Feeding the Sheep or Amusing the Goats

well now. There is something wee can agree on. Watch out lest you be demonized for ascribing to Lordship Salvation.

 

That is not my reason for thinking at first that your post sounded hostile. The OP was a quote from Spurgeon speaking out against what we call today "Entertainment Evangelism", so when I read your words about "self-styled sheep" I made the mistake of assuming you were applying that soubriquet to Spurgeon.

However, as you explained in a later reply, you were talking about the necessity of Christians bearing fruit in their lives. That wasn't clear to me in your first reply.

 

I believe in Lordship Salvation. Do you not believe that a Christian must make Jesus the Lord of their lives?

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Do you believe that a Christian can make Sin the lord of their lives rather than Christ. Beware. You're on dangerous ground.

 

If the term "Lordship Salvation" is another way of saying that it is impossible for someone to have Jesus as their Saviour without also having Him as their Lord, then I too believe in it. But if it means anything more than that, I would have to review that belief.

 

It's much more than that. The theology a Macarthur teaches is nothing more than backloaded works salvation.

 

Sorry, I didn't even mention Macarthur. I don't know enough about him to either confirm or deny your charges against him.

 

I agree the the charge is quite harsh. I have a lot of MacArthur and have never seen works salvation. Perhaps we could have a thread to give us evidence of Macarthur's works based salvation.

 

1. I've read about 5 MacArthur's books already for the year and I'm reading one right now on Forgiveness. I find no evidence of works salvation.

2. What I've found is sound, biblical presentation of the gospel expositionally, calling for the Christian to evidence his faith as seen in the book of James.

 

I've only read The Gospel According to Jesus by McArthur and it was one of the most inspiring Christian books I've ever read. He takes great pains to say that he's not supporting salvation by works. I saw this book as a challenge to put discipleship back in Christianity. It's always been there of course but not in the Christianity that is usually preached today.

 

That was my impression of the book as well--"a challenge to put discipleship back in Christianity."

 

C4K, David, Reformed, TC and BB consider the following links from our own Lou Martuneac here on the BB...

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2006/10/macarthurs-costly-salvation.html

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/06/from-archives-is-lordship-salvation.html

Lordship Salvation proposes that in order TO BECOME saved, one must FIRST commit to a lifetime of discipleship BEFORE one can be saved. This frustrates grace, and is demanding the impossible from one who has yet to be justified. It's front loaded works based salvation plain and simple. LS requires an upfront promise of total commitment to the Lordship of Christ on top of relying on His atonement. If the ME'ers have been banned from here for teaching another salvation besides salvation by grace through faith, LS advocates also need to be rightly banned for defying this by teaching another gospel.


This topic has been discussed here earlier this year numerous times. A search of "lordship salvation" will show this.

 

LS veils it's gospel message in a very sneeky fashion. One must peel back the layers to fully understand what is really being taught. Unfortunately, many people don't do that.

 

1. Webdog, as you have said, Lordship Salvation has been hotly debated before.

2. The history of LS goes back to MacArthur taking on DTS.

3. Not only is MacArthur the only one who teaches LS but many others, including Piper and Sproul.

4. If not LS, then what?

 

1. What is that sneaky fashion? Is it sneaky to say that a sinner must not only see Jesus as Savoir but as Lord of his life?

2. Besides, in the case of Jesus as Savior, only one who is Lord can save from sin. There's no getting around it.

 

Can I ask you: are we are saved by grace through faith...or are we saved by grace through faith and an upront commitment to the Lordship of Christ?

 

What's sneaky is the fact the upfront commitment to follow Christ BEFORE justification is blended into "by grace through faith". It shouldn't be. Many people assume this is what Macarthur and the like are talking about, and it is not.

I'm not contesting the Lordship of Christ, but the false doctrine of Lordship Salvation.

 

A better question to ask is this: What is saving faith, Webdog?