Featured I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

Where is Lordship salvation in these quotes? The need for repentance in salvation and the teaching that we must accept Him as Lord to be saved are two different doctrines.

And I agree with this, and I do not believe that mental assent confers salvation. Repentance and faith are more than this. But that does not make me a Lordship Salvation advocate.

 

No, they are not. Repentance of sin unto salvation is the defining Characteristic of Lordship Salvation. People who go around quoting Romans 10:9 do not understand the issue. This is not about calling Jesus a word.. "Lord." This is about whether we can embrace sin and Jesus at the same time, as a way of life. It is about whether repentance from sin is AFTER Faith, or inextricably bound TO faith. It is about whether being a "disciple" is distinct from being "saved."

And the Church Fathers said no.

If you believe that repentance from sin is necessary FOR salvation, that turning to Christ automatically includes a turning from sin and the world, and that being a "disciple" is the same as being "saved" (as the Church Fathers did), then you do indeed hold to Lordship Salvation.

 

All I can say is your understanding of Lordship salvation is quite different from what I understand MacArthur and others of his ilk to teach. With your definition of course you can find loads of church fathers and modern theologians to quote. But it is not what I argue against. It's not what others argue against, Ernest Pickering for example (formerly with the administration of my mission board and an ind. Baptist theologian) in his pamphlet contra MacArthur, Lordship Salvation. I can't give any quotes from MacArthur since I'm in the States and my copy of his book is in Japan, but I have to ask if you have read his book and know what he teaches.

I first was taught LS at BJU in 1972 by Arend ten Pas in a Life of Christ class. He later wrote a pamphlet that was one of MacArther's sources. Ten Pas taught us specifically that you must consciously and specifically accept Christ as Lord for salvation. This is not what you are saying.

 

Paul Washer's teaching goes something like this:
Unless you forsake all that you have, trusting Christ as complete Lord of your life in every area of your life you cannot be saved.

That is not Scriptural. What new Christian is going to forsake all that he has?
That is what is meant by "Lordship salvation".

 

Nor is that what LS advocates teach:

John Piper:

"omething may be real even when we don’t understand it fully or even use the right language to describe it. For example, is a person not 'born again' just because he has never heard the term 'born again' and does not relate to Jesus in those terms but only in terms of faith and forgiveness and atonement? No. A person is just as born again if he believes in Jesus, even if he has never heard of the word 'regeneration' or the term 'born again'. Many have been born again and saved through gospel tracts which say nothing about the term 'rebirth.'

John Macarthur:

"A person can be truly born again without explicitly counting the costs...but no one can be saved who counts the costs and is unwilling to pay it...I am convinced that no one understands the implications of Christ's Lordship at the moment of salvation"

Going on:

"We do not "make" Christ Lord: He IS Lord! Faith that explicitly REJECTS His sovereign authority... is unbelief."

According to Macarthur, Lordship Salvation is simply a rejection of the view that "the norm for salvation is to accept Jesus as savior without yielding to Him..."
(Quotes are from "The Gospel According to Jesus, anniversary edition)


So what LS teaches, is that a person cannot come to Christ without repentance from sin, explicitly rejecting obedience to Christ (Saying, "Jesus, I want nothing to do with you...I just want your ticket to heaven).

There may well be different VEINS of Lordship Salvation, but this is indeed the basic belief...

 

Yes, according to you apparently people who hate Jesus, despise His Word, and embrace death and the devil at every opportunity, will go to Heaven.

I believe in a faithful savior, who gives us the new heart that He promised.

 

That may be what Paul Washer believes, if in fact he does believe that, but that is not what Lordship salvation teaches. I find that many times people misquote people who they disagree with.
Lordship salvation has nothing to do with what we do in regards to living or conscientiously give up to get saved, but how we receive Christ. Lordship salvation embraces the repentance side of faith which if left out as in “Savior salvation only” where there is no salvation.
In Lordship salvation the person is finally surrendering to God in Christ receiving Jesus as the One who they now obey. It is a heart issue of brokenness and surrender contrary to "Savior only" salvation which is no salvation at all.

 

This is where Calvinism and LS go hand in hand together. I agree, what easy-believism "convert" is going to do all that Jesus required of his disciples? None! But how about the person whose heart has been changed by God, who has been granted repentance??? That person will follow Christ and forsake all. It is a work of God totally and completely!

 

Lordship salvation is a reactionary movement to the easy-believism taught by Hyles, et. al. Some followers of Hyles would use any method possible to get a person to repeat a prayer, psychological manipulation or otherwise. That is not salvation, and I hope we can all agree on that.

However, repeating prayer is not always wrong.

Lordship salvation is wrong. As I explained earlier in my post Christ is already Lord. There is nothing you can do about it. To make him Lord is absurd. You don't think he isn't Lord? Then what kind of theology do you have? He is Lord of lords and King of kings. And there is nothing you or I can do to change that fact. You can choose to obey him or disobey him, but He will still be Lord. And he will still be the Lord of your life whether or not you like it. This is where the entire Lordship salvation theology has gone astray.

I was saved out of Roman Catholicism. At the time I was Biblically illiterate. I was told to turn to John 3:16 and I didn't know what the 3 meant and what the 16 meant. According to Lordship salvation I would have been told to leave all that I have and follow Jesus (implication be a missionary).
How prepared was I to carry on a full time ministry when I was first saved. Thankfully the ones that led me to the Lord (not Baptists) were involved in a program of discipleship. They taught me the basics of practical Christian living. I finished my secular course of study, and by the time I was totally finished (Bible College, etc.), I had gone through 8 years of post-secondary education. Then after some years in full time ministry I was ready to accept the call of God on my life and "forsake all and follow Jesus." And I did. Leaving everything behind I went to the foreign mission field. Could I do that when I was first saved? No. If someone told me I had to do that in order to be saved, I doubt if I ever would have been saved, and they would have been teaching a works-based salvation: which IMO is heretical.

 

Well, I can't interact with you on these quotes since my library is in Japan. But I will say that I've heard that MacArthur modified his position, or at least how he stated it, in the second edition. His first edition (all that I have) certainly seemed to teach that an explicit belief in Christ as Lord is necessary for salvation. Furthermore, the times on the BB that I've argued this, my opponents did not dispute this understanding. So you're the first I've discussed it with here on the BB who explains it your way.

If this is indeed the basic belief, it sets up a straw man for its opponent. No one in my circles teaches that you can explicitly reject Christ as Lord and just get a "ticket to Heaven." This includes John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Lee Roberson, even Jack Hyles, all the men I grew up listening to. Yet all of them would have opposed MacArthur's LS doctrine.

Maybe MacArthur just stated things poorly. Ernest Pickering quoted MacArthur in the first version of his book as saying, "True faith is humble, submissive obedience" (p. 140). John R. Rice stated it quite differently in his famous tract, "What Must I Do to Be Saved?"--"If you were sick and about to die, and there was some good doctor whom you could trust, would you not risk him to take your case, give you the necessary treatment and, with God's help, get you well? Then just like that, trust in Christ, depend on Him for your salvation, and turn it over to Him today." So the emphasis was on faith as trust for salvation, not obedience as per MacArthur.

 

In this statement you are putting dedication to Christ after salvation. Is that what you mean? LS has making Christ as Lord a condition for salvation, not something that happens after repentance and regeneration.

 

Lordship salvation has nothing to do with what we do in regards to living or conscientiously give up to get saved, but how we receive Christ. Lordship salvation embraces the repentance side of faith which if left out as in “Savior salvation only” where there is no salvation.
In Lordship salvation the person is finally surrendering to God in Christ receiving Jesus as the One who they now obey. It is a heart issue of brokenness and surrender contrary to "Savior only" salvation which is no salvation at all.

 

I'm not sure how that was conveyed. I am saying dedication to Jesus is exactly what "faith" in Jesus means. The dedication or "faith" is bestowed upon the person by God. It is monergistic IMO. Therefore, forsaking all to follow Jesus is the equivalent to faith in Jesus. That can only happen through regeneration and God granting repentance. It is a work of God.

 

It would still amount to a works-based salvation.
Dedication is not faith. That is the wrong definition, no matter who or where it comes from. It is a work.

 

Even though you were saved out of RCCism, you don't have a problem pontificating at all, I see.

I might disagree and say repeating a prayer is never good. But that's not even the issue.

To say outright that LS is wrong is quite bold. Especially since you demonstrate a position that I don't know anyone expressing in the LS camp. We are not saying to "make Jesus Lord". We are saying to confess and obey him b/c he is Lord. To do less is not true faith in Jesus.

 

That's not what they were denying (up front commitment). Well, at least Wyrtzen wasn't. I attended the Word of Life (WOL) Bible Institute back in my pre-Reformed days. The school took a very hard line stance against Lordship Salvation (the MacArthur view). Prior to his book "The Gospel According to Jesus", MacArthur was a regular speaker in Schroon Lake. As soon as his book was published he became persona non grata (and still is).

Now, that type of disassociation is done for a reason. In Wrytzen's case, and WOL in general, there was a resistance in requiring any type of introspection before or during the invitation. I wouldn't accuse WOL of seeing power in the actual words of the sinners prayer, but they certainly believe the prayer is all that's necessary. As both a theological and methodological position they reserve a later time to call for repentance. So, in WOL's case it's not a matter of confusing salvific repentance; it's purposeful. Falwell and Wyrtzen came from the same strain of fundamentalism. Rejecting Lordship Salvation was also purposeful. I mean, there had to be some reason why they rejected it. WOL's official reason was that Lordship Salvation added to the Gospel by requiring that a human work be added to grace. WOL isn't alone in that interpretation. Dave Hunt, Charles Ryrie, and Norman Geisler make the same criticism. If they all held to the same view of repentance as MacArthur, then the Lordship Salvation controversy would be no controversy at all.

 

Obedience for a new Christian is one thing.
But to forsake all is quite another. Jesus said that is what a disciple had to do, not a new believer. If it is a requirement for salvation then it is not biblical and it ends up to be a works based salvation no different than the COC saying that salvation is necessary for salvation. That is "dedication" also.

 

But someone who knows Greek like you do, who has studied under top scholars as you have, should know that "faith" and "obedience" are not lexically similar. So how do you get that "dedication to Jesus is exactly what 'faith' in Jesus means"? To do that, you have to change the meaning of faith from the definition BAGD, Friberg and other lexicologists give it, not to mention how the writer of Hebrews defines it. How in the world do you get that faith is obedience from "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

 

Repentance and faith are two but they are also one and the same with one set on God and the other on Christ. Repentance nor faith is about obediance. Obediance is the result of salvation, not what brings it about.

 

Mar 8:34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Mar 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
Mar 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?


That is salvation language. "Follow me" or "lose your soul." How anyone can deny that, I do not know. There is not some special class of Christian. "Disciple" just means a saved person.

3Jn 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.