A Few More Thoughts on Lordship (Part 2)
November 10th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
In the spirit of Michael Jordan’s “retirement” from the NBA, I believe this will be my last post on lordship in the foreseeable future, but I always reserve the right to return.
In making my exit, I’d like to highlight three final thoughts:
1. First, to use a technical academic term, it “bugs” me that Lou Martuneac keeps saying that John MacArthur is adding to the gospel by quoting the hard sayings of Christ. As Brad pointed out in yesterday’s comments, John’s approach to the Gospels is built on a solid exegetical foundation. Though it has not been the main focus of my articles on lordship, it is an important corollary issue and one that would warrant further discussion. (Perhaps we will discuss it further at some point.) For now, we’ll suffice it to say that the vast majority of evangelical commentators, both living and dead, see the “hard sayings” passages as evangelistic passages.
After all…
a. Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10); His ministry was evangelistic and redemptive in nature.
b. The gospels explicitly say that unbelieving crowds were often present when Christ preached some of His most demanding sermons. Mark 8:34–38 begins “when He had called the people to Him.” John 12:23–27, begins with the introduction of some Greeks (vv. 20–22), and ends with a crowd of people around Jesus (v. 28).
c. Both passages clearly speak of the life to come (Mark 8:36–38; John 12:25); they call people to respond based on the reality of eternity.
If an evangelist today got up before a largely unbelieving audience and preached a message about the life to come (meaning salvation and eternal life) that consisted of “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Christ,” Lou would accuse him of frustrating grace, preaching works, and adding to the gospel. Yet, this is exactly what Jesus Himself did!
In accusing John MacArthur of adding to the gospel, Lou is in reality accusing Jesus of adding to the gospel. Lou’s attempts to mitigate against this, by separating salvation from discipleship, are ultimately unconvincing (cf. Acts 11:26)—and demonstrate again his incomplete understanding of conversion.
When we come to Christ, we come to Him on His terms.
To come by any other means, or on any other grounds, is the epitome of pride, as though we better understand what God requires for salvation than God Himself. But true faith, the faith that justifies, cries out to God with a humble heart—like the publican of Luke 18. It comes to God on His terms, not ours. Others can attempt to explain away the hard sayings Jesus gives. They can attempt to fit “repentance” and “faith” into their own limited preconceptions. They can try to classify “surrender” as a human work, rather than a work of grace, and thereby divorce it from the gospel message. But to do so is not merely to attack John MacArthur, John Piper, James Montgomery Boice, or any other lordship advocate. It is, instead, to assault the evangelistic message of our Lord Himself.
John MacArthur did not invent the concept of denying yourself, taking up your cross, and following Christ. Jesus did. He is the One who said, “He who loves his life loses it, but he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal” (John 12:25). That is self-denial. It is Jesus who preached it. And He did so in an evangelistic context.
Jesus is also the One who asked, “What will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:37). There is the dreaded word exchange. In using that word, was Jesus referring to a “barter system” of works salvation? Certainly not.
If conversion includes love for Christ. And if love for Christ includes a willingness to obey Him (John 14:15), to follow Him (John 10:27), to love Him preeminently (Matt. 10:37), and to worship Him wholeheartedly (Mark 12:30) … then there is no theological problem with interpreting the hard sayings of Christ in an evangelistic light. After all, the reason He “gave Himself for us, [was] that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 3:14; emphasis added).
***
2. Second, some of our readers may still be wondering, at the end of all the rhetoric, What must a sinner do to be saved?
To this question, we answer as Peter did in Acts 2:38, “Repent;” and as Paul and Silas did in Acts 16:31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” We echo the words of Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” To confess (willingly acknowledge and affirm) Jesus as Lord (meaning God, the sovereign Ruler of the universe—Php. 2:10) involves both allegiance and worship. And to believe in your heart (meaning trusting completely in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross) involves dependence. Saving faith necessarily includes both of these elements: allegiance (or affection, devotion, and worship) and dependence (or wholehearted trust). The sinner must turn from his sin, which 1 John 3:4 defines as lawless rebellion, and turn toward Christ. To “turn from” is to repent. To “turn toward” is to believe.
A repentant faith, then, is what God requires.
As Paul described it in 1 Thessalonians 1:8-9, saving faith evidences itself in a turning from idols to serve and worship the living and true God. “Turning from idols” includes turning from the idolatry of self-love. “Turning to serve God” necessitates giving Him first place (Exod. 20:3; Mark 12:30). To claim to have turned to God, and yet remain in rebellion to Him, is to deceive oneself. Or as the apostle John said it, “If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth” (1 John 1:6).
Repentance, then, is essential to our evangelism.
This is why Jesus Christ commanded His apostles to preach a message of “repentance and remission of sins” to the unbelieving nations (Luke 24:46-47). Peter, in evangelizing the Jerusalem crowds, commanded his hearers to “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). 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 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 commissioned 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). Free Grace advocates may assert that it is not necessary to include repentance in our evangelistic presentations. The Word of God (from these verses and others) says otherwise. What God commands and Christ commissions, we must do.
***
3. Finally, for those who did not read them, Pastor Michael Harding made some excellent comments on the nature and object of faith. They can be found toward the end of the discussion on “Lou and Lordship (Part 5).” These are well-articulated, and worth the read. Pastor Harding builds a strong case for the fact that true faith includes affection, devotion, and allegiance—since embracing Christ includes embracing His Person and not just His sacrifice.
Biblical as always, Nate. Thanks for leading this discussion. And thanks for quoting Acts 26 again. This single passage demolishes the counterargument. There are others, of course, but there’s just no way around this one that does not involve violence to Scripture and to Jesus’ direct command. I would counsel the opponents of Lordship to prayerfully meditate on this passage without resistance or rancor.
To All:
Early in this article Nathan wrote, “If an evangelist today got up before a largely unbelieving audience and preached a message about the life to come that consisted of “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Christ,” Lou would accuse him of frustrating grace, preaching works, and adding to the gospel.”
When Nathan refers to “the life to come,” I can agree that it should include following Christ in discipleship, which includes: denying self, and cross bearing. All of us are weary of those who profess Christ, but evidence little or no interest in the things of the Lord. We probably have examples of these in each of our churches. I have written about the life that follows conversion, for example:
“One must always be careful not to bounce off one unbiblical teaching into another. This has sadly been the case of some people who have, with good cause, been frustrated by those who make professions of faith in Christ, but do not live for Christ. This writer shares the distress over those who call themselves Christians, but are weak and seem little interested in the things of the Lord. Certainly there are many Christians who do not live up to what they profess to believe. This frustration, however, does not warrant ‘changing the terms of the gospel.’” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 41.)
Lordship Salvation, as Mike Harding and I contend “frontloads” the conditions of discipleship into the definition of saving faith. Upfront promises to follow, obey, commit, to deny self are required of a lost man, without which he cannot be born again. That is Lordship Salvation.
Why is Nathan, “bugged?” This is because In Defense of the Gospel and my comments in these threads have honed in on, and through the use of Dr. MacArthur’s own writing and the writing of other Lordship advocates, clearly defined identified the “works salvation” message of their system.
Nathan has drifted from a discussion of the requirements to receive eternal life back to the life of a person who has been born again and sets out to follow the Lord as a newborn disciple of Christ. We all agree that a genuinely born again person should demonstrate some evidence of growth in the Lord. There will, of course, be varying degrees of growth, but a desire and willingness “to grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” (2 Peter 3:18).
Here Nathan reveals one of the most serious errors in Lordship theology, when he wrote, “…by separating salvation from discipleship.” You see, Lordship Salvation blends the two into one, blurring the lines of distinction between salvation and discipleship. They believe the “good works” of discipleship are the requirements that must be met and/or agreed to for the reception of eternal life.
Remember this: Nathan did not venture into the issue of salvation and discipleship. They have no answer for their blurring the lines of distinction between the two doctrines. My chapter titled, Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference shows the extremes to which Lordship advocates apply passages meant for the born again child of God as though they are the conditions which must be met and/or agreed to in order to be born again.
“Lordship advocates…attempt to redefine passages such as Luke 9:23; 14:26-7, 33 as though they are salvation messages. These passages are in fact meant to give instruction to born again Christians as to how they might live as a disciple of Christ.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 30.)
“Lordship Salvation sets upon the path to Christ a stumbling block. It makes rough and uncertain the sinner’s path to Christ. It complicates and frustrates God’s simple plan of salvation. Lordship Salvation teaches that to be saved a man must do more than place his faith in Jesus Christ. In addition to faith and belief in Christ, Lordship Salvation demands promises of surrender and commitment to fulfill what the Lordship advocates consider genuine saving faith. Surrender and commitment of life in exchange for salvation is the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. That doctrine adds to the Bible’s definition of saving faith.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 38.)
Nathan’s frustration over not being able to defend Dr. MacArthur’s writing from the criticism I have with it has resulted in his twice in two days misrepresenting me. Yesterday, I reiterated through Dr. MacArthur’s own writing, that he does indeed condition the reception of eternal life on promises of cross bearing, obedience and full surrender. Nathan has no answer other than to claim I don’t understand Lordship, or I misinterpret Dr. MacArthur’s meaning.
From yesterday, “I show only these (see five quotes from Dr. MacArthur in yesterday’s thread) 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.’”
Placing demands on a lost man for upfront commitments of surrender, self-denial, and cross bearing, in exchange for salvation (the free gift), are false additions to the gospel and thereby grace is frustrated.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Nathan, I apreciate you and your stand for the true gospel. Please do not get weary in well doing. Please keep up the good work.
Nate,
When I was preaching through Jude I found an interesting parallel between the old-school (non-Lordship teachers) and some of the present day false teachers. Personally I believe there are many godly men (like Charles Ryrie) who themselves have repented of their sin and believed in Christ as their only Savior and Lord. Those men (like Ryrie) wrongly teach repentance is not necessary for others (to be saved) but they themselves have submitted their lives to the Lordship of Christ.
#3 Apostate False Teachers often deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Look at Jude 4: “denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”).
These are ungodly persons who misinterpret and misapply the grace of God. They reinvent the biblical gospel.. In other words, they (v. 4) “ Deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” One Author wisely writes, “It is hardly surprising that people accept the indicative of forgiveness yet forget the imperative of holiness.”
There are many ways people deny Jesus as Lord today!
A> Some do so by embracing false doctrine (Note: 1 John 2:22-23; 2 Peter 2:1)
B> Many, deny Him through their habitual lifestyle of sin (Titus 1:16, Mt 7:21-23).
I believe we see this type of thing all around us today.
C> Other people deny Christ’s Lordship by refusing to be ruled by God’s Word.
This shows up a lot during biblical counseling and discipleship (hidden heart idols). Dear reader, the one who habitually practices sin, has never truly been delivered from error to truth, from darkness to light, from sin to righteousness. There is NO such thing as a carnal Christian. Christians may for a time act carnally but there is no such thing as a “carnal Believer.”
That concept is inconsistent w/the teachings of Christ and the Apostles (Please observe 1 John 2:4, 3:4-10, 5:1-4; James 2:14ff). Jesus said, IF you love me, you’ll do what? (“Keep my commandments” John 14:15).
Jude says these ungodly men (v 4) deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ! John Calvin accurately understood that, “It was not the grace, but the ruling power of Christ that was denied; they boasted of his grace, but did not submit to him as King.” Most people today want Jesus as Savior, But they reject Jesus as their Lord. They refer to God as daddy, But they fail to view him as the Pure & Holy One. They want Christ as brother, But they reject Christ as Sovereign King. This cheap grace gospel msg. is not biblical! Saving faith embraces Jesus as Savior and Lord. (Romans 10:9) Isn’t that what Luke 9:23 is all about ?(daily denying self + taking up your cross equals “following Me” or true discipleship) It’s the gospel paradox, “The gospel is totally free but it will cost you everything.”
In Jude’s day the apostates promoted autonomy….The freedom to live anyway they pleased…This is the hallmark of American thought these days. Just spend some time on the worldwide blogosphere and I think you’ll agree: “I’m the boss, the captain of my own ship, and don’t forget, my only true master is ME.”I can do “whatever, whenever, wherever.”
Martin Luther said, apostates “Regards themselves, not Him, as their Lord. It’s really that simple. Consider this thought: When Jesus’ conditions for discipleship are altered the true Lordship gospel is completely destroyed! The Divine authority and absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ mustn’t be eliminated from the biblical gospel msg. Many people confess Jesus w/there lips yet they deny him with there lives. These people have MORE IN COMMON with apostate false teachers then they do w/ genuine believers (Titus 1:16)! False doctrine and unholy living are both indicators of non-existent saving faith.
Something struck me while reading Lou’s words:
“Placing demands on a lost man for upfront commitments of surrender, self-denial, and cross bearing, in exchange for salvation (the free gift), are false additions to the gospel and thereby grace is frustrated.”
It seems to me either of the two major theological viewpoints (not to mention Scripture!) are at odds with this formulation. The key charge is “demands on a lost man.”
Well, for the Calvinist, the demand is not on a lost man, but on a regenerate man. As Dr. MacArthur wrote in an earlier posting: “God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:25) when He changes the heart at the moment of regeneration (Titus 3:5-7), and makes the sinner into a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we are saved unto good works (Eph. 2:10).”
From an Arminian standpoint, prevenient (or enabling) grace overcomes the effects of total depravity, giving the man a free choice. He is not “lost” in the sense Lou is using it here. He has been placed between two positions, as it were, and may now understand his sin and repent and choose to trust Christ. He may choose to reject Him as well.
So in neither case is the call to Lordship imposing impossible demands upon a “lost” man.
It seems, too, that Lou expects that someone without any enablement from the Spirit can “believe.” That’s not biblical. Perhaps Lou believes there is prevenient grace unto “belief.” But why, then, does he stop there? Cannot God enable unto repentance as well?
This concept of “frontloading” faith probably needs a little explanation. Dr. Dave Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, mentioned this concept in a post on SI. As I pondered it, I believe it has some validity. Unlike Christ, I don’t know infallibly what particular idols are being embraced in a sinner’s heart when I present him the Gospel. I have to speak in general terms such as “Repent of your sin, rebellion, unbelief” and “Believe (unreserved trust) in Christ as your Lord, Savior, and King.” I emphasize that submission is in principle (deny self, take up his cross) and that following Christ is the inevitable and necessary result (though not automatic). As they grow in Christ they will grow in submission. Frontloading faith, in my mind, is when we give the the impression to sinners that they have to be a completely mature believer either at the moment of faith or immediately subsequent to faith. This is problematic because it gives the impression that we either have to be perfect Christians in order to be saved and that we do not honestly struggle with sin after we are saved. Now I know this is NOT what Lordship advocates believe, that’s why I use the term “impression”. However, some statements in their books point in that direction. I think they should be much more careful and responsible in this regard.
Abraham’s faith was just as genuine and God-given when he believed God and left Ur as when he believed God and offered his son. The difference is that his faith was mature at the latter event. Also, Paul was very patient with new believers and their lack of immediate spiritual growth. Eventually, he would say “Test yourselves to see whether you be in the Faith”, but he did not go there prematurely. There are those examples in the OT that aside from NT revelation all of us would have questioned their regeneration at certain moments of their lives. Yet, the NT tells us that they were regenerated men (Samson and David)and this is inidicated by their ultimate response of repentance in relation to their own sin. At times we who advocate a Lordship position can overstate our case or not balance it with teaching on progressive sanctification.
I have appreciated this debate because it helps all of us take a very serious look at the true demands of the Gospel which is not by human works or self-righteousness but a Gospel which absolutely works righteousness (Eph 2:8-10). JM is right when he says, “Faith Works!” Of all JM’s books on the subject, this was the most beneficial to me and the most systematic in its presentation. My suggestion is that some of the quotes Lou has cited should be carefully evaluated and either edited, explained, or eliminated.
Lou,
Thanks for your reply. I apologize if you feel I misrepresented you. I don’t believe that I did.
I had to smile when I saw that you interpreted my frustration (being “bugged”) to mean that I felt I was unable to defend the lordship position from your attacks. Nothing could be further from the truth.
My concern is not primarily that you attack John MacArthur… but that you accuse John MacArthur of teaching a false gospel when all he is doing is teaching the same gospel that Christ taught. Your arguments, really, are an attack against the evangelistic ministry of our Lord.
John 12:25 is a verse about salvation. Admittedly, my phrase “the life to come” was not definitive enough. I should have been more direct. Mark 8:36-38 also are verses about salvation. Any attempt to interpret these passages otherwise not only does violence to the text, it also runs contrary to the overwhelming testimony of Christian history.
To change my quote from earlier:
I think I’ll add a note about this in my article.
At the end of the day, Lou, your argument is not with lordship advocates–it is, instead, with the evangelistic ministry of our Lord Himself.
Because your definition of conversion is incomplete, and because you find it disagreeable to allow for God’s initiating work in salvation, you import human works into that which is wholly a work of God. Then, on that basis, you accuse lordship advocates of what they themselves repeatedly and vigorously deny.
Again, your anti-Calvinistic, deeper-life presuppositions are poisoning the well.
Thanks,
NB
Lou,
Like you, lordship sees faith/belief and repentance as the two sides of conversion. From the human perspective, they are what is necessary for salvation.
Lordship teaches that repentance includes a turning from lawlessness and rebellion (cf. 1 John 3:4) (which necessarily means a willingness to surrender), and a turning to God (in both dependence and love).
You see this as adding works to the gospel. This is because you define “a willingness to surrender” as a human work.
But this is not biblically accurate. Nor is it consistent for you to come to that conclusion.
In your own presentation of the gospel (as laid out in your book), the sinner must be willing to believe in Christ’s sacrifice, and willing to depend on Christ’s sacrifice. (Your book even emphasizes this by highlighting the volitional aspect of conversion.)
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 logical inconsistency in a previous post, but it’s worth citing again:
But is the willingness to surrender or the willingness to believe or the willingness to depend a human work?
No it is not. As we have stated many times before, the willingness to come to Christ (in repentance and faith) is a result of the initiating work of God (John 6:44). So it is not a human work. Rather, as Jesus Himself calls it, it is “the work of God” (John 6:29).
Thanks,
NB
Lou - since you persist in telling us there is a difference between being a Christian and a disciple - can you give us any evidence for this?
I posted this back in the thread of October 12th and you never refuted it even a little.
————————————————–
Lou - you state that Luke 9:23-24 [take up your cross] is a discipleship passage only directed to those who already believe and has no bearing on salvation.
Consider the parallel in Mark 8:34-38
v. 34 - ‘He summoned the multitude with His disciples’
i.e.- this is a general call addressed to a crowd
If this were a call to go to the next level - we probably should expect Jesus to state that so the crowd would not get confused as to what He was talking about. He makes no distinction.
Then He gives the call to self denial and taking up one’s cross
Does this have any bearing on salvation?
According to Jesus it does
Mk. 8:36 - ‘What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and forfeit his soul [psuche]?
i.e. - if you don’t turn [repent] from your natural tendency to worship self - you will forfeit your soul
It seems absurd to me to hear people accuse LS of confusing Jesus’s calls to discipleship with calls to salvation. We are only confused if Jesus was.
The real problem is that the no lordship / FG position takes the words of Jesus and forces them into a theological grid that does not allow Jesus the natural force of His comments. He knew how to use language and communicated what He wanted to say.
Listen to J.C. Ryle on Luke 9:23, 24:
“The command of our master is clear and plain: ‘If any man will come after Me let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.’
“Now what do we know of all this? Surely this is a question which ought to be asked. A little formal church going, and a decent attendance at a place of worship, can never be the Christianity of which Christ speaks in this place. Where is our self-denial? Where is our daily carrying of the cross? Where is our following of Christ? Without a religion of this kind we shall never be saved. A crucified Savior will never be content to have a self-pleasing, self-indulging, worldly minded people. No self-denial - no real Grace!” [Expository Thoughts on the Gospels - Luke vol. 1, p. 310]
A 2nd level call to discipleship after salvation cannot be sustained in the Scriptures and is not a part of historic orthodoxy in dealing with the gospels. It is a novel view that lacks any exegetical support.
The word disciple [mathetes] referred to a learner, follower, student, apprentice
It had no deeper connotation than that
Acts 11:26 - ‘The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.’
—————————————————–
My question for you is: ‘how do you exegete Mark 8:34-38?
What interpretive maneuvers do you use to make this fit your system?
Do you sweep it under the hyper dispensational rug and say that Jesus wasn’t giving teaching to the church?
i.e. - Jesus spent a lot of time teaching material that would expire in less than 3 years - but be recorded in Scripture to confuse the dickens out of the rest of us
Or - Do you suggest this is a ‘for disciples only’ - passage when the text says it was indiscriminately spoken to the multitude?
i.e. - the context does not allow for your interpretation
Or - [the LS view] do we view it as a general evangelistic call from Jesus Himself - and that when properly understood gives helpful clarification as to the nature of saving faith? After all - if the issue in question is a matter of forfeiting ones soul - a rational person would certainly assume we are talking about the difference between eternal life and eternal perdition.
What will you do with Jesus’ words in Mark 8:34-38
Will you twist them - or will you accept them at face value?
Thanks,
JM
Jerry already used the passage I was going to bring up from Acts 11. It seems that the writers of the New Testament saw the term Christian and disciple as synonyms. Under a “no lordship” position, it would seem that the Great Commission could be “completed” without ever making one disciple. Does this make sense to anyone else? I appreciate these posts and comment threads. They have been very helpful. Thanks, Lou, for your spirit in this as well. We have all been in a position where it is one against everyone else. You have kept your composure as well as been gracious.
Scott
Scott:
Thanks for the kind note.
“Under a “no lordship” position, it would seem that the Great Commission could be “completed” without ever making one disciple.”
First as for “no lordship,” I do not negate or minimize the lordship of Jesus Christ. My chapter on Romans 10:9 is clear on this.
Second, I would be seriously troubled if someone tried to pull, “teaching them to observe all things…” (the growth of a born again disciple) out of the Great Commission. My problem with Lordship theology is they demand a commitment to the “good works” of a disciple to receive eternal life.
One cannot become a disciple, or follower of Christ until he becomes a Christian.
You can read much more on these subjects at my blog site.
Thanks again,
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
A point of clarification, based on your last comment. Lordship does not teach that the sinner first follows Christ, and then becomes a Christian.
Rather lordship views being a Christian and following Christ as synonymous and simultaneous.
To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ. And vice versa. To be a genuine follower of Christ is to be a Christian. Conversion includes a willingness to follow.
As Jesus said in John 10:27 — “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” Those who are unwilling to follow the Shepherd evidence that they are not, in fact, part of the flock.
Again, this willingness to follow is not a human work. It is a gift of grace which occurs when the Father draws the sinner to Himself (John 6:44).
Thanks,
NB
Dr. MacArthur et al, Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Just found your blog from Noldorin Calvinist. I think you might just possibly know my in-laws, the Mantheis. John Manthei and his wife own just about every book and every tape you have ever produced. I would be honored to be included on your blogroll, as I am a PCA pastor in North Dakota, Reformed, conservative, and evangelical (that is, I preach the Gospel of Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended, all for us as a substitute for our sin(s)). God bless you in your ministry.
Pastor Harding:
You wrote, “I emphasize that submission is in principle (deny self, take up his cross) and that following Christ is the inevitable and necessary result (though not automatic). As they grow in Christ they will grow in submission.”
The “inevitable and necessary result” I heartily agree with because you emphasize “result.” Lordship, however, demands upfront commitments as a requirement for salvation.
You rightly point out and I agree that they are not calling for a fully mature Christian at the moment of salvation or to become a perfect Christian. They do, however, demand the upfront promise to obey, deny-self, follow in exchange for the free gift of God.
As for submission, one can speak of this in “principle”, but the surrender for salvation as defined by Dr. MacArthur goes way beyond “principle.”
At the end of your post you wrote, “My suggestion is that some of the quotes Lou has cited should be carefully evaluated and either edited, explained, or eliminated.”
Through the years and in his various books I have noted how Dr. MacArthur edits some of the more troubling statements. I mention and cite examples in my book. The revisions I have reviewed, however, do little or nothing to minimize the troubling implications of the originals. In recent days I provided examples.
I would ask Dr. MacArthur if he is willing to say that he misstated his position on what he believes are the requirements for the reception of eternal life? I posted only five of the questionable statements from his various books. For example:
“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.”
Is Dr. MacArthur willing to say that “saving faith” the reception of salvation is not conditioned on the sinner making an upfront commitment to full surrender, implicit obedience, submission, self-denial and following?
I recall John MacArthur’s public admission of having erred on the eternal sonship of Christ issue. It appeared on one of the GTY web sites, but I do not download it.
I believe it was in 2000 I wrote a letter to Dr. MacArthur to ask if he still held to the Lordship gospel as presented in The Gospel According to Jesus. I wrote to ask about this because someone said they heard or read that Dr. MacArthur had changed his position on the Lordship issue.
Since I was reading and researching this issue I sent a letter of inquiry. I received a reply from an associate pastor. He assured me that Dr. MacArthur’s position remained unchanged.
LM
Nathan:
“Rather lordship views being a Christian and following Christ as synonymous and simultaneous.”
I am good with this, if you mean that following Christ is a result of his salvation.
LM
“In Defense of the Gospel,” authored by Rev. Lou Martuneac, argues that those who teach that true submission to the authority of Jesus Christ is a necessary aspect of saving faith should be treated essentially as a Romanist, avoided, “shunned,” etc. (pp. 200-203).
On the issue of submission in repentance and faith, however, we must remember that the person of Christ includes the 700 references to his Lordship in the NT and its necessary implications. The volitional element of faith is submission to the authority of Jesus Christ. It starts when we obey God by repenting of sin, which is an internal turning from our self-autonomous rebellion and hatred of God. This is repentance. It inherently involves submission to the authority of Jesus Christ and God the Father who commands all men everywhere to repent. In repentance no one turns from hostility to neutrality. Either we are for Christ (submission) or against Christ (rebellion). One can’t have it both ways, unless one chooses to believe in white blackbirds. Christ left no room for middle ground here.
Faith is defined as unreserved trust is in the person of Christ as well as his work. Complete and unreserved trust always involves submission much like a bride to a bridegroom, a son to his Father, a sheep to its Shepherd, a disciple to a teacher, a servant to a master, and a follower to his leader. Nearly every metaphor of the saving relationship in the NT is a metaphor of genuine submission. Sincere submission, which comprises the volitional aspect of saving faith, is not a “good work.” Rather, it is the work of God in the sinners’ heart through the Gospel and the effectual calling of the sinner. There is no merit in repentance and saving faith, since it is God through His Spirit who grants such to hell-bound, hell-deserving sinners. All the merit is in the perfect obedience of Christ, his bloody sacrificial death, and his vindication in his bodily resurrection. A Christian places his unreserved trust in the person of Christ and in the work of Christ; it must be both/and not either/or.
What does “Lord” mean? Lord means that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of lords who is the one and only Sovereign God that rules over all men. Savior means that Jesus is God-incarnate who died for our sins and rose for our justification. Christ means that Jesus is the true King of Israel and by implication King of Kings. Son of God means that Jesus is the second person of the triune Godhead who has all the attributes of the Father. One cannot place his unreserved trust in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, without inherently submitting to his divine authority, since the Father has given all authority unto his Son (Matt 28:19-20). The Great Commission is very specific about this matter in that because Christ has all authority, we are to make disciples unto Him from every nation, baptize those disciples, and then teach those disciples all things that God has commanded. For this reason believers are regularly referred to in the Gospels and Acts as disciples. In the Epistles Paul regularly addresses all believers as saints and servants of Christ. Jesus regularly referred to believers as followers of Christ. Even those weak in the faith Paul calls servants of Christ who will stand or fall to their own master (Rom 14). All believers turn from idols to God to serve the one true and living God. Paul viewed his salvation decision as a lifelong commitment when he affirmed that he knew the one in whom he had believed and was persuaded that God is able to keep that which Paul had committed unto Him against that day. Clearly, Paul viewed his decision to believe as a commitment of himself to God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the early Christian confession to genuinely confess Christ as Lord (Rom 10:9; Phil 2:5-11), because Christ is Lord of all people (Rom 10:11-12, and this sincere confession is inseparable from wholehearted belief. The “simplicity of Christ” Rev. Martuneac often references in his book actually means whole-hearted sincerity toward Christ in the original language. The Gospel is simple, but it is never shallow. Door-to-door work in the Bible-belt regions of our country often reveals the tragedy of a weak, simplistic Gospel as opposed to a wholeheartedly sincere response to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul warns us not to be so easily removed from wholehearted sincerity in Christ.
Rev. Martuneac suggests that one does not have to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Lord but only as the objective Lord. In other words Christ is “the Lord,” not necessarily “our Lord” or even “my Lord” when we receive him via repentant faith (cf. Rom 5:21; pp. 174-75 and 184-85). However, to profess to accept something as true but deliberately exempt oneself from the necessary implications of that truth is not to accept it as true (Matt 8:13; 9:28). Is the Lord Jesus Christ the objective Savior only or is he our Savior and more importantly my Savior when I believe in him? Is he the King only or our King? Is Christ objectively the Lord of all people, but not personally our Lord or my Lord when we receive him as Lord (John 1:12; 9:36, 38; 12:44)? Is Jesus only objectively God when we believe on him or is he rather our God and most importantly in personal saving faith “my God”? This false dichotomy suggested by IDOTG is in error. When Thomas believed he humbly confessed that Jesus is “my Lord and my God.” Paul wrote his Corinthian epistle “to all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” (1 Cor 1:2). It was personal and individual allegiance to the authority and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and a complete reliance upon his sacrificial death and resurrection for justification. Jesus affirmed the confession of Thomas as true saving faith, and the Apostle John included it as the climax of the true commitment any genuine believer makes when he exercises repentant faith in the person and cross work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ironically, IDOTG includes in the appendix an explanation of Faith-and-Obedience in Romans by Dr. Fred Moritz (pp. 247-48) which clearly argues for obedience as a part of faith:
“The Bible teaches that true saving faith is, in itself, an act of obedience to Jesus Christ” (p. 247).
“Further, he [Paul] describes the sinfulness of mankind by speaking of ‘them who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness’” (Rom 2:8). “Sinners are disobedient to God while they obey lawlessness” (Ibid.)
“He tells the Roman Christians (and us present day believers) ‘that ye were the servants of sin, but ye obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you’ (Rom 10:17).” (Ibid.)
“No point could be more clear. When a disobedient sinner truly trusts Christ to save him, that act of faith is itself obedience to God” (p. 248). Afterwards, Moritz cites Rom 16:26 “. . . God [has] made known [the Gospel] to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Ibid.).
Moritz concludes: “The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him at that point. Convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit, they will understand that their obedience to sin places them under the judgement of God. They will trust Christ alone for salvation, calling on Him. That is obedience to the Gospel” (Ibid).
I would point out that half of all the couplets of Faith and Obedience by Paul occur in the book of Romans. The genitive relationships of faith and obedience in the NT are described by Daniel Wallace as subjective genitives (faith which obeys), genitives of source (faith which is the source of obedience), and epexegetic (faith which is obedience). Faith does not equal obedience per se. However, the terms are used almost interchangeably in Romans (1:8; 16:19; 10:16; 11:23; 11:30-31). True obedience cannot exist apart from faith and there can be no faith without obedience. The concepts are mutually complementary and informing. For this reason I believe that the internal quality and attitude of submission is an integral part of faith. True, genuine submission is an inward attitude graciously given us by God’s Spirit; obedience is the inevitable fruit.
Douglas Moo, by all considerations, has written the finest theological and exegetical commentary on Romans, Paul’s Gospel masterpiece. Scholars not only view Moo’s commentary on Romans as the best commentary ever written on that book, but perhaps the best commentary ever written on any NT book. Regarding Paul’s use of Faith and Obedience in Romans, Moo writes:
“First, Paul’s purpose in his apostolic ministry is to bring about ‘obedience of faith.’ . . . Paul saw his task as calling men and women to submission to the lordship of Christ (cf. Rom 1:4b and 7b; [16:26]), a submission that began with conversion but which was to continue in a deepening, lifelong commitment. The obedience to Christ as Lord is always closely related to faith, both as an initial, decisive step of faith and as a continuing “faith” relationship with Christ. In light of this, we understand the words “obedience” and “faith” to be mutually interpreting: obedience always involves faith, and faith always involved obedience. They should not be equated, compartmentalized, or made into separate stages of the Christian experience. Paul called men and women to faith that was always inseparable from obedience – for the Savior in whom we believe is nothing less than our Lord – and to an obedience that could never be divorced from faith . . . .” (NICNT, Romans, pp. 51-53).
Our repentant faith which is a gift from God does not save us; it is the infinite merit of Christ alone that saves us, by grace alone, through repentant faith alone, revealed to us in the Scriptures alone.
Pastor Mike Harding
P.S. Here is only a small sampling of texts (many more could be given) which when properly exegeted would seriously counteract the main thesis of IDOTG. I quote these texts from the NASB (1995 updated edition) because this is the most literal translation available and accurately brings to light the meaning of the Greek grammar. NASB is also the pulpit Bible in our church.
Luke 6:44 - 7:1 44 “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. 46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”
Hebrews 5:9 “He became to all who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.”
Hebrews 3:18-19 “And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. (cf. Gal 5:7; 1 Pet 1:22; 4:17; Rom 6:17; 10:16; 2 Thess 1:8)
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life.”
John 9:36-39 36 He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” 38 And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. 39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
1 Corinthians 12:3 “No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake (cf. 2 Cor 11:4).
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify (set apart) Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you
Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him
Isaiah 45:21-23 21 “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. 22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. 23 “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
Philippians 2:5-12 (citing Isa 45) 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 10:8-13 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART “– that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
Mark 8:34-38 34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 “For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
In Defense of the Gospel, authored by Rev. Lou Martuneac, argues that those who teach that true submission to the authority of Jesus Christ is a necessary aspect of saving faith should be treated essentially as a Romanist, avoided, “shunned,” etc. (pp. 200-203).
Pastor Harding does not specifically define the area of concern I have with Lordship Salvation’s definition of “saving faith.” He uses the term, “aspect of saving faith.”
I am more precise when I discuss “submission” and “saving faith.” I have often stated that there is a difference between the requirements for saving faith and the results of saving faith.
At risk of sounding like a broken record I must repeat that to define “saving faith” as though it requires an upfront promise of, as Dr. MacArthur states, “implicit obedience, wholehearted commitment, a desire for him at any cost, unconditional surrender,” is a gospel message based on works.
In Defense of the Gospel includes two chapters that examine the biblical response when confronted with false doctrine. The chapter titles are:
Is it the Christians Duty to Fight for the Faith?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” (Jude 3).
A Heart to Heart with Pastors & Christian Leaders
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Romans 16:17-18).
I make no excuse or apology for stating that Lordship Salvation, as it is defined by Dr. MacArthur, is a false gospel. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that Lordship Salvation is “contrary to the doctrine” would be unfaithful to the Scriptures if he were to ignore the commands to “mark” and “avoid” found in Romans 16:17-18.
“Paul admonishes believers to “avoid,” (ekklino) those whom we have marked. The form of this verb would indicate that it is a present imperative, which simply indicates that this avoidance is neither a suggestion nor advice, but, in fact, a command. We are commanded by God to continually avoid the person who has been marked! Thayer’s lexicon lists several possible translations for the word, but indicates that in this text, it is best translated “to shun.” We are to shun those who create scandal through their false teaching.” (In Defense of the Gospel)
I would not share a platform with Dr. MacArthur because of his Lordship theology any more than Pastor Harding would have Dr. MacArthur preach at his church because of the concerns Pastor Harding has with Dr. MacArthur’s standards of music and fellowship/separation.
Pastor Harding is determined to protect his pulpit from a man (Dr. MacArthur) whose particular standards are, in his opinion, unsound. I call for the application of the mandated course of action in Romans 16 to a man who I believe preaches a false gospel.
Application of the scriptural principles found in Jude 3 and Romans 16:17-18 are mandated when one is convinced that Lordship Salvation is a false gospel!
“Preachers, you may not win a popularity contest by contending, but you will have been faithful to God and His call upon your life to feed and defend His sheep.” (In Defense of the Gospel)
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
To All:
The link below will take you to a post written by Bob Topartzer on SharperIron. I thought it might be a helpful read for some.
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3913&page=2&pp=7
LM
Lou - I agree we should contend for the faith - but notice who Jude was concerned about:
Jude 4 - ‘For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’
Agaain - you can’t sweep Mark 8:34-38 away as having no bearing on salvation
The Apostle Peter said this:
“Him has God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
And we are witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to them that obey Him.”
Peter knew that it’s faith alone that saves us, and this is by the grace of God alone, but it seems here the grace that saves us includes repentance, obedience, and forgiveness.
After listening to this fine debate, I see that we are to preach repentance, forgiveness in Christ, and the Cross by faith alone. We can even preach surrender, and obedience to God’s call. God will use all this to bring His lost sheep to Himself.
It’s Grace, and grace, and grace. It’s God who shows mercy to whom He wills. Our salvation is of God.
Blind and even dead sinners will not ever come to repentance and faith, unless God’s mercy comes upon that person.
Thanks for all the good thoughts. I do se the bottom lines on both sides as Faith alone. But each side sees this in a different way.
“Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto genuine love of the brethern” 1 Peter 1:22
Jerry:
I appreciate your concern. When one is confronted with false doctrine and must “contend,” it does not matter who or what the source of the false doctrine is.
When false doctrine is at our door step, in the church, in a Bible college, circulating in our fellowships, wherever and from whomever it rears its head, it must be confronted.
I have a recorded sermon by Dr. Vance Havner. In that sermon he said (paraphrased), “I am not so much concerned with the apostates and infidels on the outside as I am with the termites on the inside.”
In my book I included this statement from Dr. Ernest Pickering,
“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt…. We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same…. But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 41.)
Dr. MacArthur’s “changing the terms of the gospel” is Lordship Salvation’s demands for full surrender, whole hearted commitment, and self-denial in exchange for salvation. This is works salvation and I will biblically “contend” with it.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
I consider 2 Cor. 1-7 among Paul’s most profound expressions of his gospel preaching.
He preaches Jesus Christ as Lord because he does not want to handle the Word deceitfully or walk in craftiness. He preaches Jesus Christ as Lord because the Devil has blinded the eyes of the lost. He preaches Jesus Christ as Lord because if they are to be saved the God who created “light” must shine the light of the gospel into their rebellious hearts. He preaches Jesus Christ as Lord because it gives glory to God and because it exalts Christ.
The full reference is 2 Corinthains 4:1-7, thanks
”If an evangelist today got up before a largely unbelieving audience and preached a message about the life to come (meaning salvation and eternal life) that consisted of “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Christ,” Lou would accuse him of frustrating grace, preaching works, and adding to the gospel. Yet, this is exactly what Jesus Himself did!”
Nathan:
First of all, Jesus does not condition the free gift of salvation on any upfront promise of self-denial, cross bearing or following. With that said…
It is unfortunate that you are drifting between the requirements for and the results of salvation. Our disagreement is over the requirements for, not the results of salvation. There is a difference.
Lordship Salvation blurs the lines of distinction between discipleship and salvation. “The life to come,” has to do with the life of a man who has been born again, so we are talking about discipleship. “Salvation and eternal life,” has to do with receiving eternal life, becoming a Christian.
Let’s assume a preacher brings a message to an audience of unbelievers, and he is preaching on the salvation of a sinner, how he must be born again. Here is a sample from that sermon:
“To receive eternal life: you must make a wholehearted commitment to Jesus. You must deny-self and have a desire for Him at any cost. You must pledge allegiance to Jesus and come to Him unconditionally surrendered to His will. That is the only kind of response the Lord Jesus will accept. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom and secure for you salvation and eternal life.”
My response would be to take him aside to seek clarification. If he reiterated what he just preached I would try to show him why is wrong. I would tell him he is preaching a works gospel. This is exactly what I have done in two actual incidences.
By the way, in case some did not notice, the sermon text I used as an example above is a slightly paraphrased quote from John MacArthur found in The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
If the Evangelist was preaching self-denial, cross bearing and following Jesus in regard to what should follow the conversion of a new born child of God I would have no problem.
“Salvation and discipleship are two separate and distinct issues. Salvation is the gift of God to an undeserving Hell-bound sinner. Discipleship is what ought to naturally flow from the man or woman who through the shed blood of Jesus Christ has been redeemed from death and Hell. Confusing the cost of discipleship for the believer with the gospel of grace through faith is one of the gross errors of Lordship Salvation.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 71.)
LM
The catholic church has caused more destruction to the evangelical and protestant churches than islam in the mideast. The catholic church is nothing but a whore….the woman who rides the beast as described in Rev. 17. And yet the disgusting, disgraceful acts of our evangelical leaders fellowshipping with this false religion….satan’s counterfeit is even more an abomination in God’s eyes. What kills me is how most Christians don’t even care and most importantly they have decided that doctrine is too divisive. Well guess what truth does divide, because it is even for or against something. This ecumenical dung is a disgrace to God and I want nothing to do with it. The catholic church has wielded more power and has accomplished it through political means and when she has arrived at total control she will turn her back on anyone who is opposed to her. This clearly is the falling away of the elect and the great apostasy that is unfolding before our very eyes. The catholic church never repented of all their bloodly inquisitions because they think they are the one true church.
Well, God will pay them back for their sins on His precious martyrs.
I am disappointed because I went to one of John MacArthur’s web sites and their was a link to a catholic web site. Does anyone care anymore about having absolutely no association with the catholic church save only with the purpose in mind to preach the gospel and to try to win one more lost soul to Christ. Have we gotten so off track and are we so deceived by the catholic church’s seduction, that we just don’t care? Has this ecumenical movement become so engulfing that we feel powerless? It’s obvious we have, so we just capitulate instead, I guess because it’s easier, right? And yet we pray for revival…what a joke. If the leaders start lining their lives up with correct doctrine instead of politics then God will bring revival. When James Dobson can praise the pope for all his so called “moral righteousnesses” and Billy Graham can accept an honorary doctorate from a Jesuit seminary, we have clearly departed from our distinctive and historical stance. I don’t care how they justify their actions…..they are in rebellion!!!! And they need to repent and turn back to the faith in which they first began. According to Lordship theology, these men need to rethink their salvation. Are these men saved? They are having fellowship with idols (catholic priest and popes) and they have not turned away from their gross idoltry.
Billy Graham is conspicuously careful not to cause offence or to adopt controversial positions which might forfeit his close relationship with kings and political leaders, or his near universal popularity. This sounds all to familiar with many other evangelical leaders and I am to a point where automony as a Christian is safer because just about everybody compromises the truth….they are listening to all the wrong voices and put men on pedestals rathere than God and His Word
Interesting enough when Billy Graham began his ministry as an itinerant evangelist, he proclaimed that the three greatest dangers facing the world were islam, roman catholism and communism (I don’t use capitol letters because they don’t deserve it). And now the pope embraces islam and many religions and says, “hey lets all come together for peace”. Jesus said the opposite…”Do not think I have come into the world to bring peace, but a sword”. The unity Jesus spoke of were only the ones the Father had given Him. The true Christians, those that have been born-again.
Dr. Charles Woodbridge said, “If you insist in making commom cause with those that deny the Word of God, and thus in minimizing the sharp line of distinction between those that are loyal and those who are disloyal to the Scriptures, it is my strong opinion that you will be known as the great divider of the church of Christ of the 20th century.
J.C. Ryle said, “Unity without truth is useless. When Rome has repealed the decrees of Trent and her additions to the creed, and when she has formally renounced image worhip, mary worship, and transubstantiation, then and not until then, will it be time to talk of reunion with her. Till then I call on all Christians to resisit to the death this idea of reunion with Rome.
I say all this because this is why we have so much confusion and the catholic influence has caused us to put way to much emphasis on “works” rather than doctrine. Jesus said to Mary that she had chosen the better. Martha spent way too much time doing whereas Mary didn’t do anything at all but just sat at Jesus’s feet to learn from Him. And that is where all Truth originates….only in Him.
jsb:
You wrote, “It seems, too, that Lou expects that someone without any enablement from the Spirit can ‘believe.’”
Please try to be more careful when you try to suggest something like the above in regard to me. If by “enablement” you mean regenerated before he can believe, I would reject that.
John 16:9-10 is very clear and I wrote a piece that touches on the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. The title of the article is Impossible Decision John 16:9-10, and it appears on my blog site.
Here is an excerpt:
“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).
LM
Lou,
In summation I think there is minor diagreement on the definition and nature of repentance between IDOTG and my position. There is a more significant difference in our understanding of the nature of saving faith. Both our positions are close on the results of regeneration, though I think I might emphasize perseverance more strongly than you would and I refer to sinning believers as believers who are behaving in a fleshly manner as opposed to categorizing them as “carnal Christians”. I believe that Nate has stated his position in a thoughtful way. My guess is that they might review some of the quotes you mentioned and either edit, explain, or in some cases eliminate them. I did not notice any over the top declarations by Nate in his explanations. Is it really necessary to keep throwing out the “heresy” card and publicly make repeated charges of a false Gospel? I don’t recall anyone calling you a heretic on these posts. I honestly think you need to stop calling men like Boice, Lloyd Jones, Piper, JM heretics. I would not always frame the issues as identically as they would. It is fine to express disagreement, caution, and advisement.
I have given you my soteriological explanation of Mark 8. Clearly the Lord is talking about eternal life. I agree we have to harmonize that passage with all the other passages regarding salvation which is what I have done. However, it is impossible to deny that Mark 8 is talking about eternal life and eternal punsihment. You, like myself, have to honestly incorporate the truths and theology in those verses with other related passages on the condition for justification. It may be that some of the discipleship passages had specfic application for a particular group, but this one is not one of those passages. We are simply harmonizing all of what God said into a unified, non-contradictory body of truth. We have to guard against any kind of works salvation, and we have to equally guard against any concept of salvation that does not produce God-wrought good works.
Lou - I appreciate your concern for orthodoxy. I know there are some big names out there that have spoken against John MacArthur and the whole lordship debate. I have read what some of them have written - Ryrie and Hodges in particular.
On the other side there are some pretty weighty contemporary pastors and scholars who have put their feet in the Lordship camp. James Boice, John Piper, J. I. Packer, Robert Reymond to name a few. It is also interesting to read Dallas Willard’s take on this whole thing in his book, ‘The Divine Conspiracy’. He tries to sail above it all [after all - he is not a fundamentalist] - but he clearly lands much more akin to a lordship position than not.
The debate did not begin with MacArthur and Hodges. There is an old article in Eternity magazine which features the same exact content of the debate - only the spokesmen were John Stott [LS] and Everett Harrison. I could give you the volume number if you are interested - I don’t have my files here. My point being that good people have disagreed on this issue. I would also argue that the Reformers [Calvin, Luther] spoke to these issues and clearly landed on a side where saving faith included some kind of submission to Christ and resulted in sanctification.
I don’t think the issue is simply about the content of the gospel message. It is about a system of theology that embraces concepts like a Christian/ disciple dichotomy. It is about a gospel that calls for faith but no repentance. It is about about a grace that leads to licentiousness rather than instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires. It is about an approach to the Christian faith that subordinates and subverts the teachings of Jesus.
You can’t have Christianity without the teachings of Christ. We need to do what the Father told the early disciples, ‘This is My beloved Son - listen to Him’
What I would argue in relation to MacArthur - and someone else has already made this point: you have to take everything he says within the context of his overall ministry. When a pastor says that He does not believe we are saved by our works - you have to give that some weight.
Without question - the point he made in ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’ - truly was a much needed statement to the rampant easy believism in the modern church and a much needed corrective to a church headed towards Laodicea.
Grace and Peace
JM
When we use the word “conversion” to make it a requirement that we must love God in order to be saved, we have required not only work, but the doing of the greatest commandment of the Law and the greatest work. To require faith for salvation is not the same thing as to require a pre-eminent love for God.
This is what was said at the top: “If conversion includes love for Christ. And if love for Christ includes a willingness to obey Him (John 14:15), to follow Him (John 10:27), to love Him preeminently (Matt. 10:37), and to worship Him wholeheartedly (Mark 12:30) … then there is no theological problem with interpreting the hard sayings of Christ in an evangelistic light.”
No, Protestantism cannot be thought of as a “justification by love” system.
Having criticized, I better (Mt 23) attempt to fix something, lift a burden, if you will … make a constructive suggestion about this! Here is my suggestion: the idea of this “including” that and “including” the other is too imprecise to solve our differences. Let me illustrate from the above quotation. If conversion includes love for Christ, and love for Christ includes following Him, and following Him includes work, then conversion takes work, and we have landed at salvation by works.
Jerry:
“The debate did not begin with MacArthur and Hodges. There is an old article in Eternity magazine which features the same exact content of the debate - only the spokesmen were John Stott [LS] and Everett Harrison. I could give you the volume number if you are interested - I don’t have my files here.”
I have it and quote from it in my book.
Thanks,
LM
To All:
I am preparing a reply to Pastor Harding, I will file it in several locations, including this thread, shortly.
I have been away, and am still on a “family time” schedule.
LM
Jerry:
“Without question - the point he made in ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’ - truly was a much needed statement to the rampant easy believism in the modern church and a much needed corrective to a church headed towards Laodicea.”
As I point out in my book and Dr. Pickering observed in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus, Dr. MacArthur’s reaction to the problems with Easy Believism and the loose living of profession believers does not excuse his “changing the terms of the gospel.”
I will work with those who want to counteract the Easy Believism message that is wreaking havoc in our circles. I will not, however, join hands with anyone who has landed in the errors of the other extreme, namely: Lordship Salvation.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I just want you to know that I went ahead and ordered your book from Amazon and I will keep it for my perusal. I have come to my own conclusions: I disagree with Lordship theology.
The rest of my thoughts are not addressed to you other than the fact that I ordered your book and look forward to reading it. I want to make note to others on this forum that by my other posts I am sure some may have seen them as offensive but I am simply a fundamentalist which according to Lordship proponents they should be too. The hard sayings of Jesus begin at the top and if there is compromise at the top it will lead to problems at the bottom. MacArthur is concerned about the carnality in churches and rightly so, but I think he and everyone else need to look to the top…our leaders, because the sheep follow the leaders and pastors are our shepherds.
I have read many posts that praise J.I.Packer for his great theology and his alliance with the Lordship “camp”, the only problem is, is that he left the hard sayings of Jesus in his study when he signed and endorsed the ECT document. He aligned himself with the apostate church and everyone here who does not see that the catholic church is an apostate church is not reading the Word and they are left without discernment in world in which every true believer should be deeply concerned about.
Sometimes I feel as though the few Christian leaders who see that the ecumenical movement is disobedience and they are not to be involved with it still somehow seem to sugarcoat or condone the ones that do. I don’t see an urgency in their hearts on this matter and how it has caused a great big crack in the foundation of the church. If Jesus Christ was not the chief cornerstone and our C.E.O., this corporate body of believers would have fallen like Enron did. Our Leaders, if they care at all about the corporate body, would see how their stamp of approval on a false gospel has caused all kinds of divisions and offenses.
Going back to Billy Graham, in his autobiography, he states that he does not want to preach against roman catholicism nor does he want to proslyletize or “steal sheep”, but rather he just wants to preach a commitment to Christ. Does anyone see the contradiction in this? How can you preach a commitment to Christ when you are condoning in the same breath a false gospel, i.e. catholicism. That is why if you ever go to one of his crusades, there are many priests waiting for all the catholics that come forward to rededicate their lives back to the roman church which denies the Bible over and over. How can you be commited to Christ and not care about lost people. Because of Billy Graham and many others, the undiscerning sheep just assume catholics are saved. If the Holy Spirit is active and living and His ministry is to guide a person from darkness to light, from error to truth, then true believers would leave the catholic church and find a bible believing church to be discipled.
Lordship theology is just too similar to catholic theology other than the fact that they don’t include penance and and all those man made sacraments. Catholicism confuses justification and sancification and the reason it does is because these priests and popes are unredeemed and don’t know the truth.
When a person is redeemed, sanctification begins and that takes a lifetime if we live that long. If a believer is not abiding in Christ, he will lose his reward and miss out on the wonderful fellowship with the spirit. It is his lose, not God’s. If a believer is abiding in Christ, he will bear fruit accordingly as Jesus promised and will be rewarded…after all God is not unjust to forget our labor for Him. But that labor is not debt that we owe to God and Lordship theology blurs this and just does make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. Everything Jesus did from His birth to His death satisfied God as the propitiation for our sin to grant us salvation for our souls providing we are trusting in that one fact alone.
When Lou states that salvation includes repentance, he is right because repentence is the acknowledging of the truth…turning from unbelief to belief. The blind folds that covered our eyes have now been lifted and now we can see that Jesus Christ is who He says He is…the Messiah, Christ and son of the Living God. That right there is the act of regeneration that is a one time transaction that transfers us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. That is our justification and everything else after that no longer bares relevance or weight to our salvation. Everything after…all the sacrifices, following Jesus in obedience and surrender is categorized as our sanctification which varies in all believers depending upon their spiritual growth.
To conclude I will say that clearly all us have problems with sin even our leaders that is why we have a Savior. Fortunately since we have a God that understands redemption, He has a way of using evil and sin for His sovereign purposes and to eventually bring about good.
May all you be blessed and also the ministry of grace to you.
“Lordship theology is just too similar to catholic theology” This is a statement that is theological incorrect. Billy Graham’s preaching has lways been the simple gospel. Billy has t people of all religious background to come to the knowlege of Jesus Christ.
And how is J.I. Packer’s position “He aligned himself with the apostate church,” a reason to reject his biblical theological positon?
Charles
“When Lou states that salvation includes repentance, he is right because repentence is the acknowledging of the truth…turning from unbelief to belief.”
No, this is not what repentance means. The above is just re-defining repentance as “belief.” Repentance is not the “acknowledging of the truth.” It goes beyond that. It is “to change one’s life, based on complete change of attitude and thought concerning sin and righteousness.” [Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains]
Those who are spreading a false view of repentance REALLY need to repent. Now.
I wonder if it would be alright to share a quote from my pastor’s sermon today. Actually it’s from Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
“When Christ calls us, He bids us come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow Him, or it may be a death like Luther’s, who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time–death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old person at his call. …
Only those who in following Christ leave everything they have can stand and say that they are justified solely by grace. They recognize the call to discipleship itself as grace and grace as that call. But those who want to use this grace to excuse themselves from discipleship are deceiving themselves.”
donsands
Though from a human perspective, Bonhoeffer is to be admired for his opposition to Adolph Hitler and Nazism, yet many evangelicals are unaware of his neo-orthodox theology. What Jesus was he following? I don’t think he believed in the Christ of the Bible and he likely denied every fundamental doctrine of Holy
Scripture. There are many liberal and Catholic Christians who admire following Christ, yet they like Bonhoeffer deny Christ’s vicarious,substitutionary atonement, and justifcation by faith in Christ alone. St. Francis was a great ‘follower’ of Christ as well, yet no doubt he believed in the merit of his own works. There are many who believe the social gospel, and love the Sermon on the Mount, yet they despise the shed blood of Christ. We must make sure the Christ we are following is the eternal Son and not just a good teacher. It’s possible to have many good works, many self-denials, and the praise of men, yet deny the heart of the gospel.
Good quote Don. He also coined the phrase ‘cheap grace’ in his book, ‘The Cost of Discipleship’
Hello Charles et al –
You were asking, “And how is J.I. Packer’s position “He aligned himself with the apostate church,” a reason to reject his biblical theological positon?”
Of course it is not, and if someone did that, it would be a non-sequitur.
However, R.C. Sproul has a story about J.I. Packer that he’s told at Ligonier conferences that might be more instructive about Jim Packer’s thinking at the time.
At the time of the signing of the ECT joint declaration, RC Sproul, having heard of it through a media story, called Jim, and asked him why he signed it. He asked Jim why he would sign something that said what it said about justification: “Didn’t you notice that it says we are justified by faith, but it doesn’t say by faith alone?”
Jim’s answer was “it doesn’t?”
Lou,
I’ve noticed that when you attack MacArthur, you tend to give a lot more weight to his statements written in his books than other statements where he clarifies what he meant in his books. You need to realize that the person behind the book and the person behind the clarifying statements is the same person.
When we come to a seeming contradiction in Scripture, what do we assume? The automatic assumption is that we don’t understand one of the two (or three) verses in question, so we look TO THE CLEARER TEXT to figure out the meaning. So, when you disregard MacArthur’s clarifications on his own writings, what are you really trying to accomplish? I’m fairly certain that it’s becoming painfully obvious to most people reading this blog that you are much more interested in defamation than reconciliation.
It is NOT intellectually honest to continue to quote the same portions of “The Gospel According to Jesus” over and over as if no clarification has been given. Please give MacArthur and others the respect due by allowing them to offer clarification on things that you can’t seem to understand.
Matt:
There is no clarification.
MacArthur will speak of the “free gift,” then in the same book he will say salvation is conditioned on the upfront promise for “whole hearted commitment, full surrender, self-denial, cross bearing, etc.
He suggests an orthodox position, while with the next breath hold to a “costly” reception of salvation.
The same disturbing theme runs like a thread through each of his Lordship books, which I have documented.
LM
Lou, when you share the gospel with people, who or what do you tell them God is?
” So, when you disregard MacArthur’s clarifications on his own writings, what are you really trying to accomplish? I’m fairly certain that it’s becoming painfully obvious to most people reading this blog that you are much more interested in defamation than reconciliation.”
I know that it is obvious to me. But then if someone accepts these clarifications they would then see that the whole premise behind a certain book that they have written has evaporated.
Lou, you just illustrated my point about being stuck on MacArthur’s book text. What exactly do you think the purpose of this whole series on Lordship Salvation is? This whole series has been launched FOR CLARIFICATION. If you insist that no clarification has been offered, then where have you been for the past month? With over 15 posts on the same subject, to make the statement: “there is no clarification” is absurd and it is a lie.
Larry good point. “It doesn’t?” J.I. Packer.
That was my thinking for so many years.
I didn’t know when I was saved, that ‘faith
alone “ was different then having “faith.” I
didn’t know when I was saved, that salvation
was by grace alone either. As a matter of fact
all the “alone’s” was not known by me until I
was fifty years old. “Lordship Salvation” really
I didn’t know “J.I. Packer, either. So I wonder
if one can be saved with out all this knowledge?
I believe John MacArthur and Lou are both saved.
Would one be more saved than the other?
Charles
I have posted the following at my blog site and reference this post at SharperIron. It is logistically difficult for me to follow and
respond to every reaction at all three sites. I am beginning to lean toward responding to comments entered at my blog site. Chasing down replies at three different sites is proving difficult to keep up
with. I am sure this is understandable. Therefore, please consider directing your replies to this post in the comments section of my blog site.
Pastor Harding:
You wrote, “We have to guard against any kind of works salvation, and we have to equally guard against any concept of salvation that does not produce God-wrought good works.”
I am in substantive agreement with you on this. This is why you find me in opposition to both Lordship Salvation and Easy Believism. So, let us again remind readers that the key difference I have with the Lordship message is how the advocates define the requirements for salvation. The Lordship advocates blur the lines of distinction between salvation and discipleship and that error continues to be in evidence in a number of the recent comments. I am going to continue to keep this discussion focused on the reception of eternal life, because that is where the debate and the primary error in Lordship Salvation is found.
You wrote, “Is it really necessary to keep throwing out the “heresy” card and publicly make repeated charges of a false Gospel?…I honestly think you need to stop calling men like Boice, Lloyd Jones, Piper, JM heretics.”
Elsewhere I have publicly stated that coming to the decision and conclusions I have in regard to Lordship Salvation, and the men who teach it, was a long and agonizing process. I did not, and do not take lightly having to publicly identify men who in my opinion are teaching a false gospel. I can vividly remember writing, editing and finalizing what became In Defense of the Gospel. Right up until it went to press I prayed and thought through whether or not to publicly refer to Lordship Salvation as a false gospel, and identify the men who teach it as teachers of a false gospel. My conviction on this doctrinal matter left me with but one conclusion.
These men are otherwise solid and orthodox in many areas, but not this one. If Lordship Salvation were a disagreement over a minor or fine point of doctrine I would not have bothered with the book in the first place. As we all know, however, this debate is over the terms of salvation, and that is no small or light matter.
You are asking me to stop referring to Lordship Salvation as a false gospel. You are asking me to act as though men like John MacArthur, John Piper, and James Boice are orthodox when they claim a lost man cannot be born again unless he makes an upfront commitment to “full scale self-denial, implicit obedience, full surrender and cross bearing.” You are asking me to give these men a pass when many others and I are convinced they are teaching and promoting a message, which frustrates grace. You are essentially asking me to compromise my convictions and fidelity to the Scriptures. Your request on behalf of John MacArthur reminds me of a similar incident in South Africa, which I describe on pages 189-190 in my book.
You want me to limit myself to expressing “disagreement, caution and advisement.”
My book does all of these and I have continued those themes in the online discussions. I do not stop there because I am convinced Lordship Salvation, as defined by its leading advocates, is a gospel that changes the terms of the gospel from the free gift of God to a conditional salvation based on gaining upfront commitments from a lost man that are impossible for him to make.
I am identifying a system of belief on the gospel that is a works based gospel. Whether it is the teaching of MacArthur, Boice or Piper, “which cause divisions and offences,” is irrelevant. These men are wrong and believers from a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity need and deserve to be warned about the erroneous teaching of these men.
There is a secondary reason for my coming out openly against the erroneous teaching of these men, but I am reserving that for another related discussion that is more applicable to Fundamental Baptists.
You wrote, “I don’t recall anyone calling you a heretic on these posts”.
If anyone finds me teaching a false gospel they should call me along side and discuss it with me. If you feel In Defense of the Gospel makes a case for a false gospel, then you should say so. You have publicly affirmed that I am not into the Easy Believism or the Mental Assent Only camps, but if you find me to be heretical in my position on the gospel then follow the mandated course of action in the Bible.
I am going to make some general observations and comments:
1) What I find interesting is that you have publicly stated that you have problems with some of John MacArthur’s statements in his various Lordship books. You have acknowledged that I have identified those statements and briefly defined their troubling implications. To date, however, beyond referring to some possible implications of Dr. MacArthur’s statements, all you have been able to do with these problem statements is advise Nathan to have them “edited, explained or eliminated.”
On the other hand, beginning in September with the review of my book at SharperIron, extending to date on Pulpit Magazine and on other blog sites you have dedicated volumes of extended negative criticism about various portions of my book. I am fine with that, because I know authors become fair game for commentary once they go public.
Furthermore, on both SharperIron and Pulpit Magazine you publicly encouraged others to look at my chapter What Is Saving Faith? and produce the negative reviews you believe it deserves. I encouraged you to do it yourself since you felt so strongly about it. When no one took you up on it, you followed my advice and did it yourself. Again, you have every right to disagree with me.
My point is this: You have problems with portions of my book and with John MacArthur’s printed position. You dedicate a great deal of time and energy to refute my book, but have not produced any comprehensive, critical commentary of John MacArthur’s, as you call them, “overstatements.” Why is that?
2) Last week at SharperIron you contributed several critical reviews of John Piper’s use of a rap artist at his church and the CCM issue. You also commented on Ron Hamilton’s (Patch the Pirate) visit to First Baptist of Hammond. You are very capable of addressing the music issue in our age, and I commend you for addressing the irresponsible and dangerous example Piper set. I trust that as a result of what you wrote many will reconsider their promotion or acceptance of John Piper as an example to be emulated. At least I hope many will view Piper with discernment and caution.
Here again, however, I find a similar situation to one I describe above. You dedicated a great deal of effort to a problem with rap music in Piper’s church, and the related CCM issues, but when it comes to the problems you have with MacArthur’s definition of the gospel, you limit your comments to advising his staff to, “edit, explain, or eliminate.”
Poor music choices are a serious problem and lead to greater problems. However, getting the gospel wrong, which Lordship Salvation does, has eternal consequences. You expended a great deal of time and effort to combat poor music choices, but don’t seem to have enough sense of urgency to deal with the problems you have with MacArthur’s position on the gospel. Why is that?
3) You wrote, “Is it really necessary to keep throwing out the “heresy” card and publicly make repeated charges of a false Gospel?”
Earlier I laid out my reasons for applying the Scriptural mandates found in Jude 3 and Romans 16:17-18. The two chapters in my book comprehensively define these passages and my application of them to the Lordship gospel.
You are asking me to pull back from identifying Lordship Salvation as defined by MacArthur, Piper and Boice as a “false gospel.” For me this is a request to compromise my convictions on a major doctrinal controversy. There are doctrinal areas of a minor nature that men can agree to disagree over, but the gospel is not one of them.
At this point I believe it would be helpful for our readers to see that you have made the same public charge of heresy against those who do not agree with your “surrender/submission salvation” message. The following excerpt is from In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 34-35.
“Dr. Michael Harding addressed the delegates at the June 2001 National Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Conference held at his own church in Troy, Michigan. The title of his address was, The Supremacy of God in Salvation. Near the end of his address he said, “Saving faith has in its principial form surrender…and if your gospel does not have it you are preaching ‘another gospel.’” In the same address Dr. Harding said, “I am convinced that this is the biblical position that any self-respecting Christian or Fundamentalist…would hold to…absolute submission to His lordship.”
In recent weeks you have publicly retracted the “absolute” submission statement, preferring to refer to it as, I believe you said, “genuine” submission. In any event, at a national conference, during a message to the general assembly, you said anyone who does not preach the Lordship message of (absolute or genuine) submission for salvation is preaching “another gospel.” I ordered the CD from the FBFI Conference listened to and transcribed that message verbatim word-for-word. And let’s be clear you were preaching about salvation, how a lost man is born again.
Five years ago, in a public forum you leveled a blanket charge of “heresy” against any who do not hold to the Lordship “submission/surrender” interpretation of the gospel. My statements are based on the public and precise definitions by the author(s) of the position with which I contend.
At a Bible Conference in March 2002 you preached essentially the same sermon that you did at the June 2001 FBFI Conference. I also have that tape and transcribed it. This time you said, “These verses (Phil. 2:5-11) teach…the absolute demand of submission to His authoritative lordship.” You also stated, “Jesus Christ demands submission to His authority in saving faith.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 129.) If you mean to apply those statements to a born again disciple of Christ, you have my, “Amen.” If, however, you are speaking in terms of the requirements for salvation, I encourage you to “edit, explain or eliminate” those statements.
Later I will have separate posts for Nathan and Dr. MacArthur’s attention.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Matt/Mark:
As I was leaving for work I entered the post on clarification very quickly. That post was not the best way I could have made the point I intended.
When we stay on the discussion of the reception of salvation the clarifications Nathan has offered on Dr. MacArthur’s behalf do little or nothing to disavow or minimize the disturbing implications of the various statements in Dr. MacArthur’s books.
The solution to this dilemma is really quite simple. I will have a proposal later.
LM
Lou,
I thought I explained to you that I reserved the “heresy” card not for you, but for the extremtist like Hodges. As I said before, your def. of repentance was basically sound, you connect repentance to faith, we disagree on the volitional aspect of faith, both agree on the results of regeneration and evidences of faith, both of us agree that some discipleship passages are addressed in a service context, we disagree that some discipleship passages are in a soteriological context, and we disagree as how to categorize a Christian who is temporarily sinning in some habitual form. I reserve the “another Gospel” for Hodges and his society. I hope this clarifies my position. I have tried to mend fences with you on this issue; I know you have tried to as well. I think we both have gone as far as our consciences can allow us.
Mike:
I was aware you do not find me heretical.
My point is that if you did find me teaching a false gospel, just as I find some of the Lordship advocates, you should/would follow your conscience and say so, just like I have.
In summation of my other concern, which was the disparity between your investment of time and energy in countering the concerns you have with my book and John MacArthur’s books: If you have problems with both, why are John MacArthur’s “overstatements” essentially being given a pass? I believe that is a vaild question.
There is, as you indicate, much we agree on. There has been a great deal of fence mending, and I appreciate your spirit there. However, when you continue to post lengthy negative criticism of my book, I do reserve the right to engage you in these discussions.
In some of yuor posts in this thread there were several items you wrote that I felt were not entirely accurate representations of my position in certain select areas. I do not suggest any deliberate misrepresentation, just not accurate or thorough. Thus far I chose to leave it be.
LM
Hello Charles, Lou et al –
Thanks Charles. (Somebody read my post; great!) I think we should remember that when a person gives up the “excluded middle” — that is, if you give up the responsibility not to contradict yourself — you give up reasoning itself, in the area you allow your statements to continue contradicting themselves.
Why do people give up the excluded middle? Usually, they give it up in order to avoid the truth of the contrary position. Francis Schaeffer has lots to say about giving up the excluded middle in intellectual history, and where it has gotten people.
However, in our discussion, Romans 3:24 has always been right there in the context of a theologically crucial passage on salvation (Leon Morris calls Romans 3:21-31 the most important paragraph ever written). Since it says that we are “justified as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” those who want to speak of the justification as requiring payment are faced with Scripture contradicting them. Often what is resorted to, in “dialectical thinking,” AKA self-contradictory thinking, is to claim a paradox, all the while negating one end of the paradox. If my intent is to present justification as only available to those who pay a price, then if someone brings up Rm 3:24 or Eph 2:8-9 I will say something like, “yes, but it is also costly” and proceed as if I can go merrily along talking about the cost! (If that sounds “just fine” to you, I bet you like the sound of one hand clapping, too!
)
Now how do we handle self-contradictory thinking in ourselves and in others? I think we should distinguish the disease-discovery from the cure, don’t you? Identifying such and such as self-contradictory often doesn’t do much by itself, when a position is entrenched and supported by many others. It becomes a wisdom issue how to help the person. Identifying errors is different than identifying intentional error-mongers, or scripturally, false teachers. There are many of us that have held to errors and adamantly defended them, who have thought better of it afterwards. Treating the sin directly is not incompatible with treating the sinner as an ongoing concern.
Larry,
Welcome to the discussion. Thank you for your comments.
You wrote:
Perhaps I have not been clear in my presentation of the lordship position. So thank you for allowing me to clarify.
Calvinism teaches that salvation is initiated by God, not by man (John 6:44). It is wholly a work of God in which He imparts new life to the spiritually dead sinner (Eph. 2:1-10). Conversion–which includes regeneration, faith, and repentance–occurs in a moment of time, in which God creates a new spiritual life. Thus, according to the reformed ordo salutis, regeneration has causal priority over faith and repentance. This is simply a way of showing that God initiates salvation, enabling and empowering the sinner to believe and repent. Like Jesus told Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
It is interesting that you cite Leon Morris. Morris (a lordship proponent) openly emphasized the divine-initation side of salvation. In The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (p. 304) he writes:
In defining the “covenant” relationship, Morris explains (on pp. 106, 109) that it includes a willingness to obey. He writes,
Later, on p. 248, Morris insists that reconciliation demands moral reciprocity from man to God. God is the initiator and the enabler, to be sure. But man cannot continue unchanged and rightly consider himself to have been reconciled.
He writes:
In a footnote on that same page, quoting P.T. Forsyth, Morris notes: “Any reconciliation which means only change on one side is not a real reconciliation at all.”
On pp. 310-11, Morris sums up reconciliation as follows: “Reconcilliation has to do with the bringing about of harmonious relations where these did not exist before, and the metaphor directs attention to an estrangement and to the overcoming of that estrangement.”
As Morris explains it, the concept of “covenant” necessarily includes a willingness to obey, and the concept of “reconciliation” necessarily includes a willingess to terminate one’s rebellion against God. Both of these concepts are, biblically, rooted in love for God. Not love that man initiates, but rather love that God initates and enables (cf. 1 John 4).
It seems you have misunderstood my statement, as though I was saying that a person must first love Christ after which he will be granted salvation on the basis of his love for Christ. This is not at all what I meant. And I apologize if this is how it came across.
What I was saying is this: The call to salvation is a call to be born again, which is solely a work of God (this is simply the historic reformed position). In that work of regeneration, God enables the human response of faith and repentance–a response that involves a change of heart (including a change of affection, allegiance, and dependence).
When we call men to repent and believe (meaning to turn from sin and turn to God), we are asking them to do something that is impossible apart from the initating work of the Spirit. Jesus clearly says that “belief” is “the work of God” (John 6:29). But we are confident that, to paraphrase Luke’s record, “as many as are appointed to eternal life will believe” (Acts 13:48).
Perhaps you will disagree with this perspective. But at this point, the argument is no longer about lordship salvation, but rather about Calvinism. Because (in my opinion) Lou Martuneac does not rightly understand Calvinism, he cannot understand what he perceives as an unacceptable paradox in the teachings of lordship proponents.
Again, I apologize if I was unclear. The lordship position, however, does not teach salvation by works. But it does teach that anyone who has been truly saved, at the very moment of salvation, is given by God a supernatural love for the Savior (John 8:42). And that the love of the child of God will evidence itself in good works (John 14:15). (I tried to make this clear in “Part 1″ of this two-part series. But perhaps I was not as clear as I had hoped.)
Lordship sees Christ’s once-for-all substitutionary sacrifice on the cross as the only and final payment for sin, and as the only and final means of salvation. It is salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The faith of the New Testament, however, is not mere lipservice. It is instead a repentant faith that comes to God on His terms through His