All LS Discussions and Debates

SkyPair:

While I appreciate your note, I have OFTEN times shared my appreciation for MacArthur’s views, when I can appreciate them. This includes calling on believers to live in obedience to the lordship pf Christ. LS, however, is a radical departure from the Gospel of Grace. LS is man centered and a message that conditions salvation on the lost man’s commitment to behave like a Christian is expected to behave.

As for "<i>these criticisms</i>," I do not need respond to personal attacks on character and motives. The Lord will sort it out in any event. See Matthew 7:1-2.


LM

 

Ed:

Thanks for the note. I have made my position clear on repentance, justification and sanctification, but as you noted some of the LS sympathizers are determined to redefine me. IMO this is for the sole purpose of deflecting legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of LS as defined by John MacArthur.

It is a common debate tactic used by men who are driven by raw emotionalism.

Do you notice the hypocrisy? We quote MacArthur from his own books, and in context and are told that we are misrepresenting him. I am NOT quoted and they are telling others what I believe. Ironic, funny!


LM

 

Here is what I would recommend.

Give your definition of Lordship Salvation, not necessarily JM's.
Then have your debate about it.
Do not mention JM once in your discussions. Keep him and all of his material out of the discussion, as well as others, whether pro or con.

We claim that we believe in sola scriptura. Let's act like it. There is no reason to tear down Godly men or attack them. It the doctrine is Scriptural it will stand or fall by the sword of the Word. Use the Bible alone to either defend or attack the doctrine, not the books of another man. We all have read enough by now that we are acquainted with the doctrine. Now define it by Scripture, and stick to the Word of God for your defence no matter what side you are on.

Fair enough?

 

Anyone who believes Paul was Biblically presenting the Gospel here, believes in LS, whether they like to acknowledge it, or not.

Could these men have said "Nah, we like sacrificing to Zeus. We don't want to give it up. But we'll throw your God in there too..."?

If you believe they COULD have said that, and done that, and been saved, you agree with Lou. If you believe they could not have done that, you agree with scripture...and J. Mac.

 

Fair enough, but do you realize I have done this, and if I do it again the cries of "misrepresentation," will be forthcoming no matter what I write.

IMO, it always best to let the advocates of a position define his position. This is why I quote MacArthur and other key LS teachers liberally. This way there is NO misrepresentation regardless of the shrill cries to the contrary coming from some men who have NEVER read MacArthur in the first place.


LM

 

Ok. I won't get attached. I don't like the term "lordship salvation" which lacks discription. Not that I'm necissarily an adherant of it. It seems to me the argument here is breaking down into this. Works is either necissary for salvation or it is necissarily a result of salvation. Would this be correct?

 

You can define LS as you understand it. There must be many other leaders that believe in it besides MacArthur. Give an honest straightforward definition, and let the board respond from there. If the definition is challenged, then quote a reliable source where one can find it. But I don't believe that the continual sourcing of JM's work is necessary, nor the attacks on JM is necessary.

 

Works are a result of salvation, not for the purpose of salvation, calling Jesus Lord is a result of salvation, not for the purpose of salvation. As of yet I have seen no one say Jesus had to be Lord of a lost man before salvation for the purpose of salvation. Even scripture says this. But for a christian to not want Jesus as Lord, is unscriptural, and according to scripture means theres no salvation.

 

What is Lordship Salvation?

deleted until further notice.

 

If this is true, what shall I tell my children when they trusted Christ at the age of seven or twelve. Forsake all that they have? Forsake their mother, father, brothers, sisters, deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ? Christ never put age limits on those that could be saved.

 

Retract it

I am calling on you to retract that falsehood!

Or show me any paragraph, sentence or paraphrase where I have attacked John MacArthur’s character, motives or personality.

I posted a LS definition, but just deleted it. I will not repost it until you either prove I have attacked the person of MacArthur so that I may apologize for it…or retract that blatant misrepresentation you just posted.


LM

 

I am calling on you to retract that falsehood!

Or show me any paragraph, sentence or paraphrase where I have attacked John MacArthur’s character, motives or personality.

I posted a LS definition, but just deleted it. You have a portion, but I will not repost the full definition until you either prove I have attacked the person of MacArthur so that I may apologize for it…or retract that blatant misrepresentation you just posted in the other thread.


LM

 

Lou,

You have multiple threads on this same topic. I will be merging them all into one thread. Do not keep spamming this forum with multiple threads on the same basic topic.

Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator

 

One other request please if you would endulge me. How do you define salvation? I think that having these two items defined as to what we are talking about we can better discuss the issue of Lordship Salvation (who came up with that name ?.). Thank you.

 

The tone of most of your posts betrays a disdain for the man.
Personal attacks, as you know, are against the rules.
The first post I went to had this remark:

That infers that you can't appreciate them or even perhaps him all the time. It was an unnecessary add-on. You have many of them.

 

Both Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. John Gerstner, have differentiated between "meritorious works for salvation", and "non-meritorious works", which Dr. Gerstner then describes as an accurate position for Lordship Salvation advocates, with the latter included as an integral constituent of faith, a position that I completely reject. Dr. Gerstner is here referring to Prof. Zane Hodges.

Rom. 4 and Ephesians 2:8-10 do not differentiate between these two concepts, either, nor do any other Scriptures, to my knowledge.

Ed

 

This "name" apparently first was coined in 1959 during the "Eternity" 'debate' between Dr. Everett F. Harrison and Dr. John R. W. Stott.

Ed

 

All Lordship Salvation Discussions & Debates

These are the defining points of LS, by those of us who are the proponents of it. It is from "Grace to You". So any points that say ANYTHING contrary to this, is simply non LS people wanting to argue and cause division. Other things might be believed by INDIVIDUALS , but it is NOT part of "Lordship Salvation".

First

So, Lordship Salvation teaches that "Repentance" is a change of mind/heart. If anyone says something else, they are lying, and INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the position. It DOES RESULT in a change of action, as any change of mind MUST (or it is not a change of mind).

Second

NO WORKS required for salvation. Anyone who says LS involves salvation by works, is a liar. Also, the truly faithful are PRESERVED, by GOD> in other words, God is faithful.


Third

No promise, of ANY KIND is required for salvation. Faith is "personal commitment to Christ". This can be easily seen in the words "Christ, save me, forgive me".


Fourth

Real faith in Christ, produces a Changed life. No problem, here.

Fifth

All believers are being sanctified. No exceptions (just like in scripture!)


Sixth

You cannot be saved, and purposefully fight against Christ. You can't say "Jesus, I want you to save me, but I am going to keep on sinning, cause I like it".

Seventh

Saved people will desire to please Christ.

Eighth

Nuff said> this does not deal with salvation, but fruits. NOT what it takes to BE saved, but what one can expect from one who IS saved.

Ninth

If someone represents something different from the above, they are DELIBERATELY lying. All I will say for now.

 

Meritous and Non-meritous works?

If non-meritous works are required for salvation, then they are still works. It's double talk:

It's basically saying "These works don't contribute to your salvation, but they are required, and if you don't do them, you aren't saved".

 

Once again, the "whole world" is being "pressed into" the kingdom of Calvinism! :tonofbricks: Another new "paradigm" -- another "refinement." Another new "code word" for your "decoder rings," children! Oi Veh!

skypair