This is another reply I wrote to Nathan at Pulpit Magazie:
Nathan/All:
Lordship advocates can deny that they have a “barter” system, but as I demonstrated from Dr. MacArthur’s own books he does indeed demand an “exchange” of “unconditional surrender, etc.” for the gift of eternal life.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between the exchange of dependence and the exchange of submission and surrender. The Thessalonians were no longer going to depend on their idols, they would begin to depend on Jesus Christ to do for them what their idols could not do.
As for Dr. MacArtur’s system: He is demanding the upfront promise of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) to secure eternal life. He insists man must offer “surrender, submission, following, obedience, self-denial” in “exchange for salvation.” Your system not only implies, it demands the barter/exchange of the promise of good works for salvation. It’s right there in Dr. MacArthur’s book.
Lordship advocates can deny that they have a “barter” system, but as I demonstrated from Dr. MacArthur’s own books he does indeed demand an “exchange” of “unconditional surrender, etc.” for the gift of eternal life.
“The straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”
The position of offering promises of “unconditional surrender” in “exchange” for salvation is right in Dr. MacArthur’s books, which I cite for anyone to read. That position is not attributed to him, it is his position. There is no straw man.
Claiming “straw man” does not make the clear, incontrovertible evidence of the “barter” system of Lordship Salvation go away.
Would I “flatly deny this (barter) accusation”? Sure, because nothing is being bartered. The Thessalonians did not offer anything, they came to Christ empty-handed. It was a decision to forsake dependence on idols and begin to depend on God. There are no works done or even being promised. Did the Thessalonians offer or promise anything when they transferred their dependence to God? No!
On the other hand, your denial does fall flat because there is indeed a barter of “good works” for salvation. Your system frontloads and demands a lost man promise to become a committed, fully surrendered disciple of Christ. This means in exchange for salvation he promises to do the good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT define saving faith as full surrender in exchange for salvation? (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)
The Lordship system demands a commitment to a change in behavior or action; the promise of “good works” in “exchange” for salvation.
LM
Dear Lou,
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very strong and persuasive argument against LS. It is a charge that they scramble to answer, but, as you quote, one that is well established in their literature.
Thank you for all your hard work in the endeavor of exposing the errors of LS.
As a side note, I was wondering if you forgot about my comment on the Rich Young Ruler post of yours. You said you would get back to it...
blessing to you,
Antonio
Hi Antonio:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the note.
I work up to 15 hours per day, such as today. I have been locked in on the PM and SI sites. Forgot about yours.
I'll try to revisit it.
LM