Overview of LS: Is it False?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Following is my initial reaction to the article LS: Is it false?

    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.

    For more see- When Lordship Advocates define Their Terms: It Comes Up Works


    LM
     
  2. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Wow. I am an LS apologist now. Amazing.

    Lou, what I did is look at MacArhur's own words that I found to be what I characterized as a primer on this LS position. I found nothing unbiblical in it all. My cliff notes are JM's own explaination of his church's disctinctive on the subject.

    I also began my simple reply with only dealing with the impression your endless posts have given me about the subject, namely, that LS is a works-based Gospel. I don't see it. I do see in what I read of JM the preaching of the true Gospel of Christ in its fulness as its found in the Scriptures.

    I never found an argument with a Zane Hodges or anyone else. Have no idea who the man is except from visiting a discussion board once and the BB.

    JM says he is opposed to easy-believism. I am personally opposed to it as well. Aren't you? I am also opposed to decisional regeneration. Maybe your not. My impression so far of this controversy is that the non-lordship position is against "Sola fides iustificat, sed non fides quae est sola" The idea that we are indeed saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone. I am beginning to see the controversy in terms of the nature of faith. This is why in one place I brought up the epistle of James. To the non-lordship advocate I would say, 'Faith without works is dead."

    What are you talking about? I am going to refrain from what I think is petty debate. That is, trying to point out logical fallacies. Suffice it to say that I do not see a need to characterize either the LS position, or whatever term you wish to apply to Zane Hodges as extreme. I find LM's teaching on the subject quite in sync with the Scripture and the Orthodox Christian faith, especially that which was highlighted in the Reformation.

    Ok Lou, I am going to call you to account on this one, and to rectract your statement assuming you have not read my post defining repentance. I will post the link momentarily.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=51875 Post #3
     
    #2 ReformedBaptist, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  3. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
  4. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the "I disagree with Lou Martuneac's characterization of John MacArthur's teachings, therefore I'm an LS apologist with extra-biblical calvinistic presuppositions just following one of my heroes, therefore unable to think for myself having never read anything MacArthur wrote (except his website which doesn't count and two of his books which doesn't count) and when I read it didn't really understand it because I don't know the super-secret John MacArthur code language that means when MacArthur says 'salvation is completely a work of God's grace' he really means "you must work to earn your salvation'" club.:smilewinkgrin:

    I am a charter member myself.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  5. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    RB:

    No, I did not read that thread, been away all day. Furthermore, your definition is NOT in the article that I reviewed. I'll read it at my first convenience.

    Lurkers: Please note how LS apologist canadyjd continues to evade what MacArthur has written on repentance FOR salvation.
     
    #5 Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  6. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    It's in another thread. Please acknowledge that. And this "LS Apologist" http://www.founders.org/journal/fj14/article3.html

    Probably should throw John Gill, John Calvin, Luther, pretty much every reformer in the camp also. Do they define repentance?
     
  7. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    hahaha! thanks for the laugh. It's getting late. Must work a little on my salvation with fear and trembling before bed.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hobby horses are getting old.
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Spam (continued flooding of the BB with the same tripe) reported to webmaster.
     
  10. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    This is a duplicate thread as there already exists one on this topic.
    Therefore I am closing this one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...