Defining the Debate with Dr. Mike Harding

Dear Guests:

Pastor Mike Harding was addressing another man in this thread at SharperIron (see p. 5). He made some helpful remarks that help in defining some of the major issues in the Lordship debate. I wanted to comment on a few of his remarks. Following is his post on p. 5 of the SI thread titled, John MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist.

The most pertinent question on Lordship is in regard to the nature of saving faith. Brother Martuneac and I were in general agreement about repentance. As Lou and I interacted on this issue, Lou affirmed the recognition of the object of faith being Christ as Lord and Savior. We disagreed over the idea that Christ had to be recognized by a sinner as “the Lord” as opposed to “my Lord.” However, I don't think Lou would object to the sinner calling on Christ as “my” Lord. It seems that the real disagreement between some good men on this issue (by good men I mean men of the caliber of Kevin Bauder) is whether submission is a part of faith at all, whether that submission is explicit or implicit in faith, and finally whether submission is in principle as opposed to complete, mature, and total. The position that I have defended is that submission is (1) implicit in faith, (2) that saving faith is submissive in principle, and (3) that this faith will grow and progressively mature. On the other hand, there are passages in the Gospels and the Epistles that exemplify faith in explicit terms of submission. As far as the so-called “hard sayings” of Christ that discuss aspects of commitment and discipleship in relationship to the Gospel of the Kingdom, these are the most difficult issues to resolve and I believe that these passages have become the battleground between the opposing positions.

Following is my reply to Pastor Harding at SharperIron. I had posted a few comments in the same thread just prior to this one.

Mike:

You are referring to “nature” or “content” of saving faith. I like to boil it down a little differently to clearly define the area of debate. I like to speak in terms of what are the requirements for and what are the results of saving faith. We all agree that genuine saving faith should result in genuine results. As you put it, “that this faith will grow and progressively mature.”

The question that fuels the debate is: What is required of a sinner that would constitute saving faith, i.e. the faith that results in his receiving the gift of eternal life? As we have discussed saving faith as defined by many LS men is front-loaded with demands for commitment to the results of salvation as if these commitments are required for salvation. Those statements are the crux of the debate and have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make those claims.

MH wrote,

“As Lou and I interacted on this issue, Lou affirmed the recognition of the object of faith being Christ as Lord and Savior. We disagreed over the idea that Christ had to be recognized by a sinner as "the Lord" as opposed to ‘my Lord’. However, I don't think Lou would object to the sinner calling on Christ as ‘my’ Lord.”

No problem with “my Lord,” and not necessarily a problem with “the Lord.” There is nothing inherently wrong with speaking (even in soul-winning) of “the Lord.” It comes down to what is being implied by the speaker when he calls upon a sinner to receive Jesus Christ as Lord. When I hear this, “You must receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior,” I do not necessarily cringe, but I am listening. I am listening for how the term/title “Lord” is defined as it relates to what a sinner is required to know or what decision he must make regarding Christ’s lordship for salvation. The reason I am listening is because the Lordship interpretation of the gospel (as defined by JM) has made deep inroads into fundamental Baptist circles.

Allow me an example. I heard this myself in a Sunday morning service. The speaker was preaching a gospel message directed only to the lost. There was no mention of sin, death or Hell. Repentance was briefly mentioned, but there was no mention of faith or believing. The lost were told that all he must do is, “open the door to his heart for the Lord to rule in His life” and he will be saved. This kind of “submission” to “the Lord” for salvation is an example of crossing the line.

MH wrote,

“…whether submission is a part of faith at all, whether that submission is explicit or implicit in faith, and finally whether submission is in principle as opposed to complete, mature, and total.”

I think many would agree there is an element of submission in principle as long as we are defining faith in terms of dependence, trust and believing. If someone were to define submission to the gospel message of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, as “submission in principle,” I have no problem with that. The problem is that many of the LS men go way beyond principle. They may, but I am not certain LS advocates teach a lost person must start out his relationship with Christ immediately following salvation in “complete, mature and total submission.” I’m sure we’d all like to begin our walk with God in “complete, mature and total submission.” We, however, know the realty of the inner warfare (Rom. 7) and the sin which doth so easily besets us (Heb. 12:1).

What they are calling for is the upfront commitment for “complete, mature and total submission” to the commands of Christ to begin a relationship with Christ. Once “commitment, full-surrender, a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake,” becomes part of a definition for saving faith, that then is a departure from principle and Scripture.

MH wrote,

“On the other hand, there are passages in the Gospels and the Epistles that exemplify faith in explicit terms of submission. As far as the so-called “hard sayings" of Christ that discuss aspects of commitment and discipleship in relationship to the Gospel of the Kingdom, these are the most difficult issues to resolve and I believe that these passages have become the battleground between the opposing positions.”

I trust we all agree none of us here are taking on the Hodges’ Mental Assent only as the “opposing position.”

The “battleground” is to a large extent over the “commitment and discipleship” passages. I would also include the Sermon on the Mount because LS advocates consider it supportive of their view of the gospel message for today. John MacArthur (representing LS) for example says the Sermon on the Mount contains, “pure gospel,” and he writes,

“Hell will be full of people who thought highly of the Sermon on the Mount. You must do more than that. You must obey it and take action.” (Hard to Believe, pp. 81,86.)

LM

Revised Version in the Works

To All:

There were several benefits from my (Fall 2006) interaction with the advocates of Lordship Salvation at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog and John MacArthur's Pulpit Magazine.

In those discussions I was able to provide the Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation to a very wide cross section of concerned Christian across a broad spectrum of Evangelical Christianity. To this day I still receive private contacts from folks who are interested in and concerned about this issue.

As the discussions wore on I was developing increasingly better ways to hone in on and articulate some of the issues and concerns with the Lordship gospel. As a result I began to feel that I needed to go back and do a revised and expanded version of In Defense of the Gospel. I have been working on that revision for well over a month and should wrap in less than 30 days.

There are no major overhauls, just some revisions and a few additions. Overall, this revision will make my exposure of Lordship Salvation and the biblical answers to it much more compelling. I will keep you posted as the revised version develops.

Here is a sample revision from the opening page of the chapter titled: What is Lordship Salvation?

As we begin to look at Lordship Salvation it is imperative that a clear distinction be drawn in regard to what the area of debate is, and is not. One of the central questions that fuels and defines the Lordship debate is: What is required of a sinner that would constitute saving faith, i.e. the faith that results in his receiving the gift of eternal life? We will see Lordship Salvation’s interpretation of the gospel, as defined by many of its advocates, is front-loaded with demands for commitment to the results of salvation as if these commitments are required for salvation. Those statements are the crux of the debate and have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make those claims. For me the main thrust of debate over Lordship Salvation does not revolve around the results of salvation. The debate is over the requirements for salvation.

Biblical saving faith is a faith that will grow and progressively mature. Daily submission to the lordship of Christ should follow a genuine conversion to Christ. Most men on both sides of the debate will agree in principle that a new creature in Christ will set out to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a believer, and that he will grow in the grace and knowledge of his Lord and Savior (2 Peter 3:18). Christians struggle with the flesh (Rom. 7:15-25) and the besetting sin (Heb. 12:1). Christians will flop and fail at times in their walk with God, but growth is seen to one degree or another.

Many share a common frustration over the examples we see in our churches today of people who profess Christ as Savior, but seem to live more like the Devil. There are, of course, people in Bible believing churches that are professing Christ, but never received Him as their Savior. These, Lord willing, shall one day get saved, or they will likely move on. No sinner can be born again if he prays a prayer to escape death and Hell, but he fully intends to go on in his sinful ways and in rebellion and defiance against the Lord. There is no genuine faith or repentance in that. Problems begin, however, when a commitment to certain expected behavior is made a condition for receiving the free gift of salvation.

As you read my book you are going to find, just as I did, that Lordship Salvation touches on numerous Bible doctrines. This makes arriving at a brief definition a difficult, but not impossible undertaking. One editor nearly insisted I provide a simple definition within the first two or three pages of the book. That editor also said if I did not give a working definition very early in the book publishers would read no more than the first few pages. Well, I never had it in mind to impress an editor of a publishing firm. My goal has been to inform readers at any level that the Lordship interpretation of the gospel is wrong and provide the biblical answers.

Because Lordship theology touches on a broad range of Bible doctrines, with practical ramifications, I decided to deal with each doctrine in turn allowing for a complete definition of Lordship Salvation come forth as the book unfolds. With that said, I also believe it is important to provide a brief definition in the early stages of this book. The following definition is not all encompassing of the Lordship position, it may not be one that all Lordship advocates would sign on to 100%, but it is a beginning.

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered as reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. An indispensable condition that must be met to fully define Lordship’s saving faith, which results in salvation, is an upfront commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience.

That is close to final form.

By the way, I have visited for the first time, the Baptist Board site. A thread opened on Lordship Salvation, and I decided to drop in a few comments. The discussion has been pleasant thus far. You can view it here.


LM

The Gospel Controversy: Faith & Obedience

In a thread at the pseudo- fundamentalist blog Sharper Iron a Pastor asked for information about the relation between faith and obedience.

Following is an excerpt from The Gospel Controversy, an article which appeared in the official periodical of Preach The Word Ministries, October-December, 1999.

The Bible teaches that true saving faith is, in itself an act of obedience to Jesus Christ. This theme is like a thread running through the fabric of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Paul begins by stating that the reason God made him an apostle was “for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name” (Rom. 1:5). Further, he describes the sinfulness of mankind by speaking of “them who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” (Rom. 2:8). Sinners are disobedient to God while they obey lawlessness. He tells the Roman Christians (and us present day believers) “that ye were the servants of sin, but ye obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17). In chapter ten, Paul reiterates six times that men receive justification by faith (Rom. 10:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). He then equates faith with calling on the Lord (Romans 10:12, 13). After the great challenge that some have never called on Christ because they have never heard of Him (Romans 10:14, 15), Paul turns to the nation of Israel. Israel’s lost condition is not because they had never heard of Christ but because “they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). No point could be more clear. When a disobedient sinner truly trusts Christ to save him, that act of faith is itself obedience to God! Paul’s benediction to Romans concludes the theme. Speaking of the Gospel, the Apostle tells us: “But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26).

Rather than make demands on the lost that Scripture does not make, let us preach the Gospel as it is, dealing squarely with the issues of sin, repentance, and faith. The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him at that point. Convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit, they will understand that their obedience to sin places them under the judgment of God. They will trust Christ alone for salvation, calling on Him. That is obedience to the Gospel! Those who have so trusted Christ can be trained as disciples of the Lord Jesus. They will follow Him in baptism, the first step of obedience to Christ in the Christian life. They will surrender their wills fully to Christ and follow Him. They will be willing to take up a cross, enduring humiliation, suffering, and possible death for the One who literally bore a cross to save them from sin.

Reprinted by permission

The last paragraph is key. The first highlighted portion shows that Lordship’s call for upfront commitments to obey, follow, surrender and bears the cross to get saved, are demands which the Bible does not make on a lost man.

The second highlighted portion shows that obedience should be the natural result of saving faith. Some might state it this way,

"The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him from that point forward."

This article contrasts the Lordship idea of commitments to obedience and discipleship for salvation with the Bible's plan of faith resulting in obedience and commitment to discipleship.

LM

Is the Sermon on the Mount, “Pure Gospel?”

Dear Guests:

I wrote a chapter titled, Salvation & Discipleship: Is There a Biblical Difference? This is one of the most thorough chapters in the book. I spent many hours on this subject because confusing the acts of discipleship (expected of a believer) with the requirements for salvation is where much of the Lordship Salvation error is found.

Dr. MacArthur says the Sermon on the Mount contains, “pure gospel.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 203.) In the Sermon on the Mount you find overtones to salvation. I believe Matthew 7:13-14 would be an example.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Dr. MacArthur, however, specifically cites Matthew 7:13-14 as, “…the Savior’s own presentation of the way of salvation…In fact, these closing verses are pure gospel.” (Ibid, p. 203.) He speaks of this passage through subheadings titled, "Two Gates, Two Ways, Two Destinations, Two Crowds."

In each section he is speaking of the way or entrance to heaven; “a narrow path that leads to life,” (p. 208). He is speaking in terms of salvation. Choosing the right road leads to Heaven, the wrong road leads to Hell. I would, of course, agree that the Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel is a shallow, reductionist message that is void of vital truths. MacArthur's answer, however, is a message of upfront commitment to walk the narrow path for the reception of salvation. 

MacArthur says, “Salvation is not easy,” (p. 206).  Living for Christ as a disciple is not going to be easy. Coming to Christ, however, does not require Lordship's man-centered commitment to fulfill the “hard demands” and to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

We find in the chapter a continuation of blending the results of and the requirements for salvation. MacArthur does speak of salvation producing a changed life. He wrote, “This is the whole point of salvation: it produces a changed life,” (p. 207). No responsible Bible believing Christian would disagree with that thought. A “changed life,” may not be the “whole point,” but it is an important point, and should be an expected result of salvation. In the same chapter, however, we also read that lost men must “understand the commitment that is required,” (p. 208).

MacArthur continues to explain the commitment that is required, and remember he is speaking of a commitment, which must be promised by the lost man to receive eternal life.

“The road is hard. But Jesus never presented Christianity as a soft option for weak-kneed, feeble souls. When a person becomes a Christian, that person is then and there declaring war on Hell. And Hell fights back. Following Christ can cost your life, it certainly costs your life in a spiritual sense. The fainthearted need not apply.” (pp. 208-209)

I believe many of us would agree the gospel might be best defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand…For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

The gospel, therefore, according to the Scriptures is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Do we find any mention of His death, burial and resurrection in the Sermon on the Mount? Do we find the cross, justification by faith, or new birth? Do we find any clear John 3:16 messages in the Sermon on the Mount?

Dr. MacArthur says the Sermon on the Mount is “the way of salvation.” Is Dr. MacArthur suggesting the Sermon on the Mount be given to a lost man as the plan of salvation?

The Sermon on the Mount can reveal to a lost man his sin condition. The Sermon on the Mount will show all men that they are not righteous and fall short of the glory of God. The Sermon on the Mount may bring conviction. Where, however, in the Sermon on the Mount do we find, as Lordship advocates claim a “pure gospel” message?


LM

An Open-Ended Commitment

Dear Guests:

John MacArthur wrote,

“Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 87.)

MacArthur requires something of the sinner that the Bible does not.

Lordship Salvation says that decisions for full surrender and discipleship are required to be born again. I know of men who will tell sinners they must be willing to give up everything displeasing to God in order to be saved. What is the point of trying to get a lost person to make that kind of promise? He might as well be told to take the Nazarite vow or fulfill the Law of Moses and be saved. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote, at the point of a salvation decision, the sinner does “not know what things those are, nor does the personal worker seeking to point them to Jesus know."

Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote:

“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.)

Lordship Salvation requires a lost man to make a decision that he has little or no idea as to what it is going to entail. The Lordship advocate does not expect him to know all that the commitment will require of him, but they expect him to make the commitment without which he, in their minds, cannot be saved.

“There are in the Bible several clear examples of believers (about whose right relationship to God there can be no question) who were, nevertheless, not completely or continually committed to the Lord. Such examples would seem to settle the issue clearly by indicating that faith alone is the requirement for eternal life. This is not to say that dedication of life is not expected of believers, but it is to say that it is not one of the conditions for salvation.” (Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170.)

LM

There is No Straw Man

This is another reply I wrote to Nathan at Pulpit Magazie:

Nathan/All:

Lordship advocates can deny that they have a “barter” system, but as I demonstrated from Dr. MacArthur’s own books he does indeed demand an “exchange” of “unconditional surrender, etc.” for the gift of eternal life.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between the exchange of dependence and the exchange of submission and surrender. The Thessalonians were no longer going to depend on their idols, they would begin to depend on Jesus Christ to do for them what their idols could not do.

As for Dr. MacArtur’s system: He is demanding the upfront promise of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) to secure eternal life. He insists man must offer “surrender, submission, following, obedience, self-denial” in “exchange for salvation.” Your system not only implies, it demands the barter/exchange of the promise of good works for salvation. It’s right there in Dr. MacArthur’s book.

Lordship advocates can deny that they have a “barter” system, but as I demonstrated from Dr. MacArthur’s own books he does indeed demand an “exchange” of “unconditional surrender, etc.” for the gift of eternal life.

“The straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”

The position of offering promises of “unconditional surrender” in “exchange” for salvation is right in Dr. MacArthur’s books, which I cite for anyone to read. That position is not attributed to him, it is his position. There is no straw man.

Claiming “straw man” does not make the clear, incontrovertible evidence of the “barter” system of Lordship Salvation go away.

Would I “flatly deny this (barter) accusation”? Sure, because nothing is being bartered. The Thessalonians did not offer anything, they came to Christ empty-handed. It was a decision to forsake dependence on idols and begin to depend on God. There are no works done or even being promised. Did the Thessalonians offer or promise anything when they transferred their dependence to God? No!

On the other hand, your denial does fall flat because there is indeed a barter of “good works” for salvation. Your system frontloads and demands a lost man promise to become a committed, fully surrendered disciple of Christ. This means in exchange for salvation he promises to do the good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).

Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT define saving faith as full surrender in exchange for salvation? (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)

The Lordship system demands a commitment to a change in behavior or action; the promise of “good works” in “exchange” for salvation.

LM

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

The following appeared at Pulpit Magazine on Septemeber 29th, 2006. This paragraph from Dr. MacArthur’s post titled True Faith and True Grace encapsulates the major elements in the Lordship controversy. Dr. MacArthur wrote:

“Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship. This dichotomy, like that of the carnal/spiritual Christian, sets up two classes of Christians: believers only and true disciples. Most who hold this position discard the evangelistic intent of virtually every recorded invitation of Jesus, saying those apply to discipleship, not to salvation.”

One of the most significant errors with Lordship Salvation is the confusing of passages meant for the born again disciple of Christ (such as Luke 9:23-24, 14:25-33) and presenting them as though they are evangelistic appeals directed to the lost. It is from this error, where much of the Lordship interpretation of the gospel flows. This error leads to a faulty definition of faith, redefines the role of biblical repentance in salvation, both of which result in a gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Following are three examples of how John MacArthur’s discipleship gospel redefines the faith that saves:

“The gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. . . . 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.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 27, 142.)

“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation….” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221).

Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of salvation on a lost man’s upfront commitment to what should be the results of salvation. A commitment to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of the disciple of Christ is Lordship’s requirement FOR salvation. The lost man is expected to make a commitment toward what he will do, or become, in “exchange” for what Christ has done for him. John MacArthur states that position this way,

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 148.)

In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation Dr. 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.)

The faith that saves is more than simple acknowledgment. Faith is basically a trust or confidence in someone or something. For salvation Jesus must be the object of faith. Faith goes beyond acknowledgement when the lost man transfers his dependence on Christ to save him from the penalty of sin. Mere acknowledgement of what Jesus has done does not save. When biblically defined- faith does not include upfront promises of commitment and surrender.

Discipleship comes at a cost, salvation (justification) does not! It is clear that Lordship Salvation requires much more than a faith that acknowledges one’s sin, a pending judgment for sin, and one’s need of the Savior. The Lordship position does not depend solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur above, is a barter system, an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ to receive His free gift of salvation. To imply that receiving the free gift of God requires that man “pay the ultimate price” is a gospel of faith plus works.

My book, In Defense of the Gospel does not contain errors that are so common in the works of other men who have written in objection to Lordship Salvation. Many have been alarmed at the increasingly meaningless presentation of a gospel that seems to ignore the Person of Christ, the sinfulness of man, the finished work of Christ and the pending judgment of God. This gospel calls men to salvation when they have been given only a vague idea of just what they need to be saved from. There is, furthermore, a reductionist interpretation of the content of saving faith, with which I strongly disagree. The most extreme example of this reductionist view is known as the “Crossless” gospel. This is a relatively new interpretation of the Gospel originated by (the late) Zane Hodges and is almost exclusively perpetuated by the Grace Evangelical Society’s membership.

My book does not minimize or reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. Jesus is Lord and Savior throughout all eternity. We all agree that Jesus is the Savior; the only hope mankind has for eternal salvation from sin, death and Hell (Acts 4:12). We all agree that Jesus is the Lord, the King of Kings, and all power belongs to Him (Rev. 19:16; Matt. 28:18). If He is not the Lord, He is not God. If He is not God, He is not the Savior. Christ’s lordship, however, should not be used to create a message where the reception of salvation is conditioned on a lost man’s upfront commitment to surrender and submission, which Lordship Salvation does.

Pastor George Zeller wrote an article titled, The Relationship Between God’s Grace and Lordship Legalism, which appears in the appendix of my book. Following is a brief excerpt.

“Don’t confuse saving faith with that which saving faith ought to produce. Don’t confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance. Behavior and fruit are the evidences of saving faith but they are not the essence of saving faith. Don’t confuse the fruit with the root. Before you can “come after” Christ in discipleship (Luke 9:23; Matt. 11:29-30), you must “come unto” Christ for salvation (Matthew 11:28). Discipleship is not a requirement for salvation; discipleship is the obligation of every saved person.”

When a man tries to carefully introduce verses about discipleship as part of God’s plan for salvation, remember that the Bible teaches we come to Christ for salvation and that we come after Christ in discipleship. It is wrong to present discipleship verses as salvation verses. We must not use verses intended to teach discipleship to try to lead a man to Christ. To do so creates confusion and frustration. It becomes a gospel of faith, plus works.

Lordship Salvation demands from a lost man a promise of what he will do, or become, to receive the gift of eternal life. Once man offers anything in addition to the finished work of Christ for salvation that message becomes false through the addition. A gospel that calls for man to do or offer anything in addition to what Christ has done is wrong!

Dr. MacArthur- I know you mean well, you believe you are being true to the Scriptures. Changing the terms of the gospel, however, to upfront demands for commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation, will not make the problems of loose living carnality found in some professing believers go away.

In Defense of the Gospel fully defines and biblically answers the doctrinal and practical problems with Lordship Salvation. I wrote my book to alert Christians, across the broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity, about Lordship’s works based, man-centered interpretation of the gospel that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

There are many areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not an area in which we can agree to disagree. The doctrine of Lordship Salvation and the Lordship advocates must be vigorously debated, and its spread biblically resisted.


LM

Portions from the above are selected excerpts from In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.