Sounds like Zane Hodges to me.

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

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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