Lordship Salvation: “The Great Exchange?”
In late April a guest, who goes by the handle Servant of God, posted a comment under the article Is Lordship Salvation an “Exchange?” This comment is one of those that I felt needed to be posted as a main page article for special attention. What follows is SoG’s extended comment for your consideration.
John MacArthur teaches that salvation is a “Great Exchange.” He taught in a message he preached entitled, “The Impossibility of Salvation” this...
“When you come to Christ, you leave it all behind, all the priorities are changed and you love Him with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and you want Christ to such a degree that you would let go of anything and everything. But like Job who was restored with far more than he ever lost, Jesus says, ‘If you’ve left that, you will receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.’ This is the great exchange. You get the pearl of great price. You get the treasure hidden in the field. All you have to do is sell all the cheap stuff you have in this life.”He [MacArthur] mistakes the great exchange as an exchange of our life for eternal life. First off, we have no life before salvation; we were spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). Secondly, God offers eternal life as a gift, not an exchange (Romans 6:23). This is the problem with much of Lordship Salvation.
Lordship Salvation presents salvation as if it were in a box with wrapping paper and a bow on it, making it look like a gift; however, Lordship Salvation turns it into some purchase, exchange, or reward to someone who has done good or promises to do good or is doing good. No, salvation is not this way according to the Scriptures. Romans 5:18 reads, “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
The Bible speaks of salvation as a FREE GIFT. It is not only said to be a gift, but a free gift. Yet, to the Lordship Salvationist, it’s the only gift that costs us everything. If salvation costs me a dime, it is no longer a gift because I must pay for it. There are big words like repentance that people often are confused about, but “gift?” Come on!
Here is the source of John MacArthur’s message: The Impossibility of Salvation
Site Publishers Note:
My thanks to SoG for the documentation above. Lordship Salvation, as MacArthur defines it, is an “exchange,” a barter system. LS is a promise for a promise salvation. See, Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?
Lordship Salvation presents salvation as if it were in a box with wrapping paper and a bow on it, making it look like a gift; however, Lordship Salvation turns it into some purchase, exchange, or reward to someone who has done good or promises to do good or is doing good.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of the back cover copy of John MacArthur's Hard To Believe, which reads:
The hard truth about Christianity is that the cost is high, but the rewards are priceless: abundant and eternal life the comes only from faithfully following Christ.
Eternal life is a reward that only comes from faithfully following Christ. I don't know what could be more blatant.
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteThat theme, which MacArthur expresses, runs like a thread through many of the LS advocate’s writing. For example
“There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160).
“Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” (R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)
Two articles to recommend:
Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?
The Gospel and Salvation: Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong?
Lou
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteMacArthur says "This is the great exchange. You get the pearl of great price. You get the treasure hidden in the field. All you have to do is sell all the cheap stuff you have in this life.”
When I read his latest revision of The Gospel According to Jesus, (ha that sentence is loaded isn't it?) I was astounded by MacArthur's creative handling of the Text.
Here we see another example of him WILLFULLY twisting Scripture.
Mat 13:44-46
44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, 46 who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.
Right before this the Lord explains His terminology
Mat 13:36-38
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
To make it even more clear
Acts 20:28
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God iwhich He purchased with His own blood.
2Pet 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
The Lord bought the Church, and the false prophets... He bought the World (the field) in order to get the Church (the pearl of great value, the hidden treasure)
Maybe we should ask the LS proponents for some clarity on the subject.... are we supposed to forsake the world (the field) in order to gain Christ, or buy the world (the field) in order to gain Christ?
Seems MacArthur's creativity has again trapped his preaching in inconsistency. This is a great indication of fallacy, as God cannot lie.
Kev
Jan, great quote from Hard To Believe. The truth is the LS proponent has no argument with the Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteKev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThe documented statements that appear throughout the various print and electronic sources from John Macarthur leaves no doubt whatsoever for the objective reader that his/this interpretation of the Gospel is a false, works-based message.
I want to share a brief excerpt from the new edition of my book, In Defense of the Gospel, for it speaks very well to this particular discussion. This is from pp. 128-129 in the chapter, What is Biblical Repentance?
The Bible teaches that the Savior saves “the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6) in their sin, and believers from the power of sin (Rom. 6:1-ff; Gal. 5:16). Jurist theologian Ron Shea (Th.M., J.D.) explains that Lordship’s front-loading of the gospel is fundamentally a bilateral contract at law.
“In this view, eternal salvation is not dependent on the performance of a work, but only the promise of future works. In the minds of those determined to adhere to salvation by works, this distinction supposedly allows the works of the law to be somehow added to the equation of salvation without annulling the doctrine of grace. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans would disagree. ‘For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is of none effect.’ The…expression of ‘saving repentance’ is nothing more than a specific form or expression of Bilateral Contract Salvation . . . “a promise for a promise.” The lost sinner ‘promises’ future obedience in exchange for God’s ‘promise’ of eternal life. This errant understanding of the term “repentance” is the most common and pervasive form of ‘Lordship Salvation’ taught within Christendom throughout the world.”
LM
When I read his latest revision of The Gospel According to Jesus, (ha that sentence is loaded isn't it?)
ReplyDeleteLOL, Kev!!!
JanH
JMac said: Eternal life is a reward that only comes from faithfully following Christ.
ReplyDeleteI participated in a discussion yesterday with some folks on facebook who prefer the term "Christ follower". I pointed out that "Christ follower" draws attention to what I am doing rather than to what Christ has done. It seems "Christ follower" has become kinda trendy in recent years but it also seems to reek of Lordship to me. At the very least it's confusing since atheists and agnostics can and do claim to "follow Christ" in regard to many of his moral and social teachings, yet they reject his deity and salvific claims. These people are "Christ-followers" yet are relying on their own works to bring them... whatever it is they think it gets them.
I pointed all this out and was told I was being "extreme" -- but I don't think so, especially today after seeing this JMac quote which connects the phrase in exactly the way I think is so misleading. BEING a Christ follower is certainly a good thing, but we are not saved by "following Christ", we are saved by "believing" in Christ.
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you again. The experience you describe is not unique
No, you were not extreme. You have it exactly right, because you have the biblical order right: a new believer becomes a follower, i.e. a disciple. LS blurs the lines of distinction between salvation and discipleship.
Now, consider this. The full name of MacArthur’s book (the original edition) is What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, “Follow Me:” The Gospel According to Jesus.
Taken at face value TGATJ is actually the subtitle. The book has come to be identified by that subtitle.
The real LS, the Gospel (saving message) JMac insists on for the lost man is justitication through an upfront commitment to following and then the performance of following Him for final salvation.
This matter of following for salvation is clearly indicated in the title of his book.
Lou
Wow, that is a really interesting correlation Lou.
ReplyDeleteI've only read "TGATJMac" :-D once but it was very obvious how he blurred the lines exactly as you say.
I did just realize however that, in my previous comment, I mistakenly quoted what Jan wrote ABOUT what JMac said rather than JMac himself. I don't think it changes the meat of my comment, as substantiated by the observations of his book title in your reply, but I do want to set the record straight.
Stephen-
ReplyDeleteThe term "Christ Follower" is also heavily propagated by the Emergent/Contemplative crowd. One major proponent of that terminology is Bill Hull.
JanH
Lou-
ReplyDeleteI just want to make sure I understand this bilateral contract thing correctly. Is it like what Jacob did when he said in Genesis 28:20-22,
"If God will be with me, and keep me int his way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You."?
Is that a bilateral contract?
JanH
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI have recently started following your blog, and I have to tell you at the start that I disagree with what you are saying here. This is a large and involved issue, but maybe you could help me understand more of where you are coming from on this. Two questions: First, when you give the gospel, how much emphasis should there be on repentance? Second, how do you interpret Matthew 16:24?
Ben:
ReplyDeleteAppreciate that you’re reading, hope you find some things here helpful. You will find that I do reject the reductionist soteriology of the late Zane Hodges, and its current home, the Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin (Exec. Director).
Now, only because once in a while we have guests who will only ask, but refuse to answer questions, I want to make sure you know this is a two way street; OK?
That said, I am at work, so a quick answer for your first, maybe with a question to you at the end.
You asked, “when you give the gospel, how much emphasis should there be on repentance?” Answer: As much as faith. If you want my very brief view on repentance, see-
What is Biblical Repentance?
That link is to a brief excerpt at this blog from the new edition of my book and appears on pp. 145-146. I also recommend-
Lordship’s “Turn from Sin” FOR Salvation
BTW, I allow for any guests to answers questions that are in the threads. So, your Matt. 16 question is open to all.
Thanks for participating. I have to get back to work and I plan to watch the Blackhawks clinch the Stanley Cup tonight; we hope.
LM
Ben:
ReplyDeleteI'll have that resposne to your Matthew question in the morning.
In a 2006 online discussion with Nathan Busenitz (MacArthur’s personal assistant) he wrote to me, “But Lordship (Salvation) sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”
“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,” (John 12:42-43).
The Bible says they were not open about, and would not confess Him (Jesus). They would not confess a “change of allegiance.”
Here is my question to you: Did they biblically repent; were they believers?
LM
No problem, Lou. I will answer any questions you have about my position on this issue. In fact, I will answer your question above, "Did they biblically repent; were they believers?" I am glad that you bring up these verses, but I think you stop short in this passage. Here is what the remainder of the passages says:
ReplyDeleteJohn 12:44-50-Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 "I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him-- the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.
50 "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.(NKJV)
Why did our Lord put such an emphasis on what it means to believe in Him? I think that verses 42-43 (which you quote) tell us why he did. I don't believe these men truly knew Him. They "believed" yes, but this belief was not a belief that changed their lives or their thinking. They did not wholly follow the Lord, and Christ is emphasizing what it means to truly believe.
Belief alone does not save anyone. James 2:19-You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-- and tremble!(NKJ) There had to be something more, Lou. When the Spirit of God convicts a sinner, he convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-11). Repentance then, is a gift from God that enables them to be saved. How else can a dead man make that decision. He can't!
Hello Ben, I addressed Matt 16 in other thread in response to James Kime, a Lordship Salvation advocate. Here is my post in its entirety:
ReplyDeleteJames, you are making Matt 16:24-26 a requirement for a lost person to be saved, are you not? If that isn't a works salvation, nothing is. You may claim it's grace and not works, by saying it's God's power alone that does it.
However, that flies in the face of the fact that the Scripture here clearly gives us this task to perform, not God. A lost person certainly does not have the power to do this, don't you agree?
A saved person however, with the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit would have access for the strength to do this, but it is still nevertheless done in cooperation with the will of the saint, and saints do not lose their free will after getting saved. So not all saints will choose to take up their cross and follow Christ.
This is why these verses have great exhortational value for those who are already born-again. And indeed, Jesus was giving
this exhortation to His saved disciples.
If this is a roadmap for how the lost get saved, then once saved, there would be no worries if these verses were ignored. Of course, you would state that a truly saved person could not ignore them. The old circular argument there.
Your view of "life" and "soul" here, has the assumption of "eternal" read into them, as if one could lose their "eternal
life", or "eternal soul" and wind up in hell, unless one turns his back on everthing and completely follows Christ as a disciple.
That is a wild distortion of the text, as your eisegesis is entirely unsupported by it.
Have you not read verse 27? It is clear from the context that rewards are in view here.
And you are mistaken, a saint can lose their life/soul by having all that they worked for in this life come to nothing (I Cor 3:15), and in extreme cases even possibly having their physical lives end prematurely (I John 5:16 and I Cor 11:30), but they will still be eternally saved (I Cor. 3:15).
Phil
Ben:
ReplyDeleteTo make sure I understand your answer, you are saying that these men referenced in John 12:42-43 as men who “believed on Him” were actually unsaved, not yet born again? Is that what you are claiming?
LM
Ben:
ReplyDeleteBTW, appreciate your willingness to answer questions, my last LS prone guest was not so cooperative.
Now a brief reaction to your extended comment on Jn. 12. I recognize you are basing your reaction on Calvinistic presuppositions, such as Total Inability and I strongly suspect regeneration before faith and that repentance/faith is the gift of God. Now, to help others who may be unaware of these views I direct them to these two articles by George Zeller.
The Danger of Teaching Regeneration Precedes Faith
The Danger of Teaching Faith is the Gift of God
I believe both of these views are extra-biblical presuppositions.
No one is arguing against the sinfulness of man the convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit. No one is arguing against “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” In your answer, however, I see you are arguing for behavior over believing. You are basing salvation, i.e., justification on how a man behaves, not on what and in whom he believed.
I believe a genuine conversion should result in genuine results, i.e. growth as a believer. Not perfect, but growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I also believe that Peter, who had a number of serious lapses in his walk with the Lord, was a believer, a saved man. If we put Peter to the test that you’ve put these men in Jn. 12:42-43 to, then you must conclude Peter had not really believed on Him, had not truly known Him.
LM
Ben:
ReplyDeleteNow, your question on Matthew 16:24. This is discipleship. Jesus is speaking to disciples. These are born again believers whom He is calling on to follow Him in discipleship no matter what the cost.
“Following Jesus as a disciple means the unconditional sacrifice of his whole life for the whole of his life.... It is important for understanding discipleship of Jesus to realize that the call to be a disciple always includes the call to service. . . . The disciples would have been a circle of immediate followers who were commissioned to particular service. . . . The essence of discipleship lies in the disciple’s fulfillment of his duty to be a witness to his Lord in his entire life.” (“Disciple,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 486-490.)
Dr. Ernest Pickering reviewed MacArthur’s TGATJ. He noted, “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).”
This passage in Matthew is NOT evangelism, this is discipleship.
LM
Thanks for your comments Lou and Phil. I am still not convinced though. First, regarding John 12, Lou. The Scripture says that these men simply believed "in him." John uses the word pisteuo in the aorist and it should be translated, "had faith in." I still think that the following verses spoken by Christ were the result of these men not truly believing unto salvation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both of your comments on Matthew 16, I understand that this is the classic passage that so many want to preach, especially to teenagers about their need to surrender and follow the Lord. Lou, you are incorrect when you say that he only spoke this to his disciples. A parallel passage to this is Mark 8. Notice what it says in verse 34, "And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. Furthermore, in all of the passages (cf. Matthew 16; Mark 8; Luke 9) Christ clearly states, "For what will it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and loose his own soul." If you are truly a disciple, this cannot happen. This was a message then to the crowd that surrounded him. I would also point out the conditional statement with which Christ starts the passage out, "If any man..." The disciples were already following him and had made that choice, with the exception of Judas, who was not a believer either. I do not agree with your thought on Peter because while Peter was not perfect and was inconsistent, he still clearly showed that he was a saved man in other of his actions.
Ben:
ReplyDeleteMore later, but I must say that your position that the men who believed in Jesus in John 12 were unbelievers is to force an interpretation on the passage that is not there or defensible.
Since you believe these men who “did not confess Him” for fear of the Jews, were unsaved, not Christians then you must agree that Peter was also an unbeliever. Peter, for fear of the Jews, refused to confess Him, denied the Lord three times; he quite the ministry “I go a fishing,” and the dissimulation. That track record, according to your interpretation of John 12, and if you are going to be consistent, means for you that Peter was an unsaved man.
Yours is a classic and tragic reinterpretation this passage. Too often LS men come to the Bible with LS/Calvinistic presuppositions and then try to force into or extract from the Scriptures an interpretation to bolster the LS presuppositions.
LM
Ben:
ReplyDeleteOne other note on this from you.
“I do not agree with your thought on Peter because while Peter was not perfect and was inconsistent, he still clearly showed that he was a saved man in other of his actions.”
How do you know these imperfect men in John 12 were inconsistent to the point of insisting they were never saved in the first place? How do you know, that outside that one failure, they never lived a life with actions that clearly showed they truly pleased the Lord?
You are trying to force interpretations based on LS presuppositions. I say that kindly and with humility.
Let the Scriptures say what they say without the trappings of logic or presuppositions.
LM
Posting for Jan H, whose is experiencing a temporary connection problem with Blogger.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading the passage in John 12:37-50 and I have to say that, while the passage does say a great many important things, I do not see that it necessarily says what Ben sees it is saying.
What I do see is
1) A contrast is made between those among the leaders who do and those who do not believe, but with the rebuke on those who do believe for failure to confess their belief because they love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Nevertheless, they are said to believe, as contrasted with the leaders who do not.
2) Belief is contrasted with confession.
3) After these contrasts and rebuke are made, the subject goes back to belief and confession is not mentioned again.
Now, I find there are some questions that come up. For one thing, how does John know these men believed? Is it revealed to him at a later time by the Holy Spirit for the writing of this Gospel? Did Jesus, who knows the hearts of all men, tell the disciples later that there were men among the Pharisees who believed, though they did not confess? Or did these men have some kind of clandestine encounter with the Lord and the disciples where they told them of their position? Obviously, in spite of their lack of open confession before the council it was somehow made known to John that these men believed and is the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Scripture that they did, albeit with the rebuke of their failure to confess.
Also, why would these men be said to have believed at all if belief without confession is worthless?
And then we know today of many believers who are "closet believers" for fear of their lives. Nevertheless, the Lord does seem to have these people "outed" eventually, one way or another so it is certainly true that He is not satisfied with a lack of confession. He wants His people known for who(se) they are. However, in these cases it seems He forces the confession BECAUSE they believe already, not in order that they may become believers and be saved thereby. I think of poor Rifqa Bary who became a believer at age 13 but was not "outed" to her Muslim family until last summer at age 17. And when she was "outed," she is not the one who told them. She was "outed" by the leaders of the family's mosque. Now, when her faith was discovered, she did own it and now her life is in danger. But it is not correct to say that she did not become a believer until she had to run for her life. Rather, she had to run for her life because she is a believer. For the previous 4 years she had been a believer in secret, but a believer just the same, or she would have had no faith to own when confronted.
JanH
Posting for Jan H, whose is experiencing a temporary connection problem with Blogger.
ReplyDeleteThis could get old real fast, but here is another one:
I still think that the following verses spoken by Christ were the result of these men not truly believing unto salvation.
I think the following verses spoken by Christ were not for the men who believed but did not confess. I think they go to the ones that did not believe, in accordance with vs. 37-41. I think that vs.42-43 were included for the express purpose of distinguishing these men from the unbelieving ones. Because they did believe, He was careful to exclude them from vs 44-50. These men were still worthy of a rebuke, but a different rebuke, that the Holy Spirit faithfully delivered.
JanH
Ben:
ReplyDeleteConsider the plain teaching of these passages.
“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).
“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,” (Acts 16:31).
What is the condition for salvation, the reception of eternal life, justification? Believe.
Now, in John 12:42-43 the Bible says those men “believed on Him,” that is they were believers in the Christ, the Son of God. In John 12:44 Jesus is very clear believe on Him is to believe on the Father and in verse 12 it is explicit that many had “believed on Him,” but of course some did not confess Him for fear.
In Matthew we read Peter’s great confession, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the Loving God,” (Matt. 16:16). We are aware of his inconsistency.
You have looked at the men in John 12 and the life of Peter and you have declared the former unsaved and the latter saved? But on what basis have you come to that conclusion? Not believing on/in Him, but solely their behavior and that we can call the works of men.
This is a dangerous departure from the Gospel of grace.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYour explanation/interpretation of John 12:12-43 is very questionable to say the least. The fact that these men loved the approval or glory of men more than the approval or glory of God shows they were not yet redeemed. The fact of someone saying they "believe in Him" as a definition for saving faith is not always true. As noted in
In John 2:23-25 -Now when He was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many "believed in His name",observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men.
A simple intellectual assent to Christ is not saving faith. After all the cults believe in Jesus. Jesus knew what was in their hearts. This text shows that just because you "say" you believe in Him does not always constitute proof of salvation. Is that not the way it is even today in every congregation? Many sit week after week under sound Gospel preaching and are unmoved by the gospel appeal. We know that there are now and always will be tares among the wheat. They are not openly agnostic, they do not despise the contents of the gospel. But their hearts have not been won to the gospel. You seem to suggest that there is a saving faith that does not confess Christ.
In regards to Peter we see later after his denial, that Peter does repent and confess Christ . In this text John 12:42-43, in this very moment these men do not have saving faith. Do they have it later? Who knows? The fact is at this moment in this text they do not. You are trying to read something into this text that is not here. That is a classic case of eisegetical interpretation you are so apt to describe in another. If we use proper hermeneutics, and using the "analogy of faith" (scripture interpreting scripture) we see some very stern warnings about those who do not confess and continue not to confess Christ, such as Luke 12:8-9 "and I say to you everyone who confesses Me before men the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God, but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. We also see in Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved, for with a heart a person believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
These men did not want to be put out of the synagogue, they loved their religion. To follow Christ they no doubt realized, at least at this moment in time confessing Christ would set them at odds with their religion and its teachers. So it goes for those who say they believe in Jesus and are in a cult and remain even after the true Christ has been presented. These men simply would rather stay in their false made up religion of man than to follow "the" Truth. In John 9:22 we see that these men in ch.12 already knew that if anyone would confess Christ they would be put out. This obviously did not take them by surprise. It must have been discussed openly among them. They were motivated then by self-interest at best. Also we see the words of Jesus in John 5:44 -How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God.
You too are guilty of going too far in your quest to dismantle LS. You appear by your use/ interpretation of this text to present a wide gate. As you say LS presents too narrow of a gate or maybe even no gate. You do your cause no justice with some of your exegesis, such as John 12:42-43
Kind regards
Nolan
No answers from this passage, Lou...only accusations. This is a discussion, and I am not asking for a "reaction" as you mentioned before. I get the feeling that there is some reacting going on. Look at the passages...both John 12 and Matthew 16. I have never once said in my comments that these men were not believers because of their lack of profession. I said that it appeared that way because of the following verses and the words spoken by Christ about them. You were the one that brought up these verses, and I am simply pointing out some facts about it. I still welcome your comments on the Matthew 16 passage.
ReplyDeleteLet me review so that I am not accused of looking at this passage through rose colored classes (or Calvinistic glasses as you have accused me).
First, the Scripture tells us of these rulers who believed in Christ (the same terminology used of the devils in James 2. I would hope that you and I at least agree that they are not saved) but they did not profess him because they loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God (the Greek word "doxa" is used here so I think that makes a little more sense than approval).
Second, verse 44 tells us that Jesus "cried out." It is the word Krazo. Louw-Nida states that this word means "to shout or cry out, with the possible implication of the unpleasant nature of the sound - 'to shout, to scream."
My question again, what made Jesus get so upset and so indignant that he had to speak like this? He was obviously getting a message out to someone. My belief is that it was to these men because he truly knew their hearts.
I await your answers on this and on Matthew 16, because these answers still have not been given. I am not asking for your talking points, Lou. I am asking for answers from the text. The text of Scripture is KING for any of these issues and until you show me from these passages a reason to believe what you say, I stand by my positions.
Regarding Peter, I have never said that he was not a believer, nor would any person espousing my position accuse someone of not being a believer because they made a mistake. Living continually in sin is a different issue and we can address that at a later time. Peter clearly stated his public belief in Christ as Savior and followed the Lord. I suspect Jesus would have been "crying out" at Peter in John 21 if this were not the case. Instead, he reassures and rebukes Peter. See the difference between Peter and these rulers? I think that our Lord's response to them is the contributing factor here.
Jan, thanks for your comment as well. You said,
ReplyDelete"Also, why would these men be said to have believed at all if belief without confession is worthless?"
This is the million dollar question. I suspect it has to do with the way the Lord responded to these men. It is the preface to explain the Lord's reaction in verses 44-50.
Jan,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good statement:
"I think the following verses spoken by Christ were not for the men who believed but did not confess. I think they go to the ones that did not believe, in accordance with vs. 37-41. I think that vs.42-43 were included for the express purpose of distinguishing these men from the unbelieving ones. Because they did believe, He was careful to exclude them from vs 44-50. These men were still worthy of a rebuke, but a different rebuke, that the Holy Spirit faithfully delivered."
I agree with you that this is certainly a possibility. I just now had a chance to sit down and look over the passage again, and can certainly see your point here. Thanks for sharing it.
Hi Lou! Hi Ben & All!
ReplyDeleteBen, you are to be commended for your tone. I have engaged in debates with a multitude of LS believers and so far you have been the most pleasant of the bunch.
I've noted that when things become combative they lose almost all potential for edification. You would be wise, as would the rest of us, to hold on to the calm - yet complete and accurate - discussion of the Scriptures.
I very much appreciate that you have not attacked anyone's personalities while you have been discussing.
I ask you, humbly I hope, to hear the words which are to the effect accusing you of inserting theology into the Text instead (eisegesis) instead of extracting it from the Text (exegesis) with the ears of one who understands there is no other way to tell someone they are wrong than to say they are wrong. It is not an attack against your character, it is merely a required step it edification.
Unto Him be all praise and glory!
Kev
I seem to be back in the saddle, sort of. I had to "create a blog" for myself. (?) I have no idea why.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting my comments for me, Lou.
In case anyone was wondering, when I said "this could get old real fast" I was referring to having to send Lou my comments instead of submitting them to blogger. I was not referring to the subject of discussion here.
JanH
Nolan:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input. On the John 12 passage we are going to disagree as well as with other elements in your comment.
Ben:
Of the men in John 12 you wrote, “I don’t believe these men truly knew Him.” Seemed clear to me. This means, unless you want to retract or clarify, that you believe those men were unsaved. Did I misunderstand you?
On Matthew 16, see 8:25am today. That was my answer.
LM
Nolan & Ben:
ReplyDeleteWe can go round-and-round on this, but we are not going to agree. That is plain. So, we’ll disagree charitably.
So that you know- my blog is here primarily to present the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation, not to offer a place where it can be propagated. I allow for some, but very little thread debate over LS because I do not want to provide a venue for its propagation by its advocates.
Just want to be fair in letting you know that this blog is for a defense of the Gospel against what I believe to be Lordship’s works based, man-centered message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
There are scores of pro-LS blogs, so I keep this one clear of most pro-LS commentary. My blog, my rules and these are to keep the unsuspecting and/or susceptible lurkers from being allured by the message of LS and falling into its trap.
My other guests are welcome to engage your concerns, interact with you as much as they'd like and I will as I am able.
LM
Ben-
ReplyDeleteI have to say your last comment to me was especially gracious as my comment about what I meant concerning what could get old real fast was not yet posted so you might easily have thought I meant answering you! (I did not.)
Thank you very much for that!
JanH
In Jn 12 we find Christ teaching much. He divides those who believe from those who do not, and quite forcefully so.
ReplyDeleteLazarus is resurrected, and Christ predicts His death and resurrection. Many reject this, but some believe.
At the same time the Lord explains the difference of reward that those who believe while cowering will experience compared to those who believe and follow with abandon.
The dividing line is between who can believe that Christ will die and resurrect and those who will not all who "believe in the Light" become sons of the Light. If they see, and believe they will be "healed"
How they perform after being healed is how they will be rewarded.
The passage is not at all unclear about these things.
Kev
Lou,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect I am not propigating LS here. Just Honest examination of text you use to refute LS. I do think "some" of the concerns you raise may actually be legit. I do think as I stated earlier, you at times go a lil too far in your refutation of LS by mishandling some texts. Of which I am guilty as well on certain doctrinal issues.
Kevl,
Are you saying Christ is resurrects Lazarus in Ch. 12? huh?
Or more like Lazarus has been ressurrected by Christ prior to Ch. 12? Isn't that in ch. 11?
Is not the reward eternal life?
How they perform after being healed is how they will be rewarded.
I take that healing/conversion in that verse to be eternal life. Are you saying how they perform after conversion merits eternal life.?
What are they rewarded with if not eternal life?
Ben:
ReplyDeleteI am going to post your previous comment for you, with one deletion- the final brief paragraph.
You may not be aware, but I have a long standing policy where I do not allow for links to blogs that do or may contain teaching that I feel may not be in the best interest of my guests and have them drawn toward. It is a safeguard of sorts. That is why your final paragraph will not appear, but I am reposting the rest. Kev also has the same policy at his blog.
Lou
To All [From BEN]:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind comments and good discussion. It has been edifying in many respects. Lou, I wish you the best, and I will check back from time to time on what you are posting. I am sorry that you felt the need to shut down the discussion:
"So that you know- my blog is here primarily to present the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation, not to offer a place where it can be propagated. I allow for some, but very little thread debate over LS because I do not want to provide a venue for its propagation by its advocates. Just want to be fair in letting you know that this blog is for a defense of the Gospel against what I believe to be Lordship’s works based, man-centered message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). There are scores of pro-LS blogs, so I keep this one clear of most pro-LS commentary. My blog, my rules and these are to keep the unsuspecting and/or susceptible lurkers from being allured by the message of LS and falling into its trap. My other guests are welcome to engage your concerns, interact with you as much as they'd like and I will as I am able."
You never answered my questions regarding Matthew 16:
"In response to both of your comments on Matthew 16, I understand that this is the classic passage that so many want to preach, especially to teenagers about their need to surrender and follow the Lord. Lou, you are incorrect when you say that he only spoke this to his disciples. A parallel passage to this is Mark 8. Notice what it says in verse 34, "And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. Furthermore, in all of the passages (cf. Matthew 16; Mark 8; Luke 9) Christ clearly states, "For what will it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and loose his own soul." If you are truly a disciple, this cannot happen. This was a message then to the crowd that surrounded him. I would also point out the conditional statement with which Christ starts the passage out, "If any man..." The disciples were already following him and had made that choice, with the exception of Judas, who was not a believer either."
It is your blog and your postings, so I had hoped to get the answers from you directly and not from other guests here on the blog. By backing down, it appeared that you didn't have an answer. Perhaps this could be another article for you down the road. I am disappointed nonetheless.
Ben
Ben:
ReplyDeleteJust a few quick responses.
Sorry you thought I had shut down the discussion; that is not the case. My ability to participate can be and this week is very limited. I am working every day this week and most days up to 12 hours.
You can post here and interact with the others (Phil, Kev, Jan and Stephen) who are friends of, regular guests and contributors to this blog. The “other guests” very frequently interact with others on both sides of the LS and other debates who come here from time-to-time. They do not speak for me, but I do encourage and appreciate their interaction with guests such as yourself. They bring a great deal to the table for serious consideration, which I think you’ve recognized.
Again, on Matthew 16, yesterday at 8:25am I posted what I thought was a direct answer to your initial question in this thread; did I miss something?
Lou
Nolan:
ReplyDeleteI read and will give serious considertion the brief paragraph above you directed to my attention.
While I strive to raise legitimate concerns over LS I do my best to be faithful to the/a text, but we all must be teachable and that I also strive to be.
Yours faithfully,
LM
Hi Nolan, I'm not sure if we've ever conversed before. If so forgive me for forgiving. If not then HELLO!
ReplyDeleteYou asked Are you saying Christ is resurrects Lazarus in Ch. 12? huh?
I don't think my mistake affects the discussion at hand in the slightest.
Then you asked Is not the reward eternal life?
Eternal Life is a GIFT, not a reward. Rom 6:23, Rom 4:4
A reward is given to one who has earned it. Those who call Eternal Life (either directly or by implication) likewise preach a works based salvation.
You carry this misunderstanding into your next question so I will quote the whole in order to maintain your context.
How they perform after being healed is how they will be rewarded.
I take that healing/conversion in that verse to be eternal life. Are you saying how they perform after conversion merits eternal life.?
What are they rewarded with if not eternal life?
Nolan, there is no condemnation for those in Christ Rom 8:1, however all will be judged. Heb 9:27, Rev 22:12
Non-Believers will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment Rev 20:11-15
Believers will be Judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ 1Cor 3:11-14 2Cor 5:10
Notice that Believers will be given "reward" for what we do in the flesh, whether evil or good. The rewards are eternal, but they are no "Eternal Life" which is knowing Christ.
Kev
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I can find (quickly) about Matt 16 is this question from you;
Second, how do you interpret Matthew 16:24?
Is this the question you wanted answered??
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Please forgive my bluntness, but this is only confusing with regards to our conversation about LS IF one replaces "come after me" with "receive Eternal Life".... if you don't insert that thought into the Text the rest of the passage is not confusing at all.
It's interesting to me how often the LS and the GES "crossless gospel" cross paths in their theology. See the GES says if you "desire Eternal Life" then "Believe Jesus for it" where the LS proponent says "if you desire Eternal Life" then "give up your life to receive it"
The actual problem the Sinner has is not that he "desires" Eternal Life - in fact if you spend any ammount of time actually witnessing to Sinners as I have made it my mission to do you will quickly find the Sinner either thinks he already has it, or doesn't care about it enough to give it any thought.
The problem the Sinner has is that he needs to be reconciled to God, not become good enough, not get the free gift of Eternal Life but to be reconciled.
Reconcilation comes through admitting a fault. Think about how you reconcile with people. You are reconciled when the wrong has been paid for, or you've been satisfied for the wrong. After reconcilation it is common for people to promise to do better... but can you imagine demanding a person promise to do better before you would forgive them for their past wrong? The Bible calls this process of reconcilation "Propitiation" God was propitiated or satisfied for the Sins of the world through Christ's death. He demonstrated that this was fully accepted by resurrecting Christ.
Now the sinner must simply admit his wrong, and trust that God truly has been fully propitiated through Christ's crosswork.
Both the GES and the LS movements minimize the Cross to insignificance. Something that God did in the background which is not the focus of the Gospel. What shame one must rightly have when they explain such a view at Judgment.
The Cross is the focus of the Gospel, not us. We admit our wrong.
In Matt 16 Peter is shocked that Jesus would die in such a way - like a guilty sinner on a cross.
Jesus says we need to each take up our cross - which is to say willingly wear our guilt. Jesus was obedient unto death on the Cross but taking up your cross is not a picture of obedience to the commands of God - as it is often portrayed to be.
Taking up your cross is to willingly show your guilt before all people. Paul's glorying in his weaknesses. Showing the faithfulness of God to save guilty sinners - Rom 4.
I hope this helps you,
Kev
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your humility. That is truly how iron sharpens iron. I have learned some things from visiting your site(although rarely commenting).
Kevl,
You said
How they perform after being healed is how they will be rewarded
I may have misunderstood. I thought that that statement was something you took out of your reading of John 12. I see healing but I do not see a reference to rewards in that chapter. Yes, I agree we do as believers receive rewards in heaven as you quoted.
I may have been a lil to presumptious.
What do you interpret the "healing" to mean?
You said,
Eternal Life is a GIFT, not a reward. Rom 6:23, Rom 4:4
A reward is given to one who has earned it. Those who call Eternal Life (either directly or by implication) likewise preach a works based salvation.
On the contrary scripture at times does speak of eternal life as a reward. It is not by implication that scripture (at times) speaks of eternal life as a reward, but rather directly. Not my words or theological construct but actually the word of God.
How do you read Hebrews 11:26? Notice it says "THE" reward. Not in the plural sense- REWARDS. What do you say "THE" reward is in this verse?
Hebrews 11:26
He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt,for he was looking to "The" reward.
Colossians 3:24- knowing that of the Lord you shall receive "THE" reward of the inheritance, for yee serve the Lord Christ.
Also,
Genesis 15:1-after these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision saying, do not be afraid Abram, I am your shield your exceedingly great REWARD.
So, we see Christ is our reward.
Also read Hebrews 10:35-39
In no way do I think salvation is works based. It is faith alone in Christ alone.
Kind regards,
Nolan
Nolan:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Thanks for your humility. That is truly how iron sharpens iron. I have learned some things from visiting your site (although rarely commenting)."
Kind words and I appreciate them.
I address a number of issues in regard to and around the Gospel. I trust every visitor is blessed and edified in some small way by something that is here.
God's richest blessing to you.
Lou
Hi Nolan,
ReplyDeleteYou asked how I view Heb 11:26 - He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.
This is actually the same point that the Lord is making in Jn 12. This is about performance and reward, not Justification.
Check out Jn 12:26 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.
Notice that this is about service (performance) and the Father will "honor" those who serve. This is performance and reward - not a GRACE (unmerited favour) based gift. This is God rewarding performance.
Notice also that the Lord shows who is not saved in vs 47 & 48. It is he who does not believe, who rejects the Christ who was lifted up on the Cross. Not he who fails to give up his life.
Col 3:24 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for[a] you serve the Lord Christ.
You answer the question in the question you ask. This is about the inheritance, we are coheirs with Christ. We will be rewarded from Christ's riches, and given to rule with Him according to our performance.... I know that you are well familiar with the Scriptures to know these things. Why ask? Christ surely did not "inherit Eternal Life" any more than we will "inherit" Eternal Life.
Col 3:24 reward is a "recompense" http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/469.htm it is a payment for work. If Eternal Life is a payment for work then that is a works based salvation. It cannot be anything but.
Gen 15:1 - yes God Himself is our riches, our reward for He will give reward of Himself. However this is not about Justification, for we see that 5 verses later. Abram believed God and this was accounted as righteousness.
In order to discuss Heb 10:35-39 I must first find out if you believe one can loose their salvation either by choice or performance. If you do not believe these things, based on a right understanding of the rest of Scripture than your citing these verses as though they could support someone not attaining Eternal Life is a dishonest argument. If you do believe one can loose their salvation than you and I are having the wrong conversation.
What I'm saying, in case I have not been clear enough for some of our less familiar readers - if one can not loose their salvation then this passage can not be about Salvation. If one can loose their salvation, then the argument that Lou, Jan, Phil and I have been promoting is false for it is based on our security being provided by Christ's complete proptiation of the Father for our sins.
Nolan, I start discussion with LS proponents with a great deal of distrust - this has come from years of experience, and not from any demonstration of your character. However, based on your question about my citing Lazarus (with I redily admit I was unclear about which allowed for error - though my point was valid) and now your suspicious quoting of these passages raises my concern.
I've been complete in my reply to you, however I expect transparency in your communication if I am to continue. I'm making no accusation, I prefer to consider you ignorant of the implications of your choices, but I'm being clear so that you do not get taken off-guard if I decide to cease this conversation.
Kev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need to reread my comments. I was just simply stating that the bible does use the word reward as a metaphor for where heaven bound Christian will live eternally. I equate eternal life with being heaven bound. In fact all people live eternally, either in Hell or with Christ.I was not speaking of the doctrine of justification.
In fact I see other very questionable things you posted to Ben and others and would like to comment on those remarks, but would more than likely violate my conscience and scripture as well, such as 2Timothy 2:14 So, with respect I will not comment. I sincerely disagree with your theology. Not just your view on LS. But that is o.k. because I am sure you would disagree with mine as well.
And yes I believe in the doctrine of eternal security.
Did not mean to offend you in anyway by calling out your mistake about Lazarus. I thought you saw something there in John 12 concerning the raising of Lazarus that was just not there.
Kind regards,
Nolan
Ben/Nolan:
ReplyDeleteDr. Charlie Bing’s dissertation, which MacArthur is familiar with, IMO thoroughly refutes Lordship Salvation at every level. Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response contains a discussion of Mark 8. The section on Mark 8 and its parallels in Matt. 16 and Luke 9 is on pp. 131-140.
You’ll find the pertinent discussion from Bing’s dissertation in Chapter 5 beginning with the subheading, An Evaluation of Key Bible Passages, and begins with this sentence, “The Lordship interpretation of discipleship in relation to salvation summons its strongest argument from a number of passages in the Gospels.
Here are a few thoughts on Bing’s discussion of Mark 8 for your consideration.
1) The cross that is mentioned in the passage is clearly not Christ’s cross, but our own. So what they’re really saying is that the work done by Christ on His cross PLUS our cross = salvation. That screams WORKS!
2) The parallel in Matt. 16:27 makes it very clear that the issue in the saving of one’s life is receiving a “reward” based on one’s “works.”
3) Thus in this context, the saving of the “life” is referring to one’s post-regeneration life not being wasted but having eternal significance in terms of eschatological reward and position of service for Christ in eternity.
4) One point that is often missed with this passage is that, not only in Mark 8, but also in Matt. 16 and Luke 9, the Lord’s instruction on carrying our cross is and not denying Him is immediately preceded in context by Peter’s confession of faith and subsequent denial that Jesus should go to Jerusalem and die, followed by Christ’s famous “Get thee behind Me Satan” statement. This means that the Lord was looking prospectively to the disciples’ future denial of Him when the Shepherd was struck and the 11 were scattered at Calvary. In other words, they DID deny Him and were ashamed of Him . . . for a while. It is possible for genuine believers to deny Him and not take up their crosses.
5) Luke 9:23 adds in some texts the word “daily” to the admonition to carry our cross. Does this mean that in order to get to heaven we must do something every day? Even many perseverance advocates wouldn’t go that far.
6) The Luke 14 parallel talks about “counting the cost” --the exact opposite of “free” salvation (Rom. 3:24; Rev. 22:17).
7) In Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23, Christ prefaces His comments by saying “if anyone desires to come AFTER (opiso) Me. . .” Eternal life, justification, forgiveness, salvation, etc. is never predicated in any other passage of Scripture in “coming after” Christ but in “coming to” Christ, ie, by faith (Matt. 11:28; John 6:35, 37). In Luke 14:26, there are two conditions/descriptions stated, “coming to” Christ (all who are born again) and following “after” Christ (for obedient discipleship).
8) Mark 8 and the other parallel passages all talk about the possibility of being ashamed before Christ at His coming. This is a distinct possibility for genuine, but carnal and sleeping believers! (1 John 2:28; 1 Thess. 5:4-10; Rom 13:11-14).
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThere is so much I would like to say about Dr.Bing's points amd thoughts.In point #8 of Bings statements above, he uses Mark 8 to show the possibility of someone being ashamed at the coming of Christ as being carnal and a sleeping believer. I assume he is talking about the end of Mark 8?
Lou can you explain to me how you see verses 35-36? How Dr. Bing sees someone who will lose their soul as possibly being a carnal Christian is beyond the realm of "God given sanctified common sense". If indeed that is what he is trying to convey. I will read Dr. Bings statements carefully and would like to ask you some more questions about what he has written, so that I might get a better understanding of your position. I know that you quote Dr. Bing often. I have in the past attempted to answer some of Dr. Bings statements that you posted here, but you didn't post for various reasons, which I totally respect. So, I posted my rebuttal at my blog.
One more quick thought. In Matthew 16:24-27, Mark 8:34-38, Luke 9:23-26 we see two things are mentioned at his second coming in Matthew 16:27 we see rewards given because of the works of believers. In Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26 we see Christ ashamed of some, who no doubt, are unbelievers because they are ashamed of Christ. More importantly Christ is ashamed of them. So, These scriptures teach two things:
1) Believers will receive rewards based upon their good works while they were on earth, only due to their position IN Christ.(Matt 16:27)
2) Unbelievers possibly judged as well at His second coming?(Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26
Which by the way as you may know can open up a whole other can of worms when trying to determine the millenial rain of Christ ie. amil, postmil, premil positions.
Isn't it possible that 2 things are being viewed here. Not just rewards?
We have to reconcile these verses because we know that scripture does not contradict itself. The contradiction lies with in us and our interpretation due to the remaining sin in our lives.
I would like to comment on some of Dr. Bings statements and get your opinion on my thoughts.
With respect and charity,
Nolan
Nolan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation. I would not want you to violate your conscience.
Kev
Nolan:
ReplyDeleteI'd encourage you to follow the link I provided above to Chapter 5 of Bing's dissertation. Read him, in his own words and reflect on those there. He is, of course in a dissertation, very thorough.
I'm sure you'll find much more clarity and have all of your questions and concerns answered from that chapter of his dissertation.
The points I provided above are simply observations.
Lou
In response to BenB concerning Matthew 16 and Mark 8...
ReplyDeleteDr. Charles Bing deals with these passages with crystal clarity and Biblical authority at this link:
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/dissertation.asp?id=chp5
There is nothing more I could possibly add to his excellent exegesis.
Phil
Lou-
ReplyDeleteI don't want to make tooooo much of this, but I thought it was worth a note.
I went to read Bing's dissertation and am starting at the beginning. I found this section at the end of chapter 1. It is very interesting in light of the comment Stephen posted on people calling themselves "Christ-followers" and my reply concerning the Emergent/Contemplative crowd. Bing says:
Another issue that gives impetus to some in the Lordship position is concern for Christian influence in the social arena. Anyone deeply committed to a social agenda can conveniently advocate a Lordship gospel in which the gospel not only offers salvation from sin but also from sinful social structures. In their view, the gospel demands social commitment because Christ is Lord of all and those who are His disciples (or all the saved) will carry Christ’s lordship into society. A gospel that fails to bring people into the struggle for social change is a false gospel. 44 For a good overview and discussion of this issue, see Wagner, Church Growth, especially chapter 7, “The Gospel, Conversion, and Ethical Awareness.”
Exemplifying this concern is Jim Wallis who criticizes any gospel which omits costly discipleship and the demand for obedience in all areas of life because it is “biblically irresponsible and implicitly endorses a low view of Christ by suggesting the gospel is not relevant to the wider issues of human life and society.” He then includes social change in the content of the gospel:
Our gospel is God’s good news of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord who brings forgiveness, reconciliation, and a new creation; of his cross and resurrection which have won and sealed the victory over the forces of destruction and death; and of a radically new kind of community, a new humanity united in Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to live according to the standard and character of a new order.
Wow. Bing wrote his dissertation in 1991. Look where Wagner and Wallis are 20 years later! Now it is very incorrect to say that ALL LS proponents would be in agreement with Wagner and Wallis on the application of LS to society. This really goes with a dominionist eschatology, which many LSers do not hold. But for those who do, LS really does fit right in.
JanH
Phil/Jan:
ReplyDeleteDr. Bing's dissertation is a classic in answer to LS that I highly recommend to every Christian who is concerned with the man-centered, works based message of LS.
Lou
Thanks Bro. Lou for posting this.
ReplyDeleteTo All:
I don't see that MacArthur is the enemy here, I am commanded not to. But, I do see that the devil is the enemy. And the devil is a master counterfeiter and has counterfeited the gospel with another gospel that is not a gospel at all known as Lordship Salvation. The devil loves to use terms like, "Easy Believism" to undermine the true gospel. While that title is cute, there is no value to it. It is far easier to trust in your own good works to take you to Heaven + Christ, than to trust in Christ alone for salvation. This is exactly what Lordship Salvation teaches in a nutshell. They teach that salvation is by grace, but their lips do not match what they believe. In order to get to Heaven, according to Lordship Salvation, you must do the impossible. I have never met a Christian who has given up all their sins or totally surrendered their full life to the Lord. We are called to do service for Christ, but NEVER is it a requirement to be saved.
In short, Lordship Salvation is another man-centered message that is based on what I have done, what I am doing, and what I will do. People, our works are NEVER perfect which is why we must trust in the One Whose works are ALWAYS perfect, Jesus Christ.
In Christ,
ServantOfGod
Hello Bro. Martuneac,
ReplyDeleteI feel I must introduce myself. I am the one who goes by "ServantofGod". But, you know longer have to know me as that. I have my own blog at http://www.earnestlycontendingforthefaith.blogspot.com . If you would like to follow me, you can do so at your own time. I only wish to let you know who "Servant of God" is which is me.
Daniel:
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking and sharing the link to your blog.
LM