In Defense of the Gospel

January 29, 2012

Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders, Part 1 (ReStart)

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

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. (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

Dr. Rick Flanders wrote an article in 2007 titled, Salvation and Discipleship that addresses this vital issue in the Lordship Salvation controversy. The article first appeared at the Baptist College of Ministry website and with the author’s permission it is being reproduced here as a multi-part series. I am hopeful every guest will read this series with discernment and prayerfully consider the plain teaching of Scripture as Dr. Flanders presents it.

“As He spake these words, many believed on Him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:30-32)

His words were mysterious, and yet compelling and powerful. They were spoken in response to the arguments the Pharisees had made against His claims that day. It was the day He had rescued the woman taken in adultery from her condemners, and then had said, “I am the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

After His critics objected to Him referring to Himself in such a way, He expanded on His claims. He said that He is from above, that God is His Father, that He is not of this world, that if they will not believe in Him they will die in their sins, and that He even has the right to use the divine name “I AM” in reference to Himself (read John 8:12-27). These were astounding claims, but somehow they were convincing and convicting to the hearers. Then He spoke of a day that was coming when these very critics would lift Him up on a cross.

“When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do those things that please him.” (John 8:28-30) Whenever Jesus spoke of His being “lifted up,” He was talking about being crucified (see also John 3:14-15 and 12:23-33). He said that the events surrounding His sacrifice at Calvary would convince even these hearers of His claims. His words were so powerful that many of those who heard him say them “believed on him.” Readers of the book of John recognize this phrase as describing the decision that saves the sinner and gives him eternal life. That’s what we see in John 1:12-13, 3:36, 6:47, and so many other passages that speak of believing on Him for everlasting life! The hearers believed on Him and were saved. To believe on Jesus is to depend on Him for salvation, to trust Him for deliverance from eternal condemnation, to rely on Him for the forgiveness of sins and eternal redemption. They had become believers in Christ, and therefore they were saved.

When 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.

Have you noticed that a distinction is made in the Bible between believers and disciples? In John 2:11 we are told that Jesus did His first miracle “in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him.” Back in chapter 1, we are told about the men who decided to follow the Lord Jesus, and in chapter 2, verse 2, they are called “his disciples.” Having seen His miraculous power, these disciples “believed on him.” They became believers.

In John 6 we read about a time when “many of his disciples went back, and walked with him no more.” It happened after they heard Him make some bold statements about Himself and about receiving eternal life through Him (read verses 47-68). “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” They had promised to follow Him as their Master and Teacher, but now they realized that He wanted them to depend on Him for their very salvation, and they just were not ready for this. When they complained, Jesus told them, “There are some of you that believe not.” They were disciples of Jesus, but not believers. The prime example of an unbelieving disciple was Judas the traitor, and the scripture says as much in verses 64 through 71. The unbelievers (including Judas) among them were real disciples of Jesus. It is the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that calls them His disciples. They were indeed disciples of Jesus, but they had never believed on Him as their Savior. Let us learn what the distinction is.

Dr. Rick Flanders has an itinerant preaching ministry for revival. He can be contacted at drrickflanders@gmail.com. Dr. Rick Flanders Revival Ministries

January 25, 2012

“Seven Years and Counting:” Is SI Counting Down?

An issue arose that necessitates my having to interrupt the archival series by Dr. Rick Flanders, Salvation & Discipleship. That series will resume on Monday morning with the second in the five part series. On Tuesday, Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher, Aaron Blumer posted an article titled, Seven Years and Counting. I am going to hone in on two brief excerpts from the article then close with an appeal to people who care about and exemplify the best of Fundamentalism.

From the section, “Something we need”

“Speaking of accessible, thoughtful writing, consider this an open casting call for writers. Though we continue to find some pretty good stuff in the work of various bloggers as well as some print publications… SI could use more work that is exclusive and arrives at regular intervals.”

If you were to submit articles to reject and/or correct doctrines such as Calvinism and Lordship Salvation your polemic will not be published at SI’s front page. SI has never opened its Blogroll for any such bloggers. If you have an opinion and the nerve to raise legitimate concerns with the growing trend of new evangelical influences making inroads into Fundamental schools, colleges, seminaries and fellowships your article will never appear at SI’s main page. What has taken place in SI’s discussion threads affirms SI’s open hostility toward opinions such as I suggest above and assure they will never be allowed to appear at SI’s front page.

Post a thread comment at SI critical of the doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromises of evangelicals like John Piper, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan and watch what happens. If you do not stand down you will be surrounded and suffocated by SI staff and certain members of SI. Still hold your ground and you will receive stronger warnings and/or threats of censorship and banishment from Aaron Blumer. Of course, SI moderators and members friendly to SI positions freely berate and chastise with impunity and encourage one another in it. Take a reasoned position against any of SI’s pet doctrines, personalities and fellowships, state your position with biblical conviction, without compromise and your voice in an article submission will never see the light of day at SI. Take a position on behalf of the best Fundamentalism has been, can be and still offers the church today your article will not be given so much as a column inch of SI’s front page.

No article has ever appeared in the seven years of SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. None whatsoever! The open challenge to Aaron Blumer still stands. He once attempted, failed and has never been able to offer even one front-page example from the 7-year history of SI that was thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. His inability to produce even one is easily explained, there is no such article whatsoever at SI. IMO there never will be such an example because the primary history and legacy of SI is to castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush and run interference for contributors at SI who do so, most notably Dr. Kevin Bauder.

Irrefutably SI plays favorites on behalf of evangelicalism and is loosely organized against any legitimate questions and concerns over evangelicalism’s star personalities, doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises. The SI team has consistently gang-tackled members who raise legitimate concerns over the attacks on Fundamentalism, the drift away from fidelity to biblical separation among some who circulate in Fundamental circles or protest the compromisers in evangelicalism. The SI team has consistently practiced censorship by omission,* run interference for the conservative evangelicals and set upon those who try to flush out the issues within evangelicalism.

From the Section, “Identity questions”

“Along the way, critics have accused SI of having an anti-fundamentalist bias, of being a secretly neo-evangelical organization, etc. And we’ve always been interested in helping fundamentalism by challenging it, rather than simply lauding it. ”

“Accused” of and documented from the site itself that SI is highly biased against Fundamentalism. “Helping Fundamentalism?” SI wastes no opportunity, real or perceived to castigate, besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism. Certain personalities have been tried, convicted and given an Internet lynching with Aaron Blumer and Jim Peet presiding and participating. At the same time SI plays favorites with and runs interference for conservative and New evangelicals in the T4G, TGC camps.

No one I am aware of, especially this writer, has ever suggested SI is “secretly” evangelical because it is not a secret. SI is a place for evangelicals, which was previously acknowledged as such by Aaron Blumer at the site. Blumer described SI as a site for those, “who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.” SI is without question a site for the promotion and advancement of evangelicalism.

Sharper Iron enables and facilitates evangelicalism’s insidious spread into once balanced, charitable Fundamental separatist schools and ministries.

Closing Appeal
SI needs people to disagree with them or the site would grind to a halt and Aaron Blumer knows this. Is Aaron’s appeal for contributors a subtle signal that SI may be on count down to extinction?

If it were not for Aaron changing SI rules for moderators to drop the role of impartial referee, to freely participate in threads to impose their positions and will SI would have come to a halt. Aaron and Jason Janz before him ran off just about anyone who once did or might have considered participating on behalf of the very Fundamentalism that has been the target of unceasing criticism and attack by the SI team and most of the few members still actively posting comments.

If you presently contribute even thread comments at SI you are enabling SI to continue its pattern of castigating Fundamentalism. You are keeping SI alive to heap lavish praise on and advocate the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Does your participation help SI to attract new readers and lead the unsuspecting toward the doctrinal errors and ecumenism of conservative and New evangelicalism? If even one is lost to evangelicalism’s compromises of doctrine and practice a genuine tragedy has occurred. If you keep threads alive by your participation you fuel the SI team and evangelicals wanna be’s in SI’s membership to propagate the egregious errors of evangelicalism, isn’t it possible you share some culpability for the losses.

LM

* One writer said,

“I call it CENSORSHIP BY OMISSION, where by silence, religious and historical ignorance and illiteracy is promoted. Why, this silence? As one editor told me: ‘because it would offend the Christian community among our subscribers.’ Even though factual and accurate history, it would offend them.”

This IMO is exactly the dilemma of Aaron Blumer at SI. If he were to allow for open criticism on SI’s front page of the obvious problems within the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, back down his moderators from going after those who raise legitimate concerns with evangelicalism he “would offend the Christian community among [SI] subscribers.” Offending what is left of the SI membership, which is far and away pro-evangelical, is what Aaron is not willing to risk. If SI were to allow for sharp, legitimate criticism of evangelicals on its front page SI would fold for sure. Therefore, the disconcerting issues about evangelicalism are censored (silenced) by omission. (Censorship by Omission)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Rather than post a series of articles as footnotes I have opted to direct your attention to my secondary blog, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet for further reading. There you will find supporting documentation. I also encourage you to read,

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

I Had to Ask, “Does This Sharpen Me?”

January 24, 2012

Salvation and Discipleship, Part 1 by Dr. Rick Flanders

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. (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

It is very important to understand the difference between believing on Christ for salvation and following Him in discipleship.

January 16, 2012

Birds of a Feather

The future of every church, agency, and educational institution rests on its theological standard. It’s not about a historical statement of faith or whatever creed an organization claims to adhere to. As the years pass, those creeds become a façade, little more than a piece of advertising, while an organization’s real standard is about what they practice, teach, and represent. Maintaining a historical standard can be very difficult, and sooner or later all human organizations tend to leave behind either a portion of or most of such standards. One would expect that at that at the point of departure there would be an open admission of that change, but that usually is not the practice.

When a move away from an original position, it can be identified by several things. The most obvious has to do with whom they “fly” with, because birds of a feather do stick together. I am not talking here about general associations or being in the same room, so to speak. This discussion is about giving a place of participation and respect to those who have moved further down the road toward error and, ultimately, liberalism.

Turning the platform, classroom, or leadership over to someone who holds error is the same as approving the error, because you cannot avoid the identification. All one has to do is to follow the practice of accommodation, and you will know where a group is going theologically and, in the end, morally.

LOWERING THE THEOLOGICAL AND MORAL BAR

The problem of serious association is coupled with a second indication of a move to the left. This problem is a failure to clearly identify doctrinal and moral issues, as well as a defense of theological accommodation. A few illustrations will suffice. The trend toward looking lightly on the cults has become popular. The idea that Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism is not a cult is by no means new, but now there is a move afoot to view them as legitimate church groups. Where someone comes down on this gives us a clear identification of where they are headed theologically; after all, the scholars have made this decision for us.

Eschatology seems to be the slippery slope for many. It is a simple matter for the sleight-of-hand agent to gain respectability and move from one error to another. This misdirection moves slowly, hoping not to be noticed. Joining hands under the table like this is one way for a group to hide their move to the left.

In moral issues such as abortion, sodomy, and the use of alcohol, the race to accommodation varies. Biblicists are often castigated for referring to abortion as murder, even though God’s Word is very clear on the subject. This softening of language is very telling. Even the word “sodomy” is forbidden amongst those who want the identification of sin to be made respectable. Alcohol use is a perfect example of how hard people will work to ignore scripture in order to make sin acceptable.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING

There is no such thing as a single stand-alone error; one error simply leads to another. When one gives credence to one error, all you have to do is look for the others. In front of me is an advertisement containing several names. At least four of the persons listed here are known for at least one theological error, while others are known for their accommodation of those who hold error. How could this happen to a self-proclaimed fundamentalist group?

The answer is in the third thing that identifies theological drift. The people involved in the above simply say that the error is not an error, or that it is only a small error and not all that serious. Even small moral and theological errors, however, are very dangerous. Once the small error is accommodated, it is not long until another more serious one finds a comfortable home. James puts the progression this way:

…but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:14, 15

DENYING AND DEFENDING ERROR

Why would a professing fundamentalist deny or defend error? The answer can be found in the common hermeneutic that they use. The Reformed hermeneutic is flexible; it allows the interpreter freedom to adjust theology as he travels the road that leads left. This is the illustration I have used here before. The hermeneutic that allows you to leave the any-moment catching away of the church, called the rapture, is the same hermeneutic that allows you to choose any eschatological error all the way to denying that there is such a thing as a Millennial Kingdom.

The three things that identify the accommodation of error are a warning to all of us. We would do well to use care in the depth of our relationships, small and great, with those who have chosen respectable error.* We would do well to clearly identify erroneous theological and moral issues that lead to a chain of compromise. We would be wise not to follow those who have today’s plethora of popular theological errors. Accommodating error is unwise, and denying it is serious; but defending it is sinful at best. Let the bad examples of others be a good lesson to those of us who are committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture.

SHEPHERD’S STAFF
February, 2012

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care
For those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible
Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com
Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D.Min

Site Publisher’s Note: If you find articles like this and others at the IDOTG blog please consider forwarding a link to your circle of friends and acquaintances.

*Related Reading:
Dr. Rolland McCune on, Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Will Not Carry the Day.”

Excusing the Brother For the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separation Principles?

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

1994 & 1995 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

He [Dr. Mark Dever] serves on the Board of Southern Theological Seminary under the direction of Dr. Al Mohler. (Dr. Mohler signed the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration and watches over the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Home Missions at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. [Mohler served as chair for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville])

•Dr. Dever also willingly teaches at Gordon-Conwell College in Massachusetts, long known as a leading institution for New-Evangelicalism and compromise.

•To add to the matter, Dr. Dever is quite reformed and a-millennial, which, of course, is a far-cry from the position promoted by the founders of Calvary, Detroit, Central and Northland.

•He has spoken it [sic] the past and is slated to speak in the future with Dr. C.J. Mahaney, one of the founders of the Together For The Gospel [T4G] Conference where he states that his desire is to start churches that are reformed in theology and charismatic in doctrine. T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music. (Dr. Rick Arrowood detailing the current posture (as of time of writing Jan. 2011) of SBC pastor Mark Dever

January 12, 2012

Fruits and False Prophets – Matthew 7:15-20

We began the new year with an article by Dr. Charlie Bing, which was Lordship [Salvation] and False Followers- Matthew 7:21-23. Regarding the subjects of that passage we learned,

“They are evidently related to the false prophets of [Matthew] 7:15-20…who would lead people away from Jesus as the narrow gate (7:13-14). The ‘Not everyone who says’ in verse 21 links to the ‘them’ in 7:20, as does the ‘you’ of verse 23. Jesus could also be speaking of those deceived by the false prophets. Outwardly this group displays good works (they look like sheep; 7:15), but their true beliefs are revealed ultimately in what they say.”

Today, we will consider Dr. Bing’s essay on the false prophets of Matthew 7:15-20

15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

This passage is often used to argue that a person’s works will be proof of his or her salvation. It assumes that “fruits” refers to visible conduct that can be quantified in such a way that others can pass judgment on that person’s salvation (“you will know them”). According to this interpretation, bad behavior proves a person is not saved; good behavior proves a person is saved. Is that what this passage teaches?

The Subject of the Passage

It should be noted first that Jesus is not addressing believers or professing believers in general, but false prophets and how to recognize them. To be exact, the test is not for judging the reality of another’s salvation, but for judging whether a prophet is from God or not.

The Focus of the Passage

Context clarifies the focus of the passage. These statements are from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus Christ is explaining the highest standards of righteousness that characterize the kingdom. It is a righteousness that exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). The Scribes and Pharisses were highly scrupulous in their behavior, so it seems unlikely that Jesus’ reference to “fruits” would focus on conduct. Likewise, the following passage in 7:21-23 mentions those who do great things in Jesus’ name, but Jesus ignores the significance of those professors’ works.

The prophets first appear deceptively as true believers (“in sheep’s clothing”). They are indiscernible from believers in what can be seen. They are evidently clothed in a façade of Christian behavior, which proves to be an inadequate basis of judgment. It is only what is unseen that later proves them false prophets.

The Test of the Prophets

The test that Jesus gives is not for the existence of fruit, but for the quality of fruit (v. 17). The false prophet may have fruits, but given time to ripen, they prove “bad” (v. 16). Likewise, a tree cannot be judged good or bad from its outer appearance, but from the fruit it produces (vv. 17-18). The true test of a prophet is whether his fruits are good or bad. But what does “fruits” refer to?

If “fruits” refers only to works, this creates a couple problems. First, many false religions produce teachers and adherents with good moral conduct and good works. Second, there would be a conflict with the following verses, 21-23, where the professors have good works, but the Lord says He never knew them.

“Fruits” must certainly refer to more than works; words must be in view. In Matthew 12:33-37 there is a similar discussion about fruits that shows they are one’s words:

33“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

This is how a person proves his true nature. Given time, what is beneath the deceptive façade is exposed in his words. Word express one’s beliefs, thus they are the basis for vindication or condemnation.

The Mosaic Law also prescribed the test of a false prophet. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3 the Israelites are told to ignore any miraculous works of a so-called prophet and judge him only by his words. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 the validity of a prophet of God ultimately depends on his words, whether they are true or false, fulfilled or not.

Conclusion

Words of a teacher or any person will eventually betray his or her beliefs. Outward conduct can be deceiving and is not a reliable judge of the reality of one’s faith. A person can only be judged by what he or she says when compared to the truth of the Bible. The Word of God is the final judge of a teacher’s credibility or a person’s salvation. Don’t be fooled by someone’s works; they are not a reliable basis for judging (See GraceNotes no. 28, “Can Good Works Prove Salvation?”). If we are saved by grace through faith, then one’s verbal testimony should affirm that truth according to God’s Word. We would hope that one’s conduct is consistent with that profession.

Dr. Charlie Bing, GraceLife Ministries

GraceNotes is a concise quarterly Bible study on the important issues related to salvation by grace and living by grace. They are designed for downloading (*pdf available) and copying so they can be used in ministry. No permission is required if they are distributed unedited at no charge. You can receive new GraceNotes by subscribing to our free quarterly GraceLife newsletter.

January 5, 2012

A Lesson From Lowe’s Dr. Clay Nuttall

For our overseas readers, let me begin with an explanation. Lowe’s is a large chain of home improvement stores. Unlike other major home improvement chains, Lowe’s has come down on the moral and conservative side of most issues. They were recently identified as a sponsor for a television program called “All-American Muslim”. A reliable and informed conservative organization challenged them on this decision, and a firestorm of complaints caused Lowe’s to withdraw their sponsorship. Their reason was legitimate: they simply didn’t want to be in the middle of this conflict.

The tidal wave of criticism that followed from the liberal minds was very revealing. I write this article knowing that I tread on dangerous ground, but knowing also that most of our readers are clear-headed conservatives. It is possible, however, that someone who is reading this has been caught in the liberal web and may never have thought this through. It is also possible that some readers have struggled in that they do not know how to answer the fallacious criticism from those who have believed the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion.

IS IT TRUE?

Those who have told the truth about the aforementioned television program and Lowe’s’ action have been called uninformed, intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant. The fact is, however, that those who have defended the charade are the ones who truly are intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant of the facts. Liberalism and its bedfellows are experts on dealing with the “what” of situations but almost never the “why”.

Why would anyone characterize the “All-American Muslim” program as propaganda? The answer is that what is portrayed in the episodes, coupled with the attempt to whitewash the true Islam, is false advertising. The discussion isn’t about America’s being a melting pot for all cultures; it is about the true heart and majority of a major religion.

Those who try to explain the “why” of this issue are classified as having “Islamophobia”. Name-calling is the same liberal trick that is used with the subject of sodomy. Anyone opposed to this destructive practice is called “homophobic”. It has never crossed their minds that the deliberate campaign against Christianity in our country is “Christophobic”.

WHO IS REALLY INTOLERANT?

Are all Muslims terrorists, or are there some who would prefer living in peace? No, not every one of them is a terrorist; and yes, some desire a peaceful life. History, however, has demonstrated that those who are violent at heart are perfectly willing to live in a pretense of peace until they are a majority.

The “All-American Muslim” façade in no way resembles the real Islam. The total Muslim population of the U.S. is but a drop in the bucket compared to its worldwide scope. It is there you will find the truth, not in some finely-tuned American television program. We have had some examples of the real Islam here at home, but they are always played down by the dominant liberal media.

The real face and heart of this religion can only be found in the majority. Find any country in the world where Islam rules, and you will find the truth. This is how to erase the ignorance of a liberal perspective. The bottom line is that in those countries there is no true democracy, no real freedom, and no peace for anyone who disagrees with the majority religion. What you will find is hatred, violence, fear, and death. There is zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees, including some of their own; this is the real Islam religion.

The liberal sermon on diversity falls on deaf ears elsewhere in the world. All patriotic Americans applaud diversity; it is center stage in what we are all about. Arabic Americans have every right to the freedoms promised to all Americans. Those of us who served in the military defended that freedom for every American, but this critical discussion isn’t about being an American. It is about using our freedoms to create the living hell that exists in all the nations where a different kind of religion monopolizes the scene.

THE REAL PROBLEM

Anyone with an informed, honest perspective will see the danger in the false advertisement of Islam in America. They will be able to see the intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant practice of liberalism as evidenced in Islam’s war against Christianity. There is one thing, though, that is far more dangerous than the intellectual pagan who has rejected Christ.

Why would a civil leader, an evangelical, or even a fundamentalist believe or communicate the lie? Why would they defend the thing that has destroyed the freedom of nation after nation? Why would anyone dare to say that Islam is a “peaceful religion”? It could be fear, politics, a desire to be accepted, or perhaps a lack of understanding. No matter how you state it, the real issue with such people is ignorance. Those who rail against patriotic and conservative Americans and demonize Christians may have knowledge, but they do not have wisdom.

The bottom line is simple: if you are willing to read the news, even twisted as it so often is, you cannot miss the truth about real Islam. Read about what is happening in Libya today and in Egypt. Consider what will happen in Iraq and the whole of the Arab spring and think, just think! And thus endeth the lesson from Lowe’s.

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Revelation 22:11

A communication service of Shepherd's Basic Care
For those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible
Shepherd's Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com
Shepherd's Staff is prepared by
Clay Nuttall, D.Min

January 2, 2012

Lordship and False Followers – Matthew 7:21-23

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

This passage is often cited to show that many professing Christians are not actually saved. It is clear that these false followers are rejected by Jesus Christ even though they know who He is and have abundant good works. But does this passage teach, as some claim, that a person must be totally surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? What is doing “the will of My Father in heaven” that gains entry into heaven?

What we know about these followers

Here’s what we know about the subjects of the passage:

• They are evidently related to the false prophets of 7:15-20 (see GraceNotes no. 51, Fruits and False Prophets – Matthew 7:15-20) who would lead people away from Jesus as the narrow gate (7:13-14). The "Not everyone who says" in verse 21 links to the “them” in 7:20, as does the "you" of verse 23. Jesus could also be speaking of those deceived by the false prophets. Outwardly this group displays good works (they look like sheep; 7:15), but their true beliefs are revealed ultimately in what they say.
• They have a correct theology in that they confess that Jesus is Lord. The title "Lord" is a title of respect, but also of deity when used of Jesus Christ. Its repetition here indicates an emphasis on who Christ is.
• They are submitted to Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives. By their emphatic address ("Lord, Lord") and boast of miracles done in His name (v. 22), we could even say that these professors are ultra-lordship. There is no indication they err in their concept of who Christ is, nor is there any indication that they are not totally submitted to him in their ethical conduct. Indeed, they are very enthusiastic about following and serving Jesus Christ.
• They have many good works—actually, great works. They have preached and spoken as prophets, performed exorcisms, and done many supernatural signs.
• They are trusting in their works to merit eternal life. Their plea to Christ reveals an attempt to justify their entrance into the kingdom of heaven based on their magnificent performances. Their pride in their deeds reveals an attitude of self-righteousness. In their plea, they do not say, “Have we not believed in You alone?”
• They are "many" in number (v. 22), not rare exceptions. Sadly, the nature of this self-deception is widespread. This is not surprising, since Jesus previously indicated that most people would miss the way to eternal life (7:13-14).
• They have never been eternally saved. They did not have salvation and lose it, or believe in Christ and fail to persevere. Jesus said He never knew them and rejects them (v. 23).
• They are practicing lawlessness (v. 23). But what does this mean? There is no hint of conduct contrary to the Mosaic Law or of blatant immorality. The meaning of “lawlessness” must be connected to doing "the will of the Father" that Jesus mentions in verse 21. They are not doing God's will in relation to Jesus Christ, because they are misinterpreting the law as the Scribes and Pharisees did (5:21-7:6), using it to establish their own righteousness instead of looking to the exceeding righteousness of Christ (5:20).

What we know about the Father's will
God’s will for unsaved people is not merely proper theology and impressive works. In the context, Jesus wants people to accept God’s Way (7:13-14) and God’s Word (7:24-27), and obey accordingly. Previously in this Sermon, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven was entered only by those whose righteousness exceeds that of the self-righteous Jewish leaders (5:20-48). The righteousness required for eternal life is not based on outward conduct (5:21-28), which is why they should seek God’s righteousness (6:33). Jesus is the narrow gate that leads to God’s righteousness and life (7:13-14; John 10:9). Similar words and concepts in 7:21-23 and 21:23-46 show that the issue is belief in Christ and His righteousness (21:25, 32). Other Bible passages help us know how to receive God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21-24). Works are not acceptable for obtaining God’s righteousness (Rom. 4:4-5). The only thing God wants an unbeliever to do is believe in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 6:27-29). The will of the Father is to believe in Jesus Christ for righteousness (Matthew 12:50; John 6:40).

What we learn from this example

• Good theology is not enough to save a person. In Mark 1:24 demons also knew and proclaimed a proper view of Christ’s position as Lord.
• Submission to Christ’s lordship is not enough to save a person. Someone can surrender all of his or her life and be a devoted follower and servant of Christ’s ethical commands, but not know Jesus Christ as Savior. After all, the people in this passage do not cry “Savior, Savior.”
• Good works, no matter how great they are, are not enough to save a person. Neither can one’s deeds prove a relationship to Jesus Christ as Savior. Miraculous performances can come from sources other than God (Acts 19:13; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:1-12).
• Self-righteousness cannot save a person. Those in the passage are not claiming to have believed in Christ for His righteousness. Unsaved people need a righteousness outside of themselves and their own good works, which can never meet God’s perfect standard. Only Christ’s righteousness obtained through faith in Jesus Christ satisfies God’s righteous requirements.
• Many people who think they are Christians may not be saved. They are trusting in proper Christian theology, dedicated service to Jesus Christ, or performance of great deeds. They have missed God’s will, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior from sin and receive His righteousness rather than try to establish self-righteousness.
• Those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior reveal an utter disrespect and contempt for God’s command and desire for them to believe. Jesus rejects such people because this unbelief is the greatest form of disobedience (John 3:36), or lawlessness.

Conclusion

This passage shows that there can be unsaved professing Christians who follow Jesus Christ outwardly, but do not know Him personally. This passage cannot be used to say that those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior are not saved unless they also submit to His lordship. That is exactly what the passage is not saying. There is no indication that this group has believed in Jesus as their Savior from sin, yet there is every indication that they have believed and submitted to Him as Lord of their lives. The reason they are not saved is that they have not done the Father’s will—believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior from sin who imputes His righteousness. Many professors of Christianity have a false security because they are looking at and trusting in their submission and their works instead of resting fully in the merit of Christ and His work on their behalf. Sadly, on the final Day of reckoning, they will find they do not have eternal life and have misled others to the same fate. We should surrender to Jesus Christ as our Lord, but we must believe in Him as our Savior if we are to have eternal life.

GraceNotes, no. 52 - Dr. Charlie Bing
Lordship and False Followers – Matthew 7:21-23

GraceNotes is a concise quarterly Bible study on the important issues related to salvation by grace and living by grace. They are designed for downloading (*pdf available) and copying so they can be used in ministry. No permission is required if they are distributed unedited at no charge. You can receive new GraceNotes by subscribing to our free quarterly GraceLife newsletter.

December 15, 2011

Whose Mail Are You Reading?

WHOSE MAIL ARE YOU READING?

The scriptures were given for the benefit of the reader, but not all scripture is written to every believer. One of the cardinal rules of interpretation is to discover to whom any given Bible text was written; you just may be reading some other person’s mail! To take for yourself the promises or judgments that were actually written to another is a serious mistake. It is a major flaw in the Reformed hermeneutic.

As children in Sunday school, we were taught a number of “praise choruses” that are examples of this error. For instance, the one that says “every promise in the book is mine, every chapter every verse, every line”. Innocent on the surface, but we don’t have the prerogative to claim promises that were made to someone else. In fact, that cute little chorus is a lie and a sneaky way to rewrite the Bible. If we want to know what the scripture says, we need to ask the text what it means, not tell it what we think it means.

The Reformed hermeneutic actually steals promises from other people. This is clearly represented in the textual twisting behind the Replacement Theory. The result of this man-made hermeneutical process says that the church replaces Israel, or that the two have become one. This teaching is blatantly dishonest in that it makes no apology for stealing someone else’s mail. It is the result of false conclusions having been drawn from part of the scripture rather than the whole. The full scriptures teach that there is a great divide between Israel and the church, and there always will be.

STEALING SMALL THINGS

No matter how popular such theories may become, they are erroneous and based on a misguided hermeneutic. There is another problem, which is even more serious. I speak of the theft of small ideas that appears to be the road to a major appropriation of larger issues. Early in my training, I was left with the impression that we could go to the book of Matthew and remove from it anything we wanted and give it to the church, or that we could put the church in Matthew anywhere we might choose. Such error failed to ask to whom the book was written.

This practice has resulted in Kingdom Confusion and the adding of law to the church. The whole book of Galatians refutes such a concept. The text shouts that the book of Matthew is about Israel, and we must be careful about what we claim ownership of.

The lesson here is that taking small things from Israel for the church, or taking small things from the church and adding them to Israel, is serious. At Pentecost, God chose to do many things with the church that had never been a part of Israel. At best it is unwise to take any of those things and add them back into Israel. The Reformed hermeneutic centers on the doctrine of salvation, that which is stereological. The danger is that it makes theology man-centered. All arguments for such a practice are philosophical and use the same methodology as is found in the replacement theory.

The one biblical hermeneutic is doxological and will always see God at the center. In this mode the questions are asked about God, not about man. The Reformed process relies upon human intellectualism and reason; it suffers from the Lucifer Syndrome with a desire to know the answer to everything. It is far better to accept what the text itself says than what we say about the text.

AN EXAMPLE

There is no need to rehash the philosophical debate on this subject, but the New Covenant is a perfect example of hijacking small things. The New Covenant was made with Israel, not with the church. The heart of the New Covenant will be fulfilled prior to the Millennium; it is not fulfilled in the church. The church obviously benefits through the blood of Christ, but it is not a partner in the covenant.

Here we find another example of the Reformed hermeneutic with the failure to let the whole text speak for itself. It may be a small matter to mingle Israel and the church, but it identifies the subtle attempt to close the gap between the two. Any large or small decision to narrow the gap that is clearly described in scripture is dangerous, if not downright disastrous.

During the distinct church age, any Jew who is born again is part of the body of Christ. An individual Jew is not Israel. He will always be a part of the Bride of Christ, not the wife of God. The part does not equal the whole. A Reformed hermeneutic puts these two groups together, which is done through the system used by the Replacement theory. This is one reason the term “the people of God” is used. It views the two as one.

THE ANSWER

The one way to solve this dilemma is to utilize the one biblical hermeneutic given to us through the text of scripture. There is one correct system, but many philosophical theories. The system known as the “normal, plain, consistent, literal” use of language will always produce a theology that is biblical. It cannot, and will not, produce a multitude of theories. The wide use of various theological views is the result of rejecting that one biblical system. For that reason, any idea that makes Israel and the church one, or even chips away at that distinction, is the result of one of the humanly developed hermeneutical theories.

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care
For those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible
Shepherd's Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com
Shepherd's Staff is prepared by
Clay Nuttall, D.Min
(Reprinted by Permission, bold added)

December 12, 2011

ReDux: “Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism”

Earlier we considered the timely comments by Dr. Rolland McCune in Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Won’t Carry the Day.”

“My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with ‘Doc’ tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership.”

Here is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:

Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.

What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true.[1]
I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought,[2] seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.

[1] George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[2] The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.

I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the disconcerting actions of Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever. Instead of faithfully teaching and especially practicing fidelity to authentic biblical separation he is forging new friendships and alliances with men who act in utter contempt of the God-given mandates.

Most recently Drs. Kevin Bauder (and Andy Naselli) officially participated in the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference. Both were presenters along side Al Mohler in one of the sessions to discuss their new book (Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism). A review and analysis of Kevin Bauder’s presentation and participation at the ETS seminar was produced by Kent Brandenburg. I highly recommend its reading.* Add to Bauder and Naselli in cooperative ministry with an unrepentant ecumenical (Al Mohler) the Seventh Day Adventist church was an official and approved vendor at ETS.

Dr. Bauder was at ETS to speak on behalf of authentic biblical separation that Fundamentalists are recognized for. What a tragic waste of an opportunity to demonstrate obedience to and love for Jesus Christ and a defense of the Gospel. Kevin Bauder refused to take an, albeit unpopular, stand for the God-given mandates to separate from unbelievers and disobedient brethren. That is not militancy!

Kevin Bauder’s recent history is one of castigating Fundamentalism with a broad brush, heaping lavish praise on so-called “conservative” evangelicals and forging new alliances through cooperative efforts with men on a side of the fence who are non-separatists and unrepentant ecumenical compromisers. This clearly indicates it has become more important for Dr. Bauder to forge alliances with men who hobnob with the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) than to faithfully proclaim God’s Word on authentic separation and call on men to obey the Lord in this regard.

The pattern of Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Dr. Doug McLachlan recently praised those men for what he deems as a “rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism.” (Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, Part 1) There is nothing authentic from historic biblically separatist Fundamentalism here. Instead we are witnessing a resurgence of historic New Evangelical compromise in embryo form.

LM

*My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, Part One

Site Publisher Addendum:
It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has openly castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr. (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt in 2009), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with their brand of compromised NT Christianity.

December 5, 2011

Lordship Salvation: Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?, Part 2

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week we began with Part One of this two part series by Dr. Manfred Kober from 1989 as it appeared in Faith Baptist Theological Seminary's Faith Pulpit. This series is as compelling an exposure of and polemic against the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation for today as it was in 1989. I encourage you to read and prayerfully consider this important ministry of warning from Dr. Kober.

Several days ago my wife and I were discussing the matter of Lordship salvation. Our eleven-year-old daughter, Christa, overheard us and asked, “Daddy, what is Lordship salvation?” I replied that it is the view that believing in Christ as Savior is not enough. A person also needs to let Christ control every thought and action to be truly saved. Christa's perceptive reply was, “Well, Daddy, then no one can be saved, can he?”

And so it is. If God expects total submission of our body, soul, spirit, heart and mind for salvation, no one can possibly be saved. Total submission like complete sanctification is only achieved when the believer enters the presence of Christ.

It is difficult to conceive of a more crucial question in Christianity than this: What is the condition for salvation? What do I need to do to be saved? The answer that Paul gives to that question in Acts 16:31 is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Over one hundred times in the New Testament faith is mentioned as the only condition for salvation. Yet a controversy is raging in evangelical circles. Shrill voices are telling us that individuals are not genuinely saved unless they believe and submit. In other words, salvation is dependent on faith plus dedication. One cannot be a Christian, we are told, without being a disciple. Salvation by faith alone is called “a notable heresy” (Tozer, “I Call It Heresy!” p. 9). It is labeled a "heretical and soul destroying practice" (Chantry, “Today’s Gospel Authentic or Synthetic?” p. 68). Men who teach that salvation is by faith alone are “wrongly dividing the Word of Truth” (MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus.” p. 197).

In Part I we discussed I. The Contemporary Problem of Lordship Salvation, and, II. The Crucial Prerequisite for Salvation. Now let us note:

III. Some Compelling Proofs against Lordship Salvation:

MacArthur continually stresses the idea that the call to salvation is “a call to discipleship under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To respond to that call is to become a believer. Anything less is simply unbelief” (p. 30). This position is easily refuted by Biblical examples.

A. The Example of Uncommitted Believers:

1. Lot:

The life of Lot affords an illustration of a life-long rejection of the Lordship of God. If it were not for the references to Lot as a just man in II Peter 2:7-8, one could seriously question his salvation. His continuous disobedience, compromise, and carnality did not prevent him from being positionally righteous.

2. The Ephesian believers:

The saints at Ephesus were unyielding at the time of salvation. As Christians they continued their pagan practices for at least one and a half years before they were willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ and burn their books of magic (Acts 18:19).

3. Peter:

The Apostle Peter demonstrates a definite lapse from total dedication. His words in Acts 10:14, “Not so Lord” were a sign of unyieldedness after he had been Spirit filled at Pentecost (Acts 2:4).

Lot, Peter, and the Ephesians are examples of carnal individuals who nonetheless were genuinely saved. In contrast, MacArthur says that “those unwilling to take on this yoke cannot enter into the saving rest He offers” (p. 112). He insists that “‘Faith’ that rejects His sovereign authority is really unbelief” (p. 28). MacArthur not only denies that carnal believers are genuinely saved, but he further accuses dispensationalists of inventing “this dichotomy carnal/spiritual Christian” (p. 30). “Contemporary theologians have fabricated an entire category for this type of person--‘Carnal Christian’” (p. 129).

In fact the Bible speaks of carnal believers. In I Corinthians 3, Paul addresses the Corinthian brethren as “carnal,” as “babes in Christ” who are “yet carnal . . . and walk as men” (vv. 1, 3). Genuine believers are called carnal and described as walking like the unsaved in envyings, strive, and division. Similarly, Peter says that genuine Christians can be guilty of gross crimes (I Peter 4: 15).

Why would MacArthur label this Biblical concept a contemporary invention? Is the category of carnal Christians really one of the “unwarranted divisions of truth” (p. 27) set up by dispensationalists?

B. The Exhortation of Romans 12: 1-2:

The Apostle Paul pleads with believers to submit to the Lordship of Christ. These individuals had been justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), were being led by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14) and would never be separated from the love of God (Rom. 8:39). Yet these saints were enjoined to “present their bodies a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1) rather than to serve sin or let sin rule them (Rom. 6:6). According to the Lordship Salvation view, these individuals were never genuinely saved. MacArthur says “Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything” (p. 78). “Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion: it is the ‘sine qua non’ of saving faith” (p. 135). Paul says that submission, sacrifice, and service are incumbent upon every believer after salvation. MacArthur says they are indispensable for salvation.

Proper exegesis and personal experience do not support Lordship salvation.

Thomas L. Constable is correct in observing that while “surrender is certainly God's desire for every Christian, it is not a condition of salvation. If it were, it would be a work” (Walvoord: A Tribute. “The Gospel Message” p. 209).

C. The Meaning of the title “LORD”:

The term “Lord” can indeed mean Master, but in the New Testament it has various meanings. When used in the salvation passages, Lord especially emphasizes the deity of Christ. Paul’s statement in Romans 10:9-10 is “misunderstood when it is made to support the claim that one cannot be saved unless he makes Jesus Lord of his life by a personal commitment . . . Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, which is the very cornerstone of faith” (Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. X, 112).

Those who insist on Lordship salvation maintain that our position is one of “easy believism” or “cheap grace.” Ryrie rightly objects to this charge by noting that “it is not easy to believe, because what we ask the unsaved person to believe is not easy. We ask that he trust a Person who lived 2,000 years ago, whom he can only know through the Bible, to forgive his sins. We’re asking that he stake his eternal destiny on this” (Basic Theology, p. 339, emphasis in the original). Salvation is free. Lordship is very costly. Faith is a gift bestowed by God upon unbelievers. Discipleship is a commanded work of obedience for believers. Both faith and discipleship are absolutely important, the one for salvation, and other for sanctification. To deny the difference between saviorhood and lordship is to distort the gospel--and that is dangerous!

Reprinted by permission from the March and April/May 1989 editions of the Faith Pulpit, a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa. (bold added)

Faith Pulpit, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, April/May '89 - Manfred E. Kober, Th.D.

For related study see- John MacArthur's Discipleship Gospel