Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

What did Jesus mean by this statement?

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Disciple means follower or in the modern context, one who is saved.

 

To all:

I have recently purchased “The Gospel According to Jesus: 20th Anniversary Edition” by John MacArthur. I have gone through the first 150 pages or so (about ½ of the book) and have made the following observations.

MacArthur specifically states or refers to salvation as a complete work of God that cannot be earned by human effort at least 23 times in the first 150 pages. I point you to the preface of the first edition, p. 15. There are many examples like this one(pp.46,47,48,56,58,70,86,88,99,102,103,104,105,107,116,117,119,120,121,122,148.150 and so on)


“I expect, for example, that someone will accuse me of teaching a salvation by works. Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God’s sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. I have never taught that some pre-salvation works or righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation.” (p.15, TGAJ)

Please note that MacArthur’s statements are completely consistent with, and echoed by, what he has stated he believes and teaches on his website.

Also notice that Lou Martuneac makes no reference to MacArthur’s clear statements concerning his belief that salvation is completely a work of God. Either Lou Martuneac is ignorant of the contents of MacArthur’s book, or Lou Martuneac is being intellectually dishonest (at best) in his evaluation of what MacArthur believes and teaches in his book.

What should be clear to everyone is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to give an honest and truthful evaluation of what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

peace to youraying:

 

To all:

Lou Martuneac had often quoted the following paragraph from MacArthur’s book.

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.”

I asked Lou to give me the context of the quote, from MacArthur’s book. What, exactly, was the person responding to?

Lou lectured me for commenting on issues that I knew nothing about, and then told me the person was “responding to the gospel”, which is found in the title of the book. The full context of the quote comes from pp. 143-150 of the anniversary edition, not from the title.

MacArthur is focused on Matt. 13:44-46, the parables of the hidden treasure and costly pearl. In both cases, those that found the treasures (comparable to the Kingdom of God) sold everything they had to get possession of the treasures.

Concerning these verses, MacArthur makes this observation as to how people come to understand the priceless nature of the Kingdom of God. (p. 148)

“…how can anyone perceived the realities of the kingdom? ‘For to us God revealed them through the Spirit’ (I Cor. 2:10)’ God opens hearts to understand the inconceivable wealth of riches and blessing of His Kingdom.”

MacArthur is clearly teaching that the people are responding to the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing the value of the Kingdom of God to their hearts and their minds.

He then gives the example of Moses as one who has responded in a way consistent with this teaching.

“Moses counted the cost. Scripture tells us that he ‘consider(ed) the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward’ (Heb. 11:26). He gave up spectacular worldly wealth in order to suffer for Christ’s sake……because he understood the priceless value of the Kingdom of heaven.

That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.”

Lou Martuneac has demonstrated by his comments that he is either ignorant of the contents of MacArthur’s book, or he is intellectually dishonest (at best) in the way he is presenting his opposition to MacArthur’s teachings on Lordship Salvation.

Whichever is the reason, it is clear that Lou Martuneac cannot be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or even worthy of attention as a poster on the BB.

Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to give an honest and truthful evaluation of what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Peace to youraying:

 

Bonhoeffer would call the idea that Christ can be Savior and not Lord "cheap grace." Cheap grace is what he called the deadly enemy of the church, the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Cheap grace is a salvation by faith that requires no faithfulness, or the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance. Here is what he said about Costly Grace:

 

To all:

I want to be clear about something. I am not advocating for or against any position. I am demonstrating that what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches is not what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches.

To be a serious scholar, you must be able to accurately state your opponent's position. Clearly, Lou Martuneac has not be able to do that.

I demonstrated from MacArthur's book, in context, that Lou Martuneac is ignorant of its contents or is being intellectually dishonest when evaluating it.

Not only is Lou Martuneac ignorant of the contents of MacArthur's book, he is ignorant of the comments on his own thread. The following was included in my first comment on this thread:

And so, being shown to be ignorant of the content of MacArthur's book, Lou Martuneac returns to the same old, proven to be wrong, arguments against Lordship Salvation.

MacArthur "conditions" salvation upon the upfront work of Holy Spirit in regeneration and drawing of the lost sinner to faith. Since faith is also a gift from God, that faith will not lack the element of Lordship to Christ.

Now, no one is obligated to believe MacArthur is right in what he believes. But what is absolutely clear is that Lou Martuneac cannot accurately state what MacArthur believes and teaches.

There can only be a couple of reasons for Lou Martuneac's inability to accurately state what MacArthur believes and teaches. Lou Martuneac is either ignorant of the content of MacArthur's teaching, or Lou Martuneac is be intellectually dishonest (at best) in the way he evaluates and explains what MacArthur believes and teaches.

Whichever the case, Lou Martuneac cannot be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

So, you see, MacArthur uses a super secret code language that only Lou Martuneac and his ilk can decipher and understand.

When MacArthur says "Salvation is completely a work of the grace of God" and "there is no work a man can do to earn salvation", what he really means in his super secret code language is that "salvation is by works of men". Do you see how that works?

When MacArthur says, "there is no presalvation works that a man must do to be saved" what he really means in the super secret code language is that "men must make a commitment to Lordship prior to salvation".

Lou Martuneac has been exposed as being intellectually dishonest (at best) and ignorant of the contents of MacArthur's teachings.

peace to youraying:

 

Lou, you've brought up this quote from MacArthur a couple of times:

But I don't think it's as unorthodox as you claim. To see what I mean, let's look at an extreme example: A man is planning on killing his brother, but on the way to commit the crime, he is stopped and witnessed to. He prays "the sinner's prayer" but continues to anxiously glance at his watch because he knows his brother will be leaving the house soon and his window of opportunity will be gone. Satisfied that he has his position in heaven secured, he proceeds to commit the crime. Is he saved?

 

That is not a salvation experience, and the analogy is flawed.

 

Macarthur begins with a false premise, therefore his explanation of LS is flawed. It only takes one drop of poison to contaminate a gallon or pure water.

Since the biblical truth is regeneration happening at the moment of faith in Christ, what Macarthur describes as the full commitment to Christ prior to salvation is an impossibility. If regeneration is passing from spiritual death to life...one has done this according to you and Macarthur BEFORE they have faith in Christ. Faith is unnecessary, as if that person dies prior to faith in Christ, they have spiritual life.

Lou Martuneac has done a good job or explaining LS in a simple, easy to understand way...unlike Macarthur. I'm amazed there are those who still hold to pre-faith regenerataion in spite of the clear Scriptures refuting this.

 

You are missing the point entirely, and are proving my point while you do it. You don't have to agree with MacArthur. I am not advocating for Lordship Salvation.

As I stated earlier, you (and Lou) are applying YOUR understanding of regeneration to MacArthur's understanding of commitment to Christ that is a God-given part of the God-given faith that every believer has.

Disagree all you want. Show scripture to support your position (as MacArthur does). Show scripture that discredits MacArthur's position.

Just be willing to accurately and truthfully state what the other person's position is.

Failure to do so is intellectually dishonest (at best).

To accuse John MacArthur of believing and teaching a works-based salvation is nonsense on its face.

Lou Martuneac has not accurately, nor truthfully, stated John MacArthur's position.

peace to youraying:

 

Did you forget what you said? Here it is...
MacArthur "conditions" salvation upon the upfront work of Holy Spirit in regeneration and drawing of the lost sinner to faith. Since faith is also a gift from God, that faith will not lack the element of Lordship to Christ.

Regeneration preceding faith is not found in Scripture, hence Macarthur does not support his position from Scripture. Is he being "intellectually dishonest"? It is an IMPOSSIBILITY for a lost person NOT regenerated to make any up front commitment to Christ other than putting THEIR faith in who He is.

 

My apology to you. I see you have not accused MacArthur of believing or teaching a works based salvation. You simply disagree with his belief that regeneration precedes faith.

My only comment then is that MacArthur cites many passages of scripture to support his position. You have cited none to support yours.

peace to youraying:

 

There is no Scripture supporting pre faith regeneration...so I don't know how Macarthur could cite "many passages". It's apparent these passages are eisegeted, or approached with a built in presupposition regeneration precedes faith. I've provided more than enough Scripture in the years I've been here showing that "beleive...and be saved", not "be saved...then believe".

 

You claim that the book of James doesn't apply to us. What other books of the Bible do you reject?

 

Let's let Dr. M speak for himself: