It’s Called “Calvinism,” & It’s Not That Long of a Line

Nearly two years ago I heard a radio broadcast of a sermon by Pastor Steve Lawson.1 The message title is, The Long Line Continues.2 In the message Pastor Lawson makes frequent use of the phrase, “the doctrines of grace.” What does this phrase “the doctrines of grace,” mean? Very simply “the doctrines of grace,” is a new way of introducing a centurys’ old theology popularized by the French theologian John Calvin (1509-1564). That theology is commonly known as “Calvinism.”

What is Calvinism? Calvinism is best known for its emphasis on five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” The five points are commonly recognized and defined from the acronym T-U-L-I-P. Taking each in turn, the letters of the acronym stand for:

1. Total (Human) Inability
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

The whole of Calvinism rests on these five points, and they are inseparably linked. So that you have a basic understanding of Calvinism’s five points, following this article I will be providing definitions for each under the heading, Defining Calvinism’s TULIP? Here we will demonstrate the terminology that Steve Lawson, essentially representative of every Calvinist, uses to rename Calvin’s T-U-L-I-P.

• Total Inability is renamed, “Total Depravity,” or “Radical Corruption.”
• Unconditional Election is named the same or “Sovereign Election.”
• Limited Atonement is renamed, “Definite Atonement,” or “Particular Redemption.”
• Irresistible Grace is renamed, “Effectual Calling,” or “Sovereign Regeneration.”
• Perseverance of the Saints is named the same or “Persevering or Preserving Grace.”

I do not believe it wise to accept and/or adopt in our language the evolved labels for John Calvin’s theology. We do not want to allow for terminology that tends to cloud, confuse or camouflage the theology of Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P.

Compounding Error Upon Error
A fundamental understanding of Scripture makes clear that Calvinism is held together by forcing into or extracting from the Bible things that are not there. Calvinism proper, therefore, has spawned numerous theological errors.  Among them for example Steve Lawson said, “They [the doctrines of grace] are completely counter intuitive…are entirely antithetical to the natural mind…We would naturally reason that you must first believe and then you will be born again.” Lawson is saying that to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31), is solely based on our own human reasoning.

The Calvinist believes man is so “dead in trespasses and sins” that he must first be regenerated: That is to say, be born again (initial justification), made alive by the Spirit of God, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and given the new nature prior to and apart from personal repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).3 Furthermore, even faith, according to Calvinism, is the gift that was given to him after he has been regenerated (Eph. 2:8-9).4 These are two examples of egregious errors rooted in Calvinism.

Just How Long is That Line?

Pastor Lawson gives the impression that Calvinism’s “long line” can be traced back to the Pentateuch, as far back as Genesis and throughout the Old Testament. He believes the “long line continues” through the New Testament, on to the church fathers, the Reformers and beyond.  He said,

“These teachers of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism] really began with Moses and Joshua and Samuel…. As we come to the New Testament we see Jesus Christ Himself…proclaimed and taught the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]…. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, began teaching the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]…the Apostle Paul became a chief author and architect of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]….”

What we find, however, is that the “long line” of Calvinism is not so long after all. Calvinism traces directly from Augustine (4^th century). New Calvinists say Calvin merely re-iterated Augustine. Any placing of the five points of Calvinism to Genesis would be based on the idea that the church began in Genesis and continues to today.

Steve Lawson’s message sheds light on how he arrives at five-point Calvinism. What we find is in the answer to the question, “What is Rationalistic Fatalism?”

“Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage.  According to Franklin’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, ‘rationalistic’ is literally: ‘reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious ‘truth,’ and ‘fatalism’ is the ‘belief that fate determines events.’ Of course, ‘fate’ is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at that statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely solely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The ‘circle logic’ of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. That of course leads to the fatalism, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.”5

Close:
Those who reject Calvinism should avoid falling into the trap of accepting and agreeing to the new terminology.  In any discussion about or debate over Calvinism, no matter how many times the term, “doctrines of grace” appears, we will refer to and reiterate the historic, unambiguous label, “Calvinism.” Calling the theology of John Calvin “the doctrines of grace” does not change the theology of what we know today as “Calvinism.” Our priority is to equip uninformed and/or unsuspecting believers to first recognize the so-called “doctrines of grace” as Calvinism, and then be able to reject it from the Bible.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Footnotes:

1) Steve Lawson: Professor of Preaching at The Master’s Seminary (John MacArthur, chancellor emeritus), member of The Gospel Coalition.

2) The Long Line Continues (Feb. 6, 2019 edition).

3) The key to understanding Calvinism’s irresistible grace is that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elected individual, thus, they can then receive the Word and exercise faith. This regeneration can occur years before exercising their act of faith. Some Calvinist’s define this regeneration as taking place at conception, others at physical birth, and others at some later time. But ALL Calvinist’s teach it occurs prior to and independent of any act of faith or any foreseeing by God of their eventual faith. When thought through, biblically to be regenerated, literally meaning to “be born again,” means that the elect one possesses or is indwelled by the Holy Spirit at that point. For further study see,
The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith

4) The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God

5) Dr. David L. Cummins, in an email to me answering the question, what is rationalistic fatalism.  Dr. Cummins response appears on pp. 261-262 of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, 1^st edition only, 2006.

Related Reading:

After reading Bob Jones University’s position paper, I feel that it reflects a style commonly employed by many New Calvinists. Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, while maximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply his or her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones that would reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJU’s paper appears to use a similar strategy concerns me. I see this tendency through the paper. For example, it contains the term “exercise faith” four times. (Dr. Rob Congdon: An Analysis of Bob Jones University’s Position Paper on Calvinism...)

Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Point Calvinist & An Alternative View of Election

New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel

Defining Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P?

Following is a succinct definition of T-U-L-I-P. Following each of the five-points we will reiterate the way Calvinists rename each of the five points.

T- Total (Human) Inability
The Bible teaches man’s human depraved nature, human depravity, – that is all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3: 23). All are sinners and separated from God.  Calvinism added the term “total” to the term human depravity, to indicated that apart from God’s intervention through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit prior to faith, man can never understand, accept, react, or respond spiritually in any way to God, His Word, and the work of the Holy Spirit. (Jer. 17:9; Romans 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1)

Lawson renames Total Inability, “Total Depravity,” or “Radical Corruption.”

U- Unconditional Election

For the Calvinist God has elected only a select group of the world’s population for Heaven, while all the rest enter this world headed to an eternal existence in Hell. Some Calvinists explain God taking an active role in bringing the elect to salvation, but as for the rest, He is completely passive toward, and essentially abandons them on the road to Hell. (2 Cor. 5:18-19)

Many Calvinists, however, teach that God elected some to heaven and some to hell – in other words, He did not just extend grace to some, the elect, and allow the others to follow their own path, independent of God’s electing them to Hell. It should be noted that most people believe in Calvinistic Unconditional Election or Arminianism, which allow them to reject God later after first trusting Him. It is important to realize that the Bible’s use of the term “election” always refers to service and never salvation; hence there is a third view of election, independent of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Lawson retains “Unconditional Election,” or “Sovereign Election.”

L- Limited Atonement

Limited Atonement is the most controversial of the five points. Many in the Reformed camp back away from this point of Calvinism and call themselves four-point Calvinists. Many five-point Calvinists consider those who do not fully embrace a limited atonement as falling short of being a true Calvinist. The five-point Calvinist believes Christ died only for the elect; the shed blood of Christ and His atoning work on the cross were intended only for the select group chosen for salvation. This means Christ’s substitutionary death paid the penalty of sin only for certain sinners, and not for the sins of all mankind past, present and future. (Isaiah 53:6; John 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2)
Lawson renames Limited Atonement, “Definite Atonement,” or “Particular Redemption.”

I- Irresistible Grace

Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit extends a special inward calling, but only to those elected to salvation. Through this calling the sinner is irresistibly drawn to Christ and the Spirit causes the sinner to cooperate. The lost man may have no desire for Christ, no interest in the claims of the gospel, but he has no choice in the matter. Because he has been unconditionally elected for salvation the Spirit puts the choice in his mind, removes any barrier or hindrance and compels him to respond to the gospel invitation.

Many indicated it is not necessary to respond to a gospel invitation. They describe an eventual realization that they are elect and rather than an act of response, they merely believe their spiritual interest and/or acknowledgement of Christ indicates they are elect. The Calvinist often uses the term “exercise faith” rather than trust in Christ alone for their salvation.

This irresistible grace cannot be rejected and does not depend on man’s cooperation. The ability of individuals to reject Christ’s offer of salvation answers Calvinism’s irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that man can be reproved over and over, and resist the working of the Holy Spirit in his heart. (Gen. 6:3; Prov. 1:24-26; 29:1; Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; Acts 7:51-52)
Lawson renames Irresistible Grace, “Effectual Calling,” or “Sovereign Regeneration.”

P- Perseverance of the Saints

There are two views on Perseverance of the Saints. The traditional position is found in Reformed confessions of faith. The non-traditional view is typically found in some Baptist and Evangelical circles. The common denominator is that the elect are eternally secure and will persevere in the faith. The way Perseverance commonly addresses those who fall away is to conclude they were never saved in the first place or will return eventually. In its most extreme form Perseverance is articulated (for example by John Piper and Kevin DeYoung) as the only way to ensure “final salvation,” of final justification, to reach heaven, i.e., glorification.

To the Calvinist, a person must persevere their entire life by doing good works and spiritually living to demonstrate at the Great White Throne Judgment that they are truly elect. Thus, all men will appear at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). Notice they are judged by their works. You often read in Calvinistic writing that a person cannot truly know they are righteous or the elect until the day they die, but Scripture says you can know you have eternal life right now (1 John 5:13). For the true believer who has accept God’s gift of salvation by faith alone, he does not have to persevere but depends upon God to preserve Him as promised in Jude 1 and Jude 24.

Thus, a saved man’s eternal security, his assurance and position in Christ are not dependent on how he performs as a Christian. He is saved and secure because of what Jesus Christ has done for him. (John 10:28-29; Eph. 1:13; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Peter 1:3-9) Lawson retains “Perseverance of the Saints,” or “Persevering or Preserving Grace.”

Archival Series: We’re Not Convinced Kevin Bauder is a Help to Fundamentalism

“Kevin [Bauder] has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”1

Recently, I read the December 2, 2014 article at the FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend blog.  I refer to Pastor Matt Recker’s article Gratefulness for Kevin Bauder.2 What follows is a compilation of a discussion between several men and I who are within the membership of, familiar with and concerned about the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI’s) accommodation of Dr. Kevin Bauder.

The on-going pattern with Kevin Bauder has been an attitude more than willing to slam those who are “friends in the movement,” while making sure we are more than careful about what we say with regard to those who are not in our movement – especially if they are Calvinists and/or in the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp.

We understand Matt is acknowledging Kevin Bauder’s tenor as he (KB) expressed his differences with Matt, and I trust that this is the only reason for this charitableness toward Kevin. Matt took some heat at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron over it, and handled himself well commenting there.  While we appreciate Matt Recker’s gracious spirit, we are certainly not convinced that Kevin Bauder’s style is a help to fundamentalism.

There are some within the FBFI who are looking for ways to reach the younger set who have departed the FBFI.  Kevin Bauder certainly has been catering to that crowd.  Others believe it is best to move on for the cause of Christ. Society seems to repeat this idea that we must cater to the younger generation that goes through a rebellious stage, and somehow accommodate their rebellion as something normal and acceptable. This is being carried over into the religious realm, specifically, fundamentalism with the attitude of the younger generation. IMO, it has been better for the angry young people to move away than remain among us. Those unwilling to appreciate, and to instead besmirch current and/or former generations of fundamentalists upon whose shoulders we stand, don’t deserve accommodation.

If the younger set is willing to reconsider their attitudes, in some cases repent of their vitriol toward the FBFI, its leadership from past generations,3 they would likely be warmly received in fellowship for the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If not, no thank you, we don’t need them in their current state of mind and attachment to the non-separatist evangelicals whom Kevin Bauder frequently and warmly heaps “lavish praise” upon.

There is a new wave of New Evangelicalism sweeping through the NT church. From within fundamental circles Kevin Bauder has been the new wave of evangelicalism’s chief apologist. 

Dr. Kevin Bauder has influenced anger and resentment of the younger generation of preachers toward Fundamentalism.  He has, furthermore, encouraged their movement toward the spiritual dangers of the new wave New Evangelicalism.4 When these, from the upcoming generation, finally land in the New Evangelicalism of John Piper, and/or Al Mohler (some have already done so) we need look no further than Kevin Bauder who, from within fundamentalism, was given free rein to aggressively influence them in that direction.  

LM

Originally published Dec. 11, 2014

Related Reading:


Is Kevin Bauder the Right Choice to “Argue for Biblical Separation” in Fundamentalism?

Are We Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism?

“Kevin Bauder, It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know…”

Kevin Bauder Discussing: Al Mohler’s “Occasional Inconsistency?”

Footnotes:

1) Dr. Gerald Priest: Can We Be Even Clearer? (Let’s Get Clear on This, SI: March 8, 2010)

Since 2010 have we seen, “any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions…disappear?” Of course, and we need look no further than the former Northland Baptist Bible College and Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to see what the deadening effects that the Trojan Horse of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism has done to once formerly thriving fundamentalist schools. See,

The Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary

NIU: Culmination of a Modern Day Tragedy

2) Gratefulness for Dr. Kevin Bauder

3) We must never forget that in 2009 it was Kevin Bauder, from his blog and SI, who initiated a series of unprovoked written attacks on the person and legacies of Drs. Bob Jones, Jr., and John R. Rice. See,

Kevin Bauder’s 2009 Rant & Tirade

“Again, [we are] very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”

4) Dr. Dave Doran has been a vocal influence, but to a lesser extent in recent months. In regard to the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism both Drs. Doran and Bauder have for years been willing to tolerate, allow for, ignore and excuse all sorts of aberrant theology, ecumenical compromise, cultural relativism and worldliness.

Archival Series “Kevin Bauder, It Won’t Fly With Those of us Who Know…”

History falls prey not only to revisionism; it also suffers at the hands of those who seek to slant its record to their own benefit. In Kevin Bauder’s current article1 at his In the Nick of Time blog, he relates Dr. Clearwaters’s supposed delay in finally breaking with the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC). Though left largely without explanation, Kevin doubtless relayed the story in order to illustrate the idea that even the great separatists differed as to the timing of separation. While different men arrived at different conclusions at different times, the point that must be emphasized is that all of the separatists ultimately separated.

Was Clearwaters’s separatist impetus flawed because he fought for the “furniture” of the NBC? No! He obviously understood that the legal wrangling was a precursor to his ultimate departure, with the furniture in tow. “Doc,” as he was called, was a separatist through and through. He was also, to his great credit a contender, a fighter. Perhaps his relish for a worthwhile fight delayed his separatism in relation to the NBC, but no one would argue that he held out any hope for the restoration of the convention. Doc fought the good fight, got the furniture, and departed a convinced separatist.

Dr. Bauder would do well to remember Dr. Clearwaters’s “round two” in the separatist battles. I had only been saved a year when I came across a copy of Dr. Clearwaters’s book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise.2 I remember reading that classic separatist work as a mere youngster and, though I didn’t understand all of the implications, I set the book down with the understanding that there are some things worth fighting for and that my pastor (Dr. Clearwaters) was a premier warrior of the faith. I’m sure Dr. Bauder will recall that, along with his crack about the furniture, Dr. Clearwaters delighted in saying of the Conservative Baptist Association, “I was the first to join it, and I was the first to leave it.” That being Doc’s personal separatist testimony, I hardly think anyone could fault his separatist impulses.

If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution3 a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction.

Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.

It has become crystal clear to discerning men that Central, Detroit, Lansdale, and Northland4 are making a decisive break from fundamentalism. Are these moves born out love for and loyalty to the Bible? Calvinism is the magnetic attraction, but I also see their new found emphasis on Calvinism as pragmatic. They are riding a theological wave in order to attract a new constituency and thus students. Is it possible these new moves stem, in part, from desperation for students and the operating funds they infuse into an educational institution? These schools have largely lost their constituency. The student numbers simply are not present within their shrinking circle of fundamentalism to continue to perpetuate their institutions. Could this be a reason why they have decided to appeal to a different crowd? When survival becomes the name of the game pragmatism reigns supreme. How do I know? Ask yourself: Would these institutions be making such dramatic changes if they were thriving? No! Their impending failure drives them into compromise as a means of survival. It’s just that simple.

Reacting to Bauder’s previous installment Don Johnson in Show Me the Silent Majority (see link below) wrote,

“And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate.”

Dr. Bauder, please don’t cast a shadow over the separatist stance of Dr. Clearwaters. You and I both know he was a man among men. He was a giant of the faith. And he was a premier loyalist to biblical separatism. Do as you like; but don’t use the Clearwaters name to justify it. It won’t fly with those of us who know, and I know.


Pastor Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon

Originally Published October 24,2010

1) Now, About Those Differences, Part 19,
 Applying Separatist Principles

2) The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Dr. R. V. Clearwaters

3) Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, MN.

4) Northland International University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

For related reading see the following articles:
Show Me the Silent Majority by Don Johnson. For example,

“Kevin Bauder’s latest installment [Differences, Part 18] tells the history of separation from a point of view totally foreign to me…. And I am astonished that credulous readers of Kevin Bauder seem to swallow this revisionism as if it were entirely accurate…. Kevin seems to be leading us to a conclusion that the conservative evangelicals are good fellows, really, and people whom we should cooperate with. Their heritage isn’t the heritage of compromisers and betrayers of the gospel, it is the noble heritage of the moderate middle. The moderate middle cost the fundamentalists their denominations, schools, mission boards, etc., in the 1920s and 1930s. The moderate middle cost the Christian church most of its impact on the culture of our day through the new-evangelical compromise. What is the moderate middle going to cost us today?”

Muddying the Clearwaters, by Pastor Marc Monte.

“Kevin’s charge that ‘the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp’ constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel…. Dr. Clearwaters understood that the local church was charged with the propagation of the truth. He founded a seminary, not to undermine local church authority, but to bolster the prestige of pastors in their efforts of defending the faith.”

A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder, by Evangelist Dwight Smith.

“It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the ‘virtues’ of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the ‘vices’ of Fundamental Baptists…. I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational, Bible preaching…. I am grieved when I see you lauding extreme Calvinists who are not even Baptists. Brother Bauder, they and their ilk are not responsible for founding the school called Central…. Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.”

Archival Series- What is Lordship Salvation: And Why Does it Matter?

There is an on-going debate over a certain segment of fundamentalists preaching and practicing a new paradigm shift for separation commonly known as “gospel-driven separation” or “gospel centric fellowship.”

“There is today a very subtle shift that, on the surface, is very persuasive…. Rather than base separatism on the Bible, the whole counsel of God, we should use as our test the Gospel. There is a plea that says the only doctrines for which we should contend are those doctrines that impinge directly upon the Gospel…. That [Gospel-Centric separatism] broadens our fellowship incredibly to include organizations and individuals who are patently disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture and yet are somehow tolerated, vindicated and even honored in some of our circles.”1

In recent articles we have been considering why there should be no fellowship or cooperative efforts with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The reasons include aberrant theology such as non-cessationism, amillenialism, ecumenical compromise, embracing the world’s music in the form of RAP, Hip Hop and CCM for ministry. All of these are grounds for withdrawing from and having no fellowship with believers who teach and do these things. All of this, however, is being tolerated, allowed for, excused or ignored by certain men who minister in fundamental circles, men who are forging fellowship and cooperative ministries with the evangelicals and influencing others to follow them. There is, however, one overarching concern that trumps all of these issues with the evangelicals combined. That is Lordship Salvation!

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. Lordship views “saving faith” as incomplete without an accompanying resolve to “forsake sin” and to “start obeying.” Lordship’s “sine qua non” (indispensable condition) that must be met to fully define “saving faith,” for salvation, is a commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience. (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 48.)

It is virtually impossible not to know that the evangelicals, almost to a man, believe, preach and defend Lordship Salvation (LS). When the T4G and Gospel Coalition conferences convene they gather around the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Certain men in fundamental circles, however, are drawn together in “gospel-centric” fellowship with evangelicals. They are gathering around a common acceptance of and bond in Calvinistic soteriology, primarily in the form of Lordship Salvation.

Dr. Kevin Bauder published a serious misrepresentation when he wrote that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.”2 Kevin Bauder has never edited or retracted that statement. Following are samples of Lordship’s corruption of the Gospel for justification.

“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.” (Dr. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? pp. 219.)

“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.” (MacArthur, Ibid, p. 150.)

“If you want to receive this gift [salvation] it will cost you the total commitment of all that you are to the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ps. Steven Lawson, The Cost of Discipleship: It Will Cost You Everything.)

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

“This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience--unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Based on clear, unambiguous statements from advocates of LS thousands in Fundamentalism reject LS as a corrupt and false interpretation of the gospel.

When the Lordship advocate speaks of “following Christ,” he is speaking of the gospel. When John MacArthur refers to “The Cost of Following Christ,” he really means “The Cost to Receive Christ.” MacArthur believes there is a “Real Cost of Salvation,” or more accurately a “Real Cost for Salvation.” He believes that the gospel demands a commitment of one’s life, and a promise of surrender to the lordship of Christ in an up-front “exchange” for the reception of salvation. (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 82.)

Dr. Ernest Pickering recognized that LS, as MacArthur defined it, was a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Following are two excerpts from Dr. Pickering’s review of the first edition (1988) of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus.

“MacArthur laments, ‘Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit’ (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of ‘merely’ believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, ‘The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel…’” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 70.)

“One of the chief objections to the notion of ‘lordship salvation’ is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of ‘lordship salvation’ tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God.”

Several months after an April 2010 personal meeting with Dr. MacArthur NIU president Dr. Matt Olson announced that with MacArthur they “agree on the most substantive issues of life and ministry.”3 Then Olson hosted MacArthur’s executive pastor Rick Holland in the NIU chapel pulpit to address impressionable young people.4 NIU would not have had Rick Holland in its pulpit, or validated John MacArthur’s doctrine and ministry if the administration had any serious reservations over Lordship Salvation. With Olson’s statement on MacArthur and putting Holland in the chapel pulpit NIU stamped its approval on and endorsed a false gospel, namely “Lordship Salvation.”

Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel?” No, they do not! Men in fundamental circles who are converging with advocates of LS are either tolerating a known and egregious error or have themselves embraced the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel and are rallying around it with like-minded evangelicals.

It is high time for men like Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, et. al., to be transparent on the Lordship Salvation controversy. Are these men willing to state in unvarnished terms whether or not they believe LS as John MacArthur, John Piper, Steve Lawson, et. al., “believe, preach and defend” it is the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Lordship Salvation is not the gospel! LS clouds, confuses and complicates the Gospel. LS corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Above all other considerations (aberrant theology, ecumenism and worldliness) we cannot fellowship, promote or cooperate with evangelicals who “believe, preach and defend” Lordship Salvation.


LM

Originally appeared- April 14, 2011

Related Reading:.
For a clear, concise example of the egregious error that is Lordship Salvation please read, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page. This article is a reproduction of an appendix entry by the same name that appears on pp. 284-286. In it I examine a statement by John MacArthur that appears in all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus. You will find that there is no more clear example of how John MacArthur’s LS corrupts and redefines the Scriptures than this one.

What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?

“How can there be unity within a fellowship when two polar opposite interpretations of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ are accepted as legitimate?”

Footnotes:
1) Pastor Marc Monte, Preserving the Separatist Impulse

2) Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?”

“There is no universal ‘mutuality in the gospel’ among evangelicals and fundamentalists. ‘Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,’ because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the one true Gospel. It is irrefutable, and Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology in the form of LS as a false, works based Gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in “conservative” evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Dr. Bauder is also well aware of.”

3) Dr. Matt Olson, Open Letter To Friends in Ministry, November 23, 2010.

4) Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body