A Few More Thoughts on Lordship (Part 1)
November 9th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This is Part 1 of 2. No more 5-part marathons, at least not for a little while.
After 20 posts on the topic (plus Phil Johnson’s multi-part series over at Pyromaniacs), you would think I could finally move past the lordship discussion. But, like an over-protective parent, I’m finding it hard to let go.
There’s just a few more things that need to be said. Or at least that I feel I need to say, before I’m willing to fully move on.
I’m sure that some of our readers found our lordship series a bit overwhelming—just keeping up with the comments was a daunting task. I couldn’t even read every comment, and I’m the site administrator! So I wanted to condense everything down and summarize it as best I can.
The lordship position teaches that salvation occurs at the moment of conversion, and that conversion includes a change of heart such that those who were enemies of Christ now love Him.
That’s pretty much it.
Lordship teaches that true Christians love Jesus. And that those who do not love Jesus are not true Christians.
After all, Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would love Me” (John 8:42). Paul said that anyone who does not love Jesus is accursed (1 Cor. 16:22). And Peter described the belief of his readers in these terms: “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him” (1 Pet. 1:8).
And what does love for Christ look like?
He Himself tells us in John 14:15—“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” That is pretty straightforward: Love for Christ is a willingness to keep His commands.
The Free Grace camp attempts to keep salvation and conversion separate, such that a sinner can become a child of God and yet continue in hatred and unrepentant rebellion against God. We find this wholly unacceptable. It is not only illogical, it is also unbiblical. In salvation, the sinner is rescued not only from the consequences of his sin (in the life to come), but also from his slavery to sin (in this life—Rom. 6, 8:1-13). Those who claim to have been saved, yet remain slaves to sin, are deceiving themselves (1 John 1:5; cf. James 2:19).
Lou Martuneac’s position agrees with lordship that conversion and salvation are inseparable. Yet, Lou attempts to remove love for Christ from the change of heart that conversion necessarily entails. Since love for Christ is, by Christ’s own definition, a willingness to obey—then Lou is forced to promote a loveless, affectionless, devotionless conversion. Biblically this is impossible. But Lou has no other choice. The moment he admits that love for Christ is included in conversion, the debate is over. To concede that point is to agree with the lordship position.
Does this mean that new believers fully understand all that love for Christ entails at the moment of salvation? No, of course not. As John MacArthur wrote in chapter 12 of The Gospel According to Jesus:
Obviously, a new believer does not fully understand all the ramifications of Jesus’ lordship at the moment of conversion. But every genuine believer has a desire to surrender. This is what distinguishes true faith from a bogus profession: true faith produces a heart that is humble, submissive, and obedient. As spiritual understanding unfolds, that obedience grows deeper, and the genuine believer displays an eagerness to please Christ by abandoning everything to his lordship. This willingness to surrender to divine authority is a driving force in the heart of every true child of the kingdom. It is the inevitable expression of the new nature.
Lou may balk at phrases like “a desire to surrender.” But this is what love for Christ entails. It is the natural expression of our worship. After all, to have any other gods before Him (including our own selfish agendas) is idolatry (Ex. 20:3). But true worship expresses itself as a desire to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30).
To summarize, then, if we are not willing to keep His commands, we do not love Christ. John 14:15 is clear on this point.
And if we do not love Christ, we have not been converted. Our hearts have obviously not been changed. God is not our Father (John 8:42), and we are still accursed (1 Cor. 16:22).
And if God is not our Father, but we are still accursed, then we are not saved. We remain as slaves to sin, both in terms of its mastery in this life and in terms of its consequences in the next.
Of course, all of this is looking at salvation solely from the human perspective.
From the divine side of things (as much as His perspective is revealed to us in Scripture), conversion is the work of God. The sinner’s ability to believe and embrace Christ is the work of God (John 6:29). The fact that the sinner’s stony heart is replaced with a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:26), that what once was dead is made alive (Eph. 2:1-4), and that the one who was formerly blind is now able to see (2 Cor. 4:4-6) — is all the work of God. We can love Him (and others), because He first loved us (1 John 4:10, 19), redeeming us that we might be a people for His own possession, zealous for good works (Titus 2:14).
In emphasizing this, I realize that Lou may accuse me of holding to a Calvinistic presupposition. It is true; I don’t deny it. But when Jesus Himself says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him,” (John 6:44) that settles the issue for me.
Nathan B.,
Assurance of salvation is not something that is gained by looking at “my works”–rather my assurance comes from believing Jesus’ promise of eternal life (cf. I Jn 5:11ff), and via looking at His cross-work.
I don’t see scripture starting with the same question that Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, does; i.e. Am I saved (elect), do I love Jesus, if I do then I better evidence some good works–if I don’t evidence some good works then I must not be elect, I must not love Jesus. The Bible, in general, assumes that a person is saved by its very composition (i.e. the occasion of the epistles)–it never asks the Christian to “prove” anything, at least it never does with the motive being to provide assurance of salvation for a particular person.
Bobby,
You mention that the Bible never asks the Christian to “prove” anything with the motive being for assurance of salvation. I was wondering what your take on II Peter 1:10 would be. It says, “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble.”
It seems to me that this verse links our assurance of salvation with our practicing the qualities listed in verses 5-7.
John Macarthur says concerning this verse, “As long as Christians practice these things-increasingly pursue the moral virtues essential to holy living-they give evidence to themselves and enjoy assurance that God has granted them eternal life.”
Also notice Hebrews 6:11 which says, “And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end.”
[…] Nate Busenitz offers “A Few More Thoughts on Lordship (Part 1)” […]
Nate,
You used the term, “infused” as in being infused with the life of Christ. That sounds Catholic to me. Maybe you have been spending too much time with Catholic priests and theologians. One Catholic in particular, Keith Fournier, stated a false definition on the doctrine of justification. Being in harmony with Rome he said, “I will use justification to refer to a part of a fuller understanding of God’s grace at work within us in the whole process of salvation”. This almost sounds evangelical but it is not biblical!!!!
I hate to say this, but this sounds just like what you are saying. Do you have any assurance of your salvation? Sin is insidious and goes so deep to the heart that even we can not understand the darkness in our own hearts save the Holy Spirit inside us who shows us our darkness. Sin is not merely an outward manifestation for the people around us to see, no it goes much deeper and the closer we come into the presence of God, the more we are aware of our utter inadequacy and vile wickedness. Many great men of God experienced this like Isaiah, Peter and Moses to name a few.
Are you prepared to say that you are better than some others because you think you have surrender “everything” to God? The minute you juxtapose your “godly” life next to a half surrender Christian, you are guilty of hypocrisy. This is what the pharisees were proclaiming in Acts 15…that it was needful for the gentiles to be circumcised and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Peter responded in verse 10, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they”. Later in chapter 15 in verse 24, when the elders and apostles met together they said, “forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commmandment”.
It’s interesting that Peter found himself capitulating to the pressure to please men rather than God and as a result compromised the gospel. In Galatians, Paul hotly rebuked Peter and Barnabas for their dissimulation with the Jews and Gentiles saying, “but when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Paul saw what Peter was doing and did not give in to them for a moment so that the truth of the gospel might remain with them…..”knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (verse 16).
I have read somewhere in these posts by you that the reason why Lou or any other FG proponent does not believe in Lordship salvation is because he/she is anti-calvinistic. That is not true because I have read the 5 points of Calvinism and most of them are scriptural. I don’t believe everything John Calvin or Martin Luther taught especially in reguards to infant baptism and the future promises of God concerning the nation of Israel. Unfortunately both Luther and Calvin, after separating from the Catholic Church, still brought with them the “traditions of men” in which the Bible refutes. When I have mentioned to some Arminians the doctrine of election/predestination and the sovereignty of God in salvation their blood almost boils…I can see the veins popping out of their necks. They should be careful because that can lead to PAD (peripheral artery disease) and a harding of the arteries. I have always said to an Arminian (to avoid dissonance), if you want to believe in free will, more power to your free will.
All I know is that I ask the Holy Spirit to teach me His Truth and I do not look to a man to teach me because men are not perfect, but the scriptures are and I believe in election and predestination because it is scriptural. I do not believe in Lordship salvation (as a basis for salvation), because it is not scriptural….it is a slight alteration of the truth.
On the key issue alone Catholism fails the test of being Christian. Roman Catholism teaches the following doctrine that negatively impacts or denies the biblical teaching on salvation. Compare the following……
1.) Justification as the infusing of righteousness based on good works, not the imputation of righteousness as a judicial decree of God. What is a decree?? A law set forth by God that exists apart from man’s volition or involvement.
That one thing alone is the difference between saved and unsaved. Are you justified by God’s grace and righteousness alone or His grace plus your cooperation with His grace. That is the difference between Heaven and Hell. And the Catholic church states dogmatically that you must cooperate with God’s grace all your life to be saved.
One last thing I would like to add is an excerpt from Arthur Pink’s book, “The divine inspiration of the Bible”….
“The teachings of the Bible are unique. Unlike all other books in the world, the Bible condemns man and all his doings. It never euolgizes his wisdom nor praises his achievements. On the contrary, it declares that “every man at his best state is altogether vanity” Ps. 39v.5. Instead of teaching that man is a noble character, evolving heavenwards, it tells him that his righteousnessess (his best works) are as “filthy rages”, that he is a lost sinner, incapable of bettering his condition, and that he is deserving only of hell”.
“Thy people shall be made willing in the day of Thy power”, Ps. 110v3
Hope all you have a wonderful day. And after taking the time to read several of the posts I can see now that Jodie is indeed a woman. So hi to Jodie.
Nate
I don’t think this is an necessarily an issue of Calvinism versus non-Calvinism. I think it could be an issue of Covenant vs Dispensationalism. Many classic dispensationalists are 4 point Calvinists. Lewis S. Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Merrill F. Unger, Mal Couch, J.Dwight Pentecost: all of these have a Calvinistic view of election. Even Gordon H. Clark, a 5 point Calvinist, was critical of the LS definition of faith. One of the big differences between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism is the view of Law and Grace. A good commentary to read is “Romans verse by verse” by William R. Newell.
Shane - I think that classic dispensationalists wouldn’t have a problem saying that the gospel that Jesus preached was different than the one Paul preached. It all goes back to one’s hermeneutic approach. Only the Classics would draw such divisions. No one else would see warrant for that in the Word. Hence, the Synoptics are considered when formulating what is the gospel message.
In Christ,
Mark
Excellent teaching Nate. Very well balanced, and Scripturally sound. Thanks for not letting go.
“If God were your Father, you would love Me”. Powerful words from our Lord.
I remember when the Lord sought and saved me. My filthy tongue, which used to use the Lord Jesus’ name in the most blasphemous ways, now hated to hear His name used that way. I didn’t really understand His love yet, as a babe in Christ, but His grace, and Spirit were upon me, and in me.
What love and mercy! His love saved me. This divine love is shed abroad in my heart. And yet it was a gentle a slow process for this love to grow, and for my own affections for the Lord to grow.
As the Shepherd of my soul spoke, I now followed Him. Before, I was a lost sheep, and heading for eternal damnation, which I deserved, but God. Praise Him!
The one portion of Scripture that came to mind was: Luke 7:36-50.
“for she loved much”
Cindy,
I’m sorry that the word “infused” was confusing. I was not using the word with any intentional Roman Catholic overtones. Thus, I have changed the sentence to avoid confusion.
Thanks,
NB
Shane,
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with you that the debate about lordship is not necessarily a debate about Calvinism (though both are major components of one’s soteriology, and thus necessarily overlap in places).
My comment about Calvinism was in response to the openly anti-Calvinistic underpinnings of Lou Martuneac’s position (as explained in his book). Lou sees the reformed ordo salutis (where regeneration is given causal priority over faith and repentance) as a root cause of the lordship “error.”
I think verses like John 6:44 run contrary to Lou’s anti-Calvinistic premise. They also underscore the fact that a repentant heart is not a human work, but is rather a gift from God (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25).
Thanks,
NB
MARK P
It is clear that because of progressive revelation, there are changes that otherwise would appear as contradictions. When you compare Matt. 10:5-7 and 28:18-20, you see a definite difference in God’s plan. Also, the mystery of the church as the body of Christ (Eph. 3:6). Also, the differences between law and grace (Jn 1:17;Rom. 6:14). Also, at one time it was wrong to eat pork, where tody it isn’t. It’s true that everyone,from every dispensation was saved by grace through faith, yet none would deny that in the epistles we have greater and richer revelation, in regard to the doctrines of salvation. Peace and grace.
Natew.,
I don’t have time to do exegesis of these passages at the moment, Nate. Let me just ask, and this was my point earlier, do you honestly believe that these passages directly correlate to the Calvinist dogma of perseverance and unconditional election? In other words was Peter thinking, when he penned this, that people who evince such character qualities will be able to prove to themselves that they indeed are one of the elect (i.e. as defined by Calvinism)?
I think there is an artificial dis-connect between the dogma and interpretive tradition of Calvinism (and many other traditions as well
, and the “categories” provided by scripture. I.e. just because the “word” “election” is used in the Bible does not automatically mean that there is direct semantic correlation between that usage (in the NT) and the way Calvinism uses that same term (i.e. there is linguistic fluidity inherently tied to language). It seems to me that the burden is on you to demonstrate that when Peter uses the term “elect” (or any other scriptural writer)that he is “freighting” it with the same semantic nuance that you as a Calvinist are.
Bobby,
You assume Calvinists’ have somehow abused the Biblical term “election”. In what way? I believe the burden of proof is on you to explain how generations of Christians have been wrong in their understanding of the term “election”. In what way have I “freighted” the biblical term election?
I believe the Bible is clear that you can recognize a tree by its fruit. (Mt. 7:17-18) Spiritual fruit in the life of a person is evidence of election. II Peter 1:10 directly relates God’s election of believers and their assurance of that election to how they live. I John 3:8-10 makes it clear that those who make a practice of sinning are not born of God. I John 2:5 says “But whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him”.
We do not trust our works for salvation, but they do prove that our salvation is genuine.
To All:
I am not going to be put on the defensive by the content of today’s article. I am not going to be sidetracked or distracted from the core issue, which is Lordship Salvation’s distortion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Last week I demonstrated from John MacArthur’s own writing in several sources that he preaches a gospel that demands an upfront promise/exchange/barter of obedience expected of a mature disciple for the reception of salvation. That position is in print for anyone to read. There is no straw man when the arguments I make in my book are founded on the clear, incontrovertible writing of Dr. MacArthur which I cite from his books.
In Defense of the Gospel hones in on areas of Lordship Salvation that Nathan is unable to defend or refute. As an example: later today I am going to follow this post with a repeat from a post I submitted in the Part 5 article.
The problem with Nathan’s article and misrepresentation of my position is that once again he does not discern for readers between the requirements for the salvation of a lost man and the discipleship (growth) of a born again child of God.
Nathan defends Lordship Salvation which demands discipleship or the promise of discipleship (love, obedience, affection, devotion, cross bearing, surrender, submission, and commitment) as the requirement for the reception of eternal life. I, on the other hand, believe discipleship (growth of a believer) is the result of salvation.
As far as Calvinism goes: I don’t “accuse,” instead I acknowledge he holds to that position. I have often stated that in years gone by I have worked happily in cooperation with reformed pastors for the cause of global missions.
The problem here is that Nathan believes the lost man has been regenerated before he can respond to the gospel in faith. Calvinists who hold to Lordship Salvation can demand submission, surrender, love, obedience, or anything they want because they believe they are dealing with a person who has already become a born again child of God.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
This post begins with a comment from me and a brief reply from Nathan, both of which appear near the end of thread under the Lou and Lordship Part 5 article.
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
Nathan’s Reply:
“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.”
To which I will reply here
How often do we read, “…did not intend, attempts to clarify, broader context?” Dr. MacArthur’s submission in exchange for salvation runs like a thread throughout his works on the subject. Some versions are more subtle than others, but it is in every book.
To help Nathan in his research I located the pertinent passage in the revised version years ago.
Nathan references chapter 12 from the revised edition. The citation Nathan used begins, “Obviously, a new believer does not fully understand all the ramifications of Jesus’ lordship at the moment of conversion. But every genuine believer has a desire to surrender…”
Following is what precedes Nathan’s reference, “This is what Jesus meant when he spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that he is. He was demanding implicit obedience, unconditional surrender to his lordship.
I must remind everyone that Dr. MacArthur demands “obedience” and “surrender” in “exchange” for the reception of eternal life. According to Dr. MacArthur these are the conditions a man must promise and agree to or he cannot be born again.
These statements found in the revised edition are strikingly similar to the passage from p. 140 of the original edition. You can find this citation and more in revised and expanded edition. So, in the revised & expanded edition, which was supposed to clear up any misconceptions, from the original edition, does nothing less than confirm the radical statements which are found in the original version of The Gospel According to Jesus.
If those of you who are reading these on line discussions would get a copy of my book and read it for yourself you will find my documentation of Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship theology accurate and my refutation compelling. Visit my blog for more on this discussion.
Dr. MacArthur’s gospel message is one of demanding a promise for the ”good works” (Eph. 2:10) of a believer in exchange for salvation. No matter how one tries to explain away, ignore, or further clarify, the error is there, it is plain and is it a false gospel!
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou said:
No matter how one tries to explain away, ignore, or further clarify, the error is there, it is plain and is it a false gospel!
In light of all that has been said, I am sad to see Lou not getting any clearer understanding of MacArthur’s (and the LS), position, and labeling it a false gospel.
Lou,
Thanks for citing the corresponding paragraph in the Revised and Expanded edition.
In the preceding paragraphs of that section, John MacArthur reiterates that salvation is a free gift, the price of which was paid in full by Christ on the cross. Obviously, you do not believe John when he says those things.
Personally, I think your repeated unwillingness to accept John’s clarifying statements as genuine evidences either a lack of love (1 Cor. 13:7), a purposeful closemindedness, or both. At some point, charity demands that you give a brother-in-Christ the benefit of the doubt.
In any case, that is merely an aside. I can assure you that, in spite of what you suppose, John does not have a “barter system” in view here.
Instead, he is talking about “death to self” and “death to sin,” as he makes clear in the preceding paragraph (cf. Rom. 6:6, 11; 2 Cor. 5:14).
Someone who has “died” to their rebellious pride, and been made “alive” to spiritual things, is ready and willing to give up their rebellion and pursue Christ (cf. John 10:27). Someone who is no longer worshipping themselves, but is now worshipping God, is eager to love Him with all heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). The humble person (like the publican of Luke 18) does not come to God with his own sinful agenda still in tact. (To do so would be proud, as though we could come to God with strings attached.) Instead, the sinner comes (as I’ve commented earlier) with an empty hand and an open heart.
This is what John MacArthur means by “cost.” In turning to God, the sinner gladly forsakes his prideful rebellion, selfish ambition, and hard-hearted unbelief. He joyfully “gives up” his rebellion (including his sinful, rebellious priorities and pursuits), because God has replaced His hard heart with a heart of flesh (cf. Ezek. 36:26).
This, then, is the context in which John MacArthur uses the word “exchange.” Instead of worshipping himself (and all of who he is), the sinner now worships Christ (and all of who He is). Self-love is replaced with (or exchanged for) love for the Savior. As I pointed out elsewhere, you yourself use the word “exchange” in your book when talking about salvation. The word itself does not, necessarily, mean a “barter system.” And John certainly does not mean that in this context.
To go back to my post today, what does it mean to love Christ? Jesus Himself says that it entails a willingness to keep His commands (John 14:15). So that is why John writes of an “implicit obedience.”
If conversion is given its full, biblical definition (which, as a work of God, includes love for Christ), then there is no issue with the quote you cite from John. When read in context, John MacArthur’s statement is biblically and logically sound.
The only reason you see works-salvation in that quote is because you are reading it in. Yet you refuse to even accept the possibility that it could be understood any other way, even though we have repeatedly explained our position to you.
Nonetheless, hope that helps.
NB
I know that this is a little off topic, but I found this on the Grace to you website, and was wondering if you could explain more about this, because from scripture and Jesus words, speaking in tongues, and being baptized in the Holy Spirit, are signs of being saved, and He, and Peter didn’t limit it to the early church…
from Grace to you under doctorine, under the Holy Spirit…
We teach, in this respect, that God the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the bestowing of all His gifts for the perfecting of the saints today and that speaking in tongues and the working of sign miracles in the beginning days of the church were for the purpose of pointing to and authenticating the apostles as revealers of divine truth, and were never intended to be characteristic of the lives of believers (1 Corinthians 12:4 11; 13:8 10; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:7 12; Hebrews 2:14).
In Acts 2:38-39 Peter stated…
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
He said that the promise is for you and to your children, that limits it to the people he’s talking to, but the rest of that verse is very clear.. “and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Reading this objectively, is very clear that Peter at least knew it wasn’t for the early church for he stated as many as the Lord our God will call! I know that this is a totally different subject, but I was wondering if you could clarify how it isn’t supposed to be in the lives of every believer…
Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Jesus didn’t limit it to the apostles, He said that speaking in tongues is a sign of those who believe, so I don’t see how you can limit it to early church.. the verses that are given in the statement don’t even say that it’s just for the early church.. If I’m reading this wrong, please let me know..
Scincerely,
Adam
Nate,
I do apologize for being a little to harsh. I can see how it may have come out as perhaps attacking you. I know that you certainly do not think you are better than someone else who is not as surrendered as you and I’m sure you have assurance of your salvation. I guess it’s just that I am so frustrated with all the compromising of the truth that I see from leading evangelicals that are highly influencial and how so many people just gullably follow them without thought or consequence. I am extremely suspect of people who allow catholic teaching and catholic friends right into the ministry. Just about everybody does it now because Billy Graham, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, Bill Bright’s campus crusade for Christ, and so many more have given their stamp of approval by signing the ECT document. And after all if the great Billy Graham says it’s ok then it must be right? I say with a resounding NO!! Everything must be juxtaposed to the Word of God giving God the authority.
Nonetheless, I still stand strong in my convictions and I think I should have rephrased the question…..Are you prepared to say that you have more assurance of your salvation because of your daily obedience? And are your acts of daily obedience necessary for salvation? It’s one thing to admonish and disciple believers to live for Christ, it’s an entirely different thing to say that daily obedience is necessary for salvation.
I think Lou tried to ask a similar question to get directly to the point as to what defined Lordship salvation, but I don’t think you answered him and I have been reading these posts to find that answer and still have not found it. I can not accept Lordship salvation until I get that answer. Like I said before I have a lot of respect for John MacArthur. He was one of the few who sat down with R.C. Sproul, James Kennedy and John Ankerburg to refute this covenant with the catholic church (ECT document). That is why I have respect for him but the problem with having prestige in ministry and friends in high places is that diplomacy and politics and money take presidence over God and His Truth. Friends are a wonderful gift from God but when they cause you stumble and steer you away from the God’s Truth, then they are not as wonderful as we would like them to be.
If I recall, you are the one who brought this topic up again, perhaps because it generates responses…..I wonder why??? It’s like debating Arminism and Calvinism. Oh brother, I rather go run a 26.2 marathon. I’m up to 18, but the arthritis in my knees will not allow it anymore. Maybe if I were 20 again.
I know most of us want to hear postive comments because it encourages us, but I do know that you had some harsh comments for Lou because of his convictions. I agree with Lou even though I don’t know who he is or where he is from. And I have not even read his book. I agree with him because you can not under any circumstances add works of obedience to salvation as a condition for salvation. As proof of salvation, yes, but that proof is only for the people around us to see, not for God because He already knows those that are His.
I say this because I asked Jesus to come into my heart when I was 4 and He has not left my side because he dwells inside me. I grew up going to church and Sunday school and bible study and my whole family is saved. Unfortunately, the family fell apart which is all to common in the church today…divorce. I was left at 11 years old trying to understand how God could allow this and I sometimes felt He didn’t care. I think I was mad at God and so I rebelled for several years, going off on my own, doing my own thing. My mouth was disgusting because I picked it up from all the kids at school who used curse words as daily english. I went from a quiet town in Illinois to a gutter in New Jersey and I just had no one in my life to explain to me what was happening and how to deal with all this. But God did not forget me because He pulled me back into fellowship with Him and yes I found an intimacy with God not to be compared with anything this crummy world has to offer. Now I believe, that is what you call spiritual growth in the life of the believer in which God assumes responsibility for. Even in my rebellion, I never once felt “lost” or that I could lose my salvation. It’s because I belonged to God since I was 4 or bibilically speaking I belonged to God before the foundation of the world. I say all this not to get too personal, (some how that always comes back negatively), but so that you understand where I am coming from.
Even to this day, my oldest brother and I have not spoken for 8 years and he is a believer. My mom and I had a falling out as well. We have not spoken in 2 years. Basically my whole family appears to be in shambles, but I believe that it is the faithfullness of God that holds His people together which we can not see because we only see the temporal which is a fleeting vapor thank goodness. It’s like Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement and parted ways but God eventually reunited them in His time. I have learned that I have to trust God with everything otherwise I would checked out of here a long time ago….who wants to put up with so much nonsense. Like Job. He felt the same way too.
Anyway enough words. I just hope that my life would somehow be a testament to the faithfulness of God, because without it we certainly would all be lost.
One more thing, in Psalm 27 David says, “when my mother and father forsake me, the Lord will take me up”. The Lord gave this to me when I was 23 and said, “Cindy it’s time for you to grow up and depend on me now, not your mother and father”. God had to teach me how to depend on Him alone for all things.
Cindy:
You have put your finger on one of the most glaring problems with Lordship Salvation.
You wrote, “I agree with him (Lou) because you can not under any circumstances add works of obedience to salvation as a condition for salvation. As proof of salvation, yes, but that proof is only for the people around us to see, not for God because He already knows those that are His.”
I would make one revision. Lordship advocates do not demand the performance of works that will ultimately result in salvation. They demand an upfront promise of he “good works” expected of a believer in exchange for salvation.
The Lordship view conditions salvation on the commitment to live in obedience to Christ over a lifetime. In any event you are right dividing the requirements for from the results of salvation. Lordship blurs this distinction.
By the way, If you want to know more about me and my book, which caused the Grace To You ministry to react to it as they have, visit my blogsite. Click on the link below.
Kind regards,
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Nathan:
I find it interesting that you thank me for demonstrating that Dr. MacArthur’s surrender gospel is found in both examples of The Gospel According to Jesus. As I noted earlier, all this does it reiterate and substantiate the questionable statements found in the original edition.
I have read Dr. MacArthur’s “free gift” statements. It is not a matter of believing him. Those statements, in light of the statements such as I repeat for everyone below, reveals the contradiction in position. Salvation is either the “free gift” of God (Rom. 6:23) or it is the result of Lordship Salvation’s message of a commitment to full-surrender, self-denial, cross bearing, and obedience in exchange for eternal life. It cannot be both! If there is a clarification of his position it is once again clarifying a message of obedience in exchange for salvation.
“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.)
You wrote, “The only reason you see works-salvation in that quote is because you are reading it in. Yet you refuse to even accept the possibility that it could be understood any other way, even though we have repeatedly explained our position to you.”
I have to restate my oft-repeated assertion that we are disagreeing over the terms, which define the reception of the gospel. There are additional corresponding statements to the one above found in the revised and expanded version, I chose to cite just one. In my book I cite numerous instances where John MacArthur presents a salvation message predicated on promises of cross bearing, self-denial, commitments to obey, etc.
Make no mistake about it, John MacArthur is making demands of the sinner for eternal life that the Scriptures do not. Any claim that I am reading his position incorrectly is not valid; his position on what he believes to be the requirements for salvation are plain and very clear. For example:
“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 27, 142.
“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
“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.
“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.)
“All of these passages (Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:21; 2:36; 16:31) include indisputably the lordship of Christ as part of the gospel to be believed for salvation. . . . it is clear that people who come to Christ for salvation must do so in obedience to Him, that is, with a willingness to surrender to Him as Lord.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 207.)
There are more, however, I show only these to demonstrate that I am not misunderstanding or misinterpreting Dr. MacArthur’s position on the requirements for salvation. He conditions the free gift on a lost man’s willingness to “pay the ultimate price.” This is “works salvation.”
One of my contributors wrote, “Believers should be willing to surrender their wills to Christ and to follow Him wherever He leads them, whatever the cost may be. But that decision cannot be construed as part of the salvation experience.”
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Nate,
Perhaps you could do an article on one of the discipleship passages in the gospels (like Mark 8:34ff or one of its parallels) before leaving the lordship subject. It would certainly help people see that the MacArthur quotes repeatedly denounced by Lou are actually built on a solid biblical foundation.
I appreciate the time you put into this “magazine.” Keep up the good work!
I’m new to this discussion, so forgive me if I’m rehashing someone else’s point. I also am not a Biblical scholar at a Seminary level. (My disclaimer)
To deny the Lordship of Christ is to deny the very nature of God. God is sovereign, therefore He is Lord over all. “so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:10-11. The word “every” assumes that not everyone is acknowledging Christ as Lord yet. One day, EVERYONE will bow and confess, willingly or unwillingly. Demons believe who Jesus is, they know He died and rose from the dead. That’s a fact they cannot deny. And yet they do not put their faith in Him to save them, and they do not obey Him as Lord. They have always trembled before Him.
True saving faith includes the willingness to embrace all the “costs” that Christ has clearly put forth in the Gospels. Even though I, like Peter have denied my Lord in various situations, I have faith that if I ever face the decision to deny Christ or lose my life, God will grant me the strength and grace to choose Him and deny myself, just as Peter did at the end of his life.
To me, Scripture shows that “believing” is a word that encompasses all of the hard teachings of Christ. In fact, it was studying those teachings that lead to my eyes being opened and being saved. I grew up in a Christian home, and one day wondered why those teachings were never taught in my church, (or my later churches for that matter.)
It IS hard to believe. Just ask any converted Christian ex-Moslem who understood that when they switched allegience to Christ their lives (on the outside) would be drastically changed for the worse. Yet they were willing to suffer the persecution that followed.
Anyway, sorry this got so long, didn’t intend it to be.
Just my nickle’s worth.
Nate,
I got my answer to my question from Grace to You.. http://www.gty.org/gcc_distinctives/Gift_of_Tongues.pdf Talks about why he believes tongues are no longer used. Sorry for asking questions that are off topic.
-Adam
Lou,
Is willingness to surrender a human work?
In your own presentation of the gospel, the sinner must be willing to believe in Christ’s sacrifice, and willing to depend on Christ’s sacrifice.
How then is being willing to love Christ (and hence being willing to obey Him — John 14:15) any different than the willingness you call for?
You are drawing arbitrary lines.
I noted this in a previous post, but it’s worth citing again:
As we have stated many times before, the willingness to come to Christ is a result of the initiating work of God (John 6:44). So it is not a human work, but as Jesus Himself calls it, it is “the work of God” (John 6:29).
Thanks,
NB
NateW.,
sorry my response is a little late. Not all people who name the name of Christ, throughout church history have held to the Calvinist understanding of “election” (and they aren’t even Arminians). Your appeal to history seems to present a bit of a red herring, based on a hasty generalization–so needless to say, I don’t think that argument really works.
Natew said:
I believe the Bible is clear that you can recognize a tree by its fruit. (Mt. 7:17-18) Spiritual fruit in the life of a person is evidence of election. II Peter 1:10 directly relates God’s election of believers and their assurance of that election to how they live. I John 3:8-10 makes it clear that those who make a practice of sinning are not born of God. I John 2:5 says “But whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him”.
II Pet. 1:10 doesn’t relate to assurance of “justification” but to “glorification”, in other words it’s in reference to what “kind” of entrance this particular saint will make into the kingdom (cf. I Cor 3:15; I Jn 2:28; etc.).
What does I Jn 3:24 say? That assurance is a result of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we indeed are children of God.
The general context of Mt. 7 and the sermon on the mount is one of discipleship (i.e. sanctification) not an issue of “proving justification”. If your assertion is true then Jesus’ argument is futile given Mt 5: 20. If your assertion is true then the Pharisees might look at their good works, and presume that they are saved and elect of God (in fact they did do this, but lets not forget Mt. 23).
I John isn’t a good epistle to use to establish your argument since the apostle John continues to analogically use his light/darkness motif to communicate the polar extremes of sinner/saint. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuum of maturity represented somewhere between the extremes. Also don’t forget that I Jn 1 and 2 assumes that these Christians are in fact sinners and involved in sinning (probably indulging in the flesh given the incipient proto gnosticism that they apparently had engaged).
External good works don’t prove anything, if they do, then Mother Theresa should have lived with all kinds of assurance of her salvation.
If you don’t see, Nate, how your position has historically blurred the line between justification and sanctification, then I’m sorry–it’s readily apparent to me. Hopefully your “performing” all kinds of good works, so indeed you yourself live with assurance of your salvation.
Love The Lord-Or Else?
1 Corinthians 16:22 Bob Wilkin
Recently I ventured into the world of the Internet. I carefully dipped my big toe in the waters of a bulletin board on Lordship Salvation. It has been very interesting.
In one posting two people were discussing Paul’s anathema in 1 Cor 16:22. There Paul says, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed [Greek: anathema]. O Lord, come!” It was clear that the one writer, a seminary professor, understood this to mean that all genuine believers love Christ and that those who don’t love Him are eternally condemned.
That is not an isolated view. Many commentators hold that opinion. For example, one commentator writes, “Paul’s personal note began with a passionate warning probably aimed at false teachers (cf. 12:3) whom he believed to be already present in the congregation (cf. 2 Cor 11:3-4)…Paul invoked God’s wrath on these false brethren (cf. Gal 1:8-9) and in the same breath appealed to Christ to return” (Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” p. 548 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, NT edition).
That view of 1 Cor 16:22 is inconsistent with the passage and it inadvertently undermines an admonition about the seriousness of sin in the life of the believer.
Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ Does Not Guarantee Loving Him
This verse is the only place in the entire NT where the idea of loving the Lord occurs using the verb phileo. However, very similar expressions do occur and they clearly show that loving the Lord Jesus is not the same as believing in Him.
In the Upper Room Discourse Jesus said to the eleven, all believers, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). See also John 21:15-17, James 4:4, and 1 John 2:15. The Lord wouldn’t have commanded them to keep His commandments and thereby love Him if all believers automatically obey and love Him. But believers don’t always keep the Lord’s commandments, so they don’t always love Him! Loving Jesus Christ is not the same as believing in Him.
Since all who have come to faith in Christ for eternal life are secure forever (John 5:24; Rom 8:38-39), and since some believers don’t love the Lord, this verse can’t be teaching that those who don’t love Him are unsaved. This leads us to consider the key word in this verse, anathema (accursed).
Anathema Can Refer to Temporal or Eternal Judgment
The word anathema literally means “under a curse.” The nature of the curse is not explicit in the word anathema. It could refer to either eternal condemnation or to temporal judgment here and now.
Anathema was routinely used in the Greek OT (the Septuagint, or LXX) to refer to temporal destruction and to cursing people and cities (e.g., Josh 6:17; 7:1-13ff.; 22:20; Judg 1:17; Zech 14:11). There are no clear examples of it being used in the LXX to refer to eternal judgment.
Anathema occurs only six times in the NT. In three of those uses, Acts 23:14 and Gal 1:8, 9, the context shows that temporal judgment is in view. (See The GES News, Mar-Apr 94, “The Anathema of Gal 1:8-9.”) First Corinthians 12:3 is unclear, but quite probably refers to current alienation from God. Only in Rom 9:3 is eternal condemnation probably in view.
Paul’s Anathema Here Refers to the Temporal Judgment of Believers
This verse, 1 Cor 16:22, appears at the close of the epistle. As was often his practice, Paul had dictated this epistle to a scribe who put the words to paper. Paul picked up the pen himself to write the closing as is evident in v 21: “The salutation with my own hand- Paul’s.” Clearly he did this to make the closing even more personal, much like today an executive will dictate a letter but sign it and add a brief note at the bottom.
The verses which follow clearly indicate that Paul had only believers in mind here: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen” (vv 23-24). As many commentators note, the warning of v 22 in this context is surely directed to members of the church at Corinth (see Lowery’s comments above). The suggestion that Paul is warning false teachers who have crept into the congregation unnoticed is untenable. For one thing, there is no convincing evidence that false teachers were a part of the church at Corinth, or even that the church was already being threatened by false teachers. For another, there is no hint that Paul is thinking exclusively or even primarily of doctrinal defection here. The epistle heavily emphasizes moral issues. Paul’s warning was probably directed against those whose behavior showed a lack of love for the Lord.
The apostle John wrote, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 John 4:20). Note that John was talking about the one who doesn’t love his brother. An unsaved man cannot hate his Christian brother since that relationship does not exist. He was talking about believers, not unbelievers. Compare 1 John 3:16-18. The apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthian believers for the existence of “envy, strife, and divisions among you” (1 Cor 3:3), yet he still called them “babes in Christ” in that very context (3:1). Clearly the believers to whom Paul was writing were in danger of falling under the anathema which he was invoking.
Sin in the Life of a Believer Is Serious
The view that unbelievers are being warned here undercuts the power of Paul’s warning. On that view, if I know I’m a believer, then I will simply understand Paul’s warning not to have direct application to me. I am exempt because I’m a Christian. Wrong! If I don’t love the Lord, I will experience temporal judgment from God. Surely the readers of 1 Corinthians knew this quite well. Paul had already stated that, due to their drunken and gluttonous abuses of the Lord’s Supper, “Many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep” (11:30).
The blessings/curses motif was a prominent aspect of the Mosaic Law (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). The idea that God blesses obedience and curses disobedience was not limited to the Law of Moses, how- ever. That is a timeless principle. God blesses us when we obey Him (cf. Matt 6:33; Gal 5:22-23) and He curses us (i.e., disciplines us) when we disobey Him (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 11:30; Heb 6:4-8; Jas 5:19-20; 1 John 5:16).
May we take Paul’s warning seriously and use our time, energy, and our money and possessions, to express love to others and thereby to God as well.
Nathan,
I’m glad you decided to post a sort of conclusion to your long series.
I think this statement well encapsulates your position:
_____________________________
The lordship position teaches that salvation occurs at the moment of conversion, and that conversion includes a change of heart such that those who were enemies of Christ now love Him.
That’s pretty much it.
______________________________
The problem is that you are taking valid Scriptural comment and misapplying it.
God gives us eternal life for the sake of our loving Him and knowing the Father and the Son. At the moment of conversion we receive a new heart. The new heart is Christ in us and has become the real us. Every new convert shows that he has that new heart and every normal Christian shows it.
But God grieves permission to Satan to destroy the lives of converted people who walk away from the authority of His Word and become deceived by sin. The NT calls us to doubt how well we are following and obeying Him.
The details of each of the passages tend to dramatically reveal this. That is, Peter writes:
8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall…
And yet Peter says between those two statements the clincher:
9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Nathan, this shows that Peter is speaking of not the professed believer (though there are many of those in the Church) but that he is addressing the individual who not only thinks he has been but has been “cleansed from his past sins“.
You are misapplying valid Scriptural challenges.
God bless.
Jodie
Here is another take on 2 Peter 1:10. The traditional Calvinist understanding seems to be a contradiction, and inspired writing recognizing them as saved and then telling to check if they are saved.
2 Peter 1:10
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall.
First, Peter clearly addressed his letter to those who are saved. In verse 1 he said that he wrote to those “who have received a faith as precious as ours,” in verse 5 he said to “add to your faith,” in verse 9 he scolded the unproductive one who has “forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins,” and verse 10 he calls them brethren. Thus Paul would contradict himself if in verse ten he challenges their faith, which he just granted to them through the inspiration of the Spirit.
Second, the context supports the idea that Paul’s purpose was to encourage these believers to move along in their walk, not to determine if they were saved. In 2 Peter 1:3 he said “God hath called us to glory and virtue.” (KJV) I suggest the King James correctly rendered “called us to glory and virtue”. So, I think the dative (idios) is a pure dative not an intrumental dative. Hence, we have the different translations of “to glory and virtue” (KJV) or “by his own glory and virtue” (NIV). Glory and virtue could be what they are called to or by what means God called them. Both are true, but in this context Peter focuses on the first because verse four and following Peter called them to “participate in the divine nature” and “to add virtue to faith.” So, in verse ten calling and election refer to what believers are called to. They are to have in their spiritual walk His own glory (valor) and virtue. It is not a reference about election to eternal salvation, but a calling to holy living. Furthermore, the word translated “sure” is better translated “steadfast.” The Greek word bebaios according to the Greek-English Lexicon BDAG has three possible uses: reliable, steadfast (ex. Heb. 3:6, 14), or valid. Many translations go with the last possibility, “valid” or “certain.” Yet the context lends to the translation of “be all the more eager in your calling and election to make yourselves steadfast”. For Paul has already affirmed his audience to be believers and his purpose was to encourage them to add character to their faith (2 Peter 1:5-7). If Peter’s audience became steadfast they would have an entrance richly supplied into the everlasting kingdom (1:11). They would be richly rewarded for their diligence.
I think Bobby grow brought up the consistent error in Lordship salvation, word-loading.
Great article brother!