Obeying the Gospel vs. Lordship Salvation
Following are two direct quotes I transcribed from a talk given by Rick Holland* at the 2008 Resolved conference. The talk was titled The Three Most Important Facts of Life. I first heard this talk in June of 2009:
Come to Christ tonight. Believe who Jesus is and what He did tonight. Don’t wait. We’re not going to have a big altar call on Monday night and hold hands and sing Kum ba Ya. Come, I beg you, come to Christ tonight. I have every confidence that there are people here—and maybe you’ve never heard the gospel before—but even a greater confidence that there are people in this room who perhaps have grown up in a church, heard the gospel a THOUSAND times, can recite the gospel themselves but have never embraced Jesus as Lord.... Please, please, please receive, receive Jesus as Lord and He will become your Savior.Somehow, the obedience of believing Christ’s shed blood for salvation is not enough obedience on your part to save you. Though this is what God specifically asks for time and time again, clearly indicating this is the obedience He wants from us (John 3:14-18, 36; 6:29-58; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 3:25; Romans 10:16), it is not enough. That's right. This recognition of God’s right and authority to both to judge you and credit Christ’s finished work to your account is not submission enough! In fact, in Holland’s comments, this option is not even considered. You must receive Him as Lord, implying if not outright stating a promise on your part to obey Him in all things always (compare this with the warning in Ecclesiastes 5:1-7), or else you are not really saved. If you never received Jesus as Lord, no matter what other response you had to the gospel message, it wasn't the right one. Without this commitment on your part, you are not saved.
The problem is, in actuality, the obedience God desires is inherently in the command to believe the gospel. To believe the gospel is to both obey and submit because that is the command God gives to sinners for salvation. Nothing else is necessary for salvation. In other words, unbelievers who become believers are already doing what Holland, et. al., deny they are doing. This quote in particular leans strongly in that direction. When Holland says you may have heard the gospel a thousand times but have never embraced Jesus as Lord, he completely discounts the salvation of those who have “heard the gospel a thousand times” and obeyed it1by responding to it in the simple childlike faith of believing Christ’s death really did satisfy the wrath of God against them, but who did not specifically “embrace Jesus as Lord” at the time of their salvation. Romans 10:16 clearly identifies the obedience sought as believing the gospel message, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias [Isaiah] saith, ‘Lord, who hath believed our report...?’”
In short, Rick Holland’s message strongly implies that unless and until you specifically embrace Jesus as Lord, by which he means sell your life to Jesus to be His slave, you are not saved. Thus, if you ONLY believed Jesus died for your sins and trusted Him to save you on that basis, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH AND YOU ARE YET DEAD IN YOUR SINS. You must ALSO embrace Jesus as Lord and unless and until you do, YOU ARE NOT SAVED.
JanH
*Executive pastor Grace Community Church. Resolved is the brainchild of Rick Holland.
1) John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
The active word in this verse is believe. If a man will believe on the Son (of God), he will have eternal life. John MacArthur cites this verse in a footnote on p. 33 of The Gospel According to Jesus. The meaning of the verse, however, is distorted to favor the Lordship Salvation view. He cites the verse as follows: “He who does not obey the Son shall not see life. . . .”Related Reading:
John MacArthur chooses John 3:36 to support the Lordship gospel by citing the second usage of the word “believeth” (from the KJV) as “obey,” but he does not cite the first half of John 3:36, which is the key to the context. The first usage of the word “believeth” in John 3:36 is identical to the word “believe” in the Romans 10:9 passage. While the word “believeth not” apeiqwn, (apeithon) is a different word than the first usage of the word “believeth,” and can mean “obey” in some cases, the context of John 3:36(a) demands unbelief, not disobedience. The correct meaning of “believeth not” (apeiqwn) is to refuse or withhold belief. Or, we could say that disobedience in itself is unbelief. Taking the whole context into consideration, the second part of the verse cannot be referring to a person’s actions, but rather to his unbelief….
Obey is a legitimate translation of believe, but to render it thus in this verse does not clearly convey what sort of obedience is required. Refusing to believe in Christ is, in essence, disobedience. (In Defense of the Gospel, pp. 190-191.)
Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body
“Rick Holland, pastoral staff at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, which distinctives include the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel. Lordship Salvation 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). Northland has dropped the defense of the gospel by opening its doors for its students to be exposed to a purveyor of a false gospel. Clear enough?” (Response to question in discussion thread)Lordship Salvation’s Submission Gospel
Let Your “Yes,” Be “Kinda, Sorta”, by JanH
Lou,
ReplyDeleteWhen Holland says, "Believe who Jesus is and what He did tonight," he expresses the vagueness inherent in the Calvinist message.
Calvinists say God has chosen a certain number to salvation and provided for them only. Yet they maintain we must invite all without exception (as Holland clearly does), even though the vast majority can never be saved, either because God has reprobated them before the fall or because He has passed by them after the fall, refusing to bring them to life. Either way, He provides only for the chosen, and no more. But where does Scripture teach this? Where does it say God commands men to receive a cross that can never save them? If Christ died for the elect alone, then the rest of the world is crossless. And the gospel becomes nothing more than a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal for the non elect.
Here is an imaginary conversion that illustrates the difficulty of Calvinism's linking a universal invitation to a limited atonement. The circularity of the problem is evident.
After a stirring gospel message from a limitarian preacher, a troubled inquirer asks, "Sir, what must I do to be saved?"
The limitarian replies, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
"But what am I to believe?" asks the inquirer. "Am I to believe He died for me?"
The preacher answers, "He died for sinners."
"Oh, I don't doubt that," replies the troubled man. "But how can I know He died for me?
The minister replies, "Only by believing. Christ died for believers only. If you become a believer, then you can assume Christ died for you."
The troubled sinner replies, "But what am I to believe in order to become a believer? Am I to believe He died for me, for me personally, and that He took my sins with Him to the cross?
"That is more," the limitarian acknowledges, "than I can honestly tell you. For if I tell you that Christ died for you, I may be telling you a lie. [Interestingly, the limitarian preacher believes it is a lie to tell any man that Christ died for him specifically, but it is not a lie for God to invite reprobates to an atonement neither intended nor designed for them.] All I can confidently say is that He died for sinners. But for which sinners, I don't know. But understand this. If you believe, you can assume you're among those for whom He died."
"If I believe what?" the anxious inquirer asks again.
And on and on it goes.
An older writer captures the dilemma in the previous conversation when he states, "Of what use is it for you to know that Christ came into the world to save sinners, except you can find out that you are amongst the sinners whom he came into the world to save? Of what use is it to know that Christ's obedience and sufferings have fully answered the demands of law and justice, except you can find out that law and justice are answered for you? Of what use is it to know, in addition, that you shall be saved, provided you come to Christ, or believe on him; when you know that you believe on him already, so far as believing that he came into the world to save some sinners, and satisfy law and justice for them, is concerned, whilst yet you dare not believe that he came into the world to save you?"
Have a good one!
T. Pennock
Thanks for that contribution. Calvinism's open invitation to all, is for most, an invitation to a closed door.
ReplyDeleteLM
Hi T. Pennock-
ReplyDeleteYou make some excellent observations about which another entire (long) article could be written. But I will attempt to summarize my thoughts.
It is my opinion that the Lordship Salvation gospel is intentionally designed to accommodate TULIP. Because there are supposedly people for whom Christ did not die it is inappropriate to preach the gospel as though His cross is available to all. Therefore, there is no call to deal with His cross directly. Rather, the call is to deal with Christ as Lord/Master of your life as it is assumed that only those elect to salvation and regenerated prior to hearing the gospel message so they can believe will respond to a call to forsake all and follow Jesus. Only by doing this can you demonstrate that you have saving faith. That is, only by doing this can you satisfy the Puritan TULIP's practical syllogism which looks for fruit in the life as that is the only remaining way to ascertain if you are saved/chosen.
While I see why the TULIP system (and it is a system) calls for a removal of the call to deal with Christ's cross directly, since it may not be for you, they completely lose me on the call to discipleship thing. They hold that the call to salvation is a call to discipleship. Therefore, since salvation is limited to the elect, and the call to discipleship is the call to salvation, shouldn't the call to discipleship be limited too?
Personally, I do think the call to discipleship should be limited as that call is only for believers. Prior to that we need to be saved and it is the call to salvation by faith in His blood that should be given to the lost. Then, once they have believed and are given a new nature, we must bring in the issue of discipleship.
That's how I see it. (In sum.)
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for writing this article.
Second, excellent reply to TPennick's commentary above. IMO, yours is another article for the main page.
Lou
Does God save you if, in your heart and mind, you accept the facts of the gospel as true and you ask God to forgive and save you?
ReplyDeleteDave:
ReplyDeleteAlways a pleasure hosting you here, but would you mind at this time in this thread interacting with Holland's interpretation of the saving message.
Lou
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the heart of the issue though? Holland could not answer my question with an unqualified affirmative.
Are you saying you could? Or do I leave something out?
David
So, in your opinion how does or would Holland, based on his LS message, qualify an answer to the question?
ReplyDeleteLM
At the very least he would want to clarify that accepting the facts of the Gospel includes accepting Jesus is lord. He may also want to clarify what it means to repent, elaborate on substitution, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you why I ask. I did what I describe in my initial query literally hundreds of times before I was converted. What was I doing wrong?
Lou, JanH, so appreciate this article and the resultant comments. I have seen over and over again within the framework of Calvinism that their system drives their understanding of the Scriptures rather than letting the Scriptures mean what God said and understanding that the Scriptures is its best commentary and is not contradictory to itself.
ReplyDeleteI know that Lou has addressed is elsewhere, but it bears repeating, maybe. In JMac's book,The Gospel According to Jesus, he notes his reason for the book being a corrective to the easy believism that is out there. Sadly, he swings the pendulum too far the other way. I agree with him that just saying a few words doesn't save a person but his other extreme is also wrong. Was taught in college over and over again, BALANCE. The Bible is a Balanced book; extreme to the world maybe, but balanced in God's teachings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSadly, he swings the pendulum too far the other way. I agree with him that just saying a few words doesn't save a person but his other extreme is also wrong. Was taught in college over and over again, BALANCE.
ReplyDeleteYes!! Exactly Brian! That is just it.
And it is this that I really wish to draw attention to: the issue is believing, not what form the believing takes (praying a prayer, raising a hand, walking an aisle, giving one's life...) but you would never know that by the way these men talk. They want a different show of faith, one that theoretically would only be done by those who have it. They are absolutely correct that merely mouthing some words, raising a hand, or what have you does not save you. But MacArthur, for example, put forth an equally bad "how to" at the same conference Holland spoke at in his talk when he said the way to escape hell was to stand up and make a public profession of Jesus as Lord. The cross was not even preached in that sermon! Oh brother!
The issue is believing the message.
JanH
Hi Lou & Jan,
ReplyDeleteJan - another concise and well written argument. You continue to be a blessing to me and Christ's Church.
I am struck by your quoting of Ecc 5:1-7. Wow. I have not read that book in some time and I didn't know this was there.
Thanks,
Kev
Dave,
ReplyDeleteHello! I don't know if you and I have chatted before or not. I'm Kevin I'm a Believer in Christ and a fellow blogger.
You asked:
I'll tell you why I ask. I did what I describe in my initial query literally hundreds of times before I was converted. What was I doing wrong?
This was addressed to Lou, but I would like to step in.
You haven't really given us enough detail to say. I have three questions which may help inform me (and the others here) as to what the answer to your question is. I am asking these in order to stay within the context of your question. I have some issues with your description which are not the subject of this discussion. See note at end of comment.
1. Why are you sure you were not converted on one of those initial hundreds of times?
2. Why are you sure you were converted when you believe you were?
3. What do YOU think you were doing wrong all those times?
I'm trying not to insert Holland's views into your words. As Jan points out in her article Holland would tell you that simple faith is not enough for a person to be saved.
My personal issue with your description is that it doesn't match how Paul states a person is saved. One does not believe the facts of the Gospel and then ask God to forgive them. One receives the message of the Gospel in faith - that is one believes it and puts their trust in what it says - that Christ paid our price fully and God has accepted that on our behalf- and then one is simply saved. One does not have to ask for anything - one believes and one is saved. In other places Paul tells us that at that moment we are baptised into Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Not just forgiven, we are justified and so we are reconciled. If one were to ask for something, it would need to be asking to be reconciled to God, not just forgiven.
Thanks,
Kev
Edited because I left out a couple of words last time.
ReplyDeleteHolland could not answer my question with an unqualified affirmative.
Actually, this is an important point. I cannot say for sure what Holland's view on this is (er, no pun intended there), but being that he works closely with John MacArthur, it is likely they are not too dissimilar from each other. MacArthur has said it is impossible to have absolute certainty concerning your salvation. I believe his words were, "assurance, yes. Certainty, no." Not because he thinks Christ's sacrifice was not wholly sufficient but because it is only wholly sufficient if you are one of the elect, and how can you possibly ever be really 100% sure you are in that number, since now you can't look at Him but must look at yourself to ascertain your "electness." Because of this I am not sure there is any condition either of them could provide this side of heaven that would ever allow for an unqualified affirmative.
Personally, I think unlimited atonement does provide for a person to have unqualified assurance of his/her salvation. Unlimited atonement gives the opportunity to deal with God's acceptance on the basis of Christ alone--that is, His work alone, as it should be. In this case the focus of the question is moved off of me and onto Him. I am able to see that He is not only the righteousness of some which may or may not include me, but MY righteousness, not only the sanctification of some which may or may not include me, but MY sanctification, not only the acceptable sacrifice for some which may or may not include me, but the acceptable sacrifice for ME, etc. because there is no mysterious body of men whom God intends to exclude from these benefits. Anyone may be saved through faith in His blood for it was shed for all that whosoever will may be saved.
In other words, for me to doubt or lack full assurance of salvation would be equivalent to doubting or lacking full assurance that He really did satisfy God's wrath on my behalf. Since I do not doubt that He did so, I have no need to doubt my salvation.
I will never forget the time I was pondering a question that came up in a Bible study I was in. The question was why do I believe and my neighbor not believe (in Jesus for salvation, but I can't remember the exact wording of the question). I kept trying to answer the part about why do I believe Jesus saves me and I finally ended up saying, well, why do I believe 2+2=4? Because it DOES! And that's why I believe Jesus saves me--because He DOES!!
It always goes back to Him.
JanH
Dave-
ReplyDeleteI was going to ask you pretty much what Kev just asked you. I am really curious what was different either with the message(s) you heard, or with what was going on with you when you heard them.
I think it is particularly interesting because if I had heard a Lordship message when I got saved it would have really confused me. I'm not sure if I could have gotten saved under a Lordship message. I would have thought my salvation depended on me and would have fallen prey to all the things people who have trouble with the LS message typically fall prey to: basically summarized in how much (of x) is enough? Did I do x enough? But the way the gospel was presented to me I was given to understand quite clearly that I was a sinner separated from God and that this was a situation I could not fix. The Holy Spirit (though I didn't know it was Him at the time) testified to my heart that that was true. Then I learned that Jesus was the way to be reconciled to God by His death on the cross, which was the payment of my sin debt. Again, the HS testified to me that that was true. The rest was a no brainer. I did accept reconciliation with God through Christ's cross work and have been saved ever since and have known it ever since too. (I happened to say a prayer at that time but I never did think it was the prayer that saved me.)
JanH
Kevin, thanks for your thoughts. In answer to your questions:
ReplyDelete1. I saw no evidence of salvation at the time. I didn't have any interest in God's Word or desire to love and serve him. My ideal world was one in which there was no God and I could do what I pleased.
2. I began to see change in my life. I began to hunger and thirst after righteousness. God's Word opened up to me with meaning where once there was only opaque paper and print. I began to see some victory over sinful behaviors.
3. I was only concerned about the consequences of my sin, not the fact that it was an offense against the character of a holy God. I wanted to keep my sin but avoid hell. I didn't want to submit to the God's authority over my life. I wanted to make life work on my terms, not His.
Further, I agree that my question was somewhat unclear, malleable, and incomplete. I wanted to say enough, but not to much, too make the responses I got meaningful.
ReplyDeleteHi Jan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
In other words, for me to doubt or lack full assurance of salvation would be equivalent to doubting or lacking full assurance that He really did satisfy God's wrath on my behalf. Since I do not doubt that He did so, I have no need to doubt my salvation.
This is a concept that I have observed being addressed in the NT over and over. When Paul gives assurance of salvation or of our resurrection he always talks about Christ's having fulfilled all requirements.
I intend on doing a full article on these instances in Paul's writing at some point.
Kev
Thank you, Jan, for writing this (and Lou for posting it). I pray it will reach beyond the borders of those who are already well-learned on the very subtle and misleading teachings of LS theology (at least in my inexperienced eyes).
ReplyDeleteI was further blessed by this statement of yours, the reasoning of which I finally arrived some time ago:
In other words, for me to doubt or lack full assurance of salvation would be equivalent to doubting or lacking full assurance that He really did satisfy God's wrath on my behalf. Since I do not doubt that He did so, I have no need to doubt my salvation.
Question for Jan or others:
ReplyDeleteIf a person is so bad they need to be saved, why would they not need to see Christ as Lord over their life?
Tony Corallo
Joe brought me to this site but we disagree over Lordship salvation.
Tony:
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking. I am replying from my phone and on break at work, this will be brief.
"Lord over their life" infers their new life in Christ and the results in obeying the Lord's commands as a disciple that should follow a genuine conversion. So we're speaking of behavior and a commitment to certain behavior as a Christian.
The Bible never conditions receiving the gift of eternal life (justification) on a promise to or the performance of the "goods works" (Eph. 2:10).
Hope that is helpful, although brief.
Lou
Again, greatly appreciate what you have been posting JanH.
ReplyDeleteWe too often fall into the trap of thinking that "WE" must do something concerning our salvation. Christ is our salvation, it is all of Christ. Kevl brings this out when he stated, "When Paul gives assurance of salvation or of our resurrection he always talks about Christ's having fulfilled all requirements."
It is quite disturbing to hear salvation appeals without the cross being mentioned. It's as if they have forgotten that I Corinthians 15:3, 4 are even in the Bible when talking about salvation and the Gospel. Or any number of other passages.
JanH your comments also strike down those who would have us to not believe that we are eternally secure in our salvation. Again, it is Christ! Christ is our life!
I was only concerned about the consequences of my sin, not the fact that it was an offense against the character of a holy God.
ReplyDeleteThis, I think, is important as it touches on one thing that tends to fall through the cracks in these discussions: motive.
What you seem to be saying here is that you wanted a licentious "gospel." Opposition to this is not the exclusive domain of the Lordship Salvation camp. Scripture clearly condemns the idea that salvation is a "Jesus paid the tab so I can do whatever I want" idea and the thought that God the Father would tolerate such an attitude is dealt with in Romans 6-8 and Jude.
It seems here that what was missing was conviction of sin/sinfulness: you did not share God's view of sin, you did not believe what He says about it and were not persuaded to His view. You did not believe Him/accept His testimony concerning the problem, so how could you believe Him concerning the solution?
And this is a point on which I think the debate suffers because it is absolutely correct that conviction of sin is essential to proper reception of the gospel message. The reason being that Jesus' death was specifically to remedy this issue. The gospel is a message that deals with God's judgment of sin.
What I would say you were lacking here is repentance. But by repentance I don't mean a resolve to live your life differently. I mean a change of mind/attitude/position toward sin, specifically your sin. You did not seem to understand yourself as a sinner under the wrath of God. You just wanted the pesky consequences to be removed from the equation so you could sin with impunity.
This is why I have trouble when LSers denigrate the change of mind definition as "merely" a change of mind. I would counter that by saying there is nothing mere about it. It is very deep and I would even go so far as to say it goes way beyond a "mere" change of outward behavior. In fact, you cannot get a real, lasting change of outward behavior (as repentance is generally regarded by Lers who use the word "turn" accompanied by the preacher literally "turning" himself in an about face as he speaks to illustrate what he means.) without the far more fundamental change of mind/heart about sin. This inner change is the product of the Holy Spirit showing us, as only He really can, what the truth of sin is: sharing God's view of it with us so we see it for ourselves, in some measure (we obviously don't get the whole picture and that is no doubt due to His mercy). He changes our beliefs about sin by sharing God's view of it. He desires truth in the inner parts (ps.51:6). It is this that lays the proper foundation for the gospel message to be received, which is the rest of the truth He desires in the inner parts. No matter what, acceptance of the gospel means acceptance of God's testimony on our sin and His judgment meted out on His Son in our place. That is why I am saying that receiving the gospel message is the obedience God seeks, not the obedience of commitment of life, or bowing to His Lordship. In fact, I feel that kind of talk actually clouds the issue. And that is a shame because one thing LSers do very well is preach the condemnation of the law through which the Holy Spirit can do His convicting work concerning our lost estate. If they only did not keep preaching law as a means of salvation (submit to Christ's Lordship and serve Him all of your days) but instead preached full and complete pardon in Christ crucified and only in Christ crucified and that obedience to the gospel is in receiving God's pardon for sin in the death of His Son!
This is what L.S. Chafer used to preach though he is universally denigrated by the LS crowd because he didn't attach commitment of life for salvation to the message. He never compromised on the issue of sin and God's judgment.
Cont...
Hi Dave, thanks for answering the questions. I didn't see your answer earlier. We were probably posting at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI have some follow up questions - but I want to remind everyone what question I am answering for you.
You asked:
I'll tell you why I ask. I did what I describe in my initial query literally hundreds of times before I was converted. What was I doing wrong?
I asked you three questions, and you answered them. What I notice about your answers - and this is not to incite anger or offense - is that they are all about you (I and my are used over and over).
When I asked you what you thought you were doing wrong you answered (paraphrased) that you didn't want to submit to God's authority over your life.
I don't think that was the problem at all. My initial reason for discounting this "problem" is because Scripture does not require this for the purpose of being reconciled to God.
Beyond that, your approach is all about "you" and what you must do. One cannot be reconciled to God by their own efforts. If one brings anything to the equation then salvation is not all of God, it is not of Grace (Rom 4:16 explains) it is not a free gift.
Consider this: Faith receives, submission offers, and works give.
I need to make two comments out of this - please do not respond until I finish in my second comment.
Thanks,
Kev
Cont...
ReplyDeleteI often hear salvation testimonies where the person accounts how he became convicted of his sin and found no relief to the conviction until he learned that his sin is forgiven in Jesus. But these testimonies do not have an account of giving oneself to God, or any other kind of submission to His Lordship.
In short, what seems to have been lacking, IMO, is not failure of submission to Christ's mastery over you, but lack of the conviction that leads to repentance (change of mind).
And I would be very surprised if whenever it was you encountered the gospel that you got saved by, it didn't have a strong, clear message on sin to go with it. This is one thing the LSers do right. They preach on sin and judgment. I believe that is the real reason people get saved under their preaching (in spite of their limited atonement slant on the cross): not because they tell people to give their lives to Jesus, or whatever, but because the people are convicted of their sin and need for salvation by the Holy Spirit when God's view of sin is preached and the LSers do do that very well most of the time.
I agree with them that the church in general has made the gospel too nicey nicey so it will be more comfortable and less offensive. This is a horrendous mistake. If the problem the gospel is there to fix is not laid out in unvarnished terms, the purpose of the fix is likely to be missed or misconstrued. But the answer to that is not to change the end of the evangelistic message--what the sinner must do to gain salvation. What needs to be changed is the beginning of the message by reinstating preaching God's judgment against sin in no uncertain terms. This is the truth and is the part 99.999% of the people who will not get saved cannot/will not accept as true. (They won't believe it!) The answer is to preach the problem clearly and uncompromisingly so the Holy Spirit can do His job of convicting the world concerning sin, righteousness, and the coming judgment and the solution of Christ bearing this wrath for us can shine for the gospel it is as the Holy Spirit convicts concerning the acceptance of this sacrifice by God and the need for us to accept it as well. That way people can believe what they need to believe to be saved.
My 2 cents and I think I'm done.
Thank you for indulging me. :)
JanH
Lou, thanks for having JanH post this article. Quite elegant.
ReplyDeleteJan, That is a great analysis -- and explains in detail why the lordship teaching is nothing more than folks trying to inject works into salvation... True Salvation is clearly ONLY by Grace through our faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from any works. He paid the price, we simply take Him at His word believe Him.
As you know, my Blog is regularly visited by the LS folks -- pushing their doctrine. I appreciate your comments there.
Just as you said, I know full well I would have never trusted Christ as my Savior if someone had presented me with the false Lordship message. I had already rejected Calvinism and the common "turn from sin for salvation" messages. Amazing what a clear simple presentation of the Gospel will do.. Amazing Grace.
It appears most LS teachers are also Calvinist.. what a mixed up mess.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI left off with what I think is a fairly clear, and very accurate statement. I want to change one word in it - because I think it is more accurate this way.
Faith receives, submission offers, and service gives.
I have another statement to make that I hope will be clear. I am sure it will be heavy for some to read.
If one is hearing the Gospel and not believing that God saves those who believe it then one is NOT believing the Gospel.
If one hears the Gospel and wants to believe but waits to feel secure about their salvation until they see evidences of it - they are clearly NOT believing the Gospel. They are not believing that God saves all those who believe. They are not putting their FAITH in the Christ of the Gospel because they REFUSE to feel secure until they see evidence.
I'll believe it when I see it! is what they are saying. They are shaking their fist in God's face saying - You may SAY that you save those who believe on your Name, but I refuse to feel assured until you change me into something more holy!
But what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed (was assured is what Gen 15:6 says) God and this was accounted as righteousness.
If one is waiting for works to prove they are saved they have not put their faith in the Christ of the Gospel.
This is a heavy statement, I'm sure it will sound counter-intuitive to some but I believe it is true.
I truly, deeply, hope this is helpful.
Kev
Hi Jack!
ReplyDeleteNice to see you here. :)
Thanks for the support.
JanH
I see I didn't say hi to Pearl yet!
ReplyDeleteHi Pearl!
Thanks for your comment. :)
JanH
Jan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote :It seems here that what was missing was conviction of sin/sinfulness: you did not share God's view of sin, you did not believe what He says about it and were not persuaded to His view. You did not believe Him/accept His testimony concerning the problem, so how could you believe Him concerning the solution?
I'm so glad you covered this! It is completely true. That was missing from the equation that Dave expressed.
Thanks,
Kev
Jan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about my lack of repentance. That was definitely part of it.
I also disagree with you that the LS definition of repentance includes me changing my life as a condition of salvation.
Kev,
I'm not offended by your response. I am a bit confused. My answers were "about me" because my falling short of salvation had to be my fault and not His, no?
As for this: If one is hearing the Gospel and not believing that God saves those who believe it then one is NOT believing the Gospel.
I absolutely believed God would save those who believe. As Jan said, I wasn't repentant. Or perhaps better, I was atrite, not contrite.
Dave:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your views with us this week. I’ll leave most of he follow-up to Jan and Kev on your latest note here. I do, however, want to add some quotes to address your statement to Jan,
“I also disagree with you that the LS definition of repentance includes me changing my life as a condition of salvation.”
In 2006 I had a protracted on line discussion with Nathan Busenitz, who is John MacArthur’s personal assistant. On repentance he stated
“Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance. It includes a willingness to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ…. Lordship Salvation defines sin as rebellion or ‘lawlessness’ (which is how 1 John 3:4 defines it). To turn from (or forsake) one’s rebellion is (by definition) to begin submitting.”
“If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God)”
Nathan’s definition of repentance requires a lost man to be “inclined” (i.e. make a decision) to “stop doing it” (sinning) and “start obeying” to receive the gift of eternal life. This is to tell a lost man that to be born again he must be willing to turn over a new leaf. Nathan’s repentance is telling a lost man that he must make a commitment to change his behavior, which is telling him that he must repent toward the performance of good works. Lordship’s repentance, as [John] MacArthur and Busenitz define it, demands a commitment for reformation of life to receive the gift of eternal life.
Lordship Salvation’s repentance confuses sanctification (growth of a believer) with justification (God declaring/making a sinner righteous). For Lordship advocates anything short of a “complete turnaround” in behavior following a resolve to stop sinning and “start obeying” is not repentance and would leave the lost man dead in his sins, no matter what he believed about his guilt before God or the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Upfront and lifelong commitment to the kind of behavior expected of a spiritually mature Christian is the Lordship advocates practical definition of repentance to salvation.
You can read Nathan’s two comments and the two paragraphs that followed his remarks above on pp. 126-127 of my book under How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?
continued...
contining with the previous...
ReplyDeleteNathan is stating that the lost must be willing to “stop sinning,” to be born again. That is a condition for salvation based on the lost man’s commitment to changing his life, changing the way he behaves.
Do you believe Nathan accurately defined repentance in a way that results in the salvation of the lost?
You will also see that men like John Piper and R. C. Sproul have taken this matter of a changed life and teach that a changed life is a necessary condition for “final salvation,” i.e., glorification. 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.... What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.” (John Piper: What Jesus Demands From the World, pp. 160, 221.)
“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.)
You may not define repentance as requiring a commitment to and the on-going performance of a changed life for salvation (justification/glorification), but high profile LS advocates like MacArthur, Busenitz, Piper and Sproul do. These definitions of repentance change the Gospel from the free gift of God into a works based, man centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Lordship Salvation, as these men define it, is a false gospel.
Kind regards,
Lou
I guess my last comment was too long :) I'll break it up into two. Here goes!
ReplyDeleteHi Dave,
Thanks for your response. I haven't read Lou's comments yet - so I may cover the same ground he does. I don't want to loose my train of thought so I don't want to read his words first. :)
In your response to me, I think you hit the nail on the head in expressing the difference between the LS interpretation of how one is saved and the Gospel in accordance with the Scriptures.
You wrote:
I'm not offended by your response. I am a bit confused. My answers were "about me" because my falling short of salvation had to be my fault and not His, no?
I'm so excited that you articulated this so clearly!
If we rewind back to our previous comments, your correction to this problem was for you to submit to the authority of God over your life. You did something and that sealed the deal for you in your mind.
Instead of having faith in what God had done for you you did something for Him and that got you saved - at least that is how you express it.
NEXT COMMENT CONTINUES
CONTINUED FROM MY LAST TO DAVE
ReplyDeleteIn the statement quoted in this post you said that it must have been your fault and not God's fault that you had fallen short of Salvation. This is SURELY true.
However, the solution was not for you to do more - but for you to have faith in what He had already done for you. You can't fix you, you can't even improve you. If you were an unacceptable sinner who would rather that God not exist so that you do whatever you want (from your earlier comment) then submitting to the authority of God (to some not yet perfect extent as you expressed above about "some" victory over sin) THEN you would simply be an unacceptable sinner who obeys God sometimes in someways.....
The problem is not sovled by submission. Even the slightest sin ever committed in the past, present or future makes one WHOLLY unacceptable to God - in fact it is worse than that. Because we have a sin nature and we are apt to sin - we are unacceptable to God. We must be justified through being baptised into Christ's death, burial and resurrection in order to be reconciled to God - to be accounted acceptable.
The issue is not about submission, the issue is about the death required by God's wrath against sin. Adding submission to your sinfulness doesn't help you.
Having faith, trusting God that He has paid the price and accepted it on your behalf is the ONLY solution.
I'm going to ask an earnest question which again is not at all intended to offend - if you were to die today would you go to Heaven and why do you know this to be true?
Thanks,
Kev
I should also add this. Jan is absolutely right about the repentance part. If one truly saw themselves as desperately wicked and in need of salvation they wouldn't be inclined to offer to serve God, they would cry out to be saved.
ReplyDeleteKev
"Nathan is stating that the lost must be willing to “stop sinning,” to be born again. That is a condition for salvation based on the lost man’s commitment to changing his life, changing the way he behaves.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe Nathan accurately defined repentance in a way that results in the salvation of the lost?"
I don't guess you believe that someone who is unwilling to stop sinning can be saved. Can someone who is apathetic about stopping sinning be saved. If I understand Busenitz and am not imposing my own beliefs on his words, I agree with him.
You did something and that sealed the deal for you in your mind.
Instead of having faith in what God had done for you you did something for Him and that got you saved - at least that is how you express it.
Not really. I used that language because that is how you have to view it. I believed the gospel. I knew I could not save myself. I wanted to be saved from hell. But I was still committed to my rebellion against God. Thankfully, He granted me repentance and saved me. I didn't do anything.
Dave-
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. I don't have anything to add to what Lou and Kev said on that.
I do have something to say about Lou's quote from Piper, which I'll say in my next comment.
JanH
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteYour statement to Lou:
I don't guess you believe that someone who is unwilling to stop sinning can be saved.
This is inserting a question into the Gospel that is not there. It is a controlling question which forces an unintended response. Much like
"Lou, when are you going to stop beating your wife?"
The Gospel isn't a question, it is news. It is a report to be believed, not a command to be followed.
I have a question for you in my next comment.
Kev
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote a short paragraph and I'm not sure if this is all on the same subject or if it is on two subjects.
Not really. I used that language because that is how you have to view it. I believed the gospel. I knew I could not save myself. I wanted to be saved from hell. But I was still committed to my rebellion against God.
Thankfully, He granted me repentance and saved me. I didn't do anything.
I've pulled out what I THINK is the break in the situations. Is the first part all about the times when you think you were not saved, and the last bit is about the time that you think you were saved?
If you believed the Gospel and you were not saved then God is a liar.
Did you have to add submission to your belief in order to become saved?
You hide this in fancy language "God granted me repentance" but that is what you are saying correct? That just like Holland in the article by Jan above -
you don't believe that belief, faith, trust, is enough to for God to save someone?
Kev
Dave, I'm not one for quoting authors.. but William Newell wrote this:
ReplyDeleteMost unsaved people today believe in their hearts that the reason they are not saved is because of something they have not yet done, some step that remains for them to take before God will accept them. But this is absolutely untrue. When Christ said, “It is finished,” He meant that He had, then and there, paid the debt for the whole human race. “He gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6).
What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.” (John Piper: What Jesus Demands From the World, pp. 160, 221.)
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a bit OT at this point but it bears mention anyway.
What Piper effectively does here is depart from Christ Alone for salvation because the requirements as he states them do not end/are not fully met in Christ's finished work. It is one thing to say we are not saved by works but unto them. That is true and biblical per Ephesians 2:8-10. It is quite another to say we will not be granted entrance into heaven without the works to which we are saved.
To satisfy Himself concerning our salvation God does not look anywhere but to the perfect work of His perfect Son with whom He is well pleased. That is how He justifies us and is why Paul can say "those He justified these He also glorified." Not "will glorify as long as there is only sufficient fruit to show there really is divine life in them."
The reason there is fruit in the believer is BECAUSE everything necessary to satisfy the Father concerning him has already been accounted to him in His Son. Because the matter of our position before Him is already settled, He can work on our condition to bring it into conformity with our settled position. There is no waiting for some final judgment to assess fruit to determine whether we will be in heaven. That is already settled the moment we believe.
Further, it is highly problematic to say that God will not require perfection from us at the final judgment but only "sufficient fruit." I guess that is an easier standard to achieve, but it is incorrect. God DOES demand perfection from us, which is why we need the righteousness of His perfect Son to be credited to our account.
It is this kind of thing that causes confusion and it tends to take the focus off of Christ Alone to be our perfect representative before the Father. It adds to this a requirement of us (granted Piper will say this is done in faith and by the Holy Spirit so in that sense it is not really from us) that we cannot meet and that requires a lowering of God's perfect standard to "sufficient fruit."
I would find it very easy to say, well, I'm a pretty good person most of the time so I guess that would be sufficient fruit for God. It is just this kind of thinking that makes people think they can be good enough for heaven and that God grades on a curve. He does not. His own perfect holiness is the standard by which He judges all men. There is no standard of "only sufficient fruit." Any attempt to put any part of the burden of entrance into heaven on man will always cause these two things to happen: the compromise of Christ Alone and the lowering of the bar. It can't be helped.
JanH
If you believed the Gospel and you were not saved then God is a liar.
ReplyDeleteOh, please. Surely you affirm a person can be convinced of the the truth of the gospel (or believe it) without converting. There is a difference between believing the facts of the Gospel and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.
You hide this in fancy language "God granted me repentance" but . . .
That so-called fancy language comes from the beloved KJV, so I'm pretty sure God approves of it.
You hide this in fancy language "God granted me repentance" but that is what you are saying correct? That just like Holland in the article by Jan above -
you don't believe that belief, faith, trust, is enough to for God to save someone?
Are you inserting a question into the Gospel that is not there, a controlling question which forces an unintended response?
But I'll answer: if that faith includes contrition (another good Bible word), it saves.
Dave:
ReplyDeleteThere are two items that I want to expand on with you for your own study and consideration of in the LS debate. Those are- "repentance" and "Lord."
In my book is a chapter solely on repentance and a subsection on Christ's title "Lord" found in a chapter on Rom. 10:9. If you do not have a copy I'd be happy to forward one as my gift to you.
If you want a copy e-mail your address and I'll send it tomorrow.
Lou
Jan,
ReplyDeleteYour post to me was spot on. Interestingly, Calvinists and Arminians both embrace the Lordship error but for different reasons. The Calvinist embraces it to prove his salvation; the Arminian to keep it.
As you know, Genevans often present their gospel as an every-man gospel when it's not. They cloak it in the dress of a universal offer to persuade the unsuspecting that Calvinism is a gospel for all; but, again, it's not.
Oddly, Calvinism's limitarian, Lordship set up ultimately creates a two-step faith. If a man should ask us, "Did Christ die for me?" On the authority of Scripture we could readily reply, "Yes, He did, no question about it." The Calvinist, however, can't say this. All he can say is Christ died for sinners, for the ungodly, and for the lost; but he cannot say He died for all sinners, for all the ungodly, and for all the lost. Hence, he can't say Christ died for any man in particular. He can't get specific. So he must speak generally, affirming only that Christ died for some men somewhere. But he doesn't know who, and he doesn't know where.
Again, as noted, Calvinists create a two-step salvation faith. First, they say a man must believe Christ died for sinners, not for all sinners, but for some sinners. Once he believes this, then, and only then, is he entitled to believe Christ died for him personally (which still may or may not be true). In other words, a man must first believe the gospel of limitation before he can believe Christ died for him in particular, thus making his first faith the foundation of his second. However, according to Scripture, for a man to believe the gospel, is for him to believe Christ died for him personally (Ro. 1:16; Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). There is no need for two steps. Believing the gospel is salvation (Ro. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). It is not a prelude to believing Christ died for one personally.
How it is that a man believing Christ died for his neighbor or for some men somewhere affords him grounds for believing He died for him in particular is unclear. What saving interest in Christ could he possibly derive from his first act of faith, from his believing that Christ died for some men somewhere? How can he feasibly personalize a limited atonement? In this setup faith becomes a mere inference, a gratuitous assumption that one is among those for whom Christ died and thus fails to be a full persuasion of the truth (2 Tim. 1:12). The reality is there is no warrant for any man to believe Christ died for him if He did not die for all men. Limited atonement destroys the foundation of personal assurance.
This is, to put it mildly, a dangerous arrangement of the truth. Telling men they must first believe the gospel before they have the liberty to believe it is for them personally is confusion compounded. To believe the gospel is salvation (Ro. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). We do not confess the gospel in order to assume we might be included in it. Limitarianism creates an unnecessary distinction between a man believing the gospel and a man believing it may be for him personally. What does it advantage a man to work himself into a confidence that Christ died for him when he has no basis for such confidence? If Christ never died for all men, then no man can ever know for sure He died for him. His confidence is ill-founded.
If a man must first believe that Christ died for some men somewhere and then believe--with absolutely no proof or rational expectation--that He died for him in particular, he is simply putting his faith in his own faith, and not directly in Christ. He is building his belief on his belief. He is stacking one dream upon another. For a man to believe all the facts of the gospel is meaningless if Christ never died for him. The whole notion that God commands men to believe the gospel when there is no gospel for them to believe is ludicrous.
Have a good one!
T. Pennock
I can hardly turn down such a generous offer. Perhaps your signature will even appear inside the cover?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, I won't hawk it on Amazon or anything. :^)
Thank you kindly, sir.
HI Dave,
ReplyDeleteI hope you will give Lou's book a sincere read - I have found it very helpful, and even challenging to my own theology in places. I highly recommend it.
Just a quick response to your last - using words from the Bible in ways that the Bible doesn't is not helpful, it merely gives the audience the impression that one is speaking truth while inserting error.
Those are tough words, they are not pointed though. I have spoken to many people who use words like "repentance" without even considering what it really means.
You wrote:
if that faith includes contrition (another good Bible word), it saves.
What translation uses the word "contrition"? I've searched a few and cannot find it. Nevertheless...
So faith + remorse saves then? Where do you find this in the Bible? And what about the submission to God's authority over one's life?
I'm asking with intent to force you to answer, but I hope you continue to know that I am not picking an argument. I am truly doing my absolute best to help you. It would be abusive to try to spin you up - I've done that in the past and it is not godly thing for a Believer to do.
Kev
From Psalm 51:17 (KJV): For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
ReplyDeleteWhy did God desire the sacrifice of contrition and broken-spritedness from David? Because that's part of repentance. Repentance is part of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
As for "submission to God's authority over one's life?":
One will not view themselves as a sinner unless one views God as the authority over their life. If God is not the authority over their life, then the are in no way beholden to obey the first thing he says. Implicit in calling yourself a sinner is recognizing His authority and your rebellion against it.
T Pennock:
ReplyDeleteYour comment, "Calvinists and Arminians both embrace the Lordship error but for different reasons. The Calvinist embraces it to prove his salvation; the Arminian to keep it", is spot on and a concise summary of the post. Nice job.
Jimmy
P.S. Ironically, many in christendom who see the error of LS still maintain that works are an or the evidence of saving faith (i.e. "no fruit...no salvation"). Consequence: No assurance of salvation for the person who is honest with himself or herself.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteDavid doesn't mention his contrite heart in Ps 32. He mentions the deep burden on of conviction though.
Can you show from the Scriptures that contrition is part of repentance?
Taking an example of an already saved man's repentance and using everything that he experienced as "part of" the definition of repentance is unwarranted.
It would be like demanding that everyone who is to be saved to be blinded by a bright light like Paul was before he was later saved... or requiring that someone be given prophecy about a person before they witness to them like Ananias received about Paul.
Have you changed the definition of "submission to God's authority over one's life" since your initial posthere?
Previously it was about being willing to obey, now it is about recognizing that God has the authority to punish your sin? Which is it?
Since faith is not a rubber word that can absorbe the meanings of other words and stretch to fit them - ie faith does not "include" anything except faith - so far you have expressed in various places here that your true conversion was a result of faith + contrition + submission.
BTW to answer one question I forgot to answer before; believing on the Gospel means to trust this for your salvation - not just to believe the facts of it happened. If you said you believed the Gospel then that is what it mean. If you simply believe that it was a historic event then you had not believed the Gospel... and adding submission or anything else for that matter wouldn't change the fact that you hadn't placed your faith in Christ.
This was a little longer than I hoped it would be.. sorry.
Kev
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteYou put this very well:
Consequence: No assurance of salvation for the person who is honest with himself or herself.
1Cor 4:1-5
1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
Kev
Thanks T. Pennock.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point when you say:
Genevans often present their gospel as an every-man gospel when it's not. They cloak it in the dress of a universal offer to persuade the unsuspecting that Calvinism is a gospel for all; but, again, it's not.
I haven't really found this to be true most of the time. But they can be more covert than I think is good because then it comes across as deceptive.
They seem to keep pretty well within the bounds of limited atonement, though you have to know what you are hearing. For example, in this talk of Holland's he preached from Hebrews 9:25-28. At one point in the talk he says that Jesus didn't die many times, addressing the Catholic idea of transubstantiation. He quoted verse 28 stressing both the word ONCE and the word MANY. That was the extent to which he covered limited atonement and it really bothered me that he wasn't more straightforward about it. Paul Washer can virtually be relied on to say that Christ died "for you, for God's people" or something similar. They will put little phrases like that that limit the extent of the atonement in there or else they might just not say He died for all. The same conference has C. J. Mahaney saying "God sent forth His Son to redeem." Period. Christ was sent to redeem. He did not say WHO or WHAT Christ was sent to redeem until at another point he said "lost sinners like you and me." That could easily be taken as universal, but when you know what they believe you know it is not universal. What he really meant was some lost sinners such as perhaps you and me.
To tell the truth, while I vehemently disagree with them I do appreciate the Reformed men who are clear about their position that salvation is for God's elect for the simple reason you know what you are dealing with. They are honest and straight forward about it. I don't agree with the position at all but I can respect the man for being honest enough to be forth right about holding it. And interestingly, the ones I am aware of that do this do not preach an LS gospel.
JanH
P.S. Ironically, many in christendom who see the error of LS still maintain that works are an or the evidence of saving faith (i.e. "no fruit...no salvation"). Consequence: No assurance of salvation for the person who is honest with himself or herself.
ReplyDeleteHi Jimmy-
I am going to be honest here and say that I do see fruit/works as AN evidence of salvation. So far I have counted 5 things that serve as evidence of salvation: 1 that is objective and primary, 4 that are subjective and therefore secondary and serve as supportive evidence but are not substitutes for the objective/primary evidence.
The objective evidence is God's promises in His word. That is the one evidence that remains when all the others are inaccessible to our view.
The other 4 are works in the life/fruit of the Spirit in the character, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, and the discipline of the Father.
There may be others as well but those are the ones I am sure of.
The problem comes in when the subjective, supportive evidences are given the primary or even singular place of assurance as tends to happen in LS circles. This is essentially to walk by sight, making our judgments, especially of ourselves, based on what is seen or experienced rather than on faith in what God has said.
JanH
Dave:
ReplyDeleteI will send a copy of my book to you in the morning. But a signed copy? That's extra. ;^)
Lou
Can you show from the Scriptures that contrition is part of repentance?
ReplyDeleteFrom 2 Corinthians 7: Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
Have you changed the definition of "submission to God's authority over one's life" since your initial post here?
No, neither of my statements are exhaustive nor contradictory.
Now since I've answered so many of your questions, I would ask you to reconsider this one: Can a person be unwilling to obey Christ at the time he places his faith in Christ's finished work for salvation?
I don't think its unfair to ask you to evaluate a hypothetical case of a person interacting with the Gospel.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteThe passage you cite indicates that contrition lead the Corinthians (who were already saved) to repentance, not that contrition is part of repentance. In like manner Paul says elsewhere that God's goodness leads to repentance. Would you say that God's goodness is "part of" repentance?
You most certainly ask me questions. You asked:
Can a person be unwilling to obey Christ at the time he places his faith in Christ's finished work for salvation?
When will you stop beating your wife... same situation. The Gospel is not about our willingness, it is not a question or an order - it is a report of good news.
Are you sinless? Are you fully obedient? Have you ever been so?
There's your answer. Of course a person can be unwilling to obey Christ at the same time they place their faith in Christ.
This question actually proposes a false dilemma. Since the person who is a desperately wicket sinner is not being asked to obey Christ in order to become saved (unless the person witnessing to them is presenting a false unsaving gospel that is) the question restricts the answer to an unrealistic situation that doesn't actually exist. This limits the answers to two options, when in truth the true situation demands another answer that you don't leave open.
Obedience is something that is learned through discipleship. It is not demanded by the Gospel. You obey the Gospel by believing it, not by submitting your life to the mastery of God.
Can one be saved and be unwilling to obey? Have you read the Bible? There are endless examples of people who were disobedient and yet saved. Does it matter if it is at the instant they are saved? Why would it?
Kev
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteIn good faith I want to play my next card before our conversation goes there - because I am trying to help you, not catch you up.
If one must submit to the mastery of Christ over one's life in order to be saved, but that submission can't be perfect then what one is actually preaching is "Easy Turnism"
Turn from your sins to be saved! (but not all of them) Submit to the mastery of Christ in order to be saved! (but not perfectly...) and so on.
See the short Bad Kool-Aid: Easy Turnism at my blog.
Kev
Kev, I'll let my prior comments stand with one clarification. I don't present it as an either or (false dilemma). I present it as one possibility in a potentially broad range and ask your take on it. Totally fair.
ReplyDeleteGood night all.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou think that turning from your sin means never sinning again?
That explains the false dilemma you present when you say:
Are you sinless? Are you fully obedient? Have you ever been so?
There's your answer. Of course a person can be unwilling to obey Christ at the same time they place their faith in Christ.
Dave:
ReplyDeleteContinuing from yesterday, but I may not be aback much at all today, I'll ask this question...
If Lordship’s repentance unto salvation demands that the sinner “stop sinning…and start obeying” as Nathan Busenitz wrote, doesn’t that condition the free gift of salvation [justification] on a commitment to and the performance of obedient Christian living?
Romans 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9.
Lou
PS: A signed copy of my book is on the way, you should have it Wednesday.
I don't see, in your earlier post, where Busenitz says what you have in quotes there.
ReplyDeleteDemanding someone stop sinning and start obeying is not the same as what he says when talks about an "inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God)."
Dave:
ReplyDeleteThis has to be my last for a while.
With LS the reception of salvation/justification on surrender, submission, commitment, allegiance (coming from a lost man) all of which primarily having to with behavior, not believing. That is works salvation!
Lou
Meant, salvation/justification is conditioned on...
ReplyDeleteIf the decision to surrender is a work, why isn't a decision to place your faith in Christ a work?
ReplyDeleteDave you asked:
ReplyDeleteDo you think turning from your sin means never sinning again?
What's the point if you only have to sort of turn from your sins? Or turn from some of them but not all of them. I mean really can a Christian murder someone and think they are saved??? But of course they can speed... swear.. get angery... lie... only sometimes though...
That's called "Easy Turnism" and it's what LS people tell people - YOU hve to turn from your sins in order to become saved, but I haven't turned from mine yet and it is unreasonable to expect me to turn from all of them. Sigh...
How is what I stated and asked a false dilemma? I have not limited the options to your answer to those which serve my argument. Where as when you stated:
Kev, I'll let my prior comments stand with one clarification. I don't present it as an either or (false dilemma). I present it as one possibility in a potentially broad range and ask your take on it. Totally fair.
You were not presenting options, you asked a question unrelated to the situation (a person becoming saved) and held their salvation in the balance. That IS a false dilemma.
Can a person be unwilling to obey at the moment they are placing their faith in Christ. This is not a issue because placing your faith in Christ has nothing to do with obedience and everything to do with recognizing your need and seeing it met in Him alone.
Kev
“If the decision to surrender is a work, why isn’t a decision to place your faith in Christ a work?”
ReplyDeleteBecause:
1) “Surrender” in Lordship Salvation is to surrender to do the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ to BECOME a born again disciple of Christ.
2) “Faith,” on the other hand, is not doing something, promising to do something or becoming something. Faith is receiving the good news of the gospel, believing in Him (Jesus) and what He did, (His cross work and resurrection) from the dead.
“Faith (belief) is a very common word in the New Testament. It is the translation of the Greek (pistis), and occurs 245 times, and is almost always translated faith, but is occasionally rendered believe, belief, assurance, or fidelity in the King James Version of the Bible. The meaning of the Greek word is very similar to its English counterpart. Faith is basically a trust or confidence in someone or something…. Faith is a child-like trust in God, which accepts the record He has given of His Son.” (IDOTG, p. 150)
Lou
Hi Dave
ReplyDeleteYou asked If the decision to surrender is a work, why isn't a decision to place your faith in Christ a work?
Lou explained the definition of faith. Interestingly enough Paul deals with your question, or rather the accusation that faith is meritorious in his letter to the Romans.
After explaining that faith has a person justified apart from works, he gives us the therefore in Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
Faith is not meritorious because it "does" nothing. Faith merely receives. IE 1Cor 15:1-11 this is the message "received."
Before you jump on the "unless you believed in vain" bit you ought to read the rest of the chapter - believing in vain would only be possible if the message were not true. Particularly 1Cor 15:12-19
Kev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something? You seem to be saying that at conversion either turns from their sin (evidenced, in your opinion, by never sinning again) or do not turn from their sin (evidenced by sinning again. What are the many other options? Do I understand you right?
The limitation of options in a false dilemma are not the answers (as I did to "yes" or "no"). The false dilemma is raised when when one has to pick either scenario a or b as if they are the only options available when there are in fact others, as you present in the choice you essentially offer above.
You try to eliminate at least one other option(that one can legitimately turn from his sin to God but sin again afterward without damage to the legitimacy of his turning) by calling it easy turnism, but we'd have to settle that argument before I accept your choices as legit and surrender my call of false dilemma, which I do not.
Furthermore, some binary choices are legit. Even if I had said "Either one turns from their sin to God at salvation or one does not," I would not have created a false dilemma, because if there are a range of nuanced options to choose from ultimately they are encompassed in the two choices as worded.
Finally, whether you think the question is related to salvation is moot. Asking "Can a person have a poster of the moon on their wall and still truly come to Christ?" is silly, unproductive, and unrelated to anything spiritual, but does not raise a false dilemma in the classic logical sense.
Now that we've hashed that out, I have another question.
Can a person accept Christ as Savior while consciously thinking "but there's no way I'll take Him as my Lord!"?
If not, why not? If so, that's not the Savior we learn of in the Bible.
Dave you asked
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something? You seem to be saying that at conversion either turns from their sin (evidenced, in your opinion, by never sinning again) or do not turn from their sin (evidenced by sinning again. What are the many other options? Do I understand you right?
Nope, not quite.
One is either required to turn from sin(s) in order to become saved or not - there are no other options available so this is not a false dilemma.
I'm saying that if one is required to turn from sins, then one is required to turn from all sins.. for to stop killing people while continuing to rape people would hardly show earnest desire to serve God - am I right?
If one is required to "turn from sin" in order to become saved then one must turn from all sin. If you are "given a new heart that hates sin" and yet you still sin.. then you obviously do not (only) have that new heart...
To say that you need to have a desire to turn from all sin.. or that you must only turn from the "really bad" sins is Easy Turnism. It is a convient saying that SOUNDS like it is holy.. but it is simply fallacy.
The whole phrase "turn from your sin" is just more LS double speak anyway.. it SOUNDS like you are telling someone they must forsake their sin (which some LS people actually preach) but it is really.. .you must want to not sin...
Where do you find either requirement in the Bible in order for a person to be saved? You don't.
It doesn't matter about the semantics of a conversation, what matters is the Bible doesn't lay this burden on a person, even saved people can not bare such a burden - so who in their right mind would put that burden on a sinner coming to Christ?
I'll deal with your next question in my next comment.
Kev
Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou asked.
Can a person accept Christ as Savior while consciously thinking "but there's no way I'll take Him as my Lord!"?
No.
Before you get all excited I'm not saying "no" for the reasons you think.
One does not "accept Christ as Saviour"... find that in the Bible will you? It's not there. One RECEIVES the Gospel - that is one puts His faith in Christ through believing the Gospel as His assurance of reconciliation with God and that person is saved by God. One does not accept Jesus Christ AS anything....
Further... this is just the same question you asked me before... so I will ask you this
Can a pilot achieve flight in a 747 while at the same time snorkelling off the kaymen islands?
The question does not make sense... and neither does yours. (this is a better representation of what you're doing with this question than the wife beating one...)
Further you are being manipulative with your question as though the emotional factor or the shock factor will trump the truth.
Kev
Actually Dave a better question to match yours would be this.
ReplyDeleteCan a pilot ignore a fire warning light on his hazard indication panel in a 747's cockpit while he is scuba diving off the coast of the Kaymen islands?
Kev
This is easy. Turning from sin does not equal never sinning again. Being inclined not to sin does not equal never sinning again. I say nothing about "big" or "little" sins. People have murdered and committed adultry after they've been saved (David did both).
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't know the motives behind my questions. I don't want to be shocked or shock with your answers. I just want to know what you're thinking and why.
Finally, my question makes perfect sense. Someone could, in a counselling session after an invitation, be faced with an opportunity to receive the Gospel-that is put His faith in Christ through believing the Gospel as His assurance of reconciliation with God- yet stubbornly in his mind be thinking, "if I do this, God will NOT be calling the shots in my life, I'LL still be calling the shots." In fact, I essentially did this more than once.
The question of whether one can persist in that stubborn rebellion and simultaneously receive the gospel is not an outlandish, nonsensical question.
Lou, I didn't find your answer to be all that helpful if I can be blunt.
ReplyDeleteThe sinner as lord of his own life only brought upon himself wrath and judgment from God. He has no ability to lead himself in any direction except into more and more sin.
If he changes his mind about sin, that it is bad and shouldn't continue, then he would have to at the same time recognize his need for another to lead him.
The sinner who desires to still be lord of his own life is still a sinner stuck in sin and without hope.
Only those who trust in Christ, the biblical definition of Christ, can be saved. To carve out his Lordship is to create an idol.
Jesus said that if you desire to follow him, you will take up your cross and deny yourself. This is a salvation context as the issue is losing your soul. He was instructing his disciples on the nature of the gospel that they would also teach.
Rejecting the Lordship of Christ out of the gospel is no different than preaching an incomplete gospel. The simplicity in Christ is that he is not divided and carved up. He is as much Lord as He is Savior. I hope that helps.
Tony Corallo
I think what Kev is saying with the idea that turning from sin must be from all sin goes back to what I touched on in my comment on Piper about God's perfect standard. Is that right, Kev?
ReplyDeleteHowever, you have both lost me on the question thing. Kaymen Islands?
JanH
Tony (All):
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, which answer you refer to, but allow me a reaction to your comments.
You wrote, “Jesus said that if you desire to follow him, you will take up your cross and deny yourself. This is a salvation context as the issue is losing your soul. He was instructing his disciples on the nature of the gospel that they would also teach.”
In my book is an extensive chapter that answers the mistake that under girds your argument above. The chapter title is Salvation & Discipleship: Is There a Biblical Difference? (pp. 72-100.) You are blending salvation and discipleship as if those two doctrines are one and the same. This is a classic and wide spread error common among LS advocates. You are confusing passages meant for the disciple of Christ and misinterpreting them as evangelistic appeals to the lost. Cross bearing, self-denial and following are for the born again disciple of Christ if they are to live wisely for Him as their Lord. But the lost man had better come to Christ first receiving the gift of eternal life by faith, believing in who He is and what He did to provide salvation from sin, death and Hell. No one here who rejects Lordship Salvation rejects the Lordship of Christ, but decisions for self-denial, cross bearing and following are for the born again, not the lost.
There are several articles here at the IDOTG blog that address the salvation/discipleship doctrines in the Lordship Salvation debate. Most recently and exhaustive of these is a five part series by Dr. Rick Flanders. I introduced his series as follows,
One of the most hotly debated issues in the Lordship Salvation (LS) controversy revolves around the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. Most LS advocates see these as one and the same. LS advocates blur the lines of distinction, which creates an evangelistic message that conditions the reception of eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to what should be the results of a genuine conversion in discipleship.
In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation MacArthur wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God—anyone who wants to be a Christian—has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)
That teaching by MacArthur exemplifies one of the egregious errors that gave the NT church the works based, man-centered theology of Lordship Salvation.
“How can the Scriptures teach that salvation is a free gift of God if the human cost to become a disciple, that is, to be born again, is very great as Lordship Salvation advocates insist? Salvation is either the free gift of God, or it is costly to man. The Bible teaches that “the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23), but discipleship or following Christ is costly (Luke 14:26-27).” (IDOTG, pp. 73-74)
“The issue is, How can my sins be forgiven? . . . Through faith I receive Him and His forgiveness. Then the sin problem is solved, and I can be fully assured of going to heaven. I do not need to believe in Christ’s second coming in order to be saved. . . . But I do need to believe that He died for my sins and rose triumphant over sin and death. I do not need to settle issues that belong to Christian living in order to be saved. “(Dr. Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, p. 40.)
Please continue to part one of Salvation & Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders for the complete series.
In the next comment box is a sample from Dr. Flanders opening remarks.
LM
From Part One of Salvation & Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders
ReplyDeleteWhen He knew that they had trusted Him for their salvation, Jesus told them to “continue in my word” and become His “disciples indeed.” Then He promised them that if they would follow Him as His disciples, they would “know the truth” and the truth would make them free. This promise relates back to what they had heard Him say to the woman after assuring her that He would not condemn her (see verses 11-12): “Go, and sin no more.” When a sinner is rescued from the condemnation of sin, he can then experience deliverance from the power of sin in his life. He had just said that those who follow Him will not “walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” Release from condemnation ought to motivate the forgiven one to follow the Savior, and this life of commitment to Him will bring the power to overcome sin.
It is very important to understand the difference between believing on Christ for salvation and following Him in discipleship.
These concepts are certainly connected, but the book of John makes it clear that they are not the same. Believers will fail to live a holy life unless they understand discipleship, and they will lack assurance of their salvation if they confuse salvation with discipleship.
Hello Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou've told me what "turning from sin" does NOT mean.. but what DOES it mean then?
I'll give you three options - and if there is another please feel free to explain it. I don't see any others...
Turn from sin = a determination to not sin any more.
Turn from sin = a desire to not sin any more.
Turn from sin = forsaking sin, never sinning again.
If it is a determination not to sin, and one can go on sinning... then how determined was the person really? How determined MUST you be in order to become saved?
If it is a desire to not sin any more but you can go on sinning, then did they really have to stop desiring?? How much desire to not sin MUST you have in order to become saved?
Either of these options = "Easy Turnism" because it requires a "turning from" sin in name only.
The last option which is the forsake sinning option is at least internally consistent. One must turn from sin in order to be saved, and one actually DOES turn from sin in order to be saved.
Which meaning - or is there another - do you subscribe to and can you please define this from the Bible?
I asked previously if you could show me where the Bible requires one to "turn from sin" (by any definition) in order for one to become saved. That would really end my resistance to the idea, as the Bible is my final authority.
More in my next comment.
Kev
Jan - kaymen islands... I was trying to find a question that would show the complete inconsistency of what Dave was asking me to respond to.
ReplyDeleteKev
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteSeems it always takes me two comments to respond to you. I'm sorry for being so wordy, I'm not trying to make this hard on you - really.
About your question - can someone be determined to not accept Jesus as their Lord while accepting Him as their Savior.
Because you don't accept Jesus "AS" anything the question is not helpful - but I understand why you are asking it.
The problem with your question - beyond the AS part - is that the Gospel isn't about submission of the sinner to become a believer. That's not the topic. The topic is witnessing to the truth of the Gospel that Jesus is the Christ Who died in accordance with the Scriptures for our sins, was buried and rose to life on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
If the person is thinking "God is not going to be calling the shots in my life!" then he is at least being honest with his attitude... that is EXACTLY what every Christian thinks when they sin, when they don't do what God has called them to do.
You are putting the question at the point of Salvation as though in that one moment his rebellion somehow could trump God's grace. The truth is that EVEN THAT VERY MOMENT OF REBELLION is paid for on the Cross!
The sinner needs to be saved, and that salvation is FULLY AND COMPLETELY paid for by Jesus Christ. THAT is ALL that is important at the moment of Salvation. Nothing else matters.
The Holy Spirit has been sent into the world to convict and convince sinners of sin, righteousness and judgment. Not about submission, obedience and service.... John 16:5-15
Can a pilot ignore the fire warning hazard light? Of course he can if he's scuba diving instead of sitting in the cockpit. So a sinner need not concern himself with the mastery of Christ over every detail of their life - that's not the topic of the conversation. If it IS the topic then the person witnessing to them is NOT walking in the Spirit of God because he is not doing the work that the Spirit came to do.
Can a Disciple expect to grow in Christ while he is refusing to surrender - notta.... but Salvation is not Discipleship. Discipleship costs all. Salvation is free. Can a person be saved and fail at Discipleship? Of course - as we see demonstrated in the Bible.
Kev
Lou/all,
ReplyDeleteI've had an interesting and in-depth discussion with some Calvinist LS advocates about John 6 recently. One clear observation I'd make from that passage that directly relates to this topic is this:
Disciples aren't necessarily believers. John 6:66.
The inspired Word doesn't question that they are "disciples", but the passage clearly does show their lack of belief in the truth revealed to them. If you attempt to come to Christ by "being a disciple" (or any other means) you are denied, it won't be granted. John 6 is repeatedly clear that the sole condition is simply to believe the truth revealed by the Father.
John 6 couldn't be more clear that discipleship doesn't equal belief, and so vice versa. There is no biblically sound argument to support the claim that discipleship and belief are the same thing or even that they are inextricably bound. Many times in the Bible we see those who "did" things condemned, not once though do we see anyone who "believed" so condemned. Punished, even severely? Yes. (the Corinthians are the obvious example). Outright condemned? No. i.e. You don't find anything like Matt 7:23 directed at "believers". The culture and teaching of LS is frighteningly similar to Matt 7:23, where the focus is more on OUR "obedience" and submission than on Christ's obedience and submission, even to death on a cross. (Philippians 2:8)
One more thing, and this isn't completely original with me but I don't remember the source.
ReplyDeleteLS advocates frequently decry "mental assent", yet when pressed on what it means to "turn from sin" they usually fall back to a position that amounts to this: "To be saved, one need not actually or permanently turn from sin, just mentally assent to it."
A bit simplistic perhaps, but the essence of it is true enough and openly reveals the blatant inconsistency of your average LS advocate on this matter. As Kevin is drawing out, LS is big on saying "you have to turn from sin" yet they can't actually provide a clear standard on what exactly that means... a breeding ground for lack of assurance.
Lou, I was referring to your first answer you gave me way back toward the beginning of this.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind bluntness. You didn't respond to what I actually was saying about the sinner being lord of his own life and how such a thought is completely incompatable with Christianity and the simplicity of who Christ is.
I don't care what other people have said about the issue whether it be MacArthur or Ryrie or you or Flanders. All I care about is what is found in the Bible.
I am not blurring the lines of anything. You are following others in creating lines where none existed.
All true believers are disciples. Jesus said to baptize disciples. On Pentecost, those who repented and believed were right then baptized. They didn't have to commit to the Lordship of Christ post salvation and then get baptized. Christ the Lord is who one must believe in.
I hope this helps. Great site. I would love to see more about the compromise of Piper.
Tony Corallo
Lou, Tony and I were talking about this thread some. Although I disagree on this issue with him, he is right about restricting who Jesus is. Jesus is all or nothing in the NT. The mere idea that He could be one thing but not another is foreign to the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say to the person who wanted to deny he rose from the dead but still received him as savior. Or he wasn't virgin born, or wasn't the true son of David, or ___________. To be saved, one must believe in the Christ of Scripture. Jesus doesn't save people incrementally.
Joe DeFrede
By the way Dave, Jan, and Kev, could the hypothetical salvation and interpretation of it come to an end? Let us just stick with the Bible and not theory.
ReplyDeleteJoe DeFrede
Hi Joe,
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't about the Scriptures - for the Scriptures very clearly state that belief is the requirement for salvation. I cannot say it clearer than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said "Most assuredly I tell you; whoever believes in Me has Eternal Life."
The issue is the LS perception of the Scriptures. Since the issue is with perception we have to discuss the hypothetical, or end up simply brow beating David and potentially insulting him.
David has been open and honest, and I'm going to walk with him through this as best I can, hopefully the Spirit will do the work I am completely unable to do.
It can be very helpful to cast your perception on a hypothetical event in order to see what you have been led to distort because they hypothetical doesn't carry the weight of the real situation.
None of us want to dare blaspheme Christ or diminish anyone's view of Him - so we are careful with our words, and we are even careful with how we test our views. But who cares what anyone thinks of some made up pilot who dares not to look at his hazard panel?
Kev
Oh Joe I just read your comment to Lou and Tony. You may be interested in my short blog article Denying
ReplyDeleteIt may be helpful for Dave as well.
Can one accept Jesus Christ while denying that He is the Rock that the Builders rejected? See the article.
Kev
Joe:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Jesus is all or nothing in the NT. The mere idea that He could be one thing but not another is foreign to the Bible.”
Thanks for that. No one here is trying to diminish or take away His deity or His lordship. What we are discussing is how a lost man is born again. What he must believe to be born again. And “do” or an upfront commitment to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) that should be the natural result of a genuine conversion is NOT part of the one true gospel of Jesus Christ. Matters that pertain to obeying the Lord Jesus Christ are for the born again disciple of Christ, the Bible is very clear on that, no one in this thread disputes it. However, the Bible does NOT teach that faith must be front-loaded with commitments to submission and surrender to do what is expected of a genuine believer to be saved/justified, to be become a born again disciple of Christ.
I think it is somewhere up in this growing thread that someone noted that John MacArthur, in trying to correct the errors of a so-called “Easy Believism”* bounced too far off of a reductionist heresy and right into a works base teaching that has corrupted the simplicity that is I Christ. I can cite Dr. Ernest Pickering, who in his review of the first edition of JMac’s The Gospel According to Jesus noted,
“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”
I trust this very limited commentary has been helpful.
For a concise explanation of how LS has corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ, frustrates grace and is works based please read, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page. which is a reproduction of an appendix I wrote for my book.
Lou
*The most egregious form of “Easy-Believism” is the “Crossless Gospel” (CG) that was originated by the late Zane Hodges. It is this reductionism that JMac was largely reacting to. The CG of Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society is the most egregious form of reductionist heresy on the Gospel that has ever been introduced to the NT church by one of its own. I suggest reading the following articles for some examples.
GES Reductionist Affirmation of Belief
The “CHRIST” Under Siege
Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel
Hi Joe-
ReplyDeleteThanks for engaging the topic.
As for getting to the Scriptures, sometimes it is necessary to talk about the Scriptures because although all will claim allegiance to what the Scriptures teach, there is not agreement as to what they teach. Therefore, the need to talk about them and see how and why people hold what they do, etc.
So I say let the conversation continue as it is going.
JanH
Disciples aren't necessarily believers. John 6:66.
ReplyDeleteStephen,
You are absolutely correct. Many walked with Him until they were confronted with the gospel message. To this day it remains extremely difficult for people to handle the truth that they are under the wrath of God, there is no "work that they may work the work of God" that He will accept, and they need a salvation that must come from someone else. In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die is still the truth and that death will be required. No other payment of any kind will satisfy God's wrath. Only death. You cannot give, work, or enslave yourself into salvation. Not slavery but death is the requirement of God's wrath. It was so from the beginning and has not changed. The grace of the gospel is that Jesus took that death in our place and paid the price in full. It was this that tripped up the folks in John 6 and it also tripped up the rich young ruler. They did not want to accept that they could not be good enough under any circumstances and were totally rejected in themselves.
There is an article by a Reformed man that deals with Matthew 7 that I found very good. If Lou gives me permission to post the link to it I will.
JanH
While it must be clearly stated that we disagree with the author's Reformed TULIP view, an article of this sort written from a Reformed perspective is very educational to say the least, and worth the read.
ReplyDeleteThis is from the article:
If Jesus’ point in verse 21 were that faith is not enough, that good works, or covenant faithfulness, or obedience is also necessary in order to be saved, then Jesus should have said something like this in verse 22: Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, we trusted in you alone, we had faith in you alone, we believed the Bible and your words.’ But of course Jesus says nothing of the sort. Instead, he reports that many people will appear before him at the Judgment and will talk about their works, not their faith. These people-the ones who present works-will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.
Snip.
Now the fact that many people will have done these things on Earth implies several things.
First, it implies that these people are not mere professors, without works and without practice, as we may have concluded from our superficial reading of verse 21. They are not pew warmers; they are not spiritual spectators; they are not churchgoers who show up only on Easter and Christmas; they are not those who have no works. These people have many works, and they will call on Jesus himself to testify to their works on Earth. Theirs is not mere lip service; theirs is not an empty profession. They will have been very active in church and in other religious endeavors.
Snip.
Do not the Scriptures say that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord? And do not the Scriptures say that some people will not be saved? It therefore follows that confessing Jesus as Lord is insufficient for salvation; one must also confess him as Saviour.
Read it all.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=117
JanH
. . . but Salvation is not Discipleship. Discipleship costs all. Salvation is free . . .
ReplyDeleteI think this is where we ultimately disagree. I think salvation is the first step in discipleship (note how the Great Commission seems to equate conversion with disciple making).
Furthermore, I will let my rather lightweight answers and statements stand here and give others who care to comment the last word.
Thanks, Lou, and everyone else.
Kev, I read your article. It doesn't deal with my point at all. Many believers are unaware of the full scope of who Christ is. However, if they were to deny who he was as a term of salvation, then they would not have legitimate salvation.
ReplyDeleteSeeing some of these statements has really helped me see the extent of what nonLS proponents say. I have become fully persuaded of what Tony has been saying all along.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. It has been helpful.
Lou I also want to thank you for allowing such a lengthy interaction to take place.
Joe
A couple of things:
ReplyDelete1. Lou, like I said before, I don't care what MacArthur, you, or now even Pickering had to say about their perceptions of LS. I don't have to defend LS. I do have to remain true to the scripture.
If a person does not need Christ as Lord, then neither do they need Him as savior. To teach otherwise is to carve up who Christ is and create a complication of His person. The simplicity in Christ isn't that He is easy, it is that He is singular and one.
2. Joe, it was about time.
Tony
Dave-
ReplyDeleteThanks for participating in the discussion. I'm not sure if this will be the last word or not, but I recently posted a comment on a friend's blog that I think may have some bearing on this:
I think salvation is the first step in discipleship (note how the Great Commission seems to equate conversion with disciple making).
I'll repost the pertinent parts here:
Contrary to Lordship Salvation proponents I don’t believe that the problem is that people do not submit to Jesus as Lord and Master over their lives and unless and until they do, they cannot be said to be possessors of salvation. I think that the gospel itself implies the authority of God as it presents Him as being the One qualified to either judge or pardon and He has the authority to accomplish either one according to His righteousness. In fact, it is His authority that gives the gospel message its power. Therefore, receiving the gospel message that Jesus paid the debt of all our sin in full in His death on the cross and that payment was received in full and is credited to our account when we put our faith in His finished work IS the obedience God seeks. It is specific to the issue at hand-His righteous judgment against our sin and His full forgiveness through the sacrifice of His Son.
When the Lordship Salvation proponents insist that we must also submit to Christ as our Lord/Master FOR SALVATION or else we are not saved (for salvation is the critical issue here. There is no debate about the propriety of submission to the Lord. It is that it becomes a requirement for salvation that is the issue in the debate.), they fold the requirements of discipleship into the salvation message, effectively causing salvation to become a process and not a finished work. Instead of discipleship being the outworking of having been saved, it becomes part of an unfinished salvation process. Thus you get the message,which I personally find confusing and self contradictory, that you are not saved by works but you won’t be saved without them. The confusion becomes easier to see when you translate “saved” as “you don’t get to heaven by works but you won’t get to heaven without them.” Works are now necessary to enter heaven. The consequence of this is the transaction is not complete at the point of believing and Christ alone is compromised because His finished work needs something added to it, namely the work of practical sanctification the Holy Spirit does in those who have believed. This is what makes salvation a process in their teaching. Rather than see practical sanctification as the practical outworking of a positionally finished and applied salvation, they make it necessary for us to be finally saved.
JanH
Jan, thanks for the post and for triggering the resulting dialog. I have found it to be a blessing. You said "The grace of the gospel is that Jesus took that death in our place and paid the price in full." I think this sums it up very well. There is no promise to be made, penance to perform, or provision to be offered. Jesus paid it all. It is finished in him.
ReplyDeleteYou quoted Holland saying "Please, please, please receive, receive Jesus as Lord and He will become your Savior." This statement shows why I was so upset that Northland had him in a speaker in chapel. They should not be about promoting a "Lordship" - works focused - gospel. On a side note, I heard a local "Christian" rock radio host say today during that people should accept Jesus Christ as Lord and that this is the beginning of their relationship with Him. It appears that we have a lot to do to counter the ever increasing popularity of man-made gospels.
Jim
Hi Jim. Thanks for the comment and support. Yep. We have our work cut out for us.
ReplyDeleteJanH
Dave and All,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the fun spirited discussion!
My last bit of argument is to remind everyone of how Jan quoted John 6:66 showing that real Disciples of Jesus Christ are not always saved. I think the rest of the Bible shows clearly that truly saved people can fail at Discipleship. 2Peter 1:5-9 shows clearly that those who don't succeed at discipleship are still saved yet they come to a horrible miserable experience, and will not have an "abundant" entrance into Heaven.
Finally, we do not just pick one or two (or any number of) titles of Christ and make them determinative of whether someone is saved or not. We receive Christ and we are given the right to become sons of God - John 1.
We don't receive Him AS savior or AS Lord or AS the Stone that the Builders rejected... we receive HIM through believing the testimony, or the report, about what He has done on our behalf and then we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into His works.
Then we have a life of growing and walking in the works that He has prepared beforehand for us - if we submit to Him. If not we suffer correction Hebrews 12, and even misery and lack of eternal rewards 2Peter 1. 1Cor 3, 2Cor 5.
The Gospel as preached by ALL the Apostles, and believed (received) by the saved Christians we read about in the New Testament is detailed explicitly in 1Cor 15:1-11. It contains nothing about submission, mastery over one's life, remorse, forsaking sin, desiring not to sin, or determining not to sin..
What it contains is a report (Isa 53, Rom 10, John 12) of what Christ has done for us.
In Christ, thank you all for your thoughtful comments!
Kev
Amen Kevin. The Gospel of Salvation is simply good news to be believed, add anything tp that and you exceeded what the scripture itself requires. You, Lou, Greg, and some others helped me see the error of LS several years ago and I pray that others are influenced through discussions like this to see that LS can't really answer the question of what is required to be saved. They can only point to a nebulous standard of "turn from sin" yet, as seen here, can't say what that actually means.
ReplyDeleteGood discussion, sorry I got in on it so late.
To JanH, Kevl, Lou, and others, what an excellent running commentary of what Biblical salvation is, in stark contrast to the LS position. While I have not interacted much, I have followed the progression of this thread this week and have benefited greatly. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteTo Dave, I do appreciate your interaction and I do trust that you will reread this thread and see where LS departs from the Scriptures.
Thanks to all for your participation. I will close the thread here.
ReplyDeleteKind regards,
Lou Martuneac
Fantastic article! I recently did a partial study of what the will of the Father is in the NT in response to a comment on Matthew 7:21 where Jesus teaches that only those who DO the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteWell guess what, the clearest scripture is John 6:40 and you know what he wants us to "do"... BELIEVE in Jesus! That's it. No works.