1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 12
  1. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    Lou has caused a good bit of attention to be brought to this subject. He claims, and I think in the integrity of his heart, to be writing for the "lurkers" out there to warn them of this doctrine. He also claims that LS is a works-based Gospel that requires some sort of action/work/commitment of the sinner prior to their salvation. Lou, have I got the gist of your criticism? This is the impression I have so far of your polemic.

    Whenever I choose to form an opinion on a subject I do not (intentionally) form my opinion based on critics. Let's go to the source. I do not have with me MacArthur's books on the subject. However, JM has given a "primer" as it were to distinguish what LS is as defined by himself. Let the man speak for himself and define his terms and meaning. So here we go...

    Link: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

    This portion of the article must be taken as JM's position on fundamental articles of faith. Do you notice what I notice? Namely:

    1. Salvation is proclaimed by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I expected to hear this from JM.

    2. Sinners cannot earn Divine favor and God requires NO prepatory works or pre-salvation reformation. And, that believers are saved BEFORE their faith produces any righteous works.

    This seems, and I direct this to you Lou, quite contrary to what you have been trying to prove to this board that JM is teaching.

    JM then asks the question "What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation?" Good question. From my reading of Lou's criticism I thought the distinctives of LS were what JM denied in his primer. So what are the disctinctives as defined by JM himself. He outlines them:

    I made bold the ones that in my view seem to be the hot buttons touched on in the BB discussions. Perhaps they are all "hot buttons" to some.

    Concerning the first point, JM writes:

    I agree. True repentance, biblical repentance, produces fruit. Repentance that does not produce fruit is false and hypocritical. "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" Matthew 3:7-8

    On #6 JM writes:

    He references here James 4:6 concerning God's resistance of the proud and His giving of grace to the humble. The chapter itself is a rebuke of contention and strife and warnings against intemperance and indulgence of the flesh. The friend of the world is the enemy of God. But He gives abundant grace to us, not to the proud, but to the humble. What I see JM saying here is that easy-believism would suggest that God gives His grace, salvation, to those who yet remain proud in heart. Truly, prior to our salvation, we are all proud in our hearts. But the work of God in salvation humbles us. We become sensible to our sin and wickedness. We acknowledge it before Him.

    Which of you teaches contrary to this? Which of you says to the sinner that he does not have to admit he is a sinner? Which of you in your teaching of the Gospel does not teach that a sinner must forsake even his own righteousness and submit to the righteousness of God as the Scripture also teaches? As it is written of unbelieving Jews:

    "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3

    So far I see nothing in JM's summary that is contrary to the Scriptures. I see that it brings to bear in our days the same subject that James in Holy Scripture brings to bear: the nature of true faith. Faith without works is dead.

    This controversy is not about works-based salvation. It is about true salvation vs. the easy-believism of modern evangelicalism and the false teaching of what has been called decisional regeneration. JM's closing remarks are very appropriate:

    Amen.
     
    #1 ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008
  2. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Amen. Thank you for doing the work for this post. It just goes to show that there are some that wish to malign a man of God for whatever reason and the truth does not matter. That's very sad.
     
    #2 annsni, Aug 5, 2008
  3. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is all I have time for today. The article I wrote below answers the question whether Lordship Salvation, as defined by John MacArthur, is the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) or a false works based, man-centered, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity in Christ and frustrates grace (2 Cor. 11:3; Gal. 2:21)

    Please read- A Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

    This is documented from an appendix entry by Brother MacArthur that appears in all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus.


    LM
     
    #3 Lou Martuneac, Aug 5, 2008
  4. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    Thanks but no thanks Lou. I have weighed your assessment of JM's teachings against his OWN description of LS. And I have found your allogations to be unfounded.
     
    #4 ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008
  5. mparkerfd20

    mparkerfd20 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen!!... Now just so the posts are even do you mind posting this rebuttal to the 175 posts Lou has made about the subject where he says the exact same thing or points you to his blog? :laugh:
     
    #5 mparkerfd20, Aug 5, 2008
  6. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    :laugh: That would take a long, long time. Plus he doesn't stop posting about it.
     
    #6 ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008
  7. skypair

    skypair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Y'all!

    Here's the point Lou would be trying to make -- Do you want to be saved eternally or temporally? If you do what JM demands, you can be "in good" with your Reform "buds." And no doubt that would end up being an "abundant life." I mean, for OT Jews who obeyed the law, God gave earthly reward due to the fact that was the society they lived in was similarly minded.

    In fact, I was just musing the other day -- our church had 7 teens converted in summer camp but our mission to Malawi saw 1000 come to Christ. What do you suppose the difference is? People here live more like Christians than those in Malawi -- and Christian living "pays!" Malawians see that and want what we have. U.S. citizens see that and, already living "Christian" lives in "Christian" society, think nothing of Christianity!!!

    So, yeah. Like Jesus said, "Do as the [LS folks] tell you." You'll have a wonderful life here and now and maybe you will learn the way to ETERNAL salvatin as an "unintended consequence."

    But if you really want to be saved ETERNALLY, you'll choose salvation in Christ and confess THAT COMMITMENT before men as a "condition" of your salvation (Rom 10:9-10) -- or, as Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus and [then] receive the Holy Spirit!" All the LS will follow and you will have a wonderful life of salvation in eternity and here and now!

    skypair
     
    #7 skypair, Aug 5, 2008
  8. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ReformedBaptist:

    Amen. Well done.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #8 canadyjd, Aug 5, 2008
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I resemble those remarks!
     
    #9 Rippon, Aug 5, 2008
  10. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yet you stated it was only a "primer", and have not read his books (which Lou has) :confused:
    You are basing his entire theology on a "primer" :confused: JMac's entire view is based on pre faith regeneration, which is false.
     
    #10 webdog, Aug 5, 2008
  11. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    JM has succinctly stated his position. I find the article he wrote sufficient to know his view on the matter. You have overstated the case web. I am not basing his "entire theology" on the article. I am basing his definition of LS on what he says it is.

    If your issue is with what you call "pre-faith regeneration" that is another subject. If you wish to contribute to this thread, my suggestion would be to read MacArthur's article and deal with how he defines LS.

    I have not read MacArhur's book on the Gospel. I have read about half of his book called, "Hard to believe" but it has been a long time. What I remember of it is that it is an excellent refutation of easy-believism.
     
    #11 ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008
  12. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Let's start with the opening sentence...

    The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer.

    The Gospel call to discipleship and to "follow him in submissive obedience" is an impossibility for an unregenerated person. Macarthur knows this, and that is why he needs pre faith regeneration for his position to work. Follow me here. Let's state for a fact that regeneration happens simultaneously with faith in Christ (whether you agree or not, pretend it's a given). If this is the case a call to discipleship and following Him in submissive obedience makes no sense to a spiritually dead person...they CAN'T know what this entails UNTIL they are regnerated. See the problem with this IF (and I believe the "if" to be true) regeneration is simultaneous with faith? His entire view is linked to this one factor...pre faith regeneration. Pre faith regeneration is not "another subject" but closely tied to this one.

    Jesus' Gospel call is 1 John 5:11-12, i.e. "believe and be saved". Like Ed stated prior...is there such a thing as "hard believeism"?
     
    #12 webdog, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  13. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Webdog,

    Charles C. Ryrie is a Calvinist who has taken on MacArthur in print and he doesn't share his view on LS.

    Ryrie believes in regeneration before faith, yet he's not for Lordship salvation.

    Apparently, regeneration before faith doesn't lead to the LS view.

    Just something for you and others to consider.
     
    #13 TCGreek, Aug 5, 2008
  14. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    This only shows there are numerous ways to arrive at a false conclusion :) He simply took another path, but we arrived at the same destination.
     
    #14 webdog, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  15. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LS position, you mean?
     
    #15 TCGreek, Aug 5, 2008
  16. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Another problem...

    Scripture teaches repentance as part of faith. Turning from self to Christ is the repentance needed for salvation. If turning from sin is a requirement, the thief on the cross never had the chance to do that, hence he must not be saved (sarcasm). His Scripture references for repentance as turning from sin leave much to be desired. If anything, his reference passages point to repentance as what I already outlined, a turn from self and to Christ.
     
    #16 webdog, Aug 5, 2008
  17. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Correct......
     
    #17 webdog, Aug 5, 2008
  18. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think you are asking the wrong questions, webdog. You are focused on whether an unregenerated person can respond to a call to discipleship and following in submissive obedience. That is not the question.

    The question is, is MacArthur correct in saying that "the gospel that Jesus preached was a call to discipleship and a call to follow Him in submissive obedience."? If MacArthur is correct, then his foundation is solid. If Jesus presented a gospel that included a call to discipleship and commitment to following Him, (i.e. to Lordship of Christ), then so should we.

    Since all of us are committed to only believing the Words of God as found in scripture, now we should look at scripture to see if Jesus really preached a gospel that included a call to discipleship and a call to follow Him in submissive obedience.

    Personally, I think it is obvious that He did. However, if you wish to discuss scripture, in context, where Jesus preaches a gospel that doesn't include a call to discipleship and a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, I'll be willing to look at it (in context) with an open mind.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #18 canadyjd, Aug 5, 2008
  19. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I asked Lou Martuneac to identify the context of one of his often used quotes from MacArthur's book. He could not/would not? identify the context correctly. Not a good track record for someone claiming to be an expert.

    I have MacArthur's 20th anniversary edition of "The Gospel According to Jesus". The positions on his website are consistent with his positions from his book.

    More than 3 dozen times in his book, MacArthur specifically states or alludes to the fact that salvation is completely a work of Almighty God. Many times he specifically states that men can do no works to earn salvation. Any mention of these facts are ignored.

    MacArthur supports his positions from an exegesis of scripture. Anytime those passages of scripture are mentioned, they are ignored and the standard rant of "extra-biblical presuppositions" is used to deflect all questions away from a close look at what scripture says.

    And so.....it continues

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #19 canadyjd, Aug 5, 2008
  20. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
    Might I suggest re-wording this? It reads as though your saying both you and Ryrie have arrived at the same destination: a false conclusion. lol :laugh:
     
    #20 ReformedBaptist, Aug 5, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 12
Loading...