Repent & Believe, Part 15: How Important is It?

The foundational issue regarding gospel extremes centers on one’s understanding of what it means to repent and believe. How important is it? It could cost the very souls of men and women.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

On one occasion, a lady who operated a country/western radio station heard the gospel and expressed a desire to receive the Savior. However, the witness speaking with her, having adopted a lordship salvation position in reaction to easy-believism, maintained that the woman must discontinue operations at the station in order to be saved. Tragically, the woman responded by backing down from making a decision for Christ. Far better would it have been to see her trust Christ for salvation and then, on that basis, teach her to grow spiritually and deal with the lifestyle issue through the power of the Spirit. In this case, it was not a matter of the woman bringing up an issue or association she would cling to over salvation. Involvement with the radio station was made an issue to her as part of the object of dependence.

Believers must learn to declare the gospel—plus nothing, minus nothing.

The biblical balance of believe and repent reveals the importance of declaring the gospel to sinners in order to see people saved and then declaring the gospel to saints to see people grow. Sinners must hear of sin, judgment, credited righteousness based on the finished work of Christ, and the decision of faith/repentance. Saints, in turn, absolutely need to learn the truth of the Spirit-filled life. Maintaining this precision of emphasis will keep the evangel crystal clear when ministering both to sinners and to saints.


Dr. John Van Gelderen
Revival Focus

Site Publisher Addendum:

When a man [teaching Lordship Salvation] tries to carefully introduce verses about discipleship as though they are strictly evangelistic, remember that the Bible teaches that the lost must come to Christ for salvation and then follow after Him in discipleship. Salvation and discipleship are two very different things. We must not use verses intended to teach discipleship to try to lead a man to Christ. To do so creates confusion and frustration. The message becomes a gospel of faith, plus works…. Salvation has primarily to do with Jesus Christ as Savior; discipleship has primarily to do with Jesus Christ as Lord. Salvation is the new birth, a one-time event in which a man by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5) is saved from sin, death and Hell. Discipleship is a process, maturing and growing as a believer over a lifetime, “in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).  (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation [Rev. & Expanded Edition] pp. 93-94)

Previous Articles in the Repent & Believe Series

Part Ten: The Clarity of Turning to Christ

Part Nine: Confusing Terminology: “Turn & Trust”

Part Eight: Confusing Terminology: “Turn from Sin”

Rick Warren: Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This article on Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture and my article on (The Zichterman Issue) are examples of the very few times I break from the Lordship discussion to address another issue. Recent events that have involved a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianty have necessitated this break from the Lordship discussion.

Last week I concluded a debate/discussion at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron site on the Church Growth Movement- Rick Warren's Saddleback/Purpose Driven philosophy and methods.

Men who are sympathetic and supportive of Warren’s philosophy are interacting on line at various sites. SI was happy to host one of Warren's most vocal apologists, John Brown a former staff member of the Saddleback church. They will do what they can to influence others to consider Warren’s philosophy.

There were several men who joined me to expose and refute the extreme errors of Warren’s Purpose Driven philosophy. Following is a listing of eight major problems with Warren's methods. This list was first compiled by Dr. Mike Harding.

The roots of Saddleback sink deeply into the ministry philosophy of ultra liberal Robert Schuller:

"During his last year in seminary, he (Rick Warren) and Kay (his wife) drove west to visit Robert Schuller's Institute for Church Growth. 'We had a very stony ride out to the conference,' she says, because such nontraditional ministry scared her to death. Schuller, though, won them over. 'He (Schuller) had a profound influence on Rick,' Kay says. 'We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back.' " (Christianity Today, Nov 18, 2002).

Warren spoke for Schuller in subsequent conferences.

1. Warren embraces deliberate pragmatism of the worst kind. He believes that anyone one can be reached based on "finding the key to that person's heart." Therefore, the unbelieving community sets the agenda for his church: Warren says, "We let the unchurched needs determine our programs; the unchurched hang-ups determine our strategy; the unchurched culture determine our style; the unchurched population determine our goals." (PD website)

2. Warren routinely misuses Scripture. The Bible is a tool that Warren manipulates to cover his own ideas with a veneer of divine authority. For example, in the Purpose Driven Life he quotes from 15 Bible versions and paraphrases, picking and choosing the one that fits his pragmatic need. This process often wrenches texts out of context.

3. Warren is guilty of serious theological reductionism. He discounts the value of a well-rounded system of doctrine and even considers doctrine an obstacle to unity. On his Purpose Driven website he lists his doctrinal statement that any Bible college graduate would find completely inadequate:

His doctrine of theology proper is the following: "God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine". That's it for the doctrine of God. It is so insufficient one could say that it falls short of an adequate understanding of the Christian concept of God the Father.

4. Warren promotes extreme ecumenism. In April, 2005, the PD org. officially forged ties with the Roman Catholic Church by providing a training conference at Holy Family Catholic Church in Inverness, Illinois. "We are excited by this because we are seeing God unify his churches." (Pastor Brett Schrock, Purpose Driven's Director of Strategic Relationships.)

5. Warren justifies cultural capitulation by embracing anti-God cultural norms. A notable example of this occurred when Warren sang the Jimi Hendrix song, "Purple Haze," during the 25th anniversary celebration service of Saddleback Church.

6. Warren redefines ministry in terms of social activism. Alan Wolfe of the Wall Street Journal says, "Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns."

Warren's Global Peace Plan for "Purpose Driven Nations" includes involving himself with the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. in order to rid the world of "poverty, disease, and illiteracy" by forming entangling alliances between churches, secular businesses, and governments. This is an agenda completely foreign to the Great Commission and the NT church as laid out in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

7. Warren accepts easy-believism.

"Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: 'Jesus, I believe in you and receive you.' If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!" (PDL, p. 74).

8. Warren relies heavily on pop psychology. Popular themes in secular psychology appear regularly in Warren’s writings, shaping everything from outreach strategy to discipleship curricula.



LM

If You Aren’t Lordship, Your Doctrine is not Fundamental

In an installment at Pulpit Magazine John MacArthur identifies his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel as fundamental doctrine of the faith. See What Doctrines Are Fundamental,? (Part 2) In the foreword from The Gospel According to Jesus, Dr. James Montgomery Boice says, speaking of the opponents of Lordship Salvation:

“...they are mistaken--dreadfully mistaken and they need to be shown their error from Scripture, which is what this book does. They also need to be shown that their view has never been the view of any major Bible teacher or theologian in the church until our own weak times.”

Dr. Boice is not speaking merely of the Easy-Believism proponents. He indicts anyone who does not share Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship interpretation of the gospel. In this article by Dr. MacArthur he identifies his lordship position on the gospel as exclusive truth. The consequence is: If you do not believe in Lordship Salvation’s plan for eternal life, as defined by Dr. MacArthur, then you do not hold to the fundamentals of our faith.

In what is typical fashion, however, Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship position is not fully defined in this article as he believes it. The Lordship position is mixed in with what is otherwise orthodox truth. At face value Roman numeral III above appears sound, but when the terms he uses are defined by him from his other writings the real meaning and subsequent error is exposed.

If I were to take the time there is much that I could discuss about the article. I am, however, going to limit myself to just one subject from the article. That subject is Dr. MacArthur’s reference to “saving faith” as a fundamental.

In Roman numeral III above he identifies “saving faith” as a fundamental. It is important that we be reminded how Dr. MacArthur defines “saving faith.” We will look more closely at this in a moment.

For just a moment I want to refer to this quote in the article above, “Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of Christ. ‘If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.’”

The deity and resurrection of Christ are indeed fundamentals. Jesus is the Messiah. The Sonship of Jesus is a fundamental, but ironically Dr. MacArthur once erred gravely on the eternal Sonship of Christ, but later acknowledged his error. In this quote on Romans 10:9 Dr. MacArthur identifies “the lordship of Christ” as “a fundamental doctrine.”

Romans 10:9 is speaking of salvation, therefore, when Dr. MacArthur speaks of the lordship of Christ from the verse he is speaking of what he believes a man’s response must be to the lordship of Christ in order to be born again. This is important because Lordship’s “saving faith” has primarily to do with what they believe must be man’s response to the lordship of Christ to result in salvation.

Just before I quote Dr. MacArthur’s definition of “saving faith” we need to be reminded that in the article above, and in the quotes to follow, he is speaking of the reception of eternal life, not the results of a genuine conversion.

In defining “saving faith,” Dr. MacArthur has written,

“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], pp. 27, 142.)

The indispensable condition of “saving faith,” according to Dr. MacArthur, is following Christ, “submissive obedience” and “forsaking oneself.” Following is John MacArthur's definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus: “Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.” (p. 87.)

From the Revised & Expanded Edition, John MacArthur reworked the above statement as follows,

“Saving faith does not recoil from the demand to forsake sin and follow Jesus Christ at all costs. Those who find his terms unacceptable cannot come at all.” (p. 95.)

Again from his original edition, MacArthur writes,

“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.” (p. 140.)

To reiterate, Dr. MacArthur is defining the terms or conditions for the reception of eternal life. When he speaks of “saving faith” he is defining what he believes is required for the reception of eternal life. He believes salvation is conditioned upon “wholehearted commitment, unconditional surrender, a commitment to leave sin."

Dr. MacArthur states salvation (the gift of eternal life) is based on, “A full exchange of self for the Savior.” These are the terms he uses to define the Lordship interpretation of “saving faith.”

Lordship Salvation requires much more than a faith that is depending on Jesus Christ to save from sin, death and Hell. The Lordship position does not depend solely on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur requires an “exchange” of what man must offer Christ by way of commitments to obedience, surrender, and following, to receive His free gift of salvation.

To define “saving faith” as though receiving the free gift of God requires a lost man to make upfront commitments in “exchange” for salvation is a departure from the fundamentals of our faith!


LM

The Thread Worth Reading

To All:

I have intended to post a new article but I have been quite involved in the thread below. The discussion has been primarily revolving around the discipleship passages: cross bearing, self-denial, and following.

It has been very worthwhile because it will help many of you to read for yourself some of what Lordship advocates believe, how they state their case, and this will especially help you in being able to detect Lordship Salvation for yourself when it is being presented in not so obvious terms.

In the article below about Phil at Pyro I have been in a discussion with several Lordship advocates, among them Jerry Morningstar. I had some interaction with Jerry at Pulpit Magazine and Pyromaniacs, but he has come to my site to get more involved in the discussion.

Before Jerry entered the discussion Paul E was involved in the salvation/discipleship debate. Unfortunately Paul was unwilling to answer even the most basic questions about his beliefs in regard to the discipleship passages. Paul tried to make the discussion a one-way street. When I pressed Paul to interact on an even playing field he disappeared. This is not uncommon among Lordship advocates. Many Lordship advocates will refuse to answer questions that get to the heart of the Lordship debate because they do not want to be pinned down on what they actually believe.

The same thing happened with Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit Magazine. He refused to discuss any issue other than repentance. He did not want to discuss discipleship passages, or any other chapter of my book.

Furthermore, there is a lack of unified agreement on their end. Because Lordship advocates have to keep redefining and clarifying what they believe you find some of them in contradiction to one another.

Look at MacArthur for example. He has written four major works on Lordship Salvation. The latter three were an attempt to clarify the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988). As I have shown, however, the disturbing statements in his original edition run like a thread through each of his books. His editors revise and rephrase, but the same impact and meanings are there. I give examples of this in my book.

Pastor Mike Harding, who is a Lordship advocate, repeatedly told Nathan Busenitz that MacArthur needs to clarify and explain himself because some of his (MacArthur’s) writing gives the wrong impression. Pastor Harding also wrote this to Nathan, “Some of Dr. Macs wording in Hard to Believe can unduly cause a true believer to be very uncertain of his justification. In my opinion the editors need to do a better job.” (Nov. 3, 2006, Pulpit Magazine: Lou & Lordship, (Part 5).

Because MacArthur keeps trying to redefine his position, and so many have been lead to a Lordship position because of MacArthur’s books, they are left confused and at times contradict him. Just as I showed how Phil Johnson (senior editor of MacArthur’s books) contradicts MacArthur, you will see more of the same in the thread that follows.

In any event, Jerry is interacting, but I want to point a few things out for you to look for.

Read through the exchanges that begin with Paul E well into the thread. You are going to see more evidence of how the Lordship advocates confuse and blur the lines of biblical distinction between salvation and discipleship.

You are going to see how (especially Paul E) Jerry either will not or cannot answer questions on whether or not the call for cross bearing, self-denial and following are evangelistic appeals directed to the lost for salvation. They will redirect the question to a discussion of faith or they will steer the discussion away from salvation and back to the results of salvation, which is an area I have little or no disagreement with Lordship advocates over. This is very common among Lordship advocates.

Watch for references to the regeneration before faith position. Watch for this comment, “Where genuine faith [supernatural God imparted faith] occurs - there will be a desire to follow."

Lordship advocates believe faith is the result of regeneration, meaning faith can only come from a man who has already been born again. Regeneration before faith is an extra-biblical, extreme position, which is a key component in the Lordship position. Understanding this is a key to understanding how Lordship advocates can make demands from a lost man that are impossible for him to make or keep and still claim they are not teaching a works based message. See my November article Lordship’s (Out of Order) Salvation article for more on this.

You will note how thin a tight rope they try to walk to maintain a message of salvation by grace through faith, but at the same time cling to the Lordship demand for an upfront commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple for the reception of eternal life. Even here they cloud their meaning by using phrases like, “intentionality toward obedience,” “heart attitude to obey.”

You are going to see the false dilemma. That is when the two alternatives are presented, but not all the possibilities have been explored. This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the Mental Assent or “Easy-Believism” position as an alternative. You are going to see this in Jerry’s comments.

Look for the quotes by Ryle. These are as revealing and extreme as you will read anywhere on the Lordship interpretation of the gospel.

You will see how I quote MacArthur again for Jerry to show the extremes of Lordship Salvation and ask Jerry to comment on the disturbing statements by MacArthur.

When you read the Lordship advocates you must read carefully and with discernment. They place the errors of Lordship Salvation alongside orthodoxy, which makes the error difficult to detect. I can read an entire chapter from one of MacArthur’s books and nearly all of it will be sound. However, you can almost always find some interjection of the works based Lordship message, but it is carefully and with subtlety inserted.

Finally, to you lurkers: I know many are hesitant to enter a public comment because you have seen at other sites how some of the Lordship advocates can be rough and harsh.

You have a safe place here! I treat people on both side of the debate with respect. I will not allow any bullying to go on at my site.

If you want to make a comment, but not in the public thread, feel free to e-mail me.

God bless you,

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.