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
http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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 enabling, with an empty hand and an open heart. To forsake our sin (which 1 John 3:4 defines as “rebellion”) is to be willing to submit to Him. To forsake our pride (as the Publican of Luke 18 did) is to also forsake our own selfish, rebellious agendas and self-worship. And to forsake idols to serve the living and true God (as the Thessalonians did [1 Thess. 1:8-9]) is to cease from false worship and begin worshipping God (cf. Exod. 20:3; Mk. 12:30). It necessarily includes love and devotion.
Based on what Morris has written in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and also his commentary on the Gospel of John, he would certainly agree with the lordship position.
Thanks,
NB
–> Also, while I’m thinking about it, I should note that your logic regarding paradoxes in Scripture does not necessarily follow. Based on your paradigm, basic doctrines like the Trinity would be untenable.
Nate,
Another very well laid out teaching of lordship salvation.
I was reading Hebrews this morning, and thought, I wonder if one does not harden his heart, or softens his heart perhaps, that this would be repentance and faith.
Of course no one can unharden their own heart, but nevertheless, this is what we need to preach. God is the One who changes the heart, as you have said many times.
The Lord shows mercy to whom He will, and hardens whom He will.
“Harden not your hearts, …Take heed brethern, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in forsaking from the living God. …
For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the begining of our confidence firmly unto the end; …
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any fall after the same example of unbelief.” Hebrews 3:8,12,14; 4:11
Hello NB et al –
Thanks for your recent comment, commendable (for the most part
in content and tone. There are lots of things that your comment facilitates in the area of “clarification” — evidently the word de jure in our discussions!
But primarily I love the fact that perhaps you were prompted to check in with Morris at various points, who is one of my favorite writers. People say Morris single-handedly brought people back to substitutionary atonement in circles very far from ours.
My I try a little a little cajoling with you? Is anybody who suggests a hint that man has obligations to God a proponent of Lordship Salvation? Pretty big tent! It reminds me of the Dr. Pepper commercials, saying “I’m a Pepper, you’re a Pepper … wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too?”
Seriously, I think that the human obligation to obey God does not begin or end with justification. God will judge the secrets of men (Rm 2), because they are subject to His judgment, very much so. Christians also will give an account of ourselves (Rm 14:10-13; don’t forget verse 13!).
I say these things not because I don’t think you believe them, but because of their implications. Since the obligation to obey God exists before justification and after justification too, is there a lacuna in the middle there, in which, at the moment of justification, God’s requirement for obeying Him is lifted?
No. Yet justification is not a result of good works (Eph 2), however much it must be the case that good works cannot come without justification. By good works, informally, I mean what we accomplish (not without Him, of course) that God commends.
I know it’s best, in dialog, to dialog, so let me react to this specific: “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).”
I’ve spoken to the use of “includes” as too imprecise. Let me elaborate here, at least start. In the work of regeneration, God enables good works too! There is no such thing as a good work that has not been enabled by God. They are enabled.
Therefore should we require them, including love for God, for justification? As part of the work of regeneration, God enables faith, repentance AND good works. Amen. Yet we are forbidden by Ephesians 2 to make salvation a result of them. Whoever requires them makes salvation a result of them.
Can we make salvation partly a result of them? No. Ephesians 2 forbids it. Can we require them but say that salvation is not a result of them? Sure. Just like you can require $10.00 in order to “give” someone your watch and then say that giving it is not a result of the $10. Let no one miss the irony.
In all seriousness, when Paul forbade salvation to be the result of works, he did not do so in order for them to be required anyway. He did so for boasting to be excluded (Rm 3:27), and not only that .. He did so for all glorying to be in Christ Jesus.
How does justification come about? By works enabled by God? Are we justified by accomplishing what the Lord’s enablement gives us the ability to do ? In justification, is the work of God necessary? but not sufficient? What is sufficient? the work of God, plus our divinely enabled work?
These questions are rhetorical, because of course in justification the work of God is both necessary AND sufficient. Man’s boasting is excluded, and it would not be excluded if justification is in the least miniscule part a result of his work.
Let’s not throw out obligation, as I started the comment about. To say that justification is not in the least part a result of good works, is not to say there is no obligation to do good in the “covenant.” It is to remove such things as the least agent of our justification. Glory to Him alone for our salvation.
Larry,
Thank you for your comments.
In implying that the lordship position views salvation as mostly paid for by Christ but partly paid for by the sinner, you are utterly mistaken. This is not at all what lordship teaches.
Lordship teaches that salvation is paid for wholly by Christ. It was accomplished in His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. He alone purchased eternal life through His death. No man can purchase what Christ has already accomplished.
But the purchase price (which is paid in full by Christ) is not the same as the opportunity cost that the sinner incurs as a follower of Christ. Salvation is free (in that the purchase price has been totally paid for through the cross). Yet it is also “costly,” in that there is an opportunity cost to the sinner who receives that free gift (in that in embracing Christ, he must necessarily forsake the life of sin and self-worship that he had previously held dear. He cannot remain both a slave to sin and a slave to Christ [cf. Matt. 6:24]).
I think I will have to do a separate blog post on this, since it continues to be a matter of confusion.
However, Leon Morris would not have disagreed with the lordship position. In fact, he was very much a proponent of it. MacArthur defines lordship in one sentence, when in The Gospel According to the Apostles he writes,
In other words, lordship salvation teaches that true believers, from the moment of conversion, are willing to follow Christ.
Morris states the lordship position himself when he writes,
Morris underscores this on p. 455 of his commentary when he demonstrates that true faith is equivalent to true discipleship. He writes, regarding John 8:31,
Later on page 520, regarding 10:27, Morris notes that Christ’s sheep “follow Him, the present tense denoting a habitual following.”
On pp. 593-94, regarding John 12:24-25, Morris writes that Jesus’ command
Regarding John 14:15, Morris says (p. 648): “Jesus follows that immediately with a reminder of the ethical implications of being His follower. If anyone really loves Christ then that love will be shown in the keeping of His commandments.” (Morris here assumes that to follow Christ is to love Him.)
On John 15 (pp. 668-72), he continues to underscore that the true faith (which is characterized by the abiding of Christ) is marked by obedience: “The allegory of the vine brings before us the importance of fruitfulness in the Christian life and the truth that this is the result, not of human achievement, but of abiding in Christ. … The action of the Father is such as to cleanse His people so that they will live fruitful lives. … If [a man] is really abiding in Christ he will live in obedience to the words of Christ.”
Earlier, Morris has already noted that true belief is marked by “genuine conversion” (p. 207), and that “regeneration” is is a “divine re-making” (p. 218) in which the Spirit of God cleanses the sinful heart of the sinner (cf. p. 219). Thus, Morris does not view the willingness to lovingly follow Christ as a human work wherein the sinner earns salvation. Rather, it is a necessary and immediate result of the initiatory work of God’s grace in the sinner’s heart. It is the very essence of conversion, in which the sinner’s heart is radically changed.
For Morris, true “faith” is marked by a willingness to follow (or yield to) the Savior. That is lordship salvation. One cannot rightly consider himself to be saved if he remains unwilling to lovingly submit to Christ. He cannot rightly consider himself to be saved if he remains in hateful rebellion toward the Savior.
The lordship position, properly understood, is supported by the New Testament, including the gospel of John (as Morris demonstrates). It is also supported by the vast majority of evangelical commentators, both past and present.
Thanks,
NB
Nate,
When you state, “rather, it is a necessary and immediate result of the initiatory work of God’s grace in the sinner’s heart”, who is anybody to determine when that fruit will be produced. If one man plants and another man waters, this is all they need to be concerned with because God gives the increase. And who are we to determine when God gives that increase, just like in salvation, in relation to calvinism that God chooses some and lets others remain in their sin. In calvinism we often want to conclude that that would make God unrighteous by choosing one and not the other, but as you know Paul refuted that in Romans 9 when he knew that his presentation of the sovereignty of God would bring some objections. So he concludes with: “God forbid”…for who is man to talk back to God, does not the potter have power over the clay to make one lump a vessel of honor and another of dishonor. Why not apply the same principal in relation to the degree of fruit that each one of us bares for God? Who are we to say that God might delay the growth in one for His sovereign purposes unbeknowst to us so that His time will be perfect? We are not omniscient and certainly you can agree with that.
All this proving and demanding upfront works and to “prove” one is saved is in my opinion petty and its sounds so much like the disciples bickering over who was going to be first in the kingdom. Suppose God decides to use one of His children for a hugh monumental task and then another one to dwell in the dessert like Moses.
Another illustration comes to mind when the 2 men next to Jesus on the cross who were being crucified. The one man said, “If you are the Son of God then bring yourself down from this cross and call in the angels to rescue you”. The other man next to Jesus on the other side had a much different approach, he said, “Don’t you fear God even when you are dying? This man has done no wrong, yet we are here because we deserve to be here. We are getting the just punishment for our sin”. Then he looked at Jesus and said, “will you remember we when you go into your kingdom”? And Jesus responded by saying, “I tell you the truth that today you will be with me in paradise”.
I understand that it is extremely important to abide in Christ and like I said before that certainly I don’t believe in easy believism. People like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and many others have this presentation of the gospel that is too sugarcoated and watered down thus deny the power of Word which God promises does not return void. That perhaps is another reason why we have shallow confessions.
One other thing I want to point out is that the sovereignty of God is beautiful and doctrinally correct but I do know that some calvinists have a proclivity to turn it into a “hyper calvinsim” which may negate man’s responsibility. I think that balance is the hardest thing to achieve and I have read the Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink and I absolutely loved that book…I could not put it down.
I also read that John Stott a LS proponent also joined hands with Rome in Keele in 1967. The great reformed leader of the Church of England, decided that doctrine was not that important anymore because it causes too many divisions and factions and we all need to come together for peace. And not long after that J.I.Packer joined hands with Rome in Nottingham. I think that LS proponents put more emphasis on works than doctrine and because they have a desperation to prove the works they are all the more happy to join hands with Rome because that is exactly what the pontiffs love…..validation of their salvation. Do you see why people are confused? And why this causes confusion?
Just so people don’t misunderstand me, in my previous posts I want people to understand that I am not calling anyone a heretic and I am not calling John a heretic either….by golly throw me out with the dogs if I do but what I am getting at, is just because someone has vast theological training does not make them correct.
Grace and Peace.
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Ecumenism_What_Price_Unity/Ecumenism%20What%20Price%20Unity.htm
Try this link. This is first experience with copying and pasting, so I don’t know if it will work. So this is a test, but the link works….this will give people some much needed discernment for the coming days as we come closer to the return of Christ.
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles_pdf/foundations_underattack.pdf
http://www.khouse.org/
Hello Nate –
I’m glad you had the time to continue your looking into Morris. I hope your looking into him continues.
But Morris is not going to help us with “opportunity cost!” That’s a new one! I applaud your creativity. In case others are not aware, it is a term from economics, describing the cost that a company pays in order to have an opportunity for something.
Sinners paying for the opportunity to get a free gift sounds like a great sales tool! Almost like a raffle! Having paid for a raffle ticket, the prize seems sorta free, doesn’t it?! Market this in the church! (Let no one mistake my irony, please!)
Actually I think I can be of sincere help here, from Mt 13:24-30. The master tells the workers explicitly not to pull the tares — not because there are no tares, for the master would have not have given the specific reason he gives. The workers no doubt were right about many of the things they spotted in the field — imposters, false teachers, unbelievers in the church, to go behind the image. Yet the workers were not forbidden to say “these look like tares to me!”
The necessity to tell a fellow church member “you look like a tare to me” (modernizing the image, of course, to something like “you’re acting like a complete unbeliever”) is necessary. Pastors more than anyone know about this, and they know what the master warns about them in the parable — “you may uproot the wheat with them.” That verse — Mt 13:29 — as much as any other about gift and cost and reward and grace and works — is very helpful in setting the limits about what can be done about tares. We may not be right about each tare we think we see. And since to do violence to the true body of Christ is a possibility, the Lord tells the workers to back off and wait. Better that tares grow all the way to harvest time than to pull one true believer out of fellowship with the vine.
Larry,
Thanks for your response.
I don’t know where you got your definition of “opportunity cost,” but your understanding of the term is not accurate.
In economics, an “opportunity cost” is “is the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone.” (See here for an online encyclopedia’s explanation.) It stands distinct from the purchase price.
It is not “the cost a company pays to have an opportunity for something.” I don’t know where you found that definition, but it is not correct as you have either stated it or explained it. Nor is it at all what I intended to convey. If the lordship position really saw salvation as a “raffle” (or some other grotesque distortion), I would quickly stand with you in affirming it as a false gospel.
I must confess, your seeming inability to rightly understand basic terms makes dialoguing with you about this issue difficult. You seem extremely eager to attack. Whereas I am attempting to clarify the lordship view, you seem predisposed to reinterpret everything I write in the worst possible (and most inaccurate) light.
But, again, perhaps it was my own lack of clarity. If so, I apologize. Allow me to try again.
In coming to Christ, the sinner must forsake certain things (namely, his rebellion against God, his self-worship, and his arrogant sense of self-sufficiency). He must give up his rebellion and enmity against God. As we painstakingly discussed with Lou two weeks ago, this is what it means to repent. And this is what is meant by “opportunity cost.” It is what the sinner forgoes in humbly coming to God and embracing His Son. He cannot remain a slave of sin, and also be a slave of righteousness.
This “opportunity cost,” however, in no way adds to or subtracts from the once-for-all, paid-in-full purchase price of salvation. God in Christ paid for sin in full on the cross. Through Christ, God offers salvation freely to all who truly believe. Human works, willingness, merit, ingenuity, or sincerity can, in no way, purchase (or barter for) salvation. Christ alone has purchased eternal life through His substitionary death on the cross.
But in believing in Christ (in accepting the free gift of eternal life), the sinner must necessarily forego his unbelief, rebellion, and arrogant self-righteousness. This then is the “opportunity cost” of salvation. To use the biblical term, it is self denial.
Though He (obviously) did not use the term “opportunity cost,” Jesus Himself taught this same principle in Matthew 13:44-46. (You cited that very chapter in your comments.) Salvation is free to the sinner in terms of its purchase price. It is costly however in terms of opportunity cost.
Leon Morris, too, speaks of the ethical implications of true faith. This is exactly what I mean by “opportunity cost.” I am glad that you have great respect for Morris’s academic and theological work. I can only assure you that his understanding of salvation and John MacArthur’s understanding of salvation are identical. You may find that hard to accept. But it is because you either misunderstand the gospel Morris taught, or you misunderstand the gospel that MacArthur promotes. Or perhaps both.
Again, I must emphasize that the sinner’s ability to respond in true faith is the result of God’s initiatory work of grace in the heart. We do not first love God, such that He then loves us. Rather God first loved us, such that we can then love Him.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He paid the price for sin once-for-all on the cross. Anyone who adds meritorious works to the finished work of Christ, as though salvation could be purchased by anything other than His sacrifice alone, is to be accursed (Gal. 1:9).
Hope this clarifies,
NB
I never get tired of hearing the good news of God’s grace explained in a manner which exalts Him, and Him alone.
Those whom the Lord saves have nothing to boast in. Nothing. Not faith. Not a decision. Not a prayer. Nothing.
“And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim 1:14
“…that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God–and righteousness and sanctification and redemption– that, as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the Lord!” 1 Cor. 1:29-30
Hello Nate et al -
I do think your definition of the term “opportunity cost” is rather better than the one I gave. But I don’t think it helps us. (By the way, you are an impatient fellow! I haven’t expressed a single disagreement with you as yet, but you’re ready to consign me among the lepers of discussibility. Look at the language you’ve used to do it: “you seem to imply” “your seeming inability to understand basic terms” “you seem extremely eager to attack” “you seem predisposed to reinterpret” — I certainly don’t recognize this person these phrases describe, but I do recognize what ad hominems are.)
On top of that, you have certainly jumped to conclusions about me: “If the lordship position really saw salvation as a ‘raffle’ (or some other grotesque distortion), I would quickly stand with you in affirming it as a false gospel.” Where have I said that?
Where have I said that, and where did I seem to do all that? The Lord will hold us accountable for how we discuss things. Here is a good principle: when you wish to disagree with someone, quote the assertion for reference, and then say why, i.e., give reasons why the assertion is false. If you think I am disagreeing with you, wait for me to say “I disagree with you about xyz.”
Often, I’m speaking about assertions that I haven’t attributed to you, that we both can see are false, that because we both can see them as false, we can further the area of commonality both for ourselves and for others. For example, you made a wonderful clarification earlier that I agree heartily with, that salvation is not “mostly paid for by Christ but partly paid for by the sinner.” Amen.
Here is Campbell McConnell and Stanley Brue’s definition, from the number one standard college textbook on Economics in the U.S. : “The amount of other products that must be forgone [.n.b., using your term], or sacrificed to obtain one unit of a specific good is called the opportunity cost of that good.” (15th Ed. published by McGraw Hill, p. 27).
Here was my definition: “the cost that a company pays in order to have an opportunity for something.” A better one would have been “the cost that a company pays in terms of what opportunities they sacrifice or forego in order to get something.”
Both definitions describe a real cost to the one who wants xyz. But salvation is wholly paid for by God who provides it.
Sorry about all the meta-discussion, that is, discussion about discussing. But hopefully you’ll see that I’m “teachable” or “correctable” on points! The Word of God is useful … for correction. So is the wikipedia at times….
I hope you did not neglect to notice, way back when, when we began, that I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Reformed ordo salutis, and I agree with you that it is a way of expressing the fact that God takes the initiative in saving us.
So we have two Ebenezers. The necessity of the working of God in order for there to be faith or repentance (or, I say, even any good works), and the falsehood of the teaching that salvation is “mostly paid for by Christ but partly paid for by the sinner.” Amen and Amen.
Nate –
In the comment tagged “14 Nov 5:18pm” on my screen you state the following:
“In coming to Christ, the sinner must forsake certain things (namely, his rebellion against God, his self-worship, and his arrogant sense of self-sufficiency). He must give up his rebellion and enmity against God.”
A sinner doesn’t even know the extent of his or her rebellion against God. In fact, since all sin is rebellion against God, this opportunity cost encompasses the forsaking of all sin against God. There is not a single sin that is committed without it being a rebellion against God.
Here is a strange thing, then. Must the sinner, in order to be saved, do what the enabled saint can’t do, who has been saved? For anyone who has forsaken rebellion against God does not rebel against God, unless the forsaking has stopped.
Larry:
“I haven’t expressed a single disagreement with you as yet, but you’re ready to consign me among the lepers of discussibility. Look at the language you’ve used to do it: “you seem to imply” “your seeming inability to understand basic terms” “you seem extremely eager to attack” “you seem predisposed to reinterpret” — I certainly don’t recognize this person these phrases describe, but I do recognize what ad hominems are.)”
What you are experiencing here is pretty much standard fare from most Calvinists and Lordship advocates.
If you hone in on what is for you a problem area in their position(s), and their attempt to explain is unsatisfactory, and this leads to more questions, and the discovery of inconsistencies, then they resort to charges such as:
“your inability to understand/comprehend, you will not accept our explanation, you misrepresent, you misunderstand MacArthur, you have an agenda, you have faulty logic, etc.
Laugh with me.
LM
PS: I am preparing a short series of posts/articles. They will appear here and at my blog soon.
http://www.indefensofthegospel.blogspot.com
Sorry, the site address is:
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
LM
Was Spurgeon saved by way of a Lordship Salvation gospel? Click on the link I have provided for the answer.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/helpseek/spurgeon.htm
LM
Larry:
“In fact, since all sin is rebellion against God, this opportunity cost encompasses the forsaking of all sin against God.”
Which is exactly what John MacArthur demands as a requirement to be born again.
““Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)
“He (Jesus) wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self denial-to the point of willingness to die for His sake if necessary. That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 226, 148.
Upfront promises for implicit obedicne to the commands of Christ that are expected of a disciple of Christ. John MacArthur is speaking of the terms he believes are necessary for the reception of eternal life.
LM
Hello Nate — In the comment tagged “13 Nov 5:03pm” on my screen, you state the following:
“To forsake our sin (which 1 John 3:4 defines as “rebellion”) is to be willing to submit to Him.”
This seems watered down to me. Do verses like “let the wicked forsake his way / and the unrighteous man his thoughts” (Is 55:7) get truncated in some translation or other? I hope not. Forsaking wicked ways extends even to forsaking wicked thoughts.
Conversely, is God’s promise never to forsake us or leave us comprised in some sort of willingness? Is God really saying, when He says “I will never forsake you or leave you,” something like ‘I’m willing not to forsake you or leave you?’
Willingness to forsake sin is a watered down version of actually forsaking sin, when it stops there. Willingness to not forsake us is a watered down version of actually not forsaking us, when it stops there.
One author says “our surrender to Christ is never purer than at that moment we are born again.” Let’s combine the two statements. If “to be willing to submit to Him” is what is required for conversion as “opportunity cost,” and if our surrender to Christ is never purer than at that moment we are born again, then our surrender to Christ is never purer than it is at the willingness to submit stage.
That’s the actual cheap grace, folks. That’s the “sit down quickly and write fifty” shrewdness (Lk 16:6). In place of a salvation that is costly — to Christ, one is demanded whose impossibility without divine enablement is claimed for it, but upon examination, is an offering of salvation for cheap.
Watch for changes like the following: “sell your posessions and give to charity” (Lk 12:33) changed to “be willing to sell.” “calculate the cost” (Lk 14:28) changed to “promise to do it whatever the cost.” God didn’t send His Son to the cross if our promises to serve Him would have been sufficient for us. He knows about such boasts. They fail.
Jesus our Lord said:
“whosoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
For what shall a man gain, if he shall win the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation: of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He comes in the glory of His Father with His holy angels.” Mark8:34-38
Count the cost.
Larry,
In the comment tagged “14 Nov 10:31pm” on my screen you state the following:
“The Lord will hold us accountable for how we discuss things.”
You also stated:
“Look at the language you’ve used to do it: “you seem to imply” “your seeming inability to understand basic terms” “you seem extremely eager to attack” “you seem predisposed to reinterpret” — I certainly don’t recognize this person these phrases describe, but I do recognize what ad hominems are.” (emphasis added)
Yet, in the comment tagged “14 Nov 5:18pm” you stated:
“That’s a new one! I applaud your creativity.”
Did you miss this one? Or is sarcasm not considered ad hominem to you? I suppose it’s not strictly sarcasm when it is written and not spoken, but is the effect honoring our Lord? Or perhaps you were serious in your applause of Nate’s creativity, in which case, you probably should have worded this better so that it did not come off as an attack.
In the comment tagged “14 Nov 10:31pm” you wrote:
“On top of that, you have certainly jumped to conclusions about me: “If the lordship position really saw salvation as a ‘raffle’ (or some other grotesque distortion), I would quickly stand with you in affirming it as a false gospel.” Where have I said that?”
Yet, in the comment tagged “14 Nov 5:18pm” you wrote:
“Sinners paying for the opportunity to get a free gift sounds like a great sales tool! Almost like a raffle! Having paid for a raffle ticket, the prize seems sorta free, doesn’t it?! Market this in the church! (Let no one mistake my irony, please!)” (emphasis added)
You took Nate to task about his mischaracterization of your posts. I am merely trying to keep you to your word of being accountable in what you say. You asked where you have said something, and I have provided your words. You most certainly described it as “like a raffle”.
I do not wish to engage you on these points at this time. I do think Nate’s responses to you have been fair and not incorrect as it pertains to what you have written, as I drew similar conclusions from your posts.
There is simplicity in Christ and what He says and means.
Salvation is of the Lord(Webster’s definition of Lordship: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lordship )! http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/s/1163599889-2209.html#below
and
Faith with works is alive(evidence seen by yielding of believers, as John MacArthur teaches, is because of the supernatural fruit of the Holy Spirit produced through the person drawing on abundant life in Christ…it will happen in genuine believers on varied levels. No fruit. No faith of God.). http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/f/1163600026-1437.html#below
Brethren and a few sisters.
Having followed this outstanding subject from the start and downloading all the articles by Natan, and comments by Lou Martuneac, and the other nearly fifty. Even Larry’s and Michael Harding.
Having read “The Gospel According to Jesus” several times, I have not found that what John says in the book would be any different than what he has preached.
Having listen to twenty five years of John’s sermons, I have to say, his position on salvation is as Nate said, “That salvation is initiated by God, not by man. It is wholly a work of God in which He imparts new life to the spiritually dead sinner. Conversion – - which includes regeneration, faith, and repentance — occurs in a moment of time, in which God creates a new spiritual life.”
*In which God creates a new spiritual life*: is the key, I believe. The question becomes does this new spiritual life created by God in the new believer, take on a life that is like Christ’s life. Does this new created life from the start give evidence that he has died to his old life and gives evidence that he is a new man in Christ Jesus and has made Christ his Lord?
Marty Lloyd Jones message from Romans 11:7-0 “Judicial Hardening” says.
“In these solemn verses the Apostle sums up what he has previously said in this chapter. We certainly are entering into the realm of ultimate mystery. Let us therefore ‘‘take off our shoes from off our feet, for the place on which we stand is holy ground’’. This is a passage that must be approached with reverence, with humility and with care. It does indeed hold us face to face with some of the most mysterious elements of biblical teaching, and of Christian teaching in particular.
Let us bear in mind what the Apostle says at the end of the chapter. It is very applicable at this point
— ‘‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!’
Now that is the spirit and the way in which we must approach this. We are dealing with the mind and the ways of God and we must therefore anticipate that we shall not be able to understand it fully. But a man who rebels because he does not understand the mind of God is one who puts himself immediately into the very category, I say, of these Jews whose tragic case and condition we are considering. Let us be careful. We are all too ready to speak our opinions and when we do not
understand the mind of God we say that something seems to us to be wrong. That was the whole trouble with the Jews. God forbid, therefore, that we should be guilty of the terrible thing of which they were.”
So we are touching on a series matter that we should be careful to ponder with great prayer and study.
Charles
Sometimes comments threads can take on a life of their own. At the heart of Nate B’s excellent post is this…
“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.”
IMHO, none of the opponents of the LS position has tried to tackle these thoughts head-on. Indeed, we must come to God on His terms.
Nate B., I appreciate your stand for truth.
Presenting the Gospel with a view to Christ’s Lordship
Those who come to God for salvation must believe that He is (Heb 11:6). God has revealed himself, his nature, his work, and his words exclusively in the Bible. It is the God of Scripture we are talking about.
Secondly, we must present man and his sin. Man is out of fellowship with God (Isa 59:1-2), in rebellion to God (Eph 2:1-2), under the judicial wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 3:23) because he is a sinner by nature (Ps 51:5) and choice (Ps 51:4). Man rejects God’s rule over him choosing a god of his own making (Rom 1:18-25). Sin is a rejection of God’s person, his rule, his law, his authority, and his provision. Sinners do not believe or trust God.
Third, we present the Lord Jesus Christ and his Provision. First, we present that Jesus is Lord (Rom 10:9-10) which means that Jesus is God and has the authority of God (Col 1:15-19). Second, Jesus is Christ (Matt 16:16). Not only does he possess all of the authority, power, and prerogatives of God, but he is also the Anointed One of God, the One chosen to be the means of salvation for all who respond to him with repentant faith. His cross work is complete, finished, and totally sufficient as the payment for man’s sinfulness and the imputation of perfect righteousness (1 Cor 15:1-4; 1 Jn 2:2; Rom 4:4).
This is all a matter of grace (Titus 2:11). Man does not deserve such provision (Eph 2:8-10). A sinner’s good works or human merit does not commend him to God in any fashion.
The proper response of man is repentant faith in the Person and cross work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The sinner must fully recognize his own personal sinfulness, his need for God’s provision, Jesus’ rightful Lordship as one’s God, Creator, and Savior, and then turn from a life of slavery to sin to total dependence on the work of Christ on the cross and genuine submission to his Person. By “submission” I mean that saving faith is an unreserved trust in the Person of Christ. Saving faith includes the intentionality toward obedience, but it is also recognized that the believer will face a life-long battle against the law of sin in his flesh (resident sinful nature which no longer enslaves him as before; Rom 7:23).
The new regenerative nature which God imparts at the moment of repentant faith is a result of the conviction and effectual calling of the sinner by God thru the Gospel and the efficacious work of the Spirit. The new nature will and must evident itself just as certainly as the old nature has done (Eph 4:24). It will seek conformity to God’s will (Rom 12:1-2). However, it is not for man to judge with supposed infallibility the strength, weakness, presence, or absence of such a manifestation, beyond those situations where sin requires a person to be treated as an unbeliever (Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5; 6:9-13; Jude 1:3-4).
“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. (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.” (Jude 1:3-4) Jude later describes these false believers as those who “reject authority” (1:8) and are “trees without fruit, twice dead” (1:12) who have trusted in themselves and thus are guilty of the “way of Cain” and are guilty of the “rebellion of Korah” (1:11) “for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (1:13).
Mark:
“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.’”
MacArthur did not invent these concepts of denying self, cross bearing and following. He did, however, redefine these directives meant for the discipleship of a believer by changing them into conditions that must be promised and commitment to upfront for the reception of eternal life.
The acts of a disciple of Christ, nor the promise to live as a commited disciple of Christ does not save anybody; those are works.
My book explains the error of confusing discipleship with salvation, which is one of the key errors in Lordship’s gospel for the reception of eternal life.
LM
Larry,
Thank you for your responses. Tone is a difficult thing either to convey or to interpret on the internet. Please forgive me if I read into your posts an accusatory tone that was not actually there. You had used the illustration of a raffle in a previous comment, and perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It seemed (to me) that you were misapplying what I meant by (and what I believe is the standard definition of) “opportunity cost.” Perhaps my whole analogy was a poor one — since it seems to have brought more confusion than clarity.
I was simply trying to illustrate that there are certain ethical implications for the sinner that come with his reception of the free gift of eternal life. Leon Morris recognized these ethical implications, as did Charles Spurgeon (for more on Spurgeon, see this post). In so doing, these men continued the legacy of biblical faithfulness that has been passed down throughout all of church history.
Lordship salvation does not teach salvation by works. But it does recognize the ethical implications of genuine faith. Our Lord emphasized these implications in His own evangelistic ministry, and we believe it is our duty to do the same.
I realize that Lou Martuneac and others will not accept the repeated assertion of lordship advocates that we do not believe in salvation by works — and that we utterly reject the addition of any human merit to the gospel of grace. Personally, though I’ve never met Lou, that makes me sad. Lou’s caricature of lordship is one that no lordship advocate would ever accept as accurate.
The lordship position does not see salvation as a barter system. It does not view eternal life as something that can be earned or purchased in any part. Grace is unmerited favor. And salvation is the unmerited favor bestowed on us by God through our faith in Christ and His once-for-all substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.
Nonetheless, that grace carries with it certain ethical implications. As Paul told Titus, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:11-14).
We are not saved on the basis of our works. We are saved, instead, on the basis of the finished work of Christ. But, in conversion, God gives us a new heart (through the regenerating work of His Spirit), with new desires. Those new desires consist (at least in part) of a love for Christ and a willingness to obey.
Hope that helps,
NB
Nate B., “We are not saved on the basis of our works. We are saved, instead, on the basis of the finished work of Christ. But, in conversion, God gives us a new heart (through the regenerating work of His Spirit), with new desires. Those new desires consist (at least in part) of a love for Christ and a willingness to obey.”
Amen!
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that, just as the old nature made itself evident, so will the new?
I think Dr. Wayne Grudem summed up repentance best when he took his readers to Matthew 11:28-29. Jesus tells,in an evangelistic setting, people to come to Him, take His yoke upon them, and learn from Him. I did not know at the outset what Jesus would require of me in later years, and still don’t. I did not know at the outset How He wanted me to live, as taught in the Bible. It is all an ongoing learning process as He is my teacher. But, aside from the regenerating work of the Spirit how to I account for the desire to go on, even when facing trials much larger than I ever imagined possible for a Christian to go through?
Jesus, my Teacher, has taken me from the very early moments of my salvation experience right up to the present, some 33 years. The people who led me to Christ would today be classified as Lordshipers. They made sure that I understood that surrender to Christ as Savior would also be a surrender as Lord. Doesn’t Luke 14 teach would-be disciples, those seeking salvation, to count the cost? I did. Who took me all this distance. Surely it wasn’t in my own strength or volition. I merely came to Him and took His yoke upon me and STARTED to learn from Him.
Lou – I think the bottom line is we need to see some credible exegesis of the self denial passages. [Mark 8:34-38, etc.]
Mark has stated it well. This issue has not been addressed head on by your comments.
BTW – I apologize for my tone on previous comments and I would seriously be interested in knowing how you address this fundamental issue.
What I understand you to be saying quite clearly is that there is a distinction between a disciple and a Christian. What I don’t understand is why you think the Bible teaches that. I.e. you seem to present it as self-evident truth. But – it is not self-evident to me from my reading of the Scriptures.
Grace and peace
larry newman obviously does not understand what an “opportunity cost” is –> as is painfully evidenced by his post about the raffle … that was terrible
it is not ad hominem to question credibility when someone blunders so egregiously… wow
as nate b. explained, opportunity cost refers to that which is foregone in order to follow a certain course of action … every decision has an opportunity cost (as the economist.com glossary explicitly states)
if i decide to take a walk, the price of doing so is free, but the opportunity cost is that i cannot simultaneously stay home and watch television… i forfeit one activity because i choose to do the other
it’s similar in salvation… if i receive God’s free gift of eternal life and follow Christ, i cannot also continue to serve my own fleshly lusts and sinful pursuits … no man can serve two masters … the opportunity cost of serving one is that i cannot serve the other
the price for salvation has been paid, thus eternal life is free… but the opportunity cost for receiving that free gift is costly to the sinner … that is not hard to understand
it is not logically inconsistent either … economists distinguish between purchase price and opportunity cost all the time
more importantly, it accounts for, as nate b. said, the ethical implications of grace as described in scripture
despite larry’s twisting, i think opportunity cost stands as a good illustration… i hope others can see that too
I think one of the issues that hasn’t been addressed is the 2 natures of the believer, such as in Romans 7. We talk about the power of the new nature, but there is also the power of the old nature. I know Dr. MacArthur holds to the one nature view, yet I don’t think that is the historic, Reformed position of Luther, Calvin, or Charles Hodge. Many of the arguments for LS are similar to the arguments for entire sanctification , by some of the holiness groups. Isn’t Romans 7 describing the believer and not the unregenerate as Charles G. Finney held? I think a true believer can have a great struggle within between the flesh and the Spirit. One danger in correcting error, is that you can over-react, and fall into another error. A study of church history will show that. I often find LS advocates talk like there is no struggle in the Christian life. It’s clear that there is a great diversity of fruit bearing among believers. You can go from the mountain top of gold to the barn floor of stubble. I don’t hear that mentioned from LS advocates. We must be very clear in our presentation of the gospel. The vast majority of the world believes that works will get them to heaven, so we must floor people with the freeness of the gospel.We must be careful of not offending true believers, because we set the bar so high, that the person gets discouraged because they still struggle.
Jerry:
I have precious few moments.
You wrote, “What I understand you to be saying quite clearly is that there is a distinction between a disciple and a Christian.”
No, Not all.
You should read my book. There is large chapter dedicated to the salvation/discipleship issue.
At least check my blog, where I have some extended writing on this topic.
Thanks for the apology, I took no offense.
More later.
LM
Thanks Lou – I think I can clarify a little more. I understand you to be saying a call to salvation and a call to discipleship are two different calls. You sound as though this is self-evident but I do not see how this is supported in Scripture. Particularly in relation to the ’self denial’ passages. [Mark 8:34ff, Matt. 16:24ff, Luke 9:23ff]
JM
Lou – btw – if you can convince me on this issue – i will go out and buy your book! If not – I’ll keep buying from Banner of Truth.
Grace
I think Pastor Harding’s presentation of the gospel was complete and I agree with him totally.
I think Shane has such a grasp on grace that others here say they have but truly don’t understand (and I am not saying someone isn’t saved, just that as Christains we grow in grace). The apostle Paul had such a grasp on grace because he called himself the chief of sinners…..even when he was truly living out his faith, because Paul knew how vile and wicked he was apart from Christ. What gave him confidence to proclaim the gospel and not be ashamed of it was that he knew that he had been found in Christ, not having a righteousness of his own, which comes from the law, but rather he knew his righteousness came from Christ. As we all know Paul persecuted believers before he met the Living Christ on the road to Demascus. Shane, what I can gather from your writings is that God has cultivated a sweet fellowship with you and that you have grown in your intimacy with God. You clearly have a humility that is effecacious.
I truly see Lou’s point in placing up front demands and commitments in the presentation of the gospel because what turns people away from religion is religiousity and it can cause someone to turn away from the gospel knowing they could never live up to those demands. Once a person has been born-again with a simple faith then God promises to germinate that faith that He has given us. Jesus said, “even if you have faith of a musturd seed”. The biblical truth of obedience, surrender and following Jesus takes time to grow as with Abraham. Abraham had to learn some pretty tuff lessons in learning to walk with God and eventually about 30 yrs. later he was able to trust God with Isaac and was willing to offer him up to God in obedience.
Nate I appreciate your tenacious spirit and I know you love the Lord and I appreciate your willingness to be patient with people like me who tend to be analytical. I just think clarification is extremely important in terms of the gospel, that’s all. I understand now that LS is not a works gospel but I do think, like Lou said, that it emphasizes the discipling/sanctification aspect upfront and people first need to understand that they are a sinner and have an eternal need for a Savior who will cleanse them once and for all for their sin.
I have really enjoyed coming here and interacting with other believers and I want people to forgive me if I perhaps came across as too blunt, it’s an unfortunate flaw in my personality. I realize that I must always be careful to have a bibilical attitude of love when confronted and addressing an important issue.
Cindy
A call to discipleship and salvation are one in the self same idea to me. Excellent point Jerry.
Jesus said to make disciples of all nations. Baptize them. And teach them His word.
Actually the Lord said, “Disciple all nations… teaching them”. And Jesus said, “Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature”.
From Matthew & Mark.
Hello Nate et al –
All day I’ve been thinking that the comments I made late yesterday were removed for inspection, and, by trying a different browser just now, they are still there. Actually I would not have minded for them to be removed for inspection, and in a private message I told a friend I probably would have done the same myself.
(Is anyone else having this problem I’m having, looking at this page with Firefox 2.0, and the last few days showing up as empty pages, looking like they were torn off in the middle of a post? Hope not.)
Well, under IE, they’re here, and I don’t think anybody has noticed yet that the only thing I have posed to you concerning what you have said was the comment that merely being willing to forsake is not what the verses about forsaking say.
Again, let me repeat myself, that when I bring up an idea for inspection, unless I say “I think this is your position,” or something that direct, I’m bringing it up for us to mutually look at, so we can come to agreement on it.
It’s like agreeing on which street to turn on. I’m looking over and saying “It’s not Reseda, is it?” You can say yes, or no. Then I’ll say, “good, I didn’t think it was either. Glad we agree. It’s not Van Nuys Blvd, is it?” You can say, “No, that’s not it.” Yesterday I was saying “It’s not I405. It’s not US101. It’s not I5. etc.”
Behind this strategy is not any kind of desire to come to accusing you of turning on a different street as the one I think is the right way; I want us to come to agree, like Euodia and Syntyche.
With all this meta-discussion we have already had, we should have a tremendous and ethically exemplary time the rest of the way. I am open to correction on anything, of course, and hope for the same in others.
I know this: it is commendable, even though it is also required, 2 Tim 2:24, to show the patience to say “perhaps I was not clear enough.”
Enough meta-discussion. Are you tired of it?
Sure there are “opportunity costs” in the simple sense that everybody can understand. For example, when people listen to the gospel, to the extent they are listening to the gospel they are not doing something else they could be doing.
However, this doesn’t help establish a tertium quid of 1) not the cost Christ paid for our salvation; 2) not the zero that we must pay for our salvation; but 3) something else we must pay for our salvation. There is no 3). 2) forbids it.
Using the listening analogy further might help us see what we might be trying to say by using the term opportunity cost. Maybe we are trying to introduce things which are necessary for the sinner to do, but which are not to be thought of as paying for their salvation. Like hearing the word of God. I think everybody believes that it is necessary to hear the Word of God, but hearing the Word of God does not in the least pay for salvation.
So what is it that we can put into the category of opportunity cost, using the above idea, things which are necessary for the sinner, but which are not to be thought of as paying for their salvation? Faith alone. That is the Reformation.
I’ll give you a hint on where I’m going with this. Check out Calvin’s Institutes on where he views repentance.
Hi Jim A. –
I hope we continue in a way that answers your concerns about what I have said. In particular, I’d like to ask you to remember that I often will say, as I explained by analogy, “It’s not this street. You don’t think it’s this street! This street is way off! I hope you don’t think it’s this street,” etc.
As for sarcasm, perhaps you’re confusing sarcasm with satire. Sarcasm snarls at someone, like a vicious dog, intending to hurt (see Webster’s 3rd International). But the Lord used satire many times, as did the prophets in many places, and Paul and other writers. Consider Matthew 12:37. Galatians 5:12. Jn 8:7. Satire intends to pursue improvement (see Webster’s 3rd International).
And no, ad hominems and satire are not the same thing. Ad hominems usually attack the person in lieu of what the person is saying. But sometimes ad hominem praise the person in lieu of what the person is saying. That famous example in the gospels is an ad hominem: “we know you are a teacher sent from God, … ” (Lk 20:21).
Another way to look at my posts is that I’m trying to pay Nate and others the respect of saying what I really think, and not indulge in left-handed compliments.
Do you remember what someone once said about friends (who said this?)? Friends are people who have read all the right books but gotten all the wrong things out of them.
Nathan:
On November 13th you posted a reply to Larry in which you lay out the regeneration before faith position. It is post #51 under the article A Few More Thoughts on Lordship (Part 2).
This post to Larry opens the door to some serious inquiry in regard to regeneration and faith. In particular: the regeneration before faith issue.
Representative of the Calvinist camp, the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) might be shown as: 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification,
sanctification, and 9) perseverance, 10) glorification.
Those who take a different view of the ordo salutis would typically present it this way: 1) foreknowledge, 2) election, 3) calling, 4) faith, 5) repentance, 6) regeneration, 7) conversion,
justification, 9) sanctification, 10) preservation, 11) glorification.
The big difference in the two examples is in the relative placement of regeneration and faith/repentance. There is an order, and I trust you (Nathan) would agree that the events in the ordo salutis occur simultaneously. The Calvinist and Lordship advocates will insist there is no chronological order and that would be the correct thing to say. Faith, repentance, regeneration, conversion, and justification occur simultaneously. Some aspects in the ordo, occur in a chronological order, but the events I cited above do not, they are simultaneous.
It is a mistake to separate regeneration and faith in a temporal way, because they are simultaneous. One important matter, however, should be recognized. In 1 Thess. 1:9 Paul suggests faith precedes repentance. In Acts he puts repentance before faith (Acts 20:21). Faith and repentance occur so closely and/or at the same instant that one must not attempt to separate them.
In an earlier article I pointed out that the elements of the event in ordo occur simultaneously, but the event has a trigger. Calvinists believe regeneration initiates or triggers the simultaneous events in the ordo. Pastor George Zeller made this observation:
“The doctrine of man’s total depravity has been carried to the extreme by some Calvinists resulting in a wrong understanding of man’s inability. They believe that the sinner is dead in sin and totally unable to respond to the gospel. They believe he first must be regenerated and only then will he be able to believe the gospel.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 255-256.)
There is a logical order, not chronological, but logical based on what the Bible says. The Bible teaches faith logically precedes regeneration, for example:
“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:11-13).
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him,” (1 John 5:1).
The Bible teaches that faith and regeneration are instantaneous:
John 3:1-21 (especially vss. 8, 13-16) Rom 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8, 9-13.
The following passages also demonstrate that justification and faith are also simultaneous: Romans 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8-13.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast,” (Eph. 2:8-9).
Ephesians 2:8-9 demonstrates that salvation occurs simultaneously at the very instant man places his faith in Jesus Christ. The Calvinist has a problem with this because he believes man cannot call on the Lord (Rom. 10:13) in faith until he has first been regenerated. The troubling conclusion is that salvation (eternal life) is not received through faith; rather faith is the result of salvation.
Nathan you wrote,
“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).”
John 3 is the account of Nicodemus’ visit to the Lord at night. This is a very familiar event. We see Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night. He was likely afraid to approach Jesus in broad daylight for fear of the Jews.
I look at John 2:24-25 as a gateway to John 3 and the encounter with Nicodemus. The passage reads, “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.”
Before Nicodemus arrived Jesus knew what was in his heart and where his problem was. This is why Jesus went right past the acknowledgement of his teaching and miracles right to the heart of Nicodemus’ problem.
Nicodemus had heard the teaching of Jesus, and likely witnessed some of His miracles. It is apparent that Nicodemus was being drawn to the Lord through what he had seen and heard. It is important to note, however, Nicodemus was not yet born again, he has not been regenerated. We can know this because Nicodemus did not even at this point understand the concept of being born again. Jesus is going to tell him how a lost sinner is born again and receives everlasting life.
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life,” (John 3:14-15).
Jesus gave the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent (Numbers 21:6-9) to illustrate how man will be saved from spiritual death. Those who looked upon the brazen serpent were spared death from the sting of the fiery serpents. They believed God and by faith looked upon the serpent of brass and were saved. This illustrates the Son of Man being lifted up and those who by faith, believing look to Him will be saved, have everlasting life.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16).
In John 3:16 Jesus explains the way in which a lost man receives everlasting life. In His definition of salvation, Jesus says believing precedes regeneration, everlasting life.”
In light of this statement from Jesus, in which He clearly teaches, “everlasting life” came from believing on His name, those who believe regeneration precedes and enables faith/repentance and belief find themselves in contradiction to the Lord. As long as you insist regeneration precedes and enables “the sinner to believe and repent,” you are contradicting the Lord Jesus Christ. Now the debate over the order of regeneration and faith/belief is with the Lord.
The regeneration before faith view under girds the Lordship gospel of submission, full-surrender, self-denial in “exchange” for salvation. The Lordship advocate believes the lost man has been regenerated (given new life, born again) prior to faith, repentance and belief. To reiterate, he does not believe in a chronological order, but he will insist regeneration has the “casual priority” over, and is the trigger for: faith, repentance, believing and .
Therefore, demands for a commitment to the “good works,” which should follow salvation in the life of a believer, are no longer works, because they believe the work of conversion, salvation, justification and union with Christ has already been accomplished. Lordship advocates can make any demand he wants because in the Lordship system he is dealing with one who is already a born again child of God, has already become a disciple of Christ.
Lordship advocates call on lost men to make decisions that are impossible for him to make. Nathan you stated, “…we are asking them to do something that is impossible apart from the initiating work of the Spirit.” The solution for your impossible decision is the extra-biblical, rational view, of the order of salvation, which insists regeneration (eternal life) precedes faith.
From an article titled Faith vs. Fatalism, Evangelist John VanGelderen wrote,
“Is it “look and live” or ‘live and look?’ Is it ‘Look unto Me, and be ye saved’ (Is. 45:22) or ‘Be ye saved, and look unto Me?’ Is it ‘He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life’ (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or ‘He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?’ Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved’ (Acts 6:36) or ‘Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?’” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 57.)
Pastor George Zeller wrote,
“Does regeneration precede faith? Actually they both take place in the same moment of time. The moment a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he is regenerated (born again). The moment he receives Christ by faith he also receives God’s gift of eternal life. It all happens in an instant of time.” (In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 266-267.)
Nathan- your Calvinistic presuppositions of regeneration’s “casual priority over” (before) faith under gird Lordship’s upfront demands for “implicit obedience, full surrender,” and the “exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is” for the reception of eternal life.
Nathan- you wrote, “But at this point, the argument is no longer about lordship salvation, but rather about Calvinism.” I would disagree with that because both systems are inseparably intertwined. If one is unwound, both unravel.
I have shown in my book that in regard to the reception of salvation the Lordship position is a false interpretation of the gospel. John MacArthur, Walter Chantry, James Boice, and John Piper are sincere men who love God, but they have changed the terms of the gospel to combat the equally heretical position of the Easy Believism movement.
In years past many Bible believing pastors and Christian leaders have shown that the presupposition of regeneration preceding faith is a position that comes from the reliance on reason over the revelation of Scripture.
We conclude there are two very different interpretations of how eternal life is received.
1) Nathan representative of the Calvinist view of ordo believes regeneration (the gift of eternal life) precedes faith/repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. Nathan believes man cannot believe or express faith and repentance unless he has first been regenerated, been born again. This opens the way for the Lordship gospel of commitment to the “good works” of a disciple in exchange for salvation.
2) Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
So, a choice must be made: do we accept the revelation of Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ; or do we choose to rely on a position born from reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings?
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Some of the most penetrating work on Calvinism’s regeneration before faith has been written by Pastor George Zeller. There is a link at my blog to his web site where one can read on this and other “dangers” that come from Reformed theology.
Hmm:
Not sure how the beatnik looking guy icons got there.
LM
Just preach the gospel and make disciples and God in His graciousness and sovereignty will use both presentations because men are not perfect but His Spirit is. But whatever you do, don’t become part of this sweeping ecumenical tide because it will swallow you right up and leave you shipwrecked.
This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.
For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?………..Isaiah 14v26,27
Shane:
You wrote, “It’s clear that there is a great diversity of fruit bearing among believers. You can go from the mountain top of gold to the barn floor of stubble. I don’t hear that mentioned from LS advocates.”
The Lordship advocate will acknowledge a believer will struggle at times in his walk with God. However, you will find some Lordship advocates struggle with the concept of carnal Christians. For example I will drop a brief portion from my chapter titled, Can There be A Christian Who Is Carnal?, pp. 91-92.
Walter J. Chantry, a Lordship advocate, wrote:
“In a panic over this phenomenon [of worldly Christians], the evangelicals have invented the idea of “carnal Christians.” These are said to be folks who have taken the gift of eternal life without turning from sin. They have “allowed” Jesus to be their Saviour; but they have not yet yielded their life to the Lord.”
In the light of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, it is hard to believe that the “carnal Christian” is an invention of modern-day evangelicals. The Apostle Paul addresses the “brethren” at Corinth. The “brethren” are believers, and Paul calls them “carnal.” Not every believer in the church at Corinth was carnal, but certainly there were enough “carnal” Christians to warrant the stern rebukes from the Apostle Paul in his first epistle to them. Chantry should be criticized for suggesting “evangelicals” believe eternal life is received “without turning from sin.” That is not at all what Bible preaching pastors and Christians are saying.
John MacArthur says,
“The tragic result is that many people think it is fairly normal for Christians to live like unbelievers. . . . As I noted. . . . contemporary theologians have devised an entire category for this type of person- the ‘carnal Christian.’”
While it may be commonplace for “Christians to live like unbelievers,” it certainly should not be “normal” for any Christian. The “carnal Christian” is not a category “devised” by “contemporary theologians.” It is a category of believers (“brethren”) identified in the Word of God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle Paul.
Walter Chantry and John MacArthur must ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion that the “carnal” Christian has been “devised,” invented, or fabricated only in recent times.
LM
Hello Lou et al –
I could respond to this now, but I’ve already posted quite a bit, and I’ll gladly wait for Nate or others after this brief comment.
I think that your criticism about the use being made of regeneration as an excuse for demanding salvation by works is valid. Who does this, who doesn’t do this, etc. where, is not as important as identifying the error for all of us.
Justification is not by making divinely provided works necessary, which we then turn around and demand from the listener, with the excuse “God will do it in them.” Elsewhere I’ve made a parody of the man who demanded everything in a man’s pockets, and told him that it was free, because God stuffed his pockets, and if God doesn’t stuff his pockets, then that’s God prerogative, but he wasn’t changing his price.
And just as Sadoleto, the Roman Catholic opponent of Calvin, wrote in 1539, in his debate with him on the Reformation:
“For faith is a term of full and ample signification, and not only includes in it credulity and confidence, but also the hope and desire of obeying God, together with love, the head and mistress of all the virtues, as has been most clearly manifested to us in Christ, in which love the Holy Spirit properly and peculiarly resides, or rather Himself is love, since God is love. Wherefore, as without the Holy Spirit, so also without love, nought of ours is pleasing and acceptable to God. When we say, then, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation.”
The link to Amazon is “http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801023904″
A Reformation Debate. John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto. p. 36. ISBN 0801023904. Baker Book House, 1993.
Maybe if the men here would spend more time examining their own lives instead of pontificating their own brilliance, perhaps they might become a little more like Christ in their own life.
Jesus looked directly at Peter and said, “Follow Me”, but Peter instead of saying “yes”, he said, “but Lord what about the other disciples”? Jesus answered him and said, “I’m not talking to them, I am talking to you”. Peter was soberly reminded that humility was the only way to listen to Jesus.
Lou you commented
“I have shown in my book that in regard to the reception of salvation the Lordship position is a false interpretation of the gospel. John MacArthur, Walter Chantry, James Boice, and John Piper are sincere men who love God, but they have changed the terms of the gospel to combat the equally heretical position of the Easy Believism movement.”
Thus you are saying what? Is it a gospel that you believe will not bring a person to salvation?
So I am preaching this Sunday, and I present the message of salvation to the people, how do I do this in light of your view point?
Thanks
Charles
Nathan:
“I realize that Lou Martuneac and others will not accept the repeated assertion of lordship advocates that we do not believe in salvation by works — and that we utterly reject the addition of any human merit to the gospel of grace.”
I have by and large enjoyed getting to know you through these discussions. I hope you have found me to be gracious in spite of our disagreements.
I accept the assertion you mentioned above, but the Lordship gospel, as I read it in various books (not just Dr. MacArthur’s) contradicts your assertion.
When the reception of “everlasting life” is conditioned on commitments to the works of a disciple, grace is frustrated.
Lordship Salvation requires a decision from a lost man, which is impossible for him to make. (John 15:5). This kind of gospel message frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
At the point of salvation the lost man does not know what it is or will mean to be a disciple. He does not know what he must be unwilling to give up or become for Jesus’s sake, nor does the soulwinner know what those issues are or will be.
Is it enough for a lost man, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16: 8-ff.) through the Word of God, to acknowledge that he is a sinner, on his way to Hell, and by faith receive Jesus Christ as his Savior and only hope for Heaven?
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Larry,
Thanks for your comments.
A couple points of clarification.
1) Lordship does not use regeneration as an excuse for teaching salvation by works. Instead, lordship sees the moment of salvation/regeneration and the moment of conversion as simultaneous. In regeneration, the heart is cleansed by God and given new desires, such that those who are new creatures in Christ will respond to Him in love.
2) Your illustration about the man with his pockets full does not accurately describe the lordship understanding of salvation. Lordship does not teach a barter-system in which God grants salvation in exchange for works of obedience–as if the sinner’s obedience (or willingness) in some small way pays for eternal life. Instead, lordship recognizes that their are ethical implications inherent in accepting God’s free gift of salvation. Because Christ and the Apostles emphasized these ethical implications in their gospel presentations, we do too.
3) Your quote from Sadoleto does not represent the lordship position either. Sadoleto sees human love for God as the “chief and primary cause” of salvation. It seems, if I am reading him correctly, that he finds his basis for salvation in a man’s love for God. We would utterly reject such a notion. Our basis for salvation is the finished work of Christ on the cross.
Calvin actually represented the lordship position in that very debate when he said this:
In his Institutes, Calvin further explains:
Like Calvin, we affirm that genuine faith is marked by a love for the Savior, and therefore will be characterized by a life of obedience. As Calvin wrote regarding John 8:42 — “We ought carefully to observe this passage, that there is no piety and no fear of God where Christ is rejected.” And regarding John 10:27, he states, “The reason why the name of sheep is applied to believers is, that they surrender themselves to God, to be governed by the hand of the Chief Shepherd, and, laying aside the fierceness of their nature, become mild and teachable.”
Regarding John 15:14, (where Jesus says, “You are My friends, if you do the things that I command you”), Calvin writes:
In summary then, we stand with Calvin in asserting that those who do not love Christ do not know Him in a saving way. And that all who possess true faith likewise are characterized by a desire to follow and submit to the Savior.
Hope that helps.
NB
Charles:
You asked, “Is it a gospel that you believe will not bring a person to salvation? So I am preaching this Sunday, and I present the message of salvation to the people, how do I do this in light of your view point?”
I want to make sure I understand the question. I believe you are asking if a lost person is being witnessed to through the Lordship message of “commitment, submission, and exchange” for eternal life and he makes a profession of faith; is he saved. Is that it?
That is a great question. In the last 10 years only two others have asked me that. I purposely did not address that question in my book because I was concerned it might raise unnecessary questions and doubts among some folks about their position in Christ.
If, for the reception of eternal life, a lost man is told he must commit to, as Dr. MacArthur insists, “unconditional surrender and implicit obedience” and he is depending on that commitment, alongside the sacrificial death of Jesus to save him, works has entered the picture and, therefore, he is not saved.
This is one of the core problems with Lordship Salvation. Demanding a commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10 expected of a believer and requiring that commitment for the reception of everlasting life.
Lordship presents an extra-biblical demand for a lost man to make a commitment for the works of a born again disciple of Christ for salvation. Yet Lordship advocates rightly insist works play no part in salvation. This is something I illustrate and describe in my book: the presence of error along side orthodoxy.
LM
PS: When you see my use of quotations above, understand that these conditions for salvation are right out of both editions of The Gospel According to Jesus. These are many other citations in the context of what he believes are required to be born again. They are not my interpretation of Lordship; they are the printed position of John MacArthur.
Lou – I guess I will have to assume that you do not care to interact on the details of the ’self denial’ passages of Jesus. [Mark 8:34ff, Matt. 16:24ff, Luke 9:23ff]
I also assume the reason is that these passages really don’t fit your theology very well.
That’s the big hurdle for no-lordship systems. The sayings of Jesus keep getting in the way!
Grace and Peace
JM
Nathan,
Please hear me out without getting upset because I am not trying to attack anyone.
You said that Christ can not be divided…..do you know that that is exactly what the catholic church teaches. If anybody here would do a thorough study of Vatican I and II and Trent and if anyone took the time to talk to an “evangelical” catholic, he would tell you the same.
I’m trying so hard to be patient with this whole issue but I find myself getting very frustrated which I am sure others have too. The biggest problem I have, and what leads me to doubt this ministry is that when I have mentioned that J.I. Packer left the hard sayings of Jesus in his study when he signed the ECT document and that clearly that man is not obeying our Lord and Master and he a LS proponent, most of the LS proponents on this blog defended him and condoned his actions. He has put his stamp of approval on a false gospel and has aligned himself with the apostate church, which God will severly judge during the tribulation ( this church of Thyatira or “continal sacrafice” will come to it’s demise in the middle of the 7 year tribulation). He ( J.I. Packer), by aligning himself in ECT, has basically said that the catholic church is a christian church. The hard sayings of Jesus in Galatians tell us to separate from those who attach themselves to a false gospel. Even JM has on his reading list one of Packer’s books, this is why I have my doubts.
Please don’t misunderstand that I am saying that LS is just like catholicism
but I am just concerned how others have responded to me who are LS proponents when I mentioned the hard sayings of Jesus in reference to separating from those who have aligned themselves with the catholic church. Sin is one thing, but when you align yourself with the catholic church and don’t see the grave dangers, i.e. eternal consequenses, I have reason to be deeply concerned and so should everyone else who calls Jesus, Lord and Master.
The other interesting thing I found is how quick LS proponents judged Ted
Haggard and the problems he just recently had. Yet they fail to judge what J.I. Packer has done. Do you see the contradiction and why I don’t see the sincerety from some LS proponents.
I went to Lou’s blogsite and mentioned this very compromise (ECT) and he was quick to agree quoting scripture because it is scriptural and it is disobedience. This is why I have my doubts with LS. You know what I think……or maybe everyone is sick of me by now…but I think even some LS proponents don’t even themselves understand what it is or how to explain it.
There are many wonderful true born-again believers who are very discerning, one being David Cloud, a fundamentalist…..most people don’t like him because it seems as though he always has something negative to talk about, but it is only because he is discerning and cares about warning the sheep of the pitfalls out there in the name of Christianity. But he does not agree with LS. I wonder what Dave Hunt would say. Yes he might be anti-calvin but that’s because Calvin came out of the catholic church. Dave Hunt wrote an excellent book, “A Woman Rides the Beast”. What I find interesting is that I think all of us have something important to say and when Dave Hunt wrote his book, “What Love is This”, you guys were so quick to pounce on him and Dave Hunt has done so much for the advancement of Biblical Prophecy and helping Christians understand how important it is to be discerning. Discernment, in my opinion should be the most important thing that we are pursuing.
The last thing I want to mention is please don’t do anything to appease anyone, you should do in your heart what you think is right and if JM wants to keep reading Packer’s book that’s his decision, but I can’t feel at ease with that while he is teaching the “hard sayings of Jesus”. You don’t have to answer me…that is fine and I am OK with that but I know I will be praying for discernment because I simple in good conscience can’t endorse his ministry if he doesn’t understand the urgency in this matter. He probally is good friends with Packer or perhaps doesn’t want to sever the relationship with him but the hard sayings of Jesus tell us to because your friends influence you in many ways and I would rather obey God. I used to give to Billy Graham’s ministry years ago but when the Lord started showing me this ecumenical compromise that is sweeping the world, I stopped giving to his ministry and I don’t want anything to do with any ministry that condones this ecumenical spirit and I want to warn others about the dangers.
I want to give all of you at GTY the benefit of the doubt….and I have been trying, that is why I keep coming back here, for their are many things I enjoy about JM but like I said these are my concerns and I don’t want to be mocked and treated like a joke, after all these are the “hard sayings of Jesus”. Following Jesus at all costs demands that sometimes we have to stand alone and have courage, even when no one agrees with us.
Jerry:
I do interact on any passage. If you were to read my book like Nathan and a host of others you will find plenty on passages such as Luke 9:23-24; 14:26-27, 33.
I have already developed some notes on Mark 8. Also on the Sermon on the Mount, which some Lordship advocates call “pure gospel.” Once I am ready to share them with you they will post.
Thanks,
LM
Lou,
You wrote:
In the “Answers to Common Questions” appendix of The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur explains:
You also asked:
My answer: Yes, absolutely … as long as his faith is the repentant faith described in Scripture.
Thanks,
NB
Cindy,
Thank you for your comments.
John MacArthur has taken a very strong stand against the ECT document, and also against the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Both the Grace to You and Bible Bulletin Board websites have many articles and messages from John in this regard.
Reformed soteriology is monergistic (meaning that salvation is by God’s grace alone); Romanist soteriology is synergistic (meaning that “salvation” is based on both divine grace and human merit). The two systems are incompatible. Thus, we outrightly reject the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation (because it adds works to the gospel of grace).
Hope that helps.
NB
Thankyou Nate for responding. I do appreciate it.
Nathan:
I am good with Dr. MacArthur’s Answers to Common Questions note you posted. It does, however, present a contradiction with his other statements that call for paying the ultimate price. I think if he wants to remove any doubt he needs to publicly disavow those problematic citations that appear in his books.
As for this, “My answer: Yes, absolutely … as long as his faith is the repentant faith described in Scripture.”
I did not use the word repentance, but as you know I call for faith and repentance. To be transparent, I am not fully comfortabe with what appears to be your blending the two into what seems to be one. Faith and repentance are distinct doctrines, but inseparable components in salvation.
Then, once you add “commitment” we have a great divide. To me commitment means man-centered, and self dependance. And as you know, Dr. MacArthur calls for a “commitment” from lost man when he speaks of the necessary requirements for salvation.
I trust you are contemplating my post above on regeneration before faith. It ended this way…
We conclude there are two very different interpretations of how eternal life is received.
1) Nathan representative of the Calvinist view of ordo believes regeneration (the gift of eternal life) precedes faith/repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. Nathan believes man cannot believe or express faith and repentance unless he has first been regenerated, been born again. This opens the way for the Lordship gospel of commitment to the “good works” of a disciple in exchange for salvation.
2) Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
So, a choice must be made: do we accept the revelation of Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ; or do we choose to rely on a position born from reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings?
LM
Thanks Lou – I would not rather go out and buy your book unless you can convince with a fair handling of these texts.
JM
Lou, Nathan
When a saved person has been “born again,” what has the person done? If I believe salvation is given to a
spiritual dead person, or a lost person and he is born again by grace alone, through faith given to him by Christ, at what point has the person done something? Are we talking about the result of salvation that a person responds to been born again? Does a lost person have to respond by his faith, given to him by God? When does a lost person sense repentance? Does contrition, or repentance take place after the born again conversion or before his coversion, or perhaps at the same time?
Often in speaking to an individual or even while preaching, I will bring out “To be born again, is by the Spirit of God, and occurs in the lost person when the Holy Spirit open the mind of that person, and that
person will understand, his need of a Saviour? Does all this happen all at the same time? He is saved,
forgiven, adopted, infused into Christ, and justified all in a single moment. Then, if I might use that term, the now saved person, is totally aware of his need of salvation, and a saving Savior, and thus as a result of this work of Christ within him, repents and is willing to submit himself totally to the Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savior.
I thank the question is, will the lost person who has been saved, by grace, result in leading that person to
confess Jesus Christ as his Lord, and this leads to repentance of sin and rebellion toward God?
I really think this is serious discussion.
Charles
Charles:
It’s late, I’ll check this out tomorrow.
LM
Hello Nate et al –
In order to see some of the concepts involved in resolving differences, we might have to go a little more granular and do some analysis at a smaller scope.
What if I defined “receiving from God” in the following manner?
“Receiving from God” — that activity produced by God in a soul in which the soul as a result of what it receives gives God the appropriate love, honor, and gratitude due for what it receives. In no way is this love, honor, and gratitude a payment for what it receives, but receiving from God always has these necessary results. If these necessary results are not present, the receiving from God is not true.
Have I defined receiving from God? To see that I haven’t defined it in the least, substitute “true marriage” in the above:
“True Marriage” — that activity produced by God in a soul in which the soul as a result of getting married gives the spouse the appropriate love, honor, and gratitude due in marriage. In no way is this love, honor, and gratitude a payment for marriage, but true marriage always has these necessary results. If these necessary results are not present, marriage is not true.
Now try “true friendship.” “True discussion.” “True matriculation in college.” “True use of gifts.” “True endurance through trial.”
The element these all have in common is the espousal of necessary results. Act X is something that has these Y necessary results. If it doesn’t have these necessary results, it’s not X. What is Act X? How much have I shown you about X? Nothing.
To define something by its necessary results is a flawed methodology. It doesn’t say anything about what it supposedly is defining!
The Christian life is full of cost. The principle is that to whom much is given, much will be required (Lk 12:48).
A very interesting verse in Acts shows how impossible it is to anticipate what God will require of us in the future. (Acts 9:16). Perhaps martyrdom. Perhaps not. Perhaps extreme suffering. Perhaps not. That which God has not shown the sinner about his or her future, does He withhold Himself from the sinner if the sinner doesn’t agree to the cost of it?
Receiving eternal life, being a gift (Rm 3:24), is without cost to the recipient, full of cost to Christ. One of the last things the Bible says is to promote taking the water of life without cost (Rev 22:17).
“Let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”
To make the discussion concrete, consider someone hearing the gospel in a Muslim country, of Muslim parents and within such a closed society as for example Saudi Arabia, which does not permit Christian meetings.
Does God withhold salvation from someone who does not commit to go to meetings?
Here is more detail on the cost. If you go to a meeting, your family will be investigated and perhaps goods confiscated. Your family will possibly not only disown you, but be discredited and even punished.
What do you think of the answer often given, that God will supernaturally give you not only the ability to go through this suffering, but the desire to do it for His sake, and the desire to subject your family to this as well…. God will give you ability to commit yourself and family to Him. Indeed, the answer continues: if you do not have this desire to commit yourself and family to whatever comes, then you do not have true faith in Christ at all.
Lou and Larry,
Thank you for your additional comments. Due to my schedule today and this weekend, I will not be able to respond until at least Monday.
In the meantime, please continue to interact over at Pyromaniacs. If I have time, I will pop my head in over there too.
To quote one of Phil Johnson’s comments…
Thank you, Nate. And thanks for all the work looking up things in Morris etc. We’ll get to it. Email discussions are like a tree. One day we are looking down from a high branch and we see a million leaves we haven’t gotten to yet.
I do think that comment is helpful about attitude of the heart. Thanks.
Nate and others,
Forgive me if this is so long. I hope you will take the time to understand how I am perceiving things.
I know we must make time with our families because this blog thing can become addicting…if you what I mean and exhausting. Anyway, I have taken the time to consider many things and I have come to some conclusions without taking a side because I truly believe that this issue can be reconciled so that there is no division.
When I first came to this site, I was unfamiliar with Hodges…never heard of him and FG and even LS. Funny it seems, me believing in the sovereignty of God and the doctrine of election/predestination, that I have never heard of LS. Perhaps because I don’t read commentaries and I don’t believe in attaching any label to myself, i.e. calvinist or arminian, baptist or charasmatic, etc. I just believe in reading the good old fashioned King James Bible, that’s all. In other words, I came here not knowing anyone and with no bias or respector of persons and teachings. Immediately I had red flags with this LS teachings and immediately thought “works gospel”, as you can tell by the comments I made. As Nathan labored to assure me that LS is not a works gospel and stated repeatedly that he and GTY believe in justification by faith alone, I felt a little more at ease.
I think that the pastors here should always be patient with others who disagree even though they feel they are being attacked. And of course I know that I myself as a servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men/women, apt to teach, patient so that in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth….2 Tim. 2v24,25.
I think the crux of this debate between FG and LS and whoever is in the middle….which I think I am, is that LS gets their assurance of their salvation based on the fact that they love the Lord and see His life lived out through them. However the only problem I have with this is that LS teaching has the proclivity to question one’s salvation because this person may be struggling with sin and or are weak in their faith, so they think that because they have not surrendered everything and perhaps may even have a couple areas of rebellion which they are having a hard time giving God control, they fear they may lose their salvation. To me that is an evil because the Bible says we are to place our faith in the substitutionary, all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ on Calvary…as it says in Isaiah 53v 10-12.
Our Lord did not die in vain. The Father said, “after the travailing of His soul, He shall be satisfied. Jesus paid an extremely high price to redeem us to Himself..His Blood…which I know the LS people know that. That is what all my assurance lies in and my soul is able to rest at peace…Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, him who mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee…Isaiah 26v3. The works that the Lord does in me, those I do not put my assurance in, I do not look for proof ( as in demanding) because the Holy Spirit inside me has given me revelation of what Jesus Christ has done for me personally. After all, this is about a relationship with the Father where we grow and stumble and fall, but get back up again and keep moving forward because we know that the Father loves us in which we can cry, “Abba Father”. I no longer feel a need to prove myself to anyone or God because just simply abiding in Christ will yield fruit. When we are always trying to judge each other’s life we take our eyes off our own relationship with God and fail to see the sin in our own lives. Men and women are not perfect but He is and we know that we can come boldly into the presence of God because of the shed blood of Jesus we have confidence.
Our flesh is so fickle as Paul stated in Romans 7. LS puts demands on living for Jesus like a whip, ball and chain…that is why it is so important that we are careful in how we talk about the nature of God and His compassions, they fail not…great is His Faithfulness…Lamentations 3v23,24. Now you might think I am a free grace agent or soft on sin. Make no mistake that is not what I am saying. My position is this….when you abide in Christ daily your conduct, behavior, disposition will change more and more like Him, thus yielding fruit. We need to teach what it means to abide in Christ and yes make disciples. But once you have revelation that Christ has paid it all and you no longer owe a debt because it has been paid in full, you are then free to love Him, not out of duty or necessity but simply because you want to.
Just like in a marriage…the men that are married out there do not want their wives to love them out of duty or necessity…if you do, then you might have a love-less marriage.
The grace of God teaches us not to love God out of duty or of fear that we may lose our salvation and JM’s book has the potential to put fear in the reader’s mind that he could never surrender everything to God. An unbeliever does not understand the majesty of God’s grace when he first comes to Christ for forgiveness of sin to meet his eternal need for a Savior. Watchman Nee said something that is perfect right now. He said, “To taste the grace of God is one thing, but to be made manifest in it in character, habit and daily life is another”. I hope all of us would be in agreement that we take milk in the beginning and then grow to receive meat later.
I believe that grace enables us to love God freely not out of necessity or fear that we may loose our salvation.
I would like to get into Calvinism a little more because their are some out there who are 3pt or 4pt to 5pt calvinist. But that can be another day because I would really like to discuss that in further detail.
Oh, and as far as shallow confessions, I think if we keep teaching the Word of God, we can trust God to do His work because His Word does not return void,, but prospers in the thing which He sent it to and just maybe might win another soul from eternally condemnation.
I thought this issue could be reconciled but I guess it can not. Phil Johnson clearly solidified for me exactly what I needed to see. You can ex-
communicate me from the catholic church and call me a heretic, and say I am a sinner on my way to Hell…that’s fine, but I know my salvation is in Christ Jesus and not human effort. That is exactly what the catholics think (Christ plus my effort ), that is another gospel.
“Every defection, especially if it is continued, would make me unsure of my salvation”…That is another gospel, earning your way into Heaven through human effort.
You won’t hear from me again, I have already ex-cummicated myself. I can’t trust people who think I am lost because I put all my faith and assurance in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
I have just posted the following at Pyromaniacs.
Earlier I asked, “Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God’s free gift of salvation?”
Phil’s reply,
Nope. Even faith, strictly speaking, is not so much a “condition” as the instrumental means of our justification…. I would say, however, that Luke 9:23-24, Jesus’ own call to discipleship, reveals the character of true faith.
Dear Phil:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me,” (Luke 9:23).
You just said these are not conditions man must satisfy to receive salvation. I understand you mean man does not have to go through some ritual or process of discipleship and eventually become a Christian. I would agree with that. Also, I happen to believe Jesus’ calls to discipleship are directed to those who are already born again disciples of Christ.
I have to point out that you are in contradiction and at odds with Dr. MacArthur. He writes:
“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . When Jesus called disciples, he carefully instructed them about the cost of following him. Half-hearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus he turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price, such as the rich young ruler. He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial–even willingness to die for His sake if necessary: (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221, 222, 226).
Without any doubt, Dr. MacArthur is speaking of what he believes are the requirements for salvation: How to be born again. He interjects discipleship in what otherwise would be a sound way, but the main theme is in regard to the reception of eternal life. Denying self and following are invitations to salvation? The way to be saved is by agreeing to deny self? The rich young ruler, a lost man, was turned away because he would not pay the price? Let’s read more examples:
“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)
Similarly Dr. MacArthur wrote, “That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)
Phil- There is no misunderstanding of Dr. MacArthur’s meaning, no other way to spin or redefine it. He is conditioning salvation on upfront commitments to keep commands, pay a price, bear the cross, to follow, unconditional surrender, etc. Dr. MacArthur demands an exchange of these commitments for salvation.
I am going to repeat this important point: Once you enter a commitment of man into the gospel, the message becomes man-centered and no longer the biblical plan of salvation.
There is no spin, no straw man, only a message that clearly frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), and furthermore confuses, clouds and complicates, “the simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Who shall lay charge against God’s elect?
Click here for link to journal article.
Hello Lou and Nate, Cindy, Charles, et al –
I wish I could spend lots of time on dialog with all of you. Lou, I added a couple things to the dialogue with one of your colleagues which you pointed me to the other day, and realized afterwards that your colleague is quite an entertainer.
I accept him in that function.
We need to display perseverance in dealing with this grave matter. To that end, I would like to address the concern of those who have adopted the things that Lou has very carefully documented in his last comment here, and illustrate it with a biblical paradigm. (The parable of the wheat and the tares addresses some of these things, but there is an aspect of the discussion that perhaps hasn’t been addressed yet….) I would like everyone to consider a paradigm that comes from Ezekiel 14:1-11.
(Oops, a colleague of Nate, not Lou, in the previous post. It’s amazing how proofreading is a never-ending task.)
To All:
At PyroManiacs I was engaged in a discussion with Phil Johnson on the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. It is my understanding Phil Johnson is the senior editor for John MacArthur’s books. Most of Dr. MacArthur’s books are not actually written by him. They are primarily transcribed sermons compiled, edited and reproduced in book form. Phil is in charge of the editing process.
There were two main areas of discussion at Pyro between Phil and myself. One was in regard to regeneration before faith issue, which is an extreme extra-biblical error found among most Lordship advocates. The second was a discussion surrounding Luke 9:23-24. I am going to address the latter now, the former later.
I began the short exchange on Luke 9 by using the following post:
“And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it,” (Luke 9:23-24). Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God’s free gift of salvation? Luke 9:24 is a conditional verse. Twice it says “for whosoever will . . .” Do you view the demands of Luke 9:23-24 as a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ to be believed for salvation?
You can see I asked Phil if Luke 9:23-24 states conditions or demands for salvation. His response was, “Nope.”
Later Phil wrote, “I believe Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it’s still not proper to regard it as a set of ‘conditions’ by which someone can merit salvation.” So, he believes Luke 9:23 is a salvation passage, but the commands for cross bearing, self-denial and following, which appear in the verse, are not conditions for salvation. Phil further substantiates his salvation interpretation of the passage by criticizing me for believing Luke 9:23-24 has to do with the daily life of a disciple.
Shall we review (which I provided for Phil) what Dr. MacArthur says about cross bearing, self-denial, and following in regard to the reception of salvation. He writes,
“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation…” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221).
“Half-hearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus he turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price, such as the rich young ruler,” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 222).
“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)
Dr. MacArthur says to become a Christian one must face three commands found in Luke 9:23. They are, “…deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me”
Dr. MacArthur says anyone who is unwilling to make the commitment to the conditions of discipleship will be turned away. According to Dr. MacArthur the rich young ruler was “turned away” because he would not “make the commitment” to give up that he had. Dr. MacArthur says the lost man was turned away, not because of his sin (covetousness), rather because he would not make a commitment to discipleship. That is what Dr. MacArthur believes and he states it expressly. There is no misunderstanding of his meaning.
Dr. MacArthur is calling for a commitment to the conditions of discipleship found in Luke 9:23. He believes the calls for cross bearing, self-denial and following are salvation appeals. He is, therefore, demanding these conditions be committed to for the reception of eternal life.
Phil sees the conditions of discipleship in Luke 9:23 as evangelistic in nature. In spite of this Phil wrote, “I don’t think the word “conditions” is appropriate here…. Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it’s still not proper to regard it as a set of ‘conditions’ by which someone can merit salvation.” The Luke 9:23-24 passage is a conditional passage. Dr. MacArthur cites the three elements in Luke 9:23 as conditions for the reception of eternal life. Phil, however, says they are not conditions.
Just like Dr. MacArthur, Phil contradicts the Scriptures by redefining passages meant for a disciple of Christ, as though they are salvation appeals. Then I have shown how Phil unwittingly contradicts and compromises Dr. MacArthur’s message of commitment to the terms of discipleship for salvation.
In Luke 9:23-24 Jesus is speaking about discipleship, not on how to become a child of God. No one is saved because he takes up the cross and follows Jesus. No one is saved who makes, as Dr. MacArthur demands, a “wholehearted commitment,” to take up the cross and follow Jesus.
Confusing discipleship with salvation is one of the most serious errors in Lordship Salvation. A chapter in my book is dedicated to this doctrinal error. The chapter is titled, Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference?
Dr. Joel Mullenix said, “Salvation is free, discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by simply believing in Christ. By receiving by faith the free gift of salvation through His work on the cross. Discipleship is evidenced by daily submission to the will of God. They are two separate things. The Bible makes a distinction between salvation and discipleship.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 72.)
Without redefining the biblical plan of salvation there is no way Luke 9 can be construed as an invitation to salvation. Confusing discipleship with salvation leads to a works based gospel, which Dr. MacArthur and Lordship advocates propose. It also leads to the confused and contradictory statements we have seen from Phil Johnson. Lordship Salvation, as defined by Dr. MacArthur, is a message of faith plus commitment, and this is a false gospel.
Later we will look at the regeneration before faith position and Phil’s defense of it. I will also address a few other note worthy items that came out through the Phil’s comments and reactions.
LM
Let’s also look at the fallacy of creating agglomerating definitions of repentance on our own. By “agglomerating definition” I mean a definition that includes lists that come from someplace, with no justification why that list, and not some other one, either larger or smaller, or different, is better.
Carson and others warn against this in discussions about exegetical fallacies.
An example would be to say that hope is some combination of “thoughts, words, and feelings about the future.” Is this list too little? Why or why not? Too much? Why or why not? These little trichotomies and dichotomies and tetrachotomies — we have all heard them before — “heart, head, hand” … “knowledge, assent, trust” … are made-up places which we often use to shove our presuppositions back into definitions. Then we get upset that people don’t believe that the word “includes” that, or that people believe that it does.
It often shows up in comments like “full ABC includes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …” with the list presented without further justification, as if self-evident.
One of RC Sproul’s books has a chart in which someone does this with “saving faith.” I believe we have used this mentality with repentance.
The attempt to corner the spiritual market of taking the gospel seriously should not be surrendered to salvation by works. This happens so much, yet thankfully no one can change the real terms of God’s salvation, no matter much we have espoused different terms (Rm 3:4).
In fact God’s salvation should not be preached on other terms than God’s terms. His terms are not meant to be taken frivolously. Enter Ez 14:1-11, which I promised I would try and draw from in order to help resolve differences.
Imagine a sinner who is a slave of sin. That is, imagine all sinners (Jn 8:34). In this case, I’ll imagine a drunkard or glutton. Imagine that someone who wants to share the gospel meets such a person, and starts speaking about the Lord, and the person says, “Come inside to this [bar, or restaurant] while we talk.” Then, imagine, as you’re speaking about the Lord, this person, while making an occasional comment on your topics, starts indulging in that sin in front of your face, either without offering any excuse, or even with an excuse. However the case, we can say the person is directly sticking that sin in front of their own face while ostensibly taking you “seriously.”
“These men have set up their idols in their hearts and have put right before their faces the stumbling block of their iniquity. Should I be consulted by them at all?” (Ez 14:3)
I believe we would have an element of agreement here between many who would otherwise disagree on just about everything, that if there is a case in which the evangelist senses only a deliberate ridicule of God, sin, salvation, and the gospel — if all that there is, is mockery, a deliberate putting of one’s attention upon sin in place of giving attention to the gospel, then, the gospel and Christ Himself should not be thought to have been received. In terms of the parable of the sower, whatever is said falls on hard places, eaten up by the birds of the air. The gospel has not been taken seriously.
More than anything else, I think Lou and Nate and many others could build agreement by finding more commonality of language, even a reconsideration of existing definitions of repentance if necessary, that addresses precisely what this example hopefully points out, that we all agree that God will not be mocked in this way.
Hello Jerry Morningstar et al –
I’ve begun an interaction at indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com with you jerry and will not cross-post that here. However, here, the discussion about the discipleship passages has not thus far begun. All I’m going by is your “10 Nov 2006 at 11:59 am” post, which you already apologized for the tone of before, so I’ll concentrate on content, not tone.
We already have heard that Lou does not believe there is a distinction between a disciple and a Christian. (“15 Nov 2006 at 2:23 pm”)
You can add me to that list. All Christians are disciples, more faithful at certain times than others.
Furthermore, there are some who wanted to have that designation, “disciple of Christ,” or “follower of Christ,” applied to them, during the popular days of the ministry of Jesus. Yet later, even his chosen disciples “left Him, and fled” (Mt 26:56), which Jesus had pre-interpreted for them ahead of time as a falling away, a stumbling (Mt 26:31).
Keep that in mind. Both our Lord in His final ordeal, and the apostle Paul in his final days, were deserted (2 Tim 4:16). If the apostle Peter wept bitterly when it happened, how much more we should weep at our desertions of Him, rather than brag about our devotedness, or demand of others what those whom the Lord Himself chose as disciples failed to be.
It is in this frame of mind that we should look at the discipleship sayings of Jesus. They should be looked at as dissuasions to all pride and boasting, not calls to be one of “the few, the proud, the Marines.” (No disrespect to Marines intended. One of my dear friends is a Marine, in the middle of everything; please pray for him.)
People came up in many pericopes to the Lord, making promises to follow Him, and He dissuaded them (Lk 9:57-62; Mt 8:18-22). I suppose the most famous one was the boast of Peter on the night of the Last Supper, when he said “even though all may fall away, yet I will not” (Mk 14:29). Indeed, that was not the only boast he made. He said something very similar to what Lordship Salvation supposedly “requires” to even become a Christian. Here is the passage:
“I will lay down my life for You.
“Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your life for Me? Turly, truly I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny my three times.”
– Jn 13:37-38
Jesus confronted the boasting behind Peter’s, and our promises, head on. How much more so may the Lord help us, as He did Peter, with our boasts, and the promises we require of others to even become Christians.
larry said:
I wish I could spend lots of time on dialog with all of you. Lou (Nate?), I added a couple things to the dialogue with one of your colleagues which you pointed me to the other day, and realized afterwards that your colleague is quite an entertainer.
I accept him in that function.
Hi Nate,
I suppose that the comments that the pyro team makes could be understood as entertainment (they’ve even put up circus images).
But when it drifts into name calling, (gutless-gracers?) and misquoting, a lot more than the credibility and purposefulness of THAT Net Ministry is going to be questioned.
I hesitate to post a suggestion to the site-owners to “examine themselves”, in their comments section, for fear of having my plea mangled beyond recognition. Perhaps placing a request to here will get a more temperate response, since the impressions one gets here encourage maturity.
Thank you,
BTW Your efforts in the Lord’s service are much appreciated… our views may differ, but I AM sure our motives are not!
Lou, Natan, Larry, Pastor Harding, Jerry, Mark, Don, Oh Cindy even, Jim, Joyce, Shane, where are you now! I came back here today, to discover some new comments.
I came across Mike Cocoris (Cocoris.com) web today. Goodness. He gives some thoughts on Lordship and Repentance that are good.
I am still working though this issue. You do Grow By Learning.
Charles
Nathan,
I would appreciate it if you would delete my blogs. There is no need for them to stay. I said everything that my convictions were and I have not changed them. I do apologize if I came across as harsh to anyone and never intended to stir up any strife. I do not look for man’s approval because I do not need it, nor do I care for it. Frankly I’d prefer to be banished off to an island like John at Patmos. Life would be so much easier, just studing the Word of God alone.
I appreciate you allowing me to say what I wanted to say because I realize you could have deleted any comment of mine at any time, but now I am asking you to delete all of mine.
Ever since I left Atlanta when I went to the church Charles Stanley pastors, I have not had a normal, private life since then. He knows who I am and seems to think it’s ok to keep tabs on me where ever I go. I never asked for his approval, nor do I need it or want it. He seems to think it’s ok to invade in my privacy without my permission. I don’t need connections as some are the habit to think so, because I could give two craps about popularity. If I have the Lord Jesus Christ, He is all I need. He writes my resume, and gives me the favor I need when the time is right to do His Will.
Cindy Holwick
Hi Charles –
I too noticed lack of posting on the site, so I have said things more recently at Lou’s site without duplicating it here. Perhaps you can allow the budget to include printer’s ink for a few pages from over there! But I will try to say something here for you to print.
I hope you will seriously consider recasting the discipleship sayings of Jesus from the presuppositions of the current mindset that turns them into Marine-style qualifications for entry and/or continuance, as I’ve mentioned before here.
They are not qualifications, but markers. When we approach them from the presupposition that the discipleship sayings are talking about qualifications, we are presupposing that it’s all about the subjects of “you’re in,” or “you’re out.” Then, with that presupposition in place, we erect, in some cases, a system that incorporates them into a theology of becoming a Christian, and in some cases, a parallel system that incorporates them into a theology of becoming a disciple. But in both cases the first step was the wrong one.
Consider Luke 9:62. If we consider this as how to be qualified for the kingdom of God, it disqualifies everyone who sins subsequent to conversion. Jesus is not speaking about either entry or continuance qualifications, but of fitness.
In a sense we have all erred in the “it’s all about me” mindset. We have wanted sayings to tell us about ourselves as such, whether we are qualified or not. And the Lord has done us the honor of telling us things about the kingdom and how things work there. We have to get off the subject of “it’s all about me” to work at the plow of Luke 9:62.
That’s the way all work is, not just working in the Kingdom. A person who is constantly self-referencing, whether about how they are, or not, qualified for this position, won’t get much work done. If you keep looking back at your past, either to its greatness or to its failures, the plough doesn’t move forward. In those days, it was you who had to push it.
To All:
I am posting a reply to Jerry here because his comments and the quotes of Ryle & Packer show the consistency between them and MacArthur which further substantiates the LS advocates confusing discipleship with salvation. The following appears at my blog site in the thread under the article titled, Confusion & Contradiction.
To Jerry:
You wrote, “The presuppositions I believe you gentlemen bring to this text are that this cannot be a salvation passage because it sounds like works and we are not saved by works. Therefore it must be a reference to discipleship.”
Cross bearing, self-denial and following are not “sounds like works,” they are the works expected of a born again disciple of Christ. They are the God ordained “good works” (Eph. 2:10) that should be the result of a genuine conversion (Eph. 2:8-9), not requirements to be committed to for salvation. Furthermore, the Lord is speaking to His disciples.
“I believe the self denial passages give us the character of discipleship. i.e. – if you believe – your faith will lead you in this direction. If it does not – you are not a disciple, etc.”
Here you are speaking of discipleship, meaning that which follows salvation. The lost man comes to Christ and receives Him by faith, believing, and then follows Him in discipleship. A lost man cannot follow or deny-self to become a Christian because that is works salvation.
Can a person be a Christian and not a disciple? Why did Jesus tell us to go and make disciples if what He really meant was that we need to go and make Christians first – and then call people to discipleship?
This is a classic example of how Lordship confuses/blurs the distinction between salvation and discipleship. Lordship demands an upfront commitment to the conditions of discipleship in exchange for salvation. This interpretation of the gospel was once known as “Discipleship Salvation.” You have just defined why it was known as that. You are demanding the terms of discipleship for salvation- to become a Christian. The Bible teaches a lost man does not become a disciple to get saved; he becomes a disciple if and when he has been saved.
You cited J. I. Packer who wrote,
“In our evangelistic presentations Christ appears not as the center of attention and himself the key to life’s meaning, but as a figure- sometimes a very smudgy figure- brought in as an the answer to some preset egocentric questions of our own . . . The necessity of faithful discipleship to Jesus, and the demands of it are not stressed (some even think as a matter of principle they should not be), and so the cost of following Jesus is not counted. In consequence our evangelism reaps large crops of still unconverted folk who think they can cast Jesus for the role of P.G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves, calling Him in and making use of him as Savior and Helper, while declining to have Him as Lord.’ [Keep In Step with the Spirit, p. 69]
J. I. Packer’s quote is a prime example of the false dilemma. This fallacy occurs when the two alternatives are presented, but not all the possibilities have been explored. This fallacy presents itself in the Lordship debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the mental assent or Easy-Believism position as an alternative.
Packer presents a false dilemma to portray a scenario as if everyone else is preaching a weak, Easy-Believism gospel. There are many Bible believing Christians who reject Easy-Believism. Packer, MacArthur and Piper have reacted to Easy-Believism by changing the terms of the gospel to the other unbiblical extreme which is Lordship Salvation. Lordship advocates seek a commitment from a lost man to live as an obedient disciple of Christ in exchange for salvation. Lordship advocates somehow believe if they gain the upfront commitment to obedience, surrender and following Christ the problem of carnal Christians will go away.
J.C. Ryle also sees the clarity of this passage:
‘The command of the 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.’
The Lord’s command is “clear and plain” to believers, it is not a gospel message for salvation.
To reiterate: a lost man comes to and receives Christ (Jn. 1:12) through faith (Eph. 2:8) and believing (Jn. 3:16) in Him. Then he comes after Christ, taking up a cross and following Him as a disciple (Luke 9:23).
Lordship Salvation puts is exactly backwards, because they are trying to correct the errors of the Easy-Believism gospel by changing the terms of the gospel.
Ryle wrote, “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. No self denial, no real grace!”
Here you can see that Lordship Salvation says, “For by grace are ye saved through self-denial.” Ryle is conditioning salvation on the works of a disciple. He says no one can be saved without self-denial, carrying the cross and following.
Jerry- I am glad you quoted Ryle. Had I found that quote it would have been in my book alongside MacArthur’s similar extreme statements. Ryle’s statement is blunt, unvarnished and clearly shows the Lordship position is basing salvation on a commitment of man to the works of a disciple for the reception of eternal life. That is a gospel of faith, plus works!
In his review of The Gospel According to Jesus Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote:
“Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily submission to the will of God). Christ here is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.”
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
“Salvation is free; discipleship is costly.”
Sounds like Zane Hodges to me.