Lordship Salvation: Lordship Advocates, Tell Us Who Defines LS in a Way You Would Agree With?
Dear Guests of IDOTG:
In my previous article(s) on the personal testimony of Charles Haddon Spurgeon it is clear he did not endorse Lordship’s salvation by faith, plus commitment of life evangelism. See-
Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon’s Personal Testimony Speaks Against It
Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon Speaks (more than once) Against It
In the most recent of the two articles I opened with an extended commentary on the “mantra like cries of misrepresentation” that attach themselves to any discussion of Lordship Salvation (LS) that is not in agreement with the primary advocates of LS. Following that abbreviated commentary I am going to give you, the advocates of LS, the opportunity to name any writer, commentator, preacher who openly rejects Lordship Salvation, but you believe accurately represents LS in his refutation of it.
Whenever you engage the theology of Lordship Salvation (LS) you can count on mantra like cries of “misrepresentation” from its advocates. You can quote verbatim and in context the advocates of LS, allowing them speak for themselves without commentary, letting the stark truth of their message unfold in their own terms and still you are going to hear cries of misrepresenting what they teach and/or believe.Now, it is your turn. The thread is open for you, anyone who agrees with LS’s message. You are welcome to name any person who is on public record rejecting Lordship Salvation (LS) that you believe is fair and accurate as he defines LS in his refutation of it. No commentary is needed unless you would like to briefly mention why you believe the source is a fair and accurate representation of LS.
From the writing of its chief advocates you can demonstrate Lordship’s message of eternal salvation through an upfront commitment to discipleship and surrender of life expected of a born again Christian to BECOME a Christian.
In Spurgeon’s personal salvation testimony there is no hint whatsoever of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. In the comment thread I followed Spurgeon’s personal salvation testimony with quotes from John Macarthur, Lordship’s most recognizable apologist. Predictably, an advocate of LS (in public and in private) complained that LS and Spurgeon were being misrepresented and that the use of selective quotes from Spurgeon misleads readers about Spurgeon’s thinking.
Brother George Zeller shared some thoughts with me on the complaint raised by that LS advocate in regard the Spurgeon’s testimony article. The complaint was that posting Spurgeon’s salvation testimony does not accurately reflect Spurgeon’s “entire train of thought.” With Brother Zeller’s permission I am sharing his response to that concern. He wrote,
“It was a lengthy quotation from Spurgeon himself. It was not taken out of context. It is his conversion account in his own words. His main point is that he was saved by simply looking to Christ (not to himself), and by simply trusting Christ.
In his account, there is not a hint of Lordship Salvation (though Spurgeon certainly taught Lordship sanctification, as we all should). This is in complete agreement with his teaching elsewhere, as the following quotation shows.”
I have three names and sources that come immediately to mind, but for the moment we’ll not consider my inclusions. Please take a moment to post a name and citation, with link if available, of the source(s) that contain what you believe accurately represents LS while it is being refuted by the author.
Yours faithfully,
LM
I will be very interested in seeing any answers to this.
ReplyDeleteI've got another question I'd love to ask.. but it would interfere with this one.
I'm really hopeful that someone will stand up and give a name and a link.
Kev
Kve;
ReplyDeleteI did not want to be the first, but it is unlikely any LS advocate will offer a name.
In my 21 years of familiarity with the LS controversy I can't recall any LS person acknowledging any man who rejects LS and agreeing that he actually understands LS.
Yet, I am hopeful we may have one brave soul post a name.
We'll give this some time.
The normal reaction is threefold and typically in this order:
1) You don't understand LS.
2) You can't understand LS.
3) You misrepresent LS.
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteGreat question! Let me know if someone answers this question. I used to believe in the 5 points of Calvinism for 10 years and even read many of the top guns of Calvinism. However, whenever I debate Calvinism then I hear:
1. You never were a real Calvinist
2. You do not understand Calvinism
3. I am not being honest about what "true" Calvinism teaches.
Dave (free grace believer)
"True" Calvinism and/or Lordship Salvation doctrine seems to be a moving target.
ReplyDeleteIt's apparently clear enough to the people who believe it to be considered safe to stake their, and other's Eternal Salvation on it.. but not clear enough for anyone else to understand.
Kev
JMac
ReplyDelete"[U]nconditional surrender, a complete resignation of self and absolute submission." John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 1988, 153.
[True Faith] "starts with humility and reaches fruition in obedience." John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids:Zondervan), 1988, 177.
"Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.... Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesu0000000000kes no one unwilling to come on those terms;
I doubt you'll find one. Actually, I would like to know the answer to the opposite question. Is there anyone out there that advocates Lordship Salvation, that actually understands free grace/pauline dispensationalism (I'm the latter, but fall under the umbrella of the first).
ReplyDeleteI mean, the usual accusations against me are
1) You believe praying a prayer will save you (I don't).
2) You believe you can just keep sinning and never worry about it (I don't).
3) You just throw books out of the Bible (I don't - I rightly divide. I can learn a lot from James, but I am not going to apply it doctrinally to me).
It seems that most of the people I speak to about Lordship Salvation all proclaim salvation by grace through faith, but can't seem to separate sanctification from it, and so they come up with a contradictory Gospel where they contribute part of their salvation via good works (or a lack of bad works). Most of them readily admit they still sin, so the standard really becomes them, rather than Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the standard of goodness, and there is none that doeth good. I thank thee Lord Jesus that I know I'm unworthy, but that you died for ALL my sins anyway :)
Praise the Lord
Robb:
ReplyDeleteThose are quotes from JMac I am familiar with. They do, among others from him, verify and affirm that LS is a man-centered, works based message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
Thanks for including these.
LM
Luke:
ReplyDeleteI am hopeful some one will give and name and citation, but I don’t recall ever having gotten one in my personal conversations with LS men over those last 20+ years.
I have to wonder that to admit someone who rejects LS actually understands it can’t be disclosed because it would give validity to the rejection. So, the mantra, “don’t…can’t understand (and/or) misrepresent” seems to be the only reaction to ANY rejection of LS.
I really want to be shown that I just haven’t asked enough LS men over time and learn and there are some in the LS camp that will share a name.
We’ll see.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteGreat question! Let me know if someone answers this question. I used to believe in the 5 points of Calvinism for 10 years and even read many of the top guns of Calvinism. However, whenever I debate Calvinism then I hear:
1. You never were a real Calvinist
2. You do not understand Calvinism
3. I am not being honest about what "true" Calvinism teaches.
Dave (free grace believer)
THAT is interesting!!
JanH
Lou:
ReplyDeleteWhat a well thought out question. I will be shocked if any LS proponent attempts to answer it.
Kev:
"It's apparently clear enough to the people who believe it to be considered safe to stake their, and other's Eternal Salvation on it.. but not clear enough for anyone else to understand."
Nice assessment.
Jimmy
Luke,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your comments. I agree with the relationship you put between FG and Dispensational Theology.
I'm FG because of the Grammatical Historical Hermeneutic that I learned from Dispensationalists. I am dispensational in my theology as well because of this Hermeneutic. I like that you don't put the horse behind the cart either.
I learned the hermeneutic that I use through my discovery of Dispensationalism, but it is the hermeneutic that has solidified my theology not the other way around.
It's very hard for any human to understand where another human is coming from.. I've just resigned myself to this.
I try to be patient with the LS proponents - I'm not always successful though. I try to remember that they've been told what to think I believe... they are often taught to argue not examine. so I try...
and I try to remember that this trainging is a fault on all sides.
Kev
Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteThanks. I am doubtful, but also hopeful a response will be forthcoming.
Lou
Luke:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “It seems that most of the people I speak to about Lordship Salvation all proclaim salvation by grace through faith, but can’t seem to separate sanctification from it, and so they come up with a contradictory Gospel where they contribute part of their salvation via good works (or a lack of bad works). Most of them readily admit they still sin, so the standard really becomes them, rather than Jesus Christ.”
I appreciate the way you expressed those sentiments.
About two years ago a friend e-mailed me a statement that was made by a seminary professor. The professor’s remark was,
“Luke considered every true believer to be a disciple in some sense of that word. However, he made clear that the demands of discipleship are not conditions to salvation, but are evidences of regeneration and sanctification.”
That, in my opinion, was very well said. Lordship blends salvation (justification) with discipleship (sanctification), which is what I consider one of the most egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.
It is wrong to take what should be the RESULT of salvation and make the resolve to perform those things in discipleship the REQUIREMENT for salvation.
Lou
Actually, I would like to know the answer to the opposite question. Is there anyone out there that advocates Lordship Salvation, that actually understands free grace/pauline dispensationalism (I'm the latter, but fall under the umbrella of the first).
ReplyDeleteI mean, the usual accusations against me are
1) You believe praying a prayer will save you (I don't).
2) You believe you can just keep sinning and never worry about it (I don't).
3) You just throw books out of the Bible (I don't - I rightly divide. I can learn a lot from James, but I am not going to apply it doctrinally to me).
Luke,
You are by no means unusual in this kind of experience. In perusing an Arminian website (evangelicalarminians.org) the other day I came across this little gem:
One of the most telling signs of the fallacious nature of Calvinist apologetics in general is its heavy reliance upon caricatures and misrepresentation of the beliefs of other Christians. There are few things more frustrating than trying to explain a concept to someone who simply takes one aspect of what is being said, and runs with it in a half-baked attempt to disprove it, heedless of any details or qualifications, yet this very tactic is something of a staple among Calvinism's more vocal proponents.
There are a few points on which I disagree with Arminian theology, however, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. We are not alone in our experience of actually being misrepresented, etc.
I remember when I first began to research TULIP Calvinism. It was in response to a book by Michael Horton called "Putting the Amazing Back into Grace: Who Does What in Salvation." From the start I could see his aim was to skewer Dispensationalism (ists). It is difficult to isolate specific examples because his whole frame was misrepresentation and a lot of it was veiled. However, there was this one clear example which is so blatantly false it is almost funny. He tried to use the lyrics from the song "Jesus Loves Me" to prove that Dispensational churches teach works salvation. I kid you not. He took the words "Jesus loves me when I'm good, when I do the things I should" as his example of how we teach works righteousness! Anyone who knows that song knows perfectly well it has NO such message as "we must be good for Jesus to love us" yet there the accusation was bold as day.
Prior to that I had no interest in TULIP one way or the other. But when I found myself being so viciously misrepresented and maligned by this Reformed fellow I was incensed enough to do my homework. It was just this very aspect of misrepresentation that lit a fire under me. It is one thing to have doctrinal disagreements. But bearing false witness against your brother is quite another.
JanH
To All:
ReplyDeleteAt Kev's blog On My Walk, a little known, but very boisterous advocate of LS (Mark Pierson) has answered my question, which Kev put to him at his (Kev's) blog. Following is what Mark wrote and my (edited) reaction at Kev's blog to it.
Kev:
We read Mark with this statement,
“There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.”
Here you have the example of the elitism and arrogance of those who believe they have arrived.
At last we have Mark, who openly displays the snobbery and arrogance that is rife in the LS camp. The high profile LS men simply will not state in stark terms what Mark has for the forum.
Mark's answer would of course include many of the well-known, godly, balanced theologians who have over the years, based on the clear teaching of Scripture, rejected Lordship Salvation under its various labels.
If there is one common thread I find among many, NOT all, Calvinists/LS men is this air of elitism, condescension, combativeness and arrogance, which Mark has displayed openly at the On My Walk blog in recent days.
Again, it is NOT all Calvinist/LS men, but Mark reveals what is the mindset and reaction of many of them when you engage the doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation.
LM
We read Mark with this statement,
ReplyDelete“There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.”
That was exactly the answer I expected.
If you reject LS you must not understand it. Of course, if you did understand it you would accept it. Therefore, you must not understand it.
If there is one common thread I find among many, NOT all, Calvinists/LS men is this air of elitism, condescension, combativeness and arrogance,
So we have a clear example from printed material of blatantly bearing false witness and another testimony (which account is repeated en mas) of elitism, arrogance, condescention, combativeness and arrogance. Plus more than one witness (and even a former Calvinist) who has experienced first hand the misrepresentation we have been accused of supposedly engaging in ourselves.
Where is the fruit of the Spirit in this?
JanH
Great question! Let me know if someone answers this question. I used to believe in the 5 points of Calvinism for 10 years and even read many of the top guns of Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteHey Dave,
Did you ever feel non Calvinists were misrepresenting your position when you held to TULIP? If so, what happened to change your mind?
JanH
Hi Jan,
ReplyDeleteI was too proud to admit when someone made good arguments to refute my Calvinism. I would often look for some weakness in the book that I could expose and make myself feel better. If I looked hard enough then I could find something somewhere that I did not personally agree with so that I can yell to the world that so and so misrepresents us Calvinists. I often would only skim the book anyways. I would then give my review on the book and share what I found to be its weakness as a way to discard the whole book entirely. Taking the author out-of-context or embellishing what I've read was not uncommon for me to do back then.
I would also check out that specific author books in general or his beliefs online and see if I can find errors in his theology so that I could make myself feel better that the author is probably wrong in his anti-calvinist beliefs as well. I would also share his theological errors to others as a way to discredit him. Let's say he believes in speaking in tongues then I would use that as my focal point of making him look ridiculous to my fellow believers as someone that doesn't understand Scripture. It doesn't matter that he has 98% of everything else right as the 2% is proof to me that his 98% cannot be trusted. I was such a goof.
You have people today that will search for that 2% to entirely discredit what you say claiming that you are misrepresenting them. Lou believes in free grace but you have people out there that claim that he doesn't because they can find something that doesn't fit with the Bob Wilkin definition of free grace. Just visit Lou's book on amazon and see the negative reviews as they come often from people that haven't read his book or that simply want to find problems with the way the book was written.
This problem with pride is often attached to an 'ism' they specifically believe or a person they follow.
Dave (Free Grace Believer)
Jan,
ReplyDeleteYour point about Mark's behavior is something I explored a bit over at my blog. It's so very interesting to me that those who DEMAND someone be fully submitted to the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved themselves show so little (if any) of the Humble Saviour in their own walk.
All,
I was at a hospital today and saw a children's book called "TULIP doesn't feel safe."
I wanted to take a picture of it, but I thought that would be weird.
Isn't that a true statement though? For all the "Salvation is all of God" and the Soverigenty of God being paramount... the person who holds to TULIP just plain never feels safe. My dear friend Bridget couldn't predict that she would infact be "saved in the end" for ages.. it was only after I pushed and pushed her that she soft of said she would be.
it's true TULIP doesn't feel safe, and that's a great testimony against it for the Lord has not given us the spirit of fear. He has told us to REST in Him.
Kev
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteSorry to kind of "pop in" w/o having posted in awhile... I continue to follow along but can't take the time to post much these days, hope to get back to it more often eventually.
Anyway, as I read the struggle for FG people to get LS folks to admit that non-LS people actually might understand and still reject LS (Calvinism too), I had a thought. It kind of reminds me of a problem I see in this health care issue. Regarding health care, the "anti" side claims that various problems will result. The "pro" side says that the bill doesn't include any of those things. What the problem seems to me to be is, the "pro" side is right, their bill doesn't have any of those things. However, the policies in the bill create an environment that would likely indirectly lead to (and in some cases, would directly lead to) the very things the "anti" side is claiming.
I see the same problem with LS/FG (Calvinism too). FGers and nonCalvinists see the logical conclusion(s) of LS/Calvinism doctrines and speak against these things. Yet LSers and Calvinists insist that they don't teach those things and therefore are being misrepresented. The problem though, is that while it is true they don't teach those things directly, yet they so obviously lead to such things, there is no escaping their conclusions. Nevertheless, they will continue to cry "misrepresentation" and "show me where I've ever said that", etc. because they don't say those things specifically.
IMO, the lack of ability and/or desire on the part of LSers and Calvinists to acknowledge and deal with the logical end of their beliefs, is what keeps these debates going in circles, and keeps LSers from adequately answering questions about their teachings and beliefs.
Thanks for sharing that Dave. I appreciate your humility and openness. It sounds like maybe you weren't all that secure in your Calvinism. (?) Would you mind sharing what attracted you to Calvinism in the first place? And how did you come to reject it? Also, I wonder if you would be able to say whether you had any sense of other Calvinists maybe being insecure in their Calvinism? What do you think was the driving force in your involvement? And, if you were insecure, how did you feel about what other Calvinists might think if they found that out? Did you feel they would receive that with grace and try to help or that you were afraid to mention it to them? Of course all these questions assume you were insecure. However, I am interested in the relational dynamic you experienced in that sphere and what effect that may have had on you. If you don't mind answering, that is. :)
ReplyDeleteJanH
My dear friend Bridget couldn't predict that she would infact be "saved in the end" for ages.. it was only after I pushed and pushed her that she soft of said she would be.
ReplyDeleteI remember that, Kev. That was an interesting conversation. Is that the one where she also said salvation is a process and wouldn't admit that someone who has been saved is saved?
I do remember her saying at one point that she knew she would be saved in the end. But she made that contingent on the fact that the Lord was sanctifying her now and since she saw Him doing that, she knew He would finish the job. She was quite adamant that she had been justified but was very reluctant to go any further than that.
it's true TULIP doesn't feel safe, and that's a great testimony against it for the Lord has not given us the spirit of fear. He has told us to REST in Him.
I know of someone who was in that position. He was almost paralyzed with fear that he wasn't really saved. His brother (the youth pastor at our church at that time), who didn't hold to TULIP, tried to help him by suggesting that if he wasn't sure he was saved he could be so now by accepting Christ crucified for him. Didn't do much good.
On the other hand, there are TULIPers that insist they KNOW they are saved. Go figure.
For me, if ever I have any question about my salvation (doesn't happen often) the only way I have ever found that cures it is do do just what Spurgeon did- look! I behold Jesus crucified for me and remember His assurance that no one who comes to Him will be cast out. Or, as the hymn writer says, "I need no other argument. I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me." His blood will not be refused, nor will the one who trusts in it.
JanH
By the way Kev,
ReplyDeleteI have been reading that Leviticus series by C.H. Mackintosh at Stem Publishing you recommended in the thread a couple of posts down. It is wonderful!! Thanks for directing me to it. What a blessing!
JanH
Hi Jan,
ReplyDeleteI would be more than happy to answer your questions about how I got involved with Calvinism and what led me out of it. I just do not want to take this topic about LS into another direction. If you email me at freegracebeliever@gmail.com then I would be more than happy to answer those question.
Dave (free grace believer)
Lou, the comment made by Mark is typical. That lame excuse is made by many. The same excuse is used by those that reject the 5 points of Calvinism after they once embraced it. I guess it eases their conscience to believe that those that wander away from the teachings of Calvinism must never have truly believed it.
Think about that when it comes to Lordship salvation and what they believe about those who fall into sin. You will find that they make the same exact excuse when someone wanders off into sin and doesn't return before dying. You will hear them say, "He/She was never saved to begin with." They believe that if you believe the message then you can never stray even though we have verses that teach just that and warn us believers against falling away.
I do know with most free grace advocates that they do not stoop so low. They will admit that when a free grace believer embraces Lordship salvation that they have believed a lie. I do not know off hand any free grace advocate that will claim, "The reason he/she embraced Lordship salvation is proof that he/she never believed free grace at all. A person that truly believes in free grace would never depart."
If anyone could talk to my old friends that I went to school with at Bob Jones University and ask, "Do you think that Dave never understood or believed in Lordship salvation and Calvinism?" then I am sure that they would laugh at such a statement because I was solid in what I believed back then. To claim that my leaving the "isms" was due to my never understanding it is just plain ignorance.
Dave
Dave:
ReplyDeleteAs I read your first paragraph above to me I was already formulating a reply in my head. Then in your paragraph two you wrote essentially what I was going to reply with.
"Never was/understood/saved in the first place."
As for Mark's reply, it IS the mantra of LS people. I am happy he articulated what they truly believe, which is, "if you don't accept LS you just can't understand it", i.e. "you just haven't arrived like I/we have."
And of course any legitimate criticism, citing the actual teaching of LS advocates like John MacArthur verbatim and in context is always met with, howls of "misrepresentation."
Such arrogance, condescension and elitism is rife in the LS community. Most don't boast it like Mark did, however.
Lou
Jan, Mackintosh's work is stellar for sure!
ReplyDeleteLou, there's been no names mentioned.
Interesting... have the LS'ers been made aware of this question?
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteI sent e-mail to about a dozen LS men, some high profile in the blogs. They have the question and the link back here.
I sent the e-mail knowing there would be little chance they'd be transparent as my 20+ year history with LS men has shown me with this question.
Mark was not on the e-mail, he volunteered by answering it at your blog.
Lou
Lou, the new big boys on the block seem to be the youtube preachers. One in particular - Tim Conway. He seems to be playing a game I call "How close can you get to Rome without any of your subscribers noticing". Each video from "Illbehonest" pushes the works salvation boundary further and further. Do you know much about him?
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that thousands and thousands of people love both him and LaneCh blog (the latter is the be all and end all for anyone that loves Lawship salvation and Paul washer), yet they can't seem to see the errors...
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteI would have been adding additional commentary in this thread, but I have been heavily engaged at Kev’s blog On My Walk.
I have been adding commentary to his thread to bolster our joint defense of the Gospel against the doctrinal errors of LS. The thread I am participating in has exceeded 50 comments.
I would encourage each of you who value a defense of the Gospel against LS to visit this thread at Kev’s blog and support his efforts there as well.
Kind regards,
LM
Hi Luke:
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with some of the men you mention, but they all draw from and were influenced by John MacArthur. After MacArthur passes he will IMO always be considered the father of the modern day Lordship Salvation error.
You noted, “…pushes the works salvation boundary further and further.”
It is inevitable that the followers of error will take that error to further extremes. It is much like in a family- what parents allow for in moderation, the children will take to an extreme.
These men are simply following the natural path of Lordship Salvation.
In any event, we will always have their shrill mantra-like cries of, “misrepresentation” even though we cite back to them (verbatim and in context) what they have given in print.
Lou
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteIn the thread at my blog there's been some more discussion about why people might not understand LS theology. As far as I can discern it seems to be more of the "regeneration prior to Salvation" business.
It's been said over there that one can't understand LS unless God reveals it to you.
The Bible calls the Gospel a "demonstration" of God's love. I wonder how the Gospel could be hidden, and a demonstration at the same time.
I'm also beginning to wonder if any LS advocate could name a single teacher who explains LS theology WITHOUT ERROR. Is there someone who's work would be the absolute best example of explaining LS theology??
I'd really like to read something by that person.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteI have just a minute. You can mark it down that Calvinism’s extra-biblical regeneration, i.e. salvation, preceeds (occurs prior to) faith is the underlying presupposition of LS thinking.
More later.
Lou
As far as I can discern it seems to be more of the "regeneration prior to Salvation" business.
ReplyDeleteYep.
JanH
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo All:
ReplyDeleteAt his blog, On My Walk, Kev to a Lordship Salvation apologist wrote,
“You (Bridget) may LIKE TO THINK that I don’t understand…or that I won’t consider that I’m wrong... all of that makes you feel good I’m sure, but the truth is I have examined EXACTLY what LS advocates say and have found that it is NOT biblical.”
As I read that excerpt from his extend note it dawned on me that it just might be FEAR that causes Mark Pierson and all Lordship Salvation (LS) people to always cry, “misrepresentation,” but especially the elitist mindset of Lordship advocates that Mark underscored in that they believe no one who understands LS will reject it. If they were to admit/believe that someone who actually understands and/or articulates any aspect of LS correctly then they must conclude that LS just might be wrong. I don’t think they can tolerate that possibility, which would then suggest John MacArthur may be wrong.
LS, just like the Crossless Gospel of the GES, has a very strong personality, almost cult like drive behind it. Where the GES was driven by the late Zane Hodges, the modern day rise of Lordship Salvation can be attributed almost exclusively to the personality of John MacArthur.
Could it be that this 100% commitment to rejecting any possibility that a non-LS preacher just might understand LS is a defense mechanism that grew out of some need to protect Lordship's star apologist, John MacArthur? I’m not saying it is the reason, but it just might be an underlying current that crept in to their mindset.
From MacArthur’s senior editor *Phil Johnson to underlings like Mark Pierson not one of them will concede that there is some Bible teacher in the world who gets LS, can articulate it, and still can give a Bible reason for rejecting it.
Lou
*Phil is of course welcome to name any person who is on public record rejecting Lordship Salvation (LS) that he believes is fair and accurate as he defines LS in his refutation of it.
On Monday (8/24) I sent Phil and Nathan Busenitz (JMac’s personal assistant) an e-mail about this question and they are in receipt of it. To date both have refrained from offering a name anywhere I am aware of, let alone this blog. If they have a name of someone they would agree understands LS and rejects it, I’d be happy to publish that name if they, of course, can provide one.
Lou said:
ReplyDelete"You can mark it down that Calvinism’s extra-biblical regeneration, i.e. salvation, preceeds (occurs prior to) faith is the underlying presupposition of LS thinking."
Are you sure you are not misrepresenting them? Are you sure that you understand? How can you claim that you understand that when you do not believe? There IS NOT a single person who understands regeneration before faith who also rejects it, not one.
Sorry Lou, I just had to have some fun with this. I'm all too familiar with the erroneous view of regeneration preceding faith garbage. They want so bad to reverse the order of the verse to say, "Be saved and thou shalt believe."
Dave
Dave:
ReplyDeleteIt is a genuine tragedy that LS men will force into or extract from the Scriptures these extra-biblical theories, such as regeneration before faith, to float Lordship's man-centered message.
George Zeller has been one of the most helpful voices in refuting this and a number of other dangerous teachings that flow from Calvinistic presuppositions.
In my Recommended Sites I have a link to The Dangers of Reformed Theology which I believe is a must read.
Lou
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI've just posted my response to Mark's presentation of LS theology to me.
I've been made aware of other people who have been told they understand LS properly, but still reject LS but I haven't decided to share that at this time. I just want to try to keep the focus off of pointing fingers as much as possible.
My new article, which relates to this thread (in case anyone is wondering why I'm posting a link here) can be found at What Is Faith? My Response To The LS Presentation.
Kev
"The lordship of Christ is not peripheral to the gospel message. Surrender to Christ's lordship is the only acceptable response to the gospel, and any message that does not call sinners to submit to Jesus as Lord is not really the gospel." -John MacArthur
ReplyDeleteI don't know that Lordship Salvationists are saved. There is a such thing as misinterpretation of Scripture, but I think that many LS proponents take this too far. If Lordship Salvationists truly believe what they are teaching, then they are not saved. This is because in order to be saved, one must trust Christ ALONE - plus nothing. You can't do that if you believe that your lawful deeds are a part of saving faith. John MacArthur teaches that he believes that salvation is by grace through faith; but that faith has works included in it. May I say, works make void of the grace of God (Romans 11:6). Works are actually just the opposite of grace; one destroys another. Works and grace are like oil and water; they are not a good mix.
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteI know your position on the King James Bible and that you do not hold to a King James Only position; but it is my belief that much of Lordship Salvation is rooted in modern day corrupt bibles. Let me give some examples.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." -Romans 10:9, KJV
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." -Romans 10:9, NIV
The NIV changes the text from confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus to saying, "Jesus is Lord" to be saved. Many have been brainwashed to believe in this false doctrine of Lordship Salvation just by this verse alone. Here are some others.
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." -Matthew 7:14, KJV
"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." -Matthew 7:14, NKJV
There is nothing difficult about salvation and if someone was to read this verse in the NKJV, they would be led to believe salvation is a difficult matter when it's not.
Here is a verse that LS proponents go back to as a pet verse.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -Matthew 7:21-23, KJV
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." -Matthew 7:21-23, ESV
The big words changed here are from, "ye that work iniquity" to "you workers of lawlessness". By that verse, some will be led to believe that the law has a part of saving faith.
My point is that Satan is not only a master counterfeiter in the gospel, but in the Bible as well.