Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

That's a very good appeal for unity, canady. And there is no doubt that Christ calls the "saved" to discipleship.

But where does "discipleship" imperative appear in the gospel message Jesus gave in John 3:15-16, 18? The "equation" appears to be "Believe on Me and have eternal life."

Now I would agree with those who say that "believing on Christ" is our first act of sanctification of which discipleship is the continuation in that initial commitment displayed in works. That is, "believing on Christ" reconciles us to God --- "discipleship" makes us more like Christ, "conforms us to His image" per Rom 8:29. And it would be SO ineffecacious of God or of us to try to conform ourselves to the image of His Son without already having "eternal life."

skypair

 

It's a change of mind. From what? Living from and depending on self.

 

John F. MacArthur and Charles C. Ryrie -

Any others we need to read?

After all, anybody smart enough to write their own Bible ...

Ed

 

Eph. 2:8-9. I don't see "repent of sin" in that verse. Faith and repentance are one in the same. They cannot be divided.

 

Ed, I heard that you're working a Study Bible too. :thumbs:

 

1. Red Herring

2. Since faith in Christ is a turn from self to Christ for salvation...yup. That is what repentance means in greek, a change of mind (metanoia). Since one cannot have a "change of mind" apart from faith in Christ, it is one in the same.

3. Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 17:30-32. If you don't see repentance as part of faith in Acts 17, I don't know what else to tell you. Here, we have God judging the world based on whether they repented. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, John 3:18 tells us exactly what man is judged on...did we believe, or did we not believe.
Act 17:30 "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because He has set a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead."

Joh 3:18Anyone who believes in Him is not judged, but anyone who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

 

See the edit...

I did offer Ephesians 2:8-9 originally...so are you being deliberatly dishonest, or was that on oversight?

 

Did you say the statement below or not? Is this an honest statement, given the above bolded?

 

Can a person repent without being regenerated? Since faith and regeneration happen at the same time, either repentance is part of faith, or occurs at some point after regeneration. Since repentance is a change of mind, I maintain my point...it is part of saving faith.

 

Don't believe everything you hear.

Ed

 

Overview of the Article

Following is my initial reaction to the article at the head of this thread. More to follow.

1) On the peripheral- the writer, Reformed Baptist (RB), has acknowledged (more than once in recent days) he has never read any of John MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. This is becoming a common pattern of LS apologists at BB. For weeks they put up a passionate defense of LS as defined by John Macarthur but have NEVER read any of his major works on the subject. They try to sanitize and defend statements that come from books they have NEVER read. We are, therefore, guided to what essentially amount to Cliff’s Notes on Lordship salvation. This will reluctantly have to suffice for a reaction.

2) The article makes the same error of omission that is very common in any discussion around or defense of Lordship Salvation. That error is the failure to draw a clear distinction between the results of (discipleship) and requirements for salvation. LS advocates consistently steer the debate toward the results of salvation and away from the Lordship advocate’s stated requirements FOR salvation.

They prefer to address what should be the results of salvation, but for men such as me, that is NOT where the crux of the controversy lies. They will find an argument with the heretical and reductionist views of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES, but NOT with me. IMO, a genuine conversion should produce genuine results. However, a promise, the resolve or intention to perform the results and/or the actual performance of the results of a conversion are not the condition or requirement FOR salvation.

Documented examples of how LS advocates define their requirements FOR salvation verify and affirm that LS is in fact based on works.

3) The appearance of a particular debate tactic, a logical fallacy, is very common in the debate over Lordship Salvation. IMO, RB is only mimicking what he has been reading from some LS advocates and simply utilized this tactic because he has been exposed to it without realizing what it is. The logical fallacy people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the Lordship debate, it appears in MacArthur’s books and in RB’s article.

RB Closed with,

In that statement you can see the false dilemma. Lordship Salvation vs. Easy-Believism. There is an alternative to the works based LS and the so-called “Easy-Believism,” but LS advocates fail to see it and/or will not acknowledge it. Why is that?

Those who advocate Lordship Salvation, such as RB, see only the “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ GES “Crossless” Gospel decry all others as advocates of Lordship Salvation. There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation, but neither of the extremists on either side of the debate, including RB, seems willing to acknowledge this.


4) The failure to fully define the terms as they are defined by Lordship Salvation advocates. I appreciate that Ed Sutton has already pointed out the lack of definition issue in a previous posting. What one will find with LS is that its advocates will use terms that are biblical, but their definition often time is not fully disclosed. To understand the egregious errors of LS you must insist they define their terms precisely and in unvarnished terms.

In RB’s article he uses terms, but fails to fully define the terms as they are defined and applied by the LS advocates. This leads to the tragic possibility that one might fall into the trap of LS because he/she thinks LS is defining terms as the Bible does without realizing the LS advocates are forcing the Bible into conformity with the LS presuppositions.

One of the most significant terms that need to be defined as LS defines it is repentance. In a separate posting I will demonstrate from the Lordship advocates how their definition of repentance confirms LS is a works based message to the lost for salvation.


LM

*I may post this as a new stand alone topic along with at least one additional topic drawn from the article by RB.