Doctrinal Defintions of Faith

UpFront Commitment Lordship Salvation

Hi Amy:

I noticed webdog linked to some JM quotes I posted earlier. I want to reiterate those and add a little.

MacArthur and the advocates of Lordship Salvation definitely teach that upfront commitment is necessary for the reception of eternal life. There are numerous examples of this teaching.

The context is for salvation, NOT following salvation.

Following is John MacArthur's definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus:

This is Dr. Charles Ryrie from So Great Salvation,

I've done several articles on this issue. Lordship Salvation's "Barter" System is one of them.


LM

 

Hi Lou,
I am really shocked that John MacArthur teaches LS, especially being a Calvinist. Having to make an upfront commitment to Christ before He'll save you isn't grace in my book.

Crow doesn't taste very good and I'm still trying to get my foot out of my mouth. :laugh:

Thanks for the info.

Stop laughing at me Webdog! :laugh:

 

I'm not convinced John MacArthur teaches lordship salvation. I've seen the quotes, but I'd like to see them in the larger context. I'm beginning to see the connection between anti-LS and free-willism, though. Any soteriology based on "You ain't the boss of me, I make my OWN decisions" isn't going to mix well with lordship.

 

I think MacArthur puts the argument in the wrong frame of reference. First of all, the Bible does not speak of "commitment" as a fruit of the Spirit. Not that commitment is a bad word, it just distracts from the right understanding.

The way it should be framed is that with the new birth comes the fruit of the Spirit, among which are faith, hope, and love. A saved (regenerate) person has been given these three qualities, and anyone not possessing any evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit should examine themselves whether they are in the faith.

What really makes the issue confusing is when we throw in that term "total" to describe "committment". No one has "total" commitment because of the flesh, at least not to the degree that our commitment should be.

IMO the whole easy-believism/LS debate leads people down rabbit trails that end in a briar patch. Having said that, and although I've always tried to remain fairly neutral in the debate, I come down solidly on the LS side due to the rank error of many EBer's that say that a professed believer should never question their salvation even while they abide in a state of disobedience. EBer's wind up trusting in the "sinner's prayer" rather than the sinner's savior. They say that to doubt one's salvation is the "work of the devil". Also, they split Christ into strictly separate offices (savior, Lord), and they split believers into rigid strata (uncommited, commited).

I was reading the prologue to Gill's Commentary and noticed that even back in the 17th century they were dealing with this issue. Gill spoke of another prominent pastor that criticized Gill for "denying believers their assurance because of sin" (paraphrased). Gill's response was "I would have them discomforted in their sin". This is my opinion also. No person that abides in a life of sin should go to the grave in a state of comfort and assurance. The Bible makes that clear, hence warning passage after warning passage. This is a truth that our recently departed MEer's realized but since they could not question any professor's salvation, they had to come up with some way to make the warnings of the NT effective - hence, "kingdom exclusion". Actually, kingdom exclusion does exist - it's called eternal damnation. And it's THAT punishment that the sinner should fear, INCLUDING those sinners that wear a badge called "believer" on their sleeve.

 

This is what I've been saying all along. :thumbs:

 

And you were right then, and you're still right now.

 

Thanks! :thumbs:

 

Hay, great minds think alike!

 

Lou, from your quote of JM:

Without the larger context, I have to wonder if MacArthur is simply describing what it means to TRULY have your eyes opened and your heart changed, or in other terms, what it means to be TRULY regenerated vs. a false profession of faith. He says, it is really no sacrifice at all. From a personal perspective, that's how it felt to me. It wasn't a work, it was a huge relief. It was a huge burden unloaded to no longer live for myself. If the commitment takes work, then you probably have no idea what faith and salvation really is.

 

Very well put Q. We agree about something!

 

1. How does this statement square with James' claim that he would show his faith by his works (James 2:18)?

2. What does "post-salvationally" mean? Edit: Nevermind, I think I see what you meant. You mean post-conversion, right? Salvation doesn't end. It starts with conversion, continues in sanctification, and consumates in glory.

 

Amy:

Lordship Salvation flows from the rationalistic fatalism of 5 point Calvinism. MacArthur is a Calvinist, and he, therefore, quite naturally drifted into the extremes of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

It is beyond any doubt that MacArthur teaches the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. It is the theme of and runs like a thread through all four of his LS books.

The "larger context" is that he confuses and blends the distinct doctrine of discipleship with the distinct doctrine of salvation, which is one of the ways men fall into the trap of Lordshp Salvation.


LM

 

I think MacArthur's view of salvation is more related to his view of the Covenant of Grace than his view of the "5 points". Traditional Covenant Theology teaches that the Covenant of Grace has conditions which must be met (the "obedience of faith"), and the elect are enabled to meet the conditions of the covenant (the enablement is what makes it of grace). Those that meet the conditions are "saved". Mac is not a Covenant Theologian, but he seems to hold to the CT view of covenant salvation.

Covenant salvation works like this:
Prologue: "For God so love the world..."
Condition: "Believeth on Him"
Curse for disobedience: "perish"
Blessing for obedience: "have everlasting life"

The problem arises when we try to separate faith from works in a way that James forbids. The faith/works of James fulfills the requirements of the covenant in the traditional CT view.

We must also be careful not to mix faith and works in a way that James does not intend.

It's really just this simple: we are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith must be a genuine faith, and a non-working faith is not genuine. See James Chapter 2.

 

Are you saying that one may be saved but not a disciple?

 

Sorrow looks behind.
Fear looks around.
Faith looks ahead.

 

And men look in whatever direction the pretty girl is.

 

I don't see how being a Calvinist leads to the extreme of LS. LS is not about salvation by grace (according the quotes you provided). It's about salvation by works. Calvinisn is not about salvation by works, far from it.

 

I've pointed this out to Lou several times. It doesn't seem to sink in.

 

Oh, it sinks in, it just doesn't sell books.... or bring up his hit count on his web site.