Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

John MacArthur teaches that Lordship is the evidence of true faith, and that everything, including the "full exchange of self for the Savior" is the work of God, not the work of man. Any one can - either through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation - cherry-pick quotes to make someone like MacArthur seem to say this or that. If you read enough by MacArthur, however, you'll get the big picture. He's teaching grace, not works.

 

I think it reflects the LS view, but I really can't answer that question as to whether true salvation always produces this. It would require my getting into the head of everyone who has ever been saved.

Speaking only for myself, I went through a "full exchange of self for my Savior" experience. Was that the moment I was saved? I don't know. But that was DEFINITELY the moment when I felt like the real burden was truly lifted from me, which makes me believe it may have been the evidence of my true moment of salvation. On the other hand, it may have been something that was produced by salvation, which came months beforehand.

Regardless, whether one agrees with LS or not, MacArthur teaches that LS is evidence of true salvation, not a prerequisite for salvation. So whether one agrees or disagrees with MacArthur, he's not teaching what he has been accused of teaching.

 

I believe a serious mistake is made when we make feable attempts to break down what is required before salvation and what is a result of salvation. We end up with all kinds of crazy doctrines as a result.

God said that salvation is not of the will of man but is of God. Just before that He said that "to them that believed gave he the power to become the sons of God".

God gave the power to become the sons of God to.....them that believed. Men believe and then we are given the power to become the sons of God. This process is not of the will and blood of man but of God. In other words it doesn't occur as a result of lineage or birth right under the right fathers as the jews believed. We are not born with a right to it. Our faith is to be in God and the cross not in our lineage. That is the context of John 1:12,13

God's soveriegnty is not made void nor inferior as a result of a choice on some level. Adam made a choice in the garden and yet God was soveriegn though the whole thing.

We have today in our churches this false notion of easy believeism that says we can claim Christ and not live for Him. This does not bear itself out in scripture.

In John 15:2 we see that there is mentioned two kinds of branches that is dealt with. One is the branches that bear no fruit. It abides not in Christ while claiming Christ. This branch is cast away.

True Christians have an immediate desire for God even though they do not have a higher level of maturity. If you have no desire for the things of God then there is no evidence of a true conversion. Zacheus had an immediate desire for God and he made things righ and gave to the poor. He never had to sit through a 12 week discipleship class. The rich young ruler thought he had lived in a way that made him right in God's eyes but when he was presented with the ultimatim to make a sold out committment to God he refused.

The elect are those that are saved, have a desire and committment to God, look for His glory, have an immediate evidence that they are the elect.

Those that rejected God may present a false front but never really make the committment. God can be Lord of your life without a comeplete understanding of all things godly but will have clear and convincing evidence much like Zacheus.

The term "Lordship Salvation" is actualy a pejorative to demonize those who think that one can be saved and bear no fruit in most cases. But in the end if you are truly one of the elect Christ will be Lord of your life even at early stages in discipleship.

God gets the credit and glory for salvation. And the elect make Him Lord. That is the bottom line.

 

Maybe you're right, but there are two issues here.

1. Is Lordship Salvation true?
2. Is John MacArthur teaching that Lordship is a prerequisite for salvation?

I can't answer the first question with authority. However, I can say with great confidence that John MacArthur is NOT teaching that Lordship is a prerequisite for salvation, but that he's teaching it is the result of true salvation. Whether or not one agrees with JM, it is wrong for anyone to misrepresent what he teaches.

 

According to john 15 and 1 John 2 yes.:thumbs:

 

One of the main things that I believe separates true believers from false professors is whether or not we love God. I can say with total honesty that I love God with my whole heart and I don't care who knows it. I love Him in a way that is so intense that I can't explain it. I didn't always love Him. I didn't love Him until He saved me. My love for Him is what drives me to please Him and ask His forgiveness when I mess up.
Can a false professor say that he loves God with his whole heart? I don't think so. He can do stuff and look like a believer, but only a true believer loves God totally. Just MHO.

 

Excellent point. It's totally Biblical, too. Even Romans 8:28 equates those who love God with those who are called.

They're one and the same.

 

I am not sure what I believe about LS, I really don't know all that much about the specifics to take a stand. I do believe that if someone that claims to be saved, show little or no evidence of it in their lives, that they should take a long look at self examinations to be sure. But I am not so certain that a person couldn't also be saved, had trusted and believed 100% in Jesus, was truly repentant, but than struggle a lot with particular sins, and live a life, that many would consider just ordinary. Ordinary doesn't seem to be what would count under LS qualifications, but I could be wrong about that.

This verse comes to mind. Proverbs 22:16

"For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, but the wicked shall fall by calamity."


Does this verse contradict LS salvation? If you can be righteous but still fall many time through your life, how does that compare to LS salvation,?I don't know the answer. Just like the Prodigal son, this verse points to a person, that even though falls and one would assume not living the life one would call LS salvation style, the key seems to be that he does rise again, he does return to the Lord. But there is also the warning about the wicked, falling because of his own desires and cravings. So that is why I believe that if one finds himself not showing much fruit, or finds himself living daily like Jesus is Lord, he needs to seriously self examine.

I guess what I am saying is that for the little I do know about the specifics of LS salvation, I like the sound of it, but I am not sure that there aren't verses, that contradict it to some extent. But I do also believe that there is great error with easy believism, which LS is trying to be an answer to. I can respect that, just not sure I agree with it 100% at this point. Jesus, is our Lord, and He should be so to us every day in every moment. But if we start putting that as the standard for salvation, that is where we might be getting into trouble.

OK, just some thoughts on the subject, just no answers. :godisgood:

 

JM is monergistic. That should clear up any misunderstandings about his soteriology.

 

If you have an accident and are carried to the ER, the first thing the dr. does is check your vital signs. If there ain't any, you're dead.

Same thing with salvation. No vital signs, you're still dead.

How's that for an analogy? :laugh:

 

Good post, I believe that is true, and also one must love his brethren. I have seen many who claim to be a "Christian", that also seem to have a lot of hate towards their brothers and sisters in Christ. That should be a warning to them.


1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

 

LS doesnt claim perfection and in it love for the Savior is most certainly implied.

 

It SHOULD. :laugh: :laugh: