If You Aren’t Lordship, Your Doctrine is not Fundamental

In an installment at Pulpit Magazine John MacArthur identifies his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel as fundamental doctrine of the faith. See What Doctrines Are Fundamental,? (Part 2) In the foreword from The Gospel According to Jesus, Dr. James Montgomery Boice says, speaking of the opponents of Lordship Salvation:

“...they are mistaken--dreadfully mistaken and they need to be shown their error from Scripture, which is what this book does. They also need to be shown that their view has never been the view of any major Bible teacher or theologian in the church until our own weak times.”

Dr. Boice is not speaking merely of the Easy-Believism proponents. He indicts anyone who does not share Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship interpretation of the gospel. In this article by Dr. MacArthur he identifies his lordship position on the gospel as exclusive truth. The consequence is: If you do not believe in Lordship Salvation’s plan for eternal life, as defined by Dr. MacArthur, then you do not hold to the fundamentals of our faith.

In what is typical fashion, however, Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship position is not fully defined in this article as he believes it. The Lordship position is mixed in with what is otherwise orthodox truth. At face value Roman numeral III above appears sound, but when the terms he uses are defined by him from his other writings the real meaning and subsequent error is exposed.

If I were to take the time there is much that I could discuss about the article. I am, however, going to limit myself to just one subject from the article. That subject is Dr. MacArthur’s reference to “saving faith” as a fundamental.

In Roman numeral III above he identifies “saving faith” as a fundamental. It is important that we be reminded how Dr. MacArthur defines “saving faith.” We will look more closely at this in a moment.

For just a moment I want to refer to this quote in the article above, “Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of Christ. ‘If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.’”

The deity and resurrection of Christ are indeed fundamentals. Jesus is the Messiah. The Sonship of Jesus is a fundamental, but ironically Dr. MacArthur once erred gravely on the eternal Sonship of Christ, but later acknowledged his error. In this quote on Romans 10:9 Dr. MacArthur identifies “the lordship of Christ” as “a fundamental doctrine.”

Romans 10:9 is speaking of salvation, therefore, when Dr. MacArthur speaks of the lordship of Christ from the verse he is speaking of what he believes a man’s response must be to the lordship of Christ in order to be born again. This is important because Lordship’s “saving faith” has primarily to do with what they believe must be man’s response to the lordship of Christ to result in salvation.

Just before I quote Dr. MacArthur’s definition of “saving faith” we need to be reminded that in the article above, and in the quotes to follow, he is speaking of the reception of eternal life, not the results of a genuine conversion.

In defining “saving faith,” Dr. MacArthur has written,

“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], pp. 27, 142.)

The indispensable condition of “saving faith,” according to Dr. MacArthur, is following Christ, “submissive obedience” and “forsaking oneself.” Following is John MacArthur's definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus: “Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (p. 87.)

From the Revised & Expanded Edition, John MacArthur reworked the above statement as follows,

“Saving faith does not recoil from the demand to forsake sin and follow Jesus Christ at all costs. Those who find his terms unacceptable cannot come at all.” (p. 95.)

Again from his original edition, MacArthur writes,

“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (p. 140.)

To reiterate, Dr. MacArthur is defining the terms or conditions for the reception of eternal life. When he speaks of “saving faith” he is defining what he believes is required for the reception of eternal life. He believes salvation is conditioned upon “wholehearted commitment, unconditional surrender, a commitment to leave sin."

Dr. MacArthur states salvation (the gift of eternal life) is based on, “A full exchange of self for the Savior.” These are the terms he uses to define the Lordship interpretation of “saving faith.”

Lordship Salvation requires much more than a faith that is depending on Jesus Christ to save from sin, death and Hell. The Lordship position does not depend solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur requires an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ by way of commitments to obedience, surrender, and following, to receive His free gift of salvation.

To define “saving faith” as though receiving the free gift of God requires a lost man to make upfront commitments in “exchange” for salvation is a departure from the fundamentals of our faith!


LM

A Question Left Unanswered

Dear Friends:

Many here likely remember the long series of debates I had with Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit Magazine in late 2006. Twice I posted the question below to Nathan. Nathan is the personal assistant to Dr. John MacArthur. He never did reply to my question.

Nathan wrote this,

“But Lordship (Salvation) sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”

In reply I cited the following passage of Scripture and asked a follow-up question.

“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (Jn. 12:42-43).

The Bible says they were not open about, and would not confess a “change of allegiance.”

Did they biblically repent; were they believers?

Would any Lordship Salvation advocates care to deal with this question?


LM

Surf the Blog Archives

I think most folks who visit a blog probably don’t spend much time surfing the month-by-month archives to see what articles might be there. I have a made a point to surf other site's archives and I have found some real treasures this way.

Just after its release In Defense of the Gospel generated a great deal of attention and debate across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity. Because of all the activity I posted quite a few articles that appear in my October and November archives.

Because many of the articles are archived they don’t readily appear on this page. Unfortunately visitors who don’t search the archives could miss something that might have been very beneficial to him/her.

I want to encourage everyone to click on the archives and look for an article that may be of interest to you. Following are samples titles of what you will find in the October and November archives. As always feel free to post a comment in any of threads that follow.

Did the Apostles Preach Lordship Salvation?

The Rich Young Ruler

Lordship Salvation's “Barter” System

The Relationship Between God’s Grace & Lordship Legalism

MacArthur’s Costly Salvation

MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

There Is No Straw Man

What Was Missed in the Discussion?

Opening Statement for the Pulpit Magazine Review

Lordship’s Out of Order Salvation

Important Contribution at Sharper Iron

Did Dr. MacArthur MisState His Position?

Merry Christmas,


LM

An Open-Ended Commitment

Dear Guests:

John MacArthur wrote,

“Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 87.)

MacArthur requires something of the sinner that the Bible does not.

Lordship Salvation says that decisions for full surrender and discipleship are required to be born again. I know of men who will tell sinners they must be willing to give up everything displeasing to God in order to be saved. What is the point of trying to get a lost person to make that kind of promise? He might as well be told to take the Nazarite vow or fulfill the Law of Moses and be saved. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote, at the point of a salvation decision, the sinner does “not know what things those are, nor does the personal worker seeking to point them to Jesus know."

Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote:

“The issue is, How can my sins be forgiven? . . . Through faith I receive Him and His forgiveness. Then the sin problem is solved, and I can be fully assured of going to heaven. I do not need to believe in Christ’s second coming in order to be saved. . . . But I do need to believe that He died for my sins and rose triumphant over sin and death. I do not need to settle issues that belong to Christian living in order to be saved.” (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

Lordship Salvation requires a lost man to make a decision that he has little or no idea as to what it is going to entail. The Lordship advocate does not expect him to know all that the commitment will require of him, but they expect him to make the commitment without which he, in their minds, cannot be saved.

“There are in the Bible several clear examples of believers (about whose right relationship to God there can be no question) who were, nevertheless, not completely or continually committed to the Lord. Such examples would seem to settle the issue clearly by indicating that faith alone is the requirement for eternal life. This is not to say that dedication of life is not expected of believers, but it is to say that it is not one of the conditions for salvation.” (Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170.)

LM

The Thread Worth Reading

To All:

I have intended to post a new article but I have been quite involved in the thread below. The discussion has been primarily revolving around the discipleship passages: cross bearing, self-denial, and following.

It has been very worthwhile because it will help many of you to read for yourself some of what Lordship advocates believe, how they state their case, and this will especially help you in being able to detect Lordship Salvation for yourself when it is being presented in not so obvious terms.

In the article below about Phil at Pyro I have been in a discussion with several Lordship advocates, among them Jerry Morningstar. I had some interaction with Jerry at Pulpit Magazine and Pyromaniacs, but he has come to my site to get more involved in the discussion.

Before Jerry entered the discussion Paul E was involved in the salvation/discipleship debate. Unfortunately Paul was unwilling to answer even the most basic questions about his beliefs in regard to the discipleship passages. Paul tried to make the discussion a one-way street. When I pressed Paul to interact on an even playing field he disappeared. This is not uncommon among Lordship advocates. Many Lordship advocates will refuse to answer questions that get to the heart of the Lordship debate because they do not want to be pinned down on what they actually believe.

The same thing happened with Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit Magazine. He refused to discuss any issue other than repentance. He did not want to discuss discipleship passages, or any other chapter of my book.

Furthermore, there is a lack of unified agreement on their end. Because Lordship advocates have to keep redefining and clarifying what they believe you find some of them in contradiction to one another.

Look at MacArthur for example. He has written four major works on Lordship Salvation. The latter three were an attempt to clarify the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988). As I have shown, however, the disturbing statements in his original edition run like a thread through each of his books. His editors revise and rephrase, but the same impact and meanings are there. I give examples of this in my book.

Pastor Mike Harding, who is a Lordship advocate, repeatedly told Nathan Busenitz that MacArthur needs to clarify and explain himself because some of his (MacArthur’s) writing gives the wrong impression. Pastor Harding also wrote this to Nathan, “Some of Dr. Macs wording in Hard to Believe can unduly cause a true believer to be very uncertain of his justification. In my opinion the editors need to do a better job.” (Nov. 3, 2006, Pulpit Magazine: Lou & Lordship, (Part 5).

Because MacArthur keeps trying to redefine his position, and so many have been lead to a Lordship position because of MacArthur’s books, they are left confused and at times contradict him. Just as I showed how Phil Johnson (senior editor of MacArthur’s books) contradicts MacArthur, you will see more of the same in the thread that follows.

In any event, Jerry is interacting, but I want to point a few things out for you to look for.

Read through the exchanges that begin with Paul E well into the thread. You are going to see more evidence of how the Lordship advocates confuse and blur the lines of biblical distinction between salvation and discipleship.

You are going to see how (especially Paul E) Jerry either will not or cannot answer questions on whether or not the call for cross bearing, self-denial and following are evangelistic appeals directed to the lost for salvation. They will redirect the question to a discussion of faith or they will steer the discussion away from salvation and back to the results of salvation, which is an area I have little or no disagreement with Lordship advocates over. This is very common among Lordship advocates.

Watch for references to the regeneration before faith position. Watch for this comment, “Where genuine faith [supernatural God imparted faith] occurs - there will be a desire to follow."

Lordship advocates believe faith is the result of regeneration, meaning faith can only come from a man who has already been born again. Regeneration before faith is an extra-biblical, extreme position, which is a key component in the Lordship position. Understanding this is a key to understanding how Lordship advocates can make demands from a lost man that are impossible for him to make or keep and still claim they are not teaching a works based message. See my November article Lordship’s (Out of Order) Salvation article for more on this.

You will note how thin a tight rope they try to walk to maintain a message of salvation by grace through faith, but at the same time cling to the Lordship demand for an upfront commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple for the reception of eternal life. Even here they cloud their meaning by using phrases like, “intentionality toward obedience,” “heart attitude to obey.”

You are going to see the false dilemma. That is when the two alternatives are presented, but not all the possibilities have been explored. This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the Mental Assent or “Easy-Believism” position as an alternative. You are going to see this in Jerry’s comments.

Look for the quotes by Ryle. These are as revealing and extreme as you will read anywhere on the Lordship interpretation of the gospel.

You will see how I quote MacArthur again for Jerry to show the extremes of Lordship Salvation and ask Jerry to comment on the disturbing statements by MacArthur.

When you read the Lordship advocates you must read carefully and with discernment. They place the errors of Lordship Salvation alongside orthodoxy, which makes the error difficult to detect. I can read an entire chapter from one of MacArthur’s books and nearly all of it will be sound. However, you can almost always find some interjection of the works based Lordship message, but it is carefully and with subtlety inserted.

Finally, to you lurkers: I know many are hesitant to enter a public comment because you have seen at other sites how some of the Lordship advocates can be rough and harsh.

You have a safe place here! I treat people on both side of the debate with respect. I will not allow any bullying to go on at my site.

If you want to make a comment, but not in the public thread, feel free to e-mail me.

God bless you,

LM

The Rich Young Ruler, Mark 10:17-22

When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.

In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes,

“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what points of doctrine he affirmed, because he was unwilling to turn from what else he loved most, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is only for those who are willing to give Christ first place in their lives.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 85.)

That citation from the revised edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a sanitized revision of what John MacArthur first wrote. In the original edition, John MacArthur states:

“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (p. 78.)

From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:

“And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.” (p. 9.)

During a Trinity Broadcasting Network interview MacArthur stated:

In fact Jesus said this, “If you come to Me it may cost you your family. But if you’re not willing to hate your family you can’t be My disciple. If you come to Me you might have to give all your possessions away and give them to the poor. If you are not willing to do that you are not worthy to be My disciple.”

For a moment lets say the man confessed his sin of covetousness, asked Jesus to forgive him. He also expressed a willingness to give away all that he had, but Jesus did not ask him to do so on the spot. Is he a saved man? Did he meet the Lordship gospel requirement for eternal life? Assuming he is saved the man begins to follow Jesus and some time later Jesus turns to him and says, “Today, I want you to give all that you have to the poor.” If that man hesitates to obey this command, what does it mean? Is he is in danger of losing his salvation? Was he never saved in the first place? If one concludes he was never saved in the first place then any act of disobedience, in the life of a professing believer, must raise the same question.

When I lived in Florida there was a period time when I was witnessing to a young man who worked at a fast food restaurant. His name was Tom and he was interested in spiritual things. My wife remembers how I would visit Tom late at night, actually in the hours just after midnight, at his restaurant and we would pour over the Bible. I was very clear about his sin, God’s wrath and his need to repent and by faith receive Jesus Christ as his only hope for salvation. After a number of weeks Tom believed the Bible and received Jesus Christ as his personal Savior.

He began to take steps of growth that one might expect of a new believer. One day, right out of the blue, he asked me what I thought about his hair. Now Tom had long flowing hair. His hair was not dirty or sloppy, just long and not what you would call a good testimony for Christ. His hair was not an issue as a lost man, his sin and guilt before God was. A few weeks after receiving Christ, during his personal reading of the Bible, he came across this passage.

1 Corinthians 11:14 “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”

So, for Tom his hair had become an issue. The Lord had pricked Tom’s heart about his hair. Tom felt as though the verse meant for him that he should get a haircut. I told him that if he felt God wanted that for him then he should obey. Tom said he would get his hair cut that week. Tom knew he should get his hair cut, he wanted to get his hair cut, but just could not bring himself to do it. Tom became unwilling to get his haircut: Does this mean he was never saved in the first place, or has he fallen into carnality? I am convinced he had a time of carnality.

A short time later Tom moved to one of the western states. I knew from the first time I met him he would be moving soon, which is why I was urgent about seeing him as often as possible to present the gospel. In my heart I think Tom probably got that hair cut some where along the way. Tom’s hair was not the issue for receiving or keeping eternal life no more than the giving away possessions was for the rich young ruler.

Giving up earthly possessions, or even the willingness to do so does not bring anyone closer to eternal life! Salvation is a free gift! The gift of God is not conditional on haircuts, forsaking possessions, station in life or performing personal acts of charity. The Scriptures are very clear: Man cannot be saved by any personal work of righteousness (Titus 3:5). Attaching the performance of and/or promise to perform the works of discipleship to faith in Christ corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and will “frustrate the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21). Man is saved through personal faith in Jesus Christ alone!

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In his quote above John MacArthur says, “no matter what he believed.” Taking that at face value leads one to the conclusion that John MacArthur is suggesting that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) is insufficient for salvation. For the Lordship advocate, even if the young man believed that Jesus was the Messiah, believed that Jesus was the Savior, and expressed dependent faith in Christ, that would be insufficient to save him. It is clear that John MacArthur, representing the Lordship position, conditions eternal salvation not on simple belief alone, but also on the lost man’s upfront promise to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

In the case of this rich young ruler, the Lordship advocate would state that his salvation depended on the surrender of his riches. Some might back away from that by saying the man had only to be willing to surrender his riches. Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote:

“Is eternal life gained by keeping the commandments, even by keeping them perfectly, if anyone could do that? Paul answered that very question at the conclusion of his synagogue message in Antioch in Pisidia. He said that only through Jesus is everyone who believes justified and that no one could be justified by the Law of Moses (Acts 13:39). . . . So even if the rich young man's claim were true that he had kept the commandments the Lord mentioned, he still could not have gained eternal life, even if he had kept them perfectly.” (So Great Salvation, p. 86.)

LM

This article is an excerpt from the revised and expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, pp. 178-ff.

Related Reading:
Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

Confusion & Contradiction: Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs

At PyroManiacs I was engaged in a discussion with Phil Johnson on the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. It is my understanding Phil Johnson is the senior editor for John MacArthur’s books. Most of Dr. MacArthur’s books are not actually written by him. They are primarily transcribed sermons compiled, edited and reproduced in book form. Phil is in charge of the editing process.

There were two main areas of discussion at Pyro between Phil and myself. One was in regard to regeneration before faith issue, which is an extreme extra-biblical error found among most Lordship advocates. The second was a discussion surrounding Luke 9:23-24. I am going to address the latter now, the former later.

I began the short exchange on Luke 9 by using the following post:

“And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it,” (Luke 9:23-24).

Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God’s free gift of salvation? Luke 9:24 is a conditional verse. Twice it says “for whosoever will . . .” Do you view the demands of Luke 9:23-24 as a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ to be believed for salvation?

You can see I asked Phil if Luke 9:23-24 states conditions or demands for salvation. His response was, “Nope.”

Later Phil wrote,

“I believe Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it's still not proper to regard it as a set of ‘conditions’ by which someone can merit salvation.”

So, he believes Luke 9:23 is a salvation passage, but the commands for cross bearing, self-denial and following, which appear in the verse, are not conditions for salvation. Phil further substantiates his salvation interpretation of the passage by criticizing me for believing Luke 9:23-24 has to do with the daily life of a disciple.

Shall we review (which I provided for Phil) what Dr. MacArthur says about cross bearing, self-denial, and following in regard to the reception of salvation. He writes,

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation…

” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221).

“Half-hearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus he turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price, such as the rich young ruler,” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 222).

“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Dr. MacArthur says to become a Christian one must face three commands found in Luke 9:23. They are, “…deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

Dr. MacArthur says anyone who is unwilling to make the commitment to the conditions of discipleship will be turned away. According to Dr. MacArthur the rich young ruler was “turned away” because he would not “make the commitment” to give up that he had. Dr. MacArthur says the lost man was turned away, not because of his sin (covetousness), rather because he would not make a commitment to discipleship. That is what Dr. MacArthur believes and he states it expressly. There is no misunderstanding of his meaning!

Dr. MacArthur is calling for lost men to make a commitment to the conditions of discipleship found in Luke 9:23. He believes the calls for cross bearing, self-denial and following are salvation appeals. He is, therefore, demanding these conditions be committed to for the reception of eternal life.

Phil sees the conditions of discipleship in Luke 9:23 as evangelistic in nature. In spite of this Phil wrote,

“I don’t think the word ‘conditions’ is appropriate here…. Luke 9:23-24 is a call to salvation; but it’s still not proper to regard it as a set of ‘conditions’ by which someone can merit salvation.”

The Luke 9:23-24 passage is a conditional passage. Dr. MacArthur cites the three elements in Luke 9:23 as conditions for the reception of eternal life. Phil, however, says they are not conditions.

Just like Dr. MacArthur, Phil contradicts the Scriptures by redefining passages meant for a disciple of Christ, as though they are salvation appeals. Then I have shown how Phil unwittingly contradicts and compromises Dr. MacArthur’s message of commitment to the terms of discipleship for salvation.

In Luke 9:23-24 Jesus is speaking about discipleship, not on how to become a child of God. No one is saved because he takes up the cross and follows Jesus. No one is saved who makes, as Dr. MacArthur demands, a “wholehearted commitment,” to take up the cross and follow Jesus.

Confusing discipleship with salvation is one of the most serious errors in Lordship Salvation. A chapter in my book is dedicated to this doctrinal error. The chapter is titled, Salvation & Discipleship: Is There A Biblical Difference?

Dr. Joel Mullenix said,

“Salvation is free, discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by simply believing in Christ. By receiving by faith the free gift of salvation through His work on the cross. Discipleship is evidenced by daily submission to the will of God. They are two separate things. The Bible makes a distinction between salvation and discipleship.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 72.)

Apart from redefining the biblical plan of salvation to suit the Lordship system there is no way Luke 9 can be construed as an invitation to salvation. Confusing discipleship with salvation leads to a works based gospel, which Dr. MacArthur and Lordship advocates propose. It also leads to the confused and contradictory statements we have seen from Phil Johnson.

Lordship Salvation, as defined by Dr. MacArthur, is a message of faith plus commitment to the conditions of discipleship, and this is a false, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Later we will look at the regeneration before faith position and Phil’s defense of it. I will also address a few other note worthy items that came out through Phil’s comments and reactions.


LM

Summation of the Debates with MacArthur’s Staff

To All:

Over the next few days I will prepare and then post a summation of the recent discussions/debates with Nathan Busenitz and Phil Johnson.

In the meantime, please read many, if not all, of the posts I have written this and last month. There is much here that will help define the issues in the Lordship controversy.


LM

Crucial Turning Point in the Lordship Debate with Phil Johnson

Dear Guests:

Phil Johnson is the senior editor of John MacArthur's books. He, along with Nathan Busenitz (Dr. MacArthur's personal assistant), are the point men for Dr. MacArthur. Phil and Nathan speak for him on matters of doctrine and especially in this debate his books on Lordship Salvation.

As you know I have been in a weeks long debate over Lordship Salvation and my book with these men at Pulpit Magazine and Pyromaniacs. A host of others joined Nathan and Phil in support of Lordship Salvation and against my book on the subject.

Following is an important post I just filed for Phil at his site, and I filed it at Pulpit Magazine as well, under Nathan's Nov. 10 article, A Few More Thoughts on Lordship, Part 2. I also posted this at SharperIron.

My post Follows...

Earlier I asked, “Does Luke 9:23-24 state conditions man must satisfy to receive God's free gift of salvation?”

Phil's reply, “Nope. Even faith, strictly speaking, is not so much a 'condition' as the instrumental means of our justification.... I would say, however, that Luke 9:23-24, Jesus' own call to discipleship, reveals the character of true faith.”

Dear Phil:

“If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me,” (Luke 9:23).

You just said these are not conditions man must satisfy to receive salvation. I understand you mean man does not have to go through some ritual or process of discipleship and eventually become a Christian. I would agree with that. Also, I happen to believe Jesus’ calls to discipleship are directed to those who are already born again disciples of Christ.

I have to point out that you are in contradiction and at odds with Dr. MacArthur. He writes:

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . When Jesus called disciples, he carefully instructed them about the cost of following him. Half-hearted people who were not willing to make the commitment did not respond. Thus he turned away anyone who was reluctant to pay the price, such as the rich young ruler. He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial--even willingness to die for His sake if necessary.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221, 222, 226).

Without any doubt, Dr. MacArthur is speaking of what he believes are the requirements for salvation: How to be born again. He interjects discipleship in what otherwise would be a sound way, but the main theme is in regard to the reception of eternal life. Denying self and following are invitations to salvation? The way to be saved is by agreeing to deny self? The rich young ruler, a lost man, was turned away because he would not pay the price? Let’s read more examples:

“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Similarly Dr. MacArthur wrote,

“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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)

Phil- There is no misunderstanding of Dr. MacArthur’s meaning, no other way to spin or redefine it. He is conditioning salvation on upfront commitments to keep commands, pay a price, bear the cross, to follow, unconditional surrender, etc. Dr. MacArthur demands an exchange of these commitments for salvation.

I am going to repeat this important point: Once you enter a commitment of man into the gospel, the message becomes man-centered and no longer the biblical plan of salvation.

There is no spin, no straw man, only a message that clearly frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), and furthermore confuses, clouds and complicates, “the simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).


LM

Lordship’s (Out of Order) Salvation

On November 13, 2006 at Pulpit Magazine Nathan Busenitz posted a reply to Larry in which he lays out the regeneration before faith position. It is post #51 under the A Few More Thoughts on Lordship (Part 2) article.

This post to Larry opens the door to some serious inquiry in regard to regeneration and faith. In particular: the regeneration before faith issue.

Representative of the Calvinist camp, the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) might be shown as:

1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (repentance & faith), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) perseverance, 10) glorification.

Those who take a different view of the ordo salutis would typically present it this way:

1) foreknowledge, 2) election, 3) calling, 4) repentance, 5) faith, 6) regeneration, 7) conversion, 8) justification, 9) sanctification, 10) preservation, 11) glorification.

The big difference in the two examples is in the relative placement of regeneration and repentance/faith. There is an order, and I trust you (Nathan) would agree that the events in the ordo salutis occur simultaneously. The Calvinist and Lordship advocates will insist there is no chronological order and that would be the correct thing to say. Repentance, faith, regeneration, conversion, and justification occur simultaneously. Some aspects in the ordo, occur in a chronological order, but the events I cited above do not, they are simultaneous.

It is a mistake to separate regeneration and faith in a temporal way, because they are simultaneous. One important matter, however, should be recognized. In 1 Thess. 1:9 Paul suggests faith precedes repentance. In Acts he puts repentance before faith (Acts 20:21). Repentance and faith occur so closely and/or at the same instant that one must not attempt to separate them.

In an earlier article I pointed out that the elements of the event in ordo occur simultaneously, but the event has a trigger. Calvinists believe regeneration initiates or triggers the simultaneous events in the ordo. Pastor George Zeller made this observation:

“The doctrine of man's total depravity has been carried to the extreme by some Calvinists resulting in a wrong understanding of man's inability. They believe that the sinner is dead in sin and totally unable to respond to the gospel. They believe he first must be regenerated and only then will he be able to believe the gospel.” (In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 280-281.)

There is a logical order, not chronological, but logical based on what the Bible says. The Bible teaches faith logically precedes regeneration, for example:

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:11-13).

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him,” (1 John 5:1).

The Bible teaches that faith and regeneration are instantaneous: John 3:1-21 (especially vss. 8, 13-16) Rom 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8, 9-13.

The following passages also demonstrate that justification and faith are also simultaneous: Romans 3:22, 26; 10:4, 6, 8-13

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast,” (Eph. 2:8-9).

Ephesians 2:8-9 demonstrates that salvation occurs simultaneously at the very instant man places his faith in Jesus Christ. The Calvinist has a problem with this because he believes man cannot call on the Lord (Rom. 10:13) in faith until he has first been regenerated. The troubling conclusion is that salvation (eternal life) is not received through faith; rather faith is the result of salvation. Nathan wrote,

“Thus, according to the reformed ordo salutis, regeneration has causal priority over faith and repentance. This is simply a way of showing that God initiates salvation, enabling and empowering the sinner to believe and repent. Like Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ (John 3:3).”

John 3 is the account of Nicodemus’ visit to the Lord at night. This is a very familiar event. We see Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night. He was likely afraid to approach Jesus in broad daylight for fear of the Jews.

I look at John 2:24-25 as a gateway to John 3 and the encounter with Nicodemus. The passage reads, “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.”

Before Nicodemus arrived Jesus knew what was in his heart and where his problem was. This is why Jesus went right past the acknowledgement of his teaching and miracles right to the heart of Nicodemus’ problem.

Nicodemus had heard the teaching of Jesus, and likely witnessed some of His miracles. It is apparent that Nicodemus was being drawn to the Lord through what he had seen and heard. It is important to note, however, Nicodemus was not yet born again, he has not been regenerated. We can know this because Nicodemus did not even at this point understand the concept of being born again. Jesus is going to tell him how a lost sinner is born again and receives everlasting life.

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life,” (John 3:14-15).

Jesus gave the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent (Numbers 21:6-9) to illustrate how man will be saved from spiritual death. Those who looked upon the brazen serpent were spared death from the sting of the fiery serpents. They believed God and by faith looked upon the serpent of brass and were saved. This illustrates the Son of Man being lifted up and those who by faith, believing look to Him will be saved, have everlasting life.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16).

In John 3:16 Jesus explains the way in which a lost man receives everlasting life. In His definition of salvation, Jesus says believing precedes regeneration, everlasting life.”

In light of this statement from Jesus, in which He clearly teaches, “everlasting life” came from believing on His name, those who believe regeneration precedes and enables repentance/faith and belief find themselves in contradiction to the Lord. As long as you insist regeneration precedes and enables “the sinner to believe and repent,” you are contradicting the Lord Jesus Christ. Now the debate over the order of regeneration and faith/belief is with the Lord.

The regeneration before faith view under girds the Lordship gospel of submission, full-surrender, self-denial in exchange for salvation. The Lordship advocate believes the lost man has been regenerated (given new life, born again) prior to repentance, faith and belief. To reiterate, he does not believe in a chronological order, but he will insist regeneration has the “casual priority” over, and is the trigger for: repentance, faith, and believing.

Therefore, demands for a commitment to the “good works,” (Eph. 2:10) which should follow salvation in the life of a believer, are no longer works, because they believe the work of conversion, salvation, justification and union with Christ has already been accomplished. Lordship advocates can make any demand he wants because in the Lordship system he is dealing with one who is already a born again child of God, has already become a disciple of Christ.

Lordship advocates call on lost men to make decisions that are impossible for him to make. Nathan stated, “…we are asking them to do something that is impossible apart from the initiating work of the Spirit.” The solution for your impossible decision is the extra-biblical, rational view of ordo, which insists regeneration (eternal life) precedes faith.

From an article titled Faith vs. Fatalism, Evangelist John VanGelderen wrote,

“Is it ‘look and live’ or ‘live and look?’ Is it ‘Look unto Me, and be ye saved’ (Is. 45:22) or ‘Be ye saved, and look unto Me?’ Is it ‘He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life’ (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or ‘He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?’ Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved’ (Acts 6:36) or ‘Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?’” (In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 66-67.)

Pastor George Zeller wrote,

“Does regeneration precede faith? Actually they both take place in the same moment of time. The moment a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he is regenerated (born again). The moment he receives Christ by faith he also receives God's gift of eternal life. It all happens in an instant of time.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 281.)

Nathan’s Calvinistic presuppositions of regeneration’s “casual priority over” (before) faith under gird Lordship’s upfront demands for “implicit obedience, full surrender,” and the “exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is” for the reception of eternal life.

Nathan wrote, “But at this point, the argument is no longer about lordship salvation, but rather about Calvinism.” I would disagree with that because both systems are inseparably intertwined. If one is unwound, both unravel.

I have shown in my book that in regard to the reception of salvation the Lordship position is a false interpretation of the gospel. Lordship Salvation is a works based, non-saving message that frustrates grace. John MacArthur, Walter Chantry, James Boice, and John Piper are sincere men who love God, but they have changed the terms of the gospel to combat the equally heretical so-called “Easy Believism” movement or the Zane Hodges inspired Crossless Gospel.

In years past many Bible believing pastors and Christian leaders have shown that the presupposition of regeneration preceding faith is a position that comes from the reliance on reason over the revelation of Scripture.

We conclude there are two very different interpretations of how eternal life is received.

1) Nathan representative of the Calvinist view of ordo believes regeneration (the gift of eternal life) precedes repentance/faith and belief in Jesus Christ. Nathan believes man cannot believe or express repentance and faith unless he has first been regenerated, been born again. This opens the way for the Lordship gospel of commitment to the “good works” of a disciple in exchange for salvation.

2) Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16).

So, a choice must be made: do we accept the revelation of Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ; or do we choose to rely on a position born from reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings?


LM

Some of the most penetrating work on Calvinism’s regeneration before faith has been written by Pastor George Zeller. Click on The Dangers of Reformed Theology where you can read about this and other “dangers” that come from Reformed theology.

Important Contribution at SharperIron

Dear Guests:

Please visit this link to SharperIron. In the thread of an article titled, Lordship Teaches... you will find an important contribution by Bob Topartzer.

There are several important contributions, which Bob Topartzer makes in his post at SharperIron. One of which has to do with one of John MacArthur’s former professors. I am not the first to raise concerns with Dr. MacArthur’s position, and I will not be the last. Since the introduction of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) men have raised concerns with portions of Dr. MacArthur’s definition of the Gospel.

At the SharperIron site you will find documentation by Bob Topartzer that supports and further confirms the problems with John MacArthur’s statements.

Dr. James E. Rosscup is retired Professor of Bible Exposition at The Master’s Seminary. Dr. Rosscup was one of John MacArthur’s professors at Talbot.

Bob Topartzer documents how Dr. Rosscup had written to point out some of the "exaggerations" in his former student’s books. Ironically, several of the excerpts Dr. Rosscup refers to are the very same, which I have been addressing all along.


LM

Your Reaction to the Discussions

Greetings:

I thought I would create a thread where you can freely comment on the discussions that took place at Pulpit Magazine and SharperIron in regard to my new book.

The discussions, the theology, the tone, any and every opinion you have on the discussions are welcome. You will, of course, keep Colossians 4:6 in mind as you comment.

Thanks,

LM

Post Your Own Review

Here is the opportunity to post your own review of my book.

Some men have written quite a bit about my book at other sites. I want to reserve this thread for those of you who have not, or were not comfortable sharing an opinion at the other sites. You do not have to worry about doing a "professional, technical" review, just share your impressions. The one requirement for comment is that you must have read my book.

I am going to post a few of the positive comments I have received from various pastor and Christian leaders since my book was released earlier this year.

I will read and carefully consider any comments, positive or negative, that you choose to share with me.

So have at it.

LM

There is No Straw Man

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

Lordship Salvation’s “Barter” System

To All:

“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

. (Dr. John MacArthur: The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148)Dr. MacArthur says the reception of salvation is based on an “exchange.” That is how he defines the way in which a man must come to Christ to be born again. His terms for salvation are: “wholehearted commitment, a desire for him at any cost, unconditional surrender,” in “exchange” for the gift of eternal life.

Exchange is defined this way in the dictionary: To give up (something) for something else; to part with for some equivalent, change for another. Barter: to exchange goods….

Barter is defined this way: As to exchange in trade, as one commodity for another.

Therefore, we see “exchange” and “barter” are essentially interchangeable. Dr. MacArthur says salvation, the reception of eternal life, is an “exchange.” Dr. MacArthur believes if there is no “exchange” there is no salvation. What is the exchange Dr. MacArthur calls for? He says the gospel requires an exchange of “wholehearted commitment, surrender, self-denial, cross bearing, a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake” for the reception of salvation, the free gift of God.

During my on line debates with Nathan Busenitz (Dr. MacArthur's personal assiatant) he wrote,

“In fact, John MacArthur flatly denounces any type of ‘barter’ salvation. In chapter 13 of The Gospel According to Jesus, John explains: ‘We need to understand that this [the lordship view] does not mean that we barter for eternal life. We do not buy salvation by surrendering our lives

.’”Dr. MacArthur contradicts himself. He denounces what he says is necessary for conversion. He demands the sinner make promises for obedient Christian living in “exchange” for the free gift of God. Dr. MacArthur says “a full exchange of self for the Savior” is the response Jesus calls for, without which man cannot be saved. Yet he says, “We do not buy salvation by surrendering our lives.” Later we are going to see that John MacArthur does indeed put a price on the reception of salvation.

Lordship Salvation is a system that demands an exchange, and this is bartering. When man is told he must do or even promise to become something to receive God’s free gift of eternal life, it is no longer free, and it immediately ceases to be the gospel. The Lordship interpretation of the Gospel is a man centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Any system that says man must offer something to God in “exchange” for eternal life becomes a works based message and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ. Lordship Salvation frontloads faith with a necessary promise for the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) of the believer in “exchange” for salvation.

Dr. MacArthur wrote,

“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith

. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)Earlier Nathan referred us to Dr. MacArthur saying, “We do not buy salvation by surrendering our lives.” Here we read salvation can only be attained (purchased) by paying the “ultimate price” of “full surrender.” To imply that receiving the free gift of God requires that man “pay the ultimate price” is a gospel of faith plus works! There is no doubt that Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur, is a barter system, an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ to receive His free gift of salvation.

You can call it submission or allegiance; but an “exchange” for salvation is trying to merit what cannot be earned. No upfront promise for “allegiance” or godly Christian living brings a lost man any nearer to Heaven than keeping the Law!

“Disconnect from your mind that any offer of surrender, even the desire to pay the high price of discipleship, will open the gates of Heaven. If man comes to the Savior seeking salvation and forgiveness of sin, he better come with empty hands and an open heart, because that is all he has. Man has nothing to offer, nothing to bring in 'exchange.' If there is a price to pay it is infinite and man cannot afford it. He is hopeless, helpless, and Hell-bound! When through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word he sees himself in that condition and recognizes Jesus Christ as his only hope for salvation he is ready to be born again. Once that man (biblically) repents and places his faith in the finished work of Christ he is born into the family of God

.” (In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 234-235.)

LM

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him,” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4.)

The Transformed Life

Dear Friends:

I just posted the following at www.pulpitmagazine.com Matt Waymeyer wrote an article that appeared today titled, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and the Lordship Debate. I wanted to share this here.

Matt:

You wrote, “This belief that regeneration inevitably results in a spiritually transformed life is one of the main tenets of lordship salvation.”

I would agree with the belief that genuine conversion (Eph. 2:8-9) should result in a transformed life and the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) of the believer.

Jenson asked two important questions:
1) “How much ‘fruit’ does one need to show in order to be considered ‘obedient’?”
2) “What about those who try to ‘show forth fruit’, but cannot seem to do so? What do they need to do, or not to do?”

Your article appears to make behavior, not believing, the key to eternal life and evidence of a genuine conversion. This is consistent with most Lordship teachers. The Bible is clear that all who are saved will show evidence of it (2 Cor. 5:17). So behavior is not the key to eternal life, but changed behavior is certainly an evidence of eternal life.

I understand that no one can see or judge the heart. Lordship, however, is making behavior the key indicator of whether or not a man is truly born again. How do you measure this? How and based on what tangible evidence do you declare that a man who professes Christ, but lives in rebellion to Him was never saved in the first place? To what degree of disobedience does a man have to go to when he arrives at the place where you can say, “Never truly saved?”

If he seems little interested in the things of the Lord, like “just Lot,” (2 Peter 2:7) was he never saved?

If he denies the Lord (Matt. 26:75), walks out on the ministry (John 21:3) and causes divisions (Gal. 2:11-13) like Peter did, was he never saved?

If he commits lust, murder, adultery (2 Sam. 11), and has struggles with pride (2 Sam. 24) like King David, was he never saved?

There are genuine believers in our churches today who struggle in their walk with God. They struggle to, “lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,” (Hebrews 12:1). “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat,” (Luke 22:31). There was plenty of chaff in Peter’s life. There is plenty of chaff in the life of every genuinely born again child of God.

One of my biggest concerns with John MacArthur’s Lordship gospel is that it conditions the reception of salvation on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands. Once a lost person is born again and sets out to live for Christ he will soon find he is not able to live up to that commitment.

He then will have doubts and a lack of assurance.
He is looking at the decision he made to surrender his life to the Lord in addition to depending on the Lord. He will be conflicted when he finds he cannot live up to the commitment. He asks himself, “Is it my obedience to the Lord or my faith (depending) on the Lord that saved and keeps me?”

The Relationship Between God’s Grace & Lordship Legalism

Following is an excellent article written by Pastor George Zeller which appears in Appendix F of In Defense of the Gospel.

This brings us to a teaching of our day, common in Reformed circles, popularly known as LORDSHIP SALVATION.

Essentially Lordship salvation teaches that simple faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation. Something else is needed. A solid commitment to Christ as Lord is needed. A person needs to surrender to the Lordship of Christ. A willingness to obey Christ’s commands is necessary. Also the sinner must fulfill the demands of discipleship or be willing to fulfill them. This includes loving Christ supremely, forsaking possessions, etc. (see Luke 14:25-33).

What do Lordship teachers do with Acts 16:30-31? [“And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”] This verse teaches that the sinner must do the believing and that God must do the saving. It teaches that faith and faith alone is necessary for salvation. It does not say, “Believe and surrender to Christ’s Lordship and fulfill the terms of discipleship and thou shalt be saved.” It simply says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” What does it mean to believe? The hymn-writer has explained it in very simple terms, “Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His Word, just to rest upon His promise, just to know THUS SAITH THE LORD!”

Those who teach Lordship salvation are forced to redefine saving faith. It means more than just simple, childlike faith in Jesus Christ. They might say something like this: “We believe in Acts 16:31 just as much as you do, but you need to understand what the word ‘believe’ really means. ‘Believe’ means more than just believe. Saving faith involves much more.” What does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Lordship salvation teachers would say that it involves the following: It means surrendering to His Lordship. It means turning from sin. It means submitting to His authority and to His Word. It means obeying His commands, or at least having a willingness to obey. It means fully accepting all the terms of discipleship.

Consider this last statement. Does saving faith really involve accepting all the terms of discipleship? Does saving faith really include such requirements as loving Christ supremely, forsaking all that one has, denying self, etc. (Luke 14:25-33, etc.)? A saved person should do all of these things, but he does not do these things in order to be saved. He is saved because he throws himself upon the mercy of a loving Saviour who died for him. One reason why he needs to be saved is because he does not love Christ supremely. He is guilty of breaking the greatest commandment! It is not our COMMITMENT that saves us, it is our CHRIST who saves us! It is not our SURRENDER that saves us, it is our SAVIOUR who does! It is not what I do for God; it’s what God has done for me.

Avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the RESULT of salvation and making it the REQUIREMENT of salvation: It is because I am saved that I surrender to His Lordship (Rom. 12:1-2). It is because I am saved that I turn from sin and begin to learn what it means to live unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). It is because I am saved that I follow Him in willing obedience (1 John 2:3-5). It is because I am saved that I agree to the terms of discipleship and begin to learn all that discipleship involves (Luke chapter 14).

It is because I am saved that I submit to His authority over every area of my life (Rom. 6:13). I do these things because I am saved by the grace of God, not in order to be saved. Do not turn the results into requirements! Don’t turn the grace of God into legalism [adding unbiblical requirements to the gospel message].

Don’t confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. Don’t confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith but they are not the essence of saving faith. Don’t confuse the fruit with the root. Before you can “come after” Christ in discipleship (Luke 9:23; Matt. 11:29-30), you must “come unto” Christ for salvation (Matthew 11:28). Discipleship is not a requirement for salvation; discipleship is the obligation of every saved person.

Salvation involves Christ loving me (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 2:20); discipleship involves me loving Christ (Matthew 10:37). Because we are justified freely by His grace we measure up to the full demands of God’s righteousness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Because we are frail we often fail to measure up to the full demands of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33). The requirements of discipleship are many; the requirement for salvation is simple faith and trust in the Saviour.

John MacArthur’s Costly Salvation

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

For Dr. John MacArthur a commitment to discipleship is the key element for the reception of salvation. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of salvation on the promise for what should be the expected results of salvation- discipleship.

Following is a quotation from a chapter titled, “The Cost of Discipleship” from The Gospel According to Jesus:

Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial--even willingness to die for His sake if necessary.

The latter portion of the quotation, “He wants disciples willing to forsake everything,” would be fine if John MacArthur stated it in the context of those persons who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, were saved by grace through faith, and sought to live as fully surrendered disciples of Christ. He has, however, made the cost of discipleship a necessary expense for the conversion experience.

In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation Dr. MacArthur wrote,

“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God--anyone who wants to be a Christian--has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

That statement opens the door to some valid questions. Do I have to meet and agree to these commands for discipleship to become a Christian? Once I agree to these conditions do I have to remain true to these commands to guarantee my entry into Heaven?

These are at the heart of the problem when verses meant for discipleship of the believer are presented as conditional for salvation. One might conclude that MacArthur’s costly salvation does not guarantee Heaven for the Christian unless the price is continually paid over time throughout a lifetime. It sounds as though the initial commitment is a down payment on Heaven, and staying committed is the balance due on the agreement. Imagine the frustration of the Christian who does have lapses in his walk with God.

There is a Cost, But Where is it? In the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur titled a section of one chapter, “The Real Cost of Salvation,” (p. 139). In the Revised & Expanded Edition he changed the title to “The Cost of Following Christ,” (p. 147). The content of that section (and the following section titled “Counting the Cost”) has not changed. It is simply a new, more palatable banner for the same teaching. In the Revised & Expanded Edition, just as in the first edition, John MacArthur has couched his interpretation of the gospel in the biblical terms of discipleship.

It should be remembered that the subtitle of his book, What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, “Follow Me”? The Gospel According to Jesus reveals what he believes to be the gospel. When the Lordship advocate speaks of “following Christ,” he is speaking of the gospel. When John MacArthur refers to “The Cost of Following Christ,” he really means “The Cost to Receive Christ.” MacArthur believes there is a “Real Cost of Salvation,” or more accurately a “Real Cost for Salvation.” He believes that the gospel demands a commitment of one’s life, and a promise of surrender to the lordship of Christ as an up-front “exchange” for the saving grace of God.

The section entitled “The Cost of Following Christ,” illustrates the extreme to which the Lordship advocates have taken the matter of a “costly” salvation. Understanding that Lordship advocates equate discipleship with salvation is very important. They require, from a sinner, an upfront promise to become a committed disciple of Jesus Christ as the condition for becoming a born again child of God.

In his revised and expanded version of The Gospel According to Jesus please note how John MacArthur uses the term “saving faith” through this section (page 147). He is clearly referring to the salvation experience. The word “exchange” is used twice in the two sections (pp. 147-148), and also in connection with his definition of what constitutes “saving faith.”

“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. Seen through the eyes of this world, it is as high a price as anyone can pay. But from a kingdom perspective, it is really no sacrifice at all.”

The word “cost” is used repeatedly in the section. Remember it is the reception of the gospel, the reception of salvation that John MacArthur refers to as “costly.” In the quote above he says salvation comes at a “high price.” To the contrary, the Bible teaches that salvation is free; it is the “gift of God.”

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The error, of course, is that the issue in salvation is a personal faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, not surrender or a promise to live a holy life.

John 20:30-31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

As Dr. Ernest Pickering in his review of John MacArthur's book states,

“Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily submission to the will of God). Christ here is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.”

LM

Impossible Decision: John 16:7-11

From a September 29 post on Pulpit Magazine Dr. MacArthur wrote:

“We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God…. As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing these elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.”

In The Gospel According to Jesus Dr. MacArthur wrote:

“Thus conversion is not simply a sinner's decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 114.)

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged,” (John 16:9-10).

The Holy Spirit is come to convict the world of “sin” (note singular). What is the “sin” that the Holy Spirit will reprove the world over? That “sin” is explained in verse 10, which is the sin of “unbelief.” The lost man needs to be confronted with the Law to bring him/her to know the need for forgiveness through Christ. The book of Galatians is very helpful in this matter. The sin that is damning the lost man to hell is “unbelief” and the only act that will result in salvation is “belief” (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).

Lordship Salvation adds a commitment to discipleship (i.e. “take up your cross, losing your life for my sake, etc.”) which requires a decision from a lost man, which is impossible for him to make. (John 15:5). This kind of gospel message, which Dr. MacArthur advocates, frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). The Holy Spirit does not yet indwell this lost man, he is not regenerated. He cannot make a decision of surrender to the Lord because he does not yet know the Lord.

Thus reformed theologians, like John MacArthur demonstrates above, must come to an extra-biblical, a rational view of the order of salvation: regeneration before profession of faith rather than simultaneous to it. After repenting of the sin of “unbelief” the newborn child of God enters into the life of sanctification and begins to repent of his “SINS” (1 John 1, etc.).


LM

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

The following appeared at Pulpit Magazine on Septemeber 29th, 2006. This paragraph from Dr. MacArthur’s post titled True Faith and True Grace encapsulates the major elements in the Lordship controversy. Dr. MacArthur wrote:

“Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship. This dichotomy, like that of the carnal/spiritual Christian, sets up two classes of Christians: believers only and true disciples. Most who hold this position discard the evangelistic intent of virtually every recorded invitation of Jesus, saying those apply to discipleship, not to salvation.”

One of the most significant errors with Lordship Salvation is the confusing of passages meant for the born again disciple of Christ (such as Luke 9:23-24, 14:25-33) and presenting them as though they are evangelistic appeals directed to the lost. It is from this error, where much of the Lordship interpretation of the gospel flows. This error leads to a faulty definition of faith, redefines the role of biblical repentance in salvation, both of which result in a gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Following are three examples of how John MacArthur’s discipleship gospel redefines the faith that saves:

“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 27, 142.)

“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation….” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221).

Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of salvation on a lost man’s upfront commitment to what should be the results of salvation. A commitment to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of the disciple of Christ is Lordship’s requirement FOR salvation. The lost man is expected to make a commitment toward what he will do, or become, in “exchange” for what Christ has done for him. John MacArthur states that position this way,

“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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)

In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation Dr. MacArthur wrote,

“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God, anyone who wants to be a Christian, has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

The faith that saves is more than simple acknowledgment. Faith is basically a trust or confidence in someone or something. For salvation Jesus must be the object of faith. Faith goes beyond acknowledgement when the lost man transfers his dependence on Christ to save him from the penalty of sin. Mere acknowledgement of what Jesus has done does not save. When biblically defined- faith does not include upfront promises of commitment and surrender.

Discipleship comes at a cost, salvation (justification) does not! It is clear that Lordship Salvation requires much more than a faith that acknowledges one’s sin, a pending judgment for sin, and one’s need of the Savior. The Lordship position does not depend solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur above, is a barter system, an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ to receive His free gift of salvation. To imply that receiving the free gift of God requires that man “pay the ultimate price” is a gospel of faith plus works.

My book, In Defense of the Gospel does not contain errors that are so common in the works of other men who have written in objection to Lordship Salvation. Many have been alarmed at the increasingly meaningless presentation of a gospel that seems to ignore the Person of Christ, the sinfulness of man, the finished work of Christ and the pending judgment of God. This gospel calls men to salvation when they have been given only a vague idea of just what they need to be saved from. There is, furthermore, a reductionist interpretation of the content of saving faith, with which I strongly disagree. The most extreme example of this reductionist view is known as the “Crossless” gospel. This is a relatively new interpretation of the Gospel originated by (the late) Zane Hodges and is almost exclusively perpetuated by the Grace Evangelical Society’s membership.

My book does not minimize or reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. Jesus is Lord and Savior throughout all eternity. We all agree that Jesus is the Savior; the only hope mankind has for eternal salvation from sin, death and Hell (Acts 4:12). We all agree that Jesus is the Lord, the King of Kings, and all power belongs to Him (Rev. 19:16; Matt. 28:18). If He is not the Lord, He is not God. If He is not God, He is not the Savior. Christ’s lordship, however, should not be used to create a message where the reception of salvation is conditioned on a lost man’s upfront commitment to surrender and submission, which Lordship Salvation does.

Pastor George Zeller wrote an article titled, The Relationship Between God’s Grace and Lordship Legalism, which appears in the appendix of my book. Following is a brief excerpt.

“Don’t confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. Don’t confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith but they are not the essence of saving faith. Don’t confuse the fruit with the root. Before you can “come after” Christ in discipleship (Luke 9:23; Matt. 11:29-30), you must “come unto” Christ for salvation (Matthew 11:28). Discipleship is not a requirement for salvation; discipleship is the obligation of every saved person.”

When a man tries to carefully introduce verses about discipleship as part of God’s plan for salvation, remember that the Bible teaches we come to Christ for salvation and that we come after Christ in discipleship. It is wrong to present discipleship verses as salvation verses. We must not use verses intended to teach discipleship to try to lead a man to Christ. To do so creates confusion and frustration. It becomes a gospel of faith, plus works.

Lordship Salvation demands from a lost man a promise of what he will do, or become, to receive the gift of eternal life. Once man offers anything in addition to the finished work of Christ for salvation that message becomes false through the addition. A gospel that calls for man to do or offer anything in addition to what Christ has done is wrong!

Dr. MacArthur- I know you mean well, you believe you are being true to the Scriptures. Changing the terms of the gospel, however, to upfront demands for commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation, will not make the problems of loose living carnality found in some professing believers go away.

In Defense of the Gospel fully defines and biblically answers the doctrinal and practical problems with Lordship Salvation. I wrote my book to alert Christians, across the broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity, about Lordship’s works based, man-centered interpretation of the gospel that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

There are many areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not an area in which we can agree to disagree. The doctrine of Lordship Salvation and the Lordship advocates must be vigorously debated, and its spread biblically resisted.


LM

Portions from the above are selected excerpts from In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.