to embrace His Son for all of who He is…which is Savior and Lord.
In your chapter on Romans 10:9, you mention that the sinner must agree with God about who Christ is.
Lou, this is all that lordship asserts. How can the sinner truly agree with God in acknowledging who Christ is and yet retain a heart of hatred and rebellion toward Him? It is impossible.
I give God all my sins (which are worthless), including my rebellious agenda (which is worthless). Because God opens my eyes, I now see them to be worthless and wicked, and I turn from them…realizing that they cannot save me. In desperation, I cry out to God for mercy, like the publican in Luke 18. I have no hope in myself, I am at the end of myself. I have, as Christ said, denied myself. I come to God with no works, no merit, and no hidden, rebellious agenda. I come empty and broken.
In return for my worthless wretchedness, God (who made provision for my sins through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) gives me forgiveness, His righteousness, and eternal life. In that same moment, having drawn me to Himself, He also replaces my rebellious agenda with a heart that loves Him, that desires to serve Him, and that is eager to follow Him. He enables my repentance, which like faith is a gift from Him.
If that to you is a barter system, where the worthless rubbish of sin is exchanged for the glorious riches of eternal life on the basis of the finished work of Christ, then I guess lordship is guilty.
But I can assure you, with all the sincerity of my heart before God, that neither I, nor John MacArthur, view human merit as (in any way, shape, form, or part) the basis for my salvation. It is purely a gift from God. It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
I hope that helps clarify.
Thanks,
NB
Pastor Harding:
You wrote, “Practically speaking, I think Lou’s real concern is that unless a person is 100 percent perfect in his yieldedness to Christ, then that person has no real assurance of his salvation.”
This is a statement that I categorically reject.
LM
Pastor Harding:
Both here and at Sharper Iron (SI) you put out appeals for men, other than yourself, to review my book.
You are capable of doing that review. You have read my book, and just stated there is problem with my view of the “volitional aspect of saving faith.”
Since you are a proponent of Lordship Salvation I would encourage you, just as I did at SI, to write the review yourself.
LM
It has been difficult reading these interactions.
I was told that the second week of the series would have serious exegetical and expositional support of Lordship theology.
We had one article by Matthew Waymeyer that at the least attempted to consider a text. I made several observations about the passage and he failed, as did the rest, to discuss the passage with me and my comments.
Now we spend a week on discussing a book that holds to a soft lordship/soft grace position.
By all intents and purposes, this excursion into Lordship theology has been a major disappointment.
The exegetical and expositional content in Lordship argumentation is in utter lack. The superficiality of the study and comments of the Traditionalist does not cease to truly amaze me. They consider themselves the bastion of truth and objective biblical interpretation.
But they seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.
The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes
Lou,
You mentioned above that while repentance is “an important issue” it is “not the only key issue in the Lordship debate.” You also expressed your disappointment that I “did not venture into other key issues in the debate.”
You are right that repentance is not the only key issue in the Lordship debate. But of all the issues in this discussion, I believe it is the most foundational. I focused on it because I believe all of our other disagreements flow out of this one issue.
Your chapter on “Salvation & Discipleship” argues that discipleship must be kept separate from salvation. But what is discipleship. It is a willingness to learn and willingness to follow? Since my understanding of repentance includes a turning from rebellion (which is a willingness to submit/follow), then I have no problem equating salvation with discipleship. Because your understanding of repentance does not include a willingness to submit, you do. (This is not to mention the major exegetical problems you have with many of Christ’s sayings, which were aimed at the unsaved crowds.)
Your chapter on “Can a Christian Be Carnal?” is a topic John MacArthur already addressed in his common questions about lordship.
Your chapter on “What is Saving Faith?” argues that faith is essentially dependence on Christ. It is the flip-side of repentance (which you limit to a change of dependence). Lordship, however, sees faith as that which includes both dependence and allegiance. Like you, this is because we see it as the flip-side of repentance (which we believe includes a change of allegiance).
Your chapter on the “Rich Young Ruler” is perhaps one of the worst in your book, as it grossly misrepresents the lordship salvation understanding of that passage. I did not go into it, because I was trying to keep the main thing the main thing. However, our understanding of that passage again flows out of our understanding of repentance. Because repentance includes a change in whom we worship, the Rich Young Ruler had to stop worshipping his money and start worshipping God. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, no one can serve two masters.
Your chapter on Romans 10 is something I addressed in the comments section on Wednesday. It is there where you argue that the sinner must agree with God that Jesus is the sovereign ruler of the universe. Yet, in your thinking, the sinner does not need to simultaneously agree that Jesus is the sovereign ruler of his own life. That logic simply does not follow.
Your chapter on Acts 16:30–31 is another example of how you import your own presuppositions into the passage, and use those presuppositions to tear down the “straw man” of lordship that you believe it to be. Again, if your understanding of repentance (which is the flip-side of belief) includes a change of allegiance, you will have no issue with the lordship interpretation of those verses.
Your other chapters on “Is it the Christian’s Duty to Fight for the Faith?” and “A Heart to Heart With Pastors and Christian Leaders” attempt to mobilize Christians against your conception of “lordship.” If your misconception about lordship were indeed accurate (as a system that bases salvation on human merit), I would stand with you in joining the fight against it.
In this discussion, I did my best to stay on topic (regarding, “What are the requirements for salvation?”) To have you then imply that I was not complete in my review is somewhat disconcerting.
I believe your entire position stands or falls on your understanding of repentance. Because you misunderstand repentance, you misunderstand faith (which is its counterpart), and you also misunderstand the lordship position—which sees repentance as a turning from lawlessness (1 John 3:4), and faith as a simultaneous turning to God—in both dependence and in love (John 8:42; 14:15).
Thanks,
NB
Nathan/All:
You wrote, “When John MacArthur speaks of an “exchange” he is not saying that I offer God my obedience and he, in return, offers me His salvation. That is works salvation. It is a false gospel.”
“The full title of John MacArthur’s original book is What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, Follow Me? The Gospel According to Jesus. The title alone should raise concern even before one opens the cover. The point made in the title is that John MacArthur and those who advocate Lordship Salvation believe the Lord’s words Follow Me are a necessary component of the gospel and must be acted upon for salvation.” In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 37-38.)
What Dr. MacArthur does is demand from a sinner the upfront, or as Pastor Harding noted, “frontloaded” promises of surrender, self-denial, commitment to follow, to be willing to die for Jesus’ sake, in “exchange” 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. 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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised and Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)
Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial–even willingness to die for His sake if necessary. (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 221, 226.)
In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation MacArthur wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus, p. 6)
These conditional elements of Dr. MacArthur’s gospel are inconsistent with your assertion that a sinner must come to God “empty and broken.” If a sinner comes to God with a promise for the kind of behavior and acts of a born again disciple that Dr. MacArthur demands, he has come with an offer of works.
There is no straw man. There is no way around it, no way to paint it in a different light. Dr. MacArthur says it plainly: without the frontloaded promise of “good works,” there is no “exchange” for salvation. This is a works based message. Lordship Salvation is a false gospel!
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Antonio,
I find your “disappointment” to be disingenuous. Anyone who has ever interacted with you on this topic knows that, no matter what exegetical arguments are brought up, you will respond by pasting a lengthy, pre-written paraphrase of Zane Hodges into the comments section.
That being said, there are plenty of verses to support the lordship position. Repentance was preached by:
1. John the Baptist (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:4)
2. Jesus (Matt 4:17; 11:20-24; Mark 1:14-15; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 24:46-47)
3. The Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:5-6; 2 Cor 7:10; Heb 6:1-6; 2 Peter 3:9)
And these are only the passages where the word is used. The concept is reiterated in many other places (as John MacArthur has shown in his posts the last few days).
In Luke 24:46-47, Jesus commanded His disciples to preach “repentance and remission of sins” to all nations.
In Acts 17:30, Paul (in his evangelistic sermon to the Greeks) proclaimed, that God “now commands all men everywhere to repent.”
In Acts 26:20, Paul (again in an evangelistic sermon, to King Agrippa) said that his ministry was one in which he commanded unbelieving sinners, “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.”
In John 2:22-23, we see that there is a “belief” that is false. The books of James and 1 John help us understand what false belief (which is mere lipservice) looks like.
In John 8:42, Jesus said that those who are children of the Father love Him. And in John 14:15, He said that those who love Him will obey Him. In John 10:27, He reiterated that “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” While you may not agree with the lordship position on those passages, we did lay out several exegetical arguments in our presentation of those passages a couple weeks back.
In any case, Antonio, we do not expect you to be persuaded. Your unfatiguable commitment to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the GES viewpoint is something I doubt any of our readers have missed.
Thanks,
NB
Here are a couple more verses that come to mind…
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19)
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11:18)
Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything. For they themselves declare … how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. (1 Thess. 1:9)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginnning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Rev. 21:6-8)
Did I not rightfully say:
———-
But [the Lordship advocates] seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.
The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes.
———-
?
I claim the above, and what do you answer my assertion with? A vindication of my charge, for you do none other than paste a “lengthy” rapid-fire proof-texting tirade.
The mere referencing to texts may convince superficial context-rippers and those who have already bought into your system, but it will not persuade the critical, exegetically thinking mind.
Is it as if the Free Gracers have never read those passages you rapid fire proof-text?
Maybe you are expecting the scales to fall off of our eyes as we read the passages that you present without an ounce of support for what you think through them God is conveying to men.
Can you show by a well-reasoned exegetical and expositional treatment of those texts which you drown us in that they are indeed supporting your Lordship Theology?
Or should the mere referencing of, and the superficial, context-ripped reading of Lordship proof-texts persuade the FG as to their errors?
I thought that the Lordship advocates had strong biblical arguments that were to be displayed here. I was under the impression that texts would be treated supporting Lordship doctrine. I was told by Phil Johnson that FGers were not serious. I find just the opposite: Lordship advocates arguments presented on supericial readings and prooftexts.
My disappointment is not disingenuous.
The expectations that I had for critical discussions of actual texts have been dashed in lieu of choir preaching, argument stringing, and proof-text machine-gunning.
Antonio:
I would have to partially agree with Nathan on the manner of your involvement. You are obviously very commited to your position on these issues. I do, however, find you somewhat harsh.
For example, “choir preaching, argument stringing, and proof-text machine-gunning.”
You could say difficult things, in a different, milder tone. Maybe you should frame some of what I see as accusations in the form of a question. It might be better received that way.
By the way, why am I not on the receiving end of some of your comments? Just curious.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Come quickly Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen and Amen.
Antonio,
I am sorry if you found my response to be a rapid-fire, proof-texting tirade. I am equally sorry that you find the verses I provide to be superficial, context-ripped proof-texts.
Jesus Christ commanded His apostles to preach a message of “repentance and remission of sins” to the unbelieving nations (Luke 24:46-47).
The apostle Paul, in his evangelistic sermon on Mars Hill, said that God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).
He later said, in his evangelistic sermon to Agrippa, that his evangelistic message to both Jews and Gentiles was “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20) And he did this because Christ himself had comissioned him to do so, “that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in [Christ]” (v. 18).
Zane Hodges may say that it is not necessary to include repentance in our evangelistic presentations. I think these verses (along with others) plainly demonstrate that God Himself says otherwise.
Antonio, I’m sure that you will attempt to answer this, explaining away what God commands. It is your perogative to do so. I doubt I will respond.
This is not because I am afraid of your arguments. Nor is it because you bring up points that the lordship camp is unable to answer. It is simply because you are not enjoyable to interact with. Your tone consistently comes across as vitrolic, condescending, and unteachable.
This is certainly not true of everyone in the FG camp. I have been impressed with the graciousness and charity which has been shown on both sides of this debate.
If a certain level of charity cannot be maintained, then as far as I am concerned the conversation is over.
Thanks,
NB
Nathan:
You are entitled to write, Your chapter on the “Rich Young Ruler” is perhaps one of the worst in your book, as it grossly misrepresents the lordship salvation understanding of that passage.”
Here is a sample of how John MacArthur addresses the passage on the rich young ruler:
“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.)
“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.” (Hard To Believe: The High Cost and Infinite value of Following Jesus, p. 9.
I will let Dr. MacArthur’s comments stand without comment. Those of you who read what he has written can comment on whether Dr. MacArthur accurately defines the gospel as you see it.
I often note in most doctrinal debates men on both sides eventually or immediately accuse the other side of “misrepresenting” there position. Contrary to your opinion, I did not do this. I let the Lordship advocates like John MacArthur, John Stott, Kenneth Gentry and Walter Chantry define their position in their own words.
There are those who have written me to say that my chapter The Rich Young Ruler, “is among the best and biblically right on.”
There is only one way for any man to determine if I have properly framed the issues in the Lordship controversy. They will have to read my book and come to their own conclusion.
For those of you who have been lurking: Do not let a review from a man who is defending a position, which I have confronted, form an opinion for you. Read my book and reflect on what I have written, then form your own opinion.
In Defense of the Gospel is thoroughly researched, well organized, well documented, and clearly presented.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I realize that the word “worst” is a strong word. But I really believe you entirely missed the lordship position on this passage (the Rich Young Ruler [RYR]).
You see the RYR story as a story solely about trust (dependence). The man was trusting (depending) in his riches, Christ told him to stop trusting in his riches and instead to trust Christ.
Lordship sees the narrative as that which includes both trust (dependence) and love (affection/allegiance). Paul brings out both of these aspects in his discussion about money in 1 Timothy 6. It is wrong to love money (1 Tim. 6:10) and it is wrong to trust in money (1 Tim. 6:17).
Love is at the core of worship. True worship is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). It is to have no other God’s before the one true God (Exod. 20:3-4).
The RYR was guilty of both trusting in money and in loving money. His “god” was his riches, because money was what he truly loved. (Jesus clearly sees money as an idolotrous competitor to true worship in Matthew 6).
Jesus was not asking for the man’s money or possessions in exchange for salvation. That is not what lordship teaches. Yet this is how you wrongly portray the lordship position in your book.
Rather, Jesus was asking for the man’s heart. He wanted both his trust and his allegiance. Until the man repented (forsaking his idolotrous love of and dependence on money) he could not be saved. He could not continue to worship his riches, and simultaneously become a true worshipper of God.
Thanks,
NB
Lou,
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Though we disagree on some matters (defining the true nature of repentance and faith), I think we both have the same concern about the issue of perfect submission being the absolute condition for assurance of salvation. Neither of us hold to it. Some statements in the Lordship debate can unwittingly give that impression, however.
Hi Nathan and All,
Thanks for the opportunity clarify how much of a self-examination theology FG is. In my opinion, it is even more so than the theology of Pulpit magazine, since the warnings of the Scriptures are more immidiate when understood as pointedly directed to true born again Christians.
But I said last year on my blog that there is legitimacy to the motivation of your popular movement:
“I see it as reacting against a real threat to the church. It is the sloppiness of some in modern Christianity that has prompted this popular movement. A lot of Christians just don’t think they have to follow the rules in life. They believe that any sort of rules are for legalists. They don’t have to tell the truth or remain mum if asked a nosey question, they can lie. No big deal. They don’t have to exercise discipline in how they date and if they date a believer …Part of the popular movement against this is inspired by John MacArthur. He emphatically preaches against this type of nonsense and openly mocks the attitude of people who are far too casual toward the things of the Spirit and even basic morality. The other part is inspired by the Puritans of old … “
But my concern is that your model fits the Scripture more from a distance than from a more methodical consideration of the contexts of the Scriptural evidence for perseverance theology. I see the Reformed Lordship model of the NT to be like a big sparkling jewel set on a beautiful ring. The jewel represents the LS theoretical model itself (with its multi-faceted propositions that dovetail so seamlessly) while the beautifully etched platinum ring represents the Word of God. Both the jewel and the ring are impressively cut and crafted, both are well shaped. The jewel is separate from the ring but it fits snugly into its setting. Six strong platinum prongs intercept, support and fasten the jewel to the ring.
The FG model, however, is like a series of small inlaid jewels that fit snugly into a beautiful platinum ring. The jewels appear less significant than a single large jewel but are secured more intimately to the ring itself. Instead of being fastened to the ring with prongs, each gem lies flush along the molded, etched surface of the platinum ring. The beauty of the ring itself, with its flair, symmetry and complicated etching is far more striking than the individuale gems.
For me the legitimate beauty of the logic of the Reformed theology, represented by the big jewel, is sullied with the reality that it is actually not the ring (that is, the Word of God) that has determined the size and shape of the “jewel”. Granted, the jewel “fits” the ring at specific points, but the details of the jewel have more to do with its own logic than with the demands of those specific points of contact with the ring.
Again, thank you for the interaction.
May you thrive in God’s blessings.
Jodie
Nathan, thanks for the series. I echo the last three paragraphs of this closing article.
And Lou, I pray for you, too, friend.
The King is gracious to us all.
Nate B,
I wanted to offer a quick note of thanks to you and the whole staff for hosting these discussions. I’m even out of ink without having printed out everything! LOL!
Seriously, though, thank you so very much.
May God bless you and your family mightly!
Robert
A quick note to you, Lou:
Thanks for letting Nate review and quote from your book. I am about to trot on over to Amazon and order a copy for myself to use in my own studies together with these many awesome posts and and blog threads over the past few weeks.
May God bless you and your family mightly indeed.
Robert
Robert:
Thanks for your comments.
I trust you will receive some blessing and benefit from what I produced in the book. You will find a very comprehensive treatment of the Lorship gospel and a number of related issues.
Be sure to read each appendix entry, they are very worthwhile.
Big thanks for your consideraton of my family.
Yours faithfully,
Lou
To Nathan & All:
I am going to continue to visit this particular thread and post a few more comments in reply to the final article posted today.
I will also be very happy to interact with anyone who wishes to do so with me. I plan to post replies to some of men who have interacted with me and Nathan above. You will have to check back to find out if you are one of them.
You can visit and e-mail me at my blog site which appears below.
Yours in His service,
Lou Martuneac
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I would again like to underscore my appreciation to you for your willingness to interact with us on this important issue. Your sincere desire to be biblical is a characteristic I deeply respect. Our interchange could not have happened if we did not both agree that the Word of God is our final authority in all these things.
Thank you also for the gracious and courteous tone you maintained throughout this series. I hope you felt that you were also treated with courtesy and respect. Though we disagree on this important issue, I am grateful that we were able to conduct our dialogue in a way that (I believe) was honoring to the Lord.
Please feel free to keep posting comments here. I will try to interact with whatever comments are directed to me, as much as I am able.
Since you’re from Chicago, I’ll end with a shout out to the Bears. I’m not really a Bears fan, but they are having quite a season…
Grace and peace,
NB
Dear Nathan:
I share and extend the same sentiments to you.
Thanks for the shout out for our Bears. Only drawback is at many of our Chicagoland churches you just have to know that once Noon rolls around, which is kick off time, we have something akin to the Indy 500 going on out in the parking lots in the direction of the exits.
More later.
Lou
Men:
Here is a link to an article titled, Which Comes First: Faith or Regneration?
www.ptwm.org/pages/ezines.aspMagazine=Declaring+the+Gospel
LM
Men:
Here is a link to an article titled, Which Comes First: Faith or Regneration?
Hmmm, go to
www.ptwm.org
Go under E-Zines tab
Declaring the Gospel
Then you will see the title to click on.
LM
Mike:
You wrote, “I think we both have the same concern about the issue of perfect submission being the absolute condition for assurance of salvation. Neither of us hold to it. Some statements in the Lordship debate can unwittingly give that impression…”
Thanks for the clarification.
Lou
As I have been reading these comments, on my new MAC OS 10 that my sweet brother gave me, I might add, I see that perhapes there is another woman “wislowlady” out there, so now I don’t feel so bad in expressing my thoughts.
Jacob said something so refreshing in what everything else that was said, “Come quickly Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen and Amen”. Man I’ll tell you I couldn’t concur more. To be finally set free from this body of sin and death and finally be consummated with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I long for that day, don’t we all! Who knows, maybe it will be this week!
T
Brethren
This series has been an educational experience. The debate has been balance and fair for the readers. Nathan you have done very well in this debate. Lou Martneac as proved to be gracious. All those who have entered into the series with comments has been a growing experience.
Having downloading this whole series (15), some 369 pages I might write a book on this series. Kidding. But it is a thought. How about Phil Johnson, he could. Or Lou.
GROW IN LEARNING. TAKE A CHANCE AN LEARN
Charles
This is an excellent series of postings. I really appreciate the interaction between Nathan and Lou. Others comments have made good contributions, too.
The one thought that has been sticking in the back of my mind - where thoughts often tend to stick - is: the issue of the roles of faith and repentance in the role of salvation is determined by one’s view of the ability of an individual to participate in their own salvation. The FG position does not accept the definition of total depravity held by LS. I believe Lou does not accept that definition either - thus, his opposition to the idea of regeneration preceding faith. I know he will object to it from his understanding of Scripture, too. If man is totally depraved [total inability to come to God] then he must receive outside help - beyond general illumination - God must actively intervene. I believe that both the desire to repent AND to believe must be given to an individual and therefore neither the ACTION of believing or the ACTION of repenting carry any merit as works.
That’s where my thinking is at this point in time. I hope I am always teachable - even if stubbornly so at times.
Gary
Do you suppose Ted Haggard was a Free Gracer?
Gotta love Jerry Morningstar!
Our outward behavior may not be the result of profession of faith, when our secret life is quite the opposite of the behavior we want people to believe. Can a person like Ted Haggard be a “Lordship Salvation” believer? If this has been his lifestyle for years, is there is a question as to his conversion?
Charles
To All:
Be checking my blog site for updates.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Gentlemen,
Nathan, Mac’s personal assistant, did an excellent job carefully examining the biblical view of repentance vis-a-vis’ “In Defense of the Gospel”. I requested that Nathan equally examine the nature of faith along the same lines. Nathan either did not have time or was growing weary.
In my understanding of the non-Lordship writers, they view the nature of saving faith as a reliance or dependence on Christ to save (with which I would whole-heartedly agree), but that such faith does NOT include a personal submission to His rule. Hodges, for example, claims that the English expression “believe in” is no different from its Greek counterpart “pisteuo” or “pistis”: “No one supposes that the English words ‘believe in’ denote a ‘personal relationship,’ much less ’submission to.’ ” (Zane Hodges, “Grace in Eclipse”, p. 7)
The Lordship view, as I would define it, includes the concept of dependence on the work of Christ and allegiance to the person of Christ which includes the intention of the will to personally place one’s self under the the authority of Christ based upon the proper apprehension of His nature as well as His gift (cf. Warfield, “On Faith In Its Psychological Aspects,” in “Biblical and Theological Studies”, pp. 375-403).
Warfield points out that the Greek “pistis” has as its root meaning the idea of “binding” (p. 375). Michel in NIDNTT presents strong evidence that the earliest usages of “pistis” and its cognates denote conduct honoring an agreement or bond (vol. I, pp. 594-95). The root behind “pistis” is the same as that behind “peitho” which means to obey as a result of being persuaded (NIDNTT, I, p. 588). This word group goes far beyond the mere acceptance of data, moving into the realm of conduct as it implies strong and compelling conviction that is foundational to living (Becker, NIDNTT, I, p. 590). Vine sees the inseparable linkage between “faith” (pistis) and “obedience” (peitho). Vine summarizes this relationship saying that “When a man obeys God he gives the only possible evidence that in his heart he believes God. . . ‘Peitho’ suggests an actual and outward result of the inward persuasion and consequent faith” (Vine, Exp. Dict. of NT Words, p. 806). Reception of the Gospel is referred to both in terms of faith (pisteuein) and in terms of obedient action due to persuasion (peithesthai). In addition to this the most common Greek verb for obedience (hupakouo) is used in relation to salvation in Hebrews 5:9 where speaking of Christ it says: “And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey (hupakouousin) Him the source of eternal salvation.” The present tense here indicates both the initial act of faith as an act of obedience with continuing obedience to follow.
Warfield argues that three conditions must be present in saving faith: intellectual, emotional, and volitional: “No true faith has arisen unless there has been a perception of the object to be believed or believed in, an assent to its worthiness to be believed or believed in, and a commitment of ourselves to it as true and trustworthy. . . . And equally we cannot be said to believe that which we distrust too much to commit ourselves to it” (Warfield, “On Faith . . . “, pp. 402-03).
Based on the etymological evidence alone, one must affirm the presence of some form of submission or commitment in the historical understanding of faith and recognize that this submission or commitment involves a re-direction of one’s will. Etymological evidence cannot be the only determining evidence, however.
In John’s Gospel there are people who are said to have believed, but are then treated as unbelievers (Jn 2:23-25; 8:31; 12:42-43). This inidcates that “believing” is more than intellectual acceptance, but a positive response of a man’s whole being toward the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 16:8-11 The Spirit convicts the world of sin and traces sin back to its root “unbelief”. If the heart of sin is unbelief, then belief cannot be only intellectual, but must be a positive response of the whole person to God. In John 6:22-71 Jesus defines the ethical phrase, “the works of God,” as equal to belief and contrasts “the works of God” with the “works of the Devil”, again, indicating that belief has ethical content which is addressed to the will of the believer. In John 3 “pistis” is used for “believe” and contrasted with “apeithon” (not “apisteuo”). The latter word must be granted ethical content since it stands for obedience rooted in conviction and persuasion.
Thayer’s analysis of the NT usages of “pisteuo” leads him to the conclusion that it is “used especially of the faith by which a man embraces Jesus, i.e., a conviction, full of joyfult trust, that Jesus is the Messiah–the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the Kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ . . . ” (Thayer, p. 511).
In Romans 1:5 Paul says that the purpose of his apostleship is to bring about the “obedience of faith” among the Gentiles. In Romans 15:18 the obedience produced by Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles is said to be the ministry to which Christ had called him and had blessed. Paul says that the Gentiles were brought to the point of “obeying God” by what he had said and done. Likewise, in Acts 6:7 a large group of priests are said to have become “obedient to the faith”. In Romans 16:26 Paul uses the same phrase and summarizes his ministry of the Gospel as “leading to obedience of faith.” Cranfield comments here, “The equivalence for Paul of faith in God and obedience to Him may be illustrated again and again from this epistle. . . . It is also true to say that to make the decision of faith is an act of obedience toward God and also that true faith by its very nature includes in itself the sincere desire and will to obey God in all things” (Cranfield, Critical and Exegetical Comm. on Romans, pp. 66-67). In Galatians 3:23-25 “faith” is nearly synonymous with Christianity as a whole. In 1 Thess 1:3 Paul speaks of the “work of Faith” which means a “Faith that works” (Bruce, NICNT, p. 51). The same idea is present in 2 Thess 1:11 and Gal 5:6, where faith is said to work through love. Only a faith that produces obedience can truly be called saving faith (James 2:14, 18, 22, 24). James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead (2:17, 20), meaning that is has no efficacy. As Alford says, such a faith “has no living root whereby it energizes” (Alford, “The Greek NT”, IV, p. 298). Real faith unites a man with Christ so that his thoughts and actions come under the control of His Spirit. Even Ryrie admits: “. . . can a non-working, dead, spurious faith save a person? James is not saying that we are saved by works, but that a faith that does not produce good works is a dead faith. . . . Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ. Genuine faith cannot be ‘dead’ to morality or barren to works” (Ryrie Study Bible, NASB, p. 1859). The NT usages of “faith” in relation to salvation speak of a dynamic that moves the will toward obedience. Faith is seen as obedience, and as prompting obedience. Ryrie’s assertion that faith is “productive” in its very nature affirms this.
Michael,
Thanks for your insightful and very helpful overview of biblical faith. You are absolutely right. True saving faith is more than just mental assent or a mere transfer of dependence.
A full, biblical understanding of repentance (as that which includes a change of both dependence and allegience) will necessarily lead to a full, biblical understanding of faith. And vice versa. The two concepts are, as Lou pointed out, the flip-side of each other.
To turn from sin (repentance) means to turn from lawlessness (1 John 3:4), including unbelief and idolatry. To turn to Christ (faith) means to embrace Him not only in trust, but also in love (John 8:42; 1 Cor. 16:22) and in worship (1 Thess. 1:8-9).
To love and worship Christ is, by its very definition, to give Him first place (Mark 12:30) and to be willing to obey His commands (John 14:15).
From the human perspective, then, we call men not only to trust in Christ, but also to embrace Him wholeheartedly. They cannot do this and simultaneously remain in rebellion to Him. They must come to Him on His terms, which means they must come broken and contrite, like the publican of Luke 18.
From the divine perspective, we know that it is God who draws sinners to Christ (John 6:44). And we also know that His salvation includes deliverance, not only from the eternal consequences of sin, but also from slavery to sin in this life (Rom. 8:1-4). The person who claims to have been saved, yet continues to walk as a slave to sin, has deceived himself. Or as John put it, in 1 John 1:6, “If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.”
Again, great insights here. Thanks for your input.
NB
Mike/Nathan:
I trust both of you men know and agree that I do not hold to or promote the “Mental Assent” or Easy Believism” positions, and that I am not refuting Lordship theology from those perspectives.
Will both of you will concede that?
LM
Ps. Harding:
You wrote, “…faith does NOT include a personal submission to His rule.” This indicates you believe faith includes some form of submission to the lordship of Christ.
I would then, therefore, ask if you are in agreement with Dr. MacArthur’s definition of saving faith?
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 27, 142.)
Does Dr. MacArthur’s submission/discipleship position define the gospel you believe results in eternal life?
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted,” (Luke 18:13-14).
Nathan:
He was clearly “broken and contrite” over his sin and left justified.
Would you please show us from the passage where we find the Lordship gospel of submission, of a, “wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior?” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.
I trust we are not going to find the conditions that Dr. MacArthur demands for salvation out of the word, “humbleth.”
LM
Lou,
I would ask a couple questions in response.
1. What does it mean to be “broken and contrite” over sin?
I would answer it like this: Sin is a violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4); it is rebellion against Him. So to be “broken and contrite” over that rebellion necessarily implies a desire to stop rebelling in the future.
2. What does it mean to “humble yourself” (Luke 18:14)?
The root of rebellion (sin) is pride. Pride is what exalts itself against God and His law, wrongfully asserting its independence–as though the sinner, not God, were preeminent. By forsaking his pride (which is what humility is), the publican cried out to God with an open heart. He did not ask for God’s mercy while at the same time holding on to his own selfish, rebellious, idolatrous agenda. No, he came humbly… denying himself (which, again, is what humility is) and exhibiting genuine sorrow for his rebellion against God.
This man came to God with no prideful, idolatrous, rebellious strings attached. That is what it means to surrender.
Was it “wholehearted” surrender. It certainly seems so, if Jesus’ description of him in verse 13 is any indication.
Hope this helps to clarify.
Thanks,
NB
Another loose end is that Phil Johnson has graciously agreed to respond to my challenge on James. He has already posted a very good response to that regarding our broad disagreements on James. You can find this discussion on Pulpit’s Repentance in Apostolic Preaching thread. See also his review of Zane Hodges commentary on James over on Amazon, to see the opinion he is defending.
Jodie
Mike/Nathan:
I trust both of you men know and agree that I do not hold to or promote the “Mental Assent” or Easy Believism” positions, and that I am not refuting Lordship theology from those perspectives.
Will both of you will concede that?
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I have stated in the past that you have distanced yourself from Hodges and from Ryrie on the issue of repentance. Nathan has pointed out some inadequacies in your position on repentance. Nevertheless, your position is much more biblical than that of Hodges and Ryrie. Since you inseparably connect repentance to faith, your definition of repentance qualifies your understanding of faith, whether you realize it or not. Also, you clearly believe that there must be evidence of faith in a Christian’s life. I am not accusing you of easy believism. I am trying to defend a thoroughly biblical definition of the nature of repentance (which Nathan did an excellent job on), the nature of saving faith (which I have attempted to explain), and the proper object and content of faith (This has yet to be fully addressed in this particular discussion).
Pastor Harding:
Thanks for providing this gracious answer. I did not mean to imply that you or Nathan were implying that I am in an Easy-Believism camp.
I was getting some private communication in which some folks were somehow a little confused about my position.
They probably got confused because so often the debate is referred to as coming from only two separate, distinct and sharply divided camps. Lordship or no-lordship; Lordship Salvation or Easy Believism; Lordship or Free Grace; MacArthur or Hodges, etc.
As you pointed out my, “position is much more biblical than that of Hodges and Ryrie.”
I felt if you men validated this for me it would clear up any confusion.
Nathan: Would you concur with Mike’s assessment of my position?
LM
www.indefensofthegospel.blogspot.com
www.fundamentalperspective.wordpress.com
We have discussed the nature of repentance and the nature of faith. At this point I would like to discuss the object of faith. Darrell Bock says that the “focal point of faith is the power and provision of the Lord Jesus Christ” (”Jesus as Lord,” Bib Sac, 143, April-June, 1986, p.152). I would contend that the object of saving faith is more than the “power and provision” of Christ, but rather includes Christ himself. If the object of faith is the Lord Jesus Christ, not just His work, then salvation must be viewed as the proper establishment of a relationship between a man and the Son of God, which includes his full identity. In Acts 16:31 we have the call to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Not only is the term “Lord” used, but it is His person that is the object of the faith exercised, not just His work. In John’s Gospel it is clear that Jesus wanted faith to be placed in Him, and that His words and works were to prompt such faith. The disciples acknowledge their faith by proclaiming Jesus to be the “Holy One of God” (Jn 6:69). They were not just trusting in His power; they were trusting Him. Paul presented to the Corinthians “Jesus Christ” first and then “Him crucified” second (1 Cor 2:2). “Lord” (kurios; YHWH–1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:5-11) certainly carries the idea of Deity (Westcott, “Epistles of John”, p. 13; Warfield, “The Lord of Glory”, pp. 13-14). However, it also carries the idea of authority. The LXX uses kurios for the Hebrew YHWH. When the Jews read YHWH they said “adonai” (master)[Quell, TDNT, III, pp. 1060-62). Two-thirds of the 9,000 usages of kurios in the LXX are expressions of the divine name YHWH conveying a message concerning God and His essential nature. Quell lists numerous references which give over-whelming evidence that the Hebrew usage of adonai for YHWH (and later the usage of kurios by the LXX translators) carries with it the significance of rule and authority (Quell, TDNT, III, 1061-1081). In the NT kurios reveals authority as well. Christ is “Lord” of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28). He is “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:29-36). Here Peter draws from Psalm 110:1 to show that the exalted Lord resides in the presence of YHWH, and thus is arguing for joint rule, not just shared deity. In Phil 2:5-11 the confession of Lordship carries with it personal submission. In Rev 17:14 all authorities are seen to be under His authority–”Lord of lords”. Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God”, obviously giving the term Lord a special emphasis of authority in addition to deity (Jn 20:28). Jesus affirmed this response as a true response of personal saving faith (20:29ff). Rom 10:9 tells us that “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe . . . you shall be saved.”
Pastor Harding - That was powerful. May I reproduce this comment on my blog at some later point in time?
Nathan:
I have been reflecting on, and want to return to a part of our discussion above.
Earlier you wrote, “When John MacArthur speaks of an ‘exchange’ he is not saying that I offer God my obedience and he, in return, offers me His salvation. That is works salvation. It is a false gospel.”
Now I read this quote from The Gospel According to Jesus:
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (p. 140.)
An objective, unbiased reading can lead to just one conclusion: Dr. MacArthur demands a promise of life long obedience in “exchange” for salvation. This is man being told he must “offer” what he will do or become in “exchange” for salvation. This is “works salvation.”
The Bible presents a much better, and a much different view of salvation than creating demands for life long obedience for the reception of eternal life.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I’m not in my office today, and have only an electronic version of the Revised and Expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. According to my search tool, the quote you cite is not in the Revised and Expanded edition.
So I’ll have to wait until I can check an older edition to see the context of your quote.
At this point, I can only assure you that John did not intend, in any way, for that section of his book to teach works salvation. My guess is that he attempts to clarify this in the broader context. But I’ll have to look.
Thanks,
NB
Yes Mark. No problem using anything I have written.
Pastor Harding, thank you. I shall give you the credit and point people to your excellent church web-site. I enjoyed my visit there too.
Hey it worked, I am so thrilled…can you believe it, I have finally learned how to copy and paste…wow, I am impressed with myself…I didn’t think I would ever learn how to do that…..anyway, here are a couple more links that have a wealth of information.
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles_pdf/foundations_underattack.pdf
http://www.khouse.org/