Dave Doran, “I’ve Never Read Any of MacArthur’s Books on the [Lordship Salvation] Subject”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

On Friday, July 16 Evangelist Gordon Phillips, at his Faith, Theology & Ministry blog published, There is a Difference and It’s a Name Changer! (I promoted and cited select excerpts from that article in the previous IDOTG article.)

This article discusses elements of a current series by Dr. Kevin Bauder. Brother Gordon asks,

“What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation away from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel?”

“That Gospel” is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Additional excerpts from the article include,

“If you are going to change your stance on ecclesiastical separation, please do not forget to change your name, as the two go hand-in-hand. ...what he [Kevin Bauder] is presently doing appears to be giving the new life-filled movement of his “ideal” Fundamentalism the compromised thinking of Neo Evangelicalism rather than a greater degree of Biblical fidelity.”

I posted a comment in the thread to bolster the article. Elements of my comment evoked a reaction from Pastor Dave Doran. If any wish to *read the exchange I had with Dave Doran you may visit the thread through the link below. From that exchange it was the following excerpt that is the subject of today’s article. Ps. Doran wrote,

“For the record, I’ve never read any of MacArthur’s books on the [Lordship Salvation] subject. If you want to know what I believe about the power of the gospel, then read chapter four of For the Sake of His Name.”

That statement prompted a query by Pastor Tom Stegall on Saturday afternoon in the thread. To date, Pastor Doran has not acknowledged or responded to what you are about to read. Without further delay this is Tom Stegall to Dave Doran.

Dr. Doran,

As the pastor of a large, conservative Baptist church and president of a conservative Baptist seminary, I am more than a little astonished to hear you say that you have never read ANY of John MacArthur’s books on the subject of Lordship Salvation (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, Saved Without a Doubt, Hard to Believe, etc.). The Lordship Salvation issue has been arguably the most controversial and hotly contested soteriological subject within conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the last two decades; and John MacArthur is the leading spokesman on this topic. This would be similar to living in 1530’s Europe and never having read anything by Calvin or Luther on the subject of justification.

That aside, I have personally read all of your book, For the Sake of His Name. On the whole, it is a very good book on missions in my estimation. I greatly appreciated and agreed with your position on missions and the local church and even your historical analysis about the detrimental effects of neo-evangelicalism and ecumenical parachurch organizations.

However, in your fourth chapter you plainly espouse Lordship Salvation. As one who has carefully read your fourth chapter, I have a question for you about salvation. In the chapter you maintain that when the lost believe the gospel they necessarily follow Christ thereafter as disciples; and if they do not, that means that they do not possess genuine saving faith and are not regenerated. While I also believe that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe, you clearly require a life of service and obedience in order to make it to heaven.

For example, on pp. 84-85 you say, “The biblical gospel makes disciples who have turned to Christ, not simply added him to their collection of gods or squeezed Him into an unaltered life. This is why Paul cold express confidence in the salvation of the Thessalonian believers . . .” and then you go on to quote 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 about turning to God “to serve” Him, followed by Matthew 6:24 about not serving two masters. You use the word “serve” three times in that paragraph on p. 85. This leaves the distinct impression in the mind of the reader that people had better “serve” Christ or else they are not truly saved and they will go to hell. How is that not salvation by works/service?

You also close the chapter by saying on p. 92, “Christ commanded us to make disciples who would follow Him in baptism and obey all that He commanded, so our missionary efforts must settle for nothing less.” Few would deny that the Great Commission entails more than preaching the good news of how a person may be justified in God’s sight. It also involves teaching them Christ’s commands and baptizing them as believers.

But this leads to another problem and question I have in regards to your chapter on the gospel, discipleship and the Great Commission. If baptism and obeying Christ’s commands is part of discipleship (and it is), and discipleship is part of believing the gospel as you argue throughout the chapter, then how does one escape the conclusion that baptism and obedience to Christ’s commands are not ultimately necessary for eternal salvation?

Tom Stegall

SITE PUBLISHER’S UPDATE:
In the thread below I have reproduced the brief exchange between Pastors Tom Stegall and Dave Doran. The thread picks up with Dave Doran’s first response to Stegall’s comment/question to him which is the main subject of this article. Please view the thread for their exchange.

Pastor Stegall’s comment appears exactly here in the thread at the Faith, Theology & Ministry blog.

*My initial comment appears at this point in the thread. You can scroll down to read the brief exchange between Ps. Doran and myself that followed. You will also want to read Brian’s penetrating responses to select portions of Doran’s comments.

Related Reading:

Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong?

Does “Final Salvation” Serves As a Cover for Works Salvation?

Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?

“Whether Pastor Doran sees it this way or not, having conservative evangelical speakers [Michael Vlach], lecturers, etc., into the seminary is tantamount to having them come to Inter-City Baptist Church. If ICBC is the parenting agency and DBTS is a ministry of the church - it’s tough to reconcile the ‘academic freedom’ his article seems to be seeking.”