All LS Discussions and Debates

Who is this guy? Where does he pastor a church? What is his ministry?

 

And, did you copy your above post from here: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...lvation_heresy-lordship_salvation_exposed.htm

 

Perhaps this is the guy? http://www.heathgoodman.com/his_ministry.htm

 

I think so. From what I can tell from his website he is not aiming at precision. He called on the name of Jesus, so it seems to me, from a sensibility to his sinfulness and turned to Christ for His salvation realizing that he must follow Jesus and forsake his former life of sin. That to me seems to be genuine repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus.

Instead of trying to accuse me of something, why not ask why I wanted to learn who this man was?

I don't think Mr. Goodman is trying to teach theology. However, the account of his conversion sound genuine and bibilcally correct. So, yes.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 2 Cor 13:5

 

What an aberration!

 

What does that mean?

 

"However, to receive God's forgiveness, eternal salvation and blessings, you are required to believe the gospel and confess your sins in sorrow and regret. Do not just confess them generally. Be specific in confessing what you have done to offend His holiness.
Show Him that you are sincerely sorry for your sins by MAKING A COMMITMENT NEVER TO PRACTICE THOSE SINS AGAIN! This is real repentance."

An aberration is the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.

 

1. I didn't need the definition. I know what the word means.

2. That is a weak explaination of repentance that the man provided. But I do not doubt that the man knows Christ. My impression of him is that he does not aim and theological precision. But I do think he is my brother in Christ.

 

Goodman,

MacArthur,

MacArthur,

MacArthur,

Would anyone care to explain the sharp difference, if there is one, between Goodman's and MacArthur's view of how the lost are born again?


LM

 

How is this different from Goodman?

How is this different from Goodman?

From The Gospel According to Jesus:

An objective, unbiased reading can lead to just one conclusion: Dr. MacArthur demands a promise of life long obedience in “exchange” for salvation. This is man being told he must “offer” what he will do or become in “exchange” for salvation. This is “works salvation.”


LM

 

How is this Different from MacArthur & Goodman?

The Resolved Conference held Feb. 16-19, 2007 was sponsored by John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. Pastor Steve Lawson was a featured speaker. He chose to speak from is Luke 14:25-33 and the title of his message was The Cost of Discipleship (It Will Cost You Everything).

See An Example of Lordship's Man-Centered Message

Following are three excerpts from Lawson’s sermon:

You can read how Pastor Lawson conditions the reception of “this gift” (the gift of eternal life) on an upfront “total commitment” from a lost man. In the second quote Pastor Lawson is saying that a relation with Christ cannot begin until the lost man has come to the end of himself. That sounds pious, but that is not the gospel.

And then this astounding statement:

 

Your other post led me to look again at this one. Your question to me above can be answered in this manner.

1. A Christian is a disciple.
2. To be a disciple of Christ one must forsake all things to be a disciple.
3. Therefore, one must forsake all things to be a Christian.

This is the teaching of Jesus as I understand it. He told the rich young man to go and sell everythign, and THEN come and follow him. He told those who heard him, even unbelievers, that unless they forsook all they could not be His disciples.

This is what I teach and believe.

The real issue for me in this LS/NLS controversy isn't lordship. It's soteriology. Those of the "decisional regeneration" view will tend toward the non-lordship view. Those who are calvinists/calvinistic will tend toward the lordship view.

In salvation God bestows His calling, and it is effectual and unfrustratable, justification, adoption and sanctification. In response man exercises faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, and assurance. If a man is called of God, he will come. And in coming he will be repenting and believing into the Lord Jesus Christ. And he will be persevering in his faith till the end. And he will be being sanctified by the Holy Spirit of God.

My personal testimony is that the Lord Jesus caused me to come alive in Christ Jesus and put His Holy Spirit in me. At the very moment that He did that I believed in Jesus and surrendered my whole life to Him. Now this lends toward the view that my regeneration preceded or was simultaneous with my trust in Jesus. But I am not going to make my experience the ground of the doctrine.

This I know, that unless the Lord Jesus had done what He had done to me, in quickening me and making me come alive in Christ Jesus, I would not be following Him at all.

RB

 

Opposing Extremes on Repentance & Dispelling the Misnomer

Dear BB Readers:

I am going to take a few moments to address the opposing extremes on repentance, but first dispel a serious misnomer that is common-place in the Lordship Salvation debates on repentance.

Reformed Baptist (RB) open a thread titled, The Doctrine of Biblical Repentance. While I appreciate his desire to discuss the biblical definition of repentance he has partially incorporated an element into his polemic known as the false dilemma. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.”

RB wrote,

RB has it exactly backwards. The so-called “non-lordship” view of repentance popularized by Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES is a view held by a very narrow group of theological extremists who are loyal to the teaching of Hodges. The vast majority of those who reject MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation and interpretation of repentance also reject the views of Zane Hodges.

In his comment #4 of his thread RB cites Reisinger’s summary of “non-lordship belief” on repentance and fails to draw the distinction and divide. The very first line is “Non-Lordship teaching has a repentance that is not an essential part of salvation.” This is a view held to by the followers of Zane Hodges. Most who reject LS, also reject that kind of defining statement on repentance.

Reformed Baptist attempts to avoid the false dilemma and he is to be applauded for it. He was, however, careless by lumping what he describes as the “larger body of” into his “non-lordship” (Hodges) camp. He might have avoided this mischaracterization if he had devoted time to more thoroughly researching and understanding the views on repentance and opposition to Hodges’s teaching of men like Charles Ryrie and myself.

Many LS advocates are either unaware of a balanced biblical position held by men who reject MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation repentance who are NOT in league with Hodges. Some know this division, but are intellectually dishonest by refusing to acknowledge it because they prefer to demonize opposition to LS by categorizing ALL who reject the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation as though they are in agreement with the equally heretical reductionist view of repentance by Zane Hodges. This is widely practiced by LS teachers. They will NOT concede there is a wide group of men who reject the teaching of MacArthur on repentance and that of Hodges.

There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation and repentance. Both MacArthur and Hodges miss that balance by wide margins.

Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, works based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

The Crossless Gospel is a reductionist assault on the Gospel and Person of Christ that strips virtually all content from the Gospel and is the first cousin of Universalism.​

In the two following comments I am going to present the respective views on repentance. First the position of Zane Hodges followed by John MacArthur.


LM

 

How Does Zane Hodges View Repentance?

In the Lordship Salvation controversy the doctrine of repentance probably draws more attention, scrutiny, debate, fire and criticism than any other doctrine in the debate. Men on both sides of the Lordship debate agree repentance has a role in salvation. They disagree sharply on the exact role and definition of repentance, but agree repentance is involved in the salvation experience. Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, of the Grace Evangelical Society, are notable exceptions to this general consensus on repentance.

The teaching of these men entirely eliminates repentance toward God as a condition of salvation. Hodges also said he no longer holds to the “change of mind” view of repentance. Hodges says there is only one answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” Hodges emphatically states that repentance is not part of that answer. Furthermore, Hodges and Wilkin reject the almost universally held “change of mind” definition of repentance. This teaching can be found in Zane Hodges’s books Absolutely Free and Harmony With God.

Ironically, Bob Wilkin’s 1985 doctrinal dissertation is titled, Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament. At that time Wilkin held the “change of mind” view and believed repentance was a condition for salvation. The influence of Hodges eventually led Wilkin to abandon the position he defended in his dissertation. At the 1998 Grace Evangelical Society’s National Conference Bob Wilkin revealed he had a “change of mind” about repentance. Hodges and Wilkin defined repentance as “turning from sin,” and also announced their view that repentance, by any definition, is not a condition for salvation.

For additional reading on the Zane Hodges slide into reductionism on repentance, please read the two part series by Ron Shea (Th.M.; J.D.) titled, Drifting Far Off the Marker.


LM

 

How Does John MacArthur View Repentance?

In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to receive eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, “…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,” and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180). He appears to acknowledge at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178). John MacArthur believes repentance is, “a gift of God.” So like faith itself, men who are reformed in their theology, view repentance as consistent with God’s grace. Nevertheless, MacArthur’s position is clear, which is man must cooperate with this “gift of God” in repentance. That is, MacArthur sees repentance as a work of God and of man. MacArthur’s view of repentance implies the lost man must cooperate in salvation by coming to Christ with the resolve to turn from sin and to continue striving against sin throughout a lifetime. The potential consequence of Lordship’s repentance is never knowing we are saved and always hoping we are turning from enough sins. MacArthur acknowledges Christians do sin and sometimes horribly, but he also contends that if a professing Christian falls into sin he may have never been saved in the first place (pp. 89, 95-96, 132-133).

Lordship Salvation’s repentance confuses sanctification (growth of a believer) with justification, (God declaring/making a sinner righteous). For Lordship advocates anything short of a “complete turnaround” in behavior following a resolve to stop sinning and “start obeying” is not repentance and would leave the lost man dead in his sins, no matter what he believed about his guilt before God or the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Upfront and life long commitment to the kind of behavior expected of a spiritually mature Christian is the Lordship advocates practical definition of repentance to salvation.

Lordship advocates I interact with do not teach a form of repentance that conditions salvation on the performance of “good works” (Eph. 2:10). They do, however, view repentance as a commitment to “stop sinning, start obeying,” as a promise for the performance of “good works.” Whether one is required to actually perform good works, or required to promise the performance of works to be born again, the conclusion is the same, grace is frustrated (Gal. 2:21).

For more on the LS view of repentance please read, Lordship’s “Turn From Sin” FOR Salvation & How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?


LM

 

Repentance, according to Lordship Salvation, is a change of mind.

I USED to like sinning, but now I "changed my mind" and want to follow Christ.

I USED to reject God's ways: now I accept them. I do not want to go against Him.

That is J. Macs meaning of "forsaking sin". It is a mental hange of mind, which leads to changed actions. No changed actions? No changed mind. Those who say they change their mind, but keep doing the same things, are not called "repentant" in scripture...they are called "hypocrites".

That is the Biblical definition of repentance. We can also see from correlation in the Septuagint with the Hebrew words "shoob" (turn away from sin, change direction), and "Nacham" (Godly sorrow) that these are ALSO elements in Biblical repentance. If they meant DIFFERENT things, the same root would not be used in the Greek Septuagint.