Evidence for God from Science

Probably one of the most telling things I discovered while looking into this, was the fact that John MacArtur's book introducing Lordship Salvation, The Gospel According to Jesus was used by BYU as a textbook, and not apologetically, but as a tool to strengthen the student's faith in Mormonism. MacArthur talks about it here, and admits that, when it came to their views on salvation, he couldn't argue with the Mormons! This is because both he and the Mormons have the same definition of faith, and therefore, the same soteriology.

It floors me that since discovering this error, I have found that I get into the same arguments with Christians that I had on the porch with Mormon missionaries 20 years ago, and the Christians use the exact same scriptures and arguments.

What's worse, my wife recently encountered some hardcore members of Bethel Church, and even though MacArthur's corner of Christendom criticizes the hyper-charismatic nature of Bethel, they too hold to some of the same basic definition of faith above. The main difference is that the Bethel-ites added a charismatic flavor to it, where MacArthur and his fans are cessationist, yet both views of the spiritual gifts are unbiblical.

Philip wrote:

Jac: This thread has done my heart so much good, you all don't even know. Thank you!

Jac, in what ways have the thread impacted you?

Look back at where this subject came up four of five (or more) years ago. The board was almost universally in favor of Lordship Salvation. I was the weird duck--as I usually am--on this issue. And while being in the minority doesn't bother me on pretty much any issue--you get used to it being a classical dispensationalist yet not a cessationist, a Thomist, an advocate of Divine Simplicity, a virtue ethicists (as opposed to the more popular deontoligist or consequentialist), politically not being a capitalist while being "on the left" on immigration even though I'm generally conservative, being YEC and a host of other issues--being in the minority on the gospel itself very much bothered me. But after all these years of arguing, to be able to sit back and read such a smooth conversation and defense of the gospel as this, it brings real, genuine joy to my spirit. Because at the end of the day, whatever philosophical and theological positions we take on pretty much any issue, so long as we have the same gospel, none of it matters.

Like I said, just does my heart good.

edit:

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:

Jac: This thread has done my heart so much good, you all don't even know. Thank you!

Jac, in what ways has the thread impacted you?

It has distracted him from some heated debates elsewhere.

(just couldn't help myself, Jac)

And this

Probably, the reason many don't realize the dangers and errors of LS, is because they don't realize its key nuances and terrible implications. But when you encounter those promoting it, in their bombast and relentless listing of what sins will keep one out of heaven, you realize the impossible standards they are asserting, and the fear they are sowing. Because, as with all such problematic theologies, SOME of what they assert has some core truth - but, as typical, they add on layers of false things. It's really destructive stuff. I can almost guarantee that a person in such a church, when falling into publicly known sin, is typically shunned, and never trusted afterward.

RickD wrote:Here's a great link describing Lordship Salvation:
http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2006/06so1.html

Bob Wilkin has a good book that parses out the errors in MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus, here.

OK, so we've established, per Scripture, that "Lordship Salvation" is the unScriptural belief often used as a response to the other even more dangerous belief: that "all salvation requires is one to pray a magic prayer and check off the boxes in your Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet." But we do know that a person can have a mere intellectual belief in Christ and has ONLY prayed a prayer, said the words indicated in some pamphlet - which we know is meaningless as to their salvation.

So, as we know that people can mislead themselves to believing they are saved because of some superficial actions and mere intellectual belief, how would you specifically phrase a cautionary question to them? Whereas a believer in Lordship Salvation might ask, "Have you repented and made Jesus Lord of your life?" - what instead would be a Scriptural way of phrasing a question you might ask someone whom you sense or have a concern they might not be saved, but have only been deluded into thinking so?

I think establishing a careful and correct way of wording an inquiry related to the question of one's salvation is important. What's the most potentially effective way to ask - that will truly get someone to realize if they've misled themself?

Oh well, I might as well jump in here, since every one is beating up on Lordship Salvation.

First whether a person agrees with Lordship Salvation or not, IMHO Lordship Salvation is not even close to aberrant Christianity.

From a personal perspective, I read The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works in the 80s and 90s and they fundamentally altered my perspective of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. I disagree with MacArthur on a number of things, but I can't think of anything at the moment that I would disagree with from those two books. My father was a close personal friend of Zane Hodges (author of Absolutely Free), so my agreement with MacArthur regarding his views on Lordship Salvation lead to hours and hours and hours of discussion between my father and myself on the topic over the years (and we still occasionally make our way there in our discussions to this very day.)

I think part of the disagreement between Christians comes down to lack of agreement regarding what Lordship Salvation really means. The CARM link from the OP phrases it this way in the first sentence "there are variations on what Lordship salvation really is". So let me interact a bit with the CARM article.

I totally embrace the following sentence from the CARM article when it describes Lordship Salvation as "the view that in order to become a true Christian, a person must receive Jesus as both Savior and Lord". This is the heart of the Gospel. Jesus is Savior and Jesus is Lord. However, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Lordship Salvation requires or implies sinless perfection. But I do agree with the premise that regeneration/being born again/becoming a new creation will by definition result in fruit of some sort, and Jesus points this out very explicitly.

Another area where I disagree with the CARM article regards the link between Lordship Salvation and Calvinism. Lordship Salvation involves the definition of "faith" and has nothing to do with the order of Salvation. 5 point Calvinisim asserts that regeneration precedes faith. Many Christians reject this Calvinistic doctrine as contrary to Scripture, and believe that illumination (by the Holy Spirit) precedes faith/belief/trust which precedes regeneration/being born again/becoming a new creation. But the order of Salvation has nothing to do with the definition of faith/belief/trust which is central to understanding Lordship Salvation.

Another area where I disagree with the article is the implication that repentance is something different from or in addition to faith. Repentance is nothing more than changing the object of my faith/belief/trust. Before I came to Christ I was a sinner whose faith/belief/trust was in myself. When the Holy Spirit showed me that I was a sinner in desperate need of Jesus to save me from my sin, then I repented and put my faith/belief/trust in Jesus. Putting my faith/belief/trust in Jesus instead of myself is where the principle of lordship enters in. Lordship is not something in addition to faith it is part and parcel of putting my faith/belief/trust in Jesus.

The central issue for any person is what is the object of your faith/belief/trust. Anyone who puts their faith/belief/trust in Jesus Christ becomes a new creation and receives the free gift of eternal life.

In Christ

The problem with LS is that it fundamentally changes the object of trust off of trust on Christ's work alone, and places it on your work in order for Christ's work to be sufficient, because it's only sufficient if you do something beyond what Christ says in say, John 5:24 or 6:47. Essentially making the free gift of grace a loan, not a gift.

It also contradicts Romans 4:2-8.

SoCalExile wrote:The problem with LS is that it fundamentally changes the object of trust off of trust on Christ's work alone, and places it on your work in order for Christ's work to be sufficient,

Lordship Salvation (at least type that I embrace) does not depend on anyone's works to be sufficient... as far as I'm concerned that assertion is just a strawman perpetuated by opponents of LS.

The object of faith/belief/trust for Lordship Salvation is the person of Jesus Christ, and submitting to Jesus as Lord is an integral part of genuinely trusting in Jesus.

Works are not a requirement for salvation in any way shape or form. However works are an inevitable result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a born again believer.
But even those works are not the result of the believer, rather they are the result of the Holy Spirit working through the life of that believer.

Ephesians 2:8-10 lays out the whole picture.
We are saved by grace through faith
We are not saved by works
But we are saved to do good works

In Christ

It's not a strawman at all; take a look:
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation

Notice in his "distinctives" is the idea that there is more than just "believe" (i.e. faith) to being saved (despite what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3); and it includes not only works, but keeping the "commandments" i.e. Law, something Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians Against, (along with mentions in other epistles). It also demands perseverance, which is a work. It's one big list of works.

Works are not an "inevitable result", hence, Romans 4:5-6; of course someone will point to James 2, but if works were an inevitable result then James is talking to himself since his letter is addressed to "brethren", i.e. the already saved.

Making faith dependent on works is still a "faith+" gospel, in this case "faith=works" or it isn't really faith. That again goes back to Romans 4.

BTW Jesus is Lord regardless of our opinion or acceptance. It's who He is.

SoCalExile wrote:It's not a strawman at all; take a look:
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation

Notice in his "distinctives" is the idea that there is more than just "believe" (i.e. faith) to being saved (despite what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3); and it includes not only works, but keeping the "commandments"

I just read your link and I think you are seriously misrepresenting what MacArthur says.
I believe MacArthur directly addresses your concerns in this paragraph.

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths:
(1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

I don't find anything in MacArthur's article that indicates that Lordship Salvation requires works or keeping commandments to be saved.
Obviously you feel otherwise... please provide the quote from the article where you believe MacArthur indicates that works or keeping the commandments are required for someone to be saved.

Works are not an "inevitable result", hence, Romans 4:5-6; of course someone will point to James 2,

Romans 4:5-6 is referring to works in the context of those who are trusting in their own works instead of trusting in Christ for salvation, so Romans 4:5-6 is not even speaking to the issue of the LS position that post salvation works are the result of regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
You rightly point to James 2 which says that a living faith does express itself by works. Jesus tells us that a person's fruit is evidence of whether or not they are a good tree or bad tree. In Galatians 5 Paul describes the fruit of the Holy Spirit in a person's life. And I've already referred to Ephesians 2:8-10 where Paul explicitly states that we are saved by grace through faith to do good works.

Making faith dependent on works is still a "faith+" gospel, in this case "faith=works" or it isn't really faith.

Again you are misrepresenting the LS position in order to create a strawman.

In LS, faith is not dependent on works as you inaccurately assert.
However both Scripture and LS claim that works are dependent on faith

In Christ

(Double tap)

MacArthur is talking out both sides of his mouth (like the Mormons do), on the one hand it's grace via faith, but then it's works or it isn't faith, which doesn't merit grace. Which is to make works the underlying determining factor of grace, which flies into the face of Paul's own definition of grace in Romans 11:6.

Again, it's the fine art of telling people you believe the same thing they do but in fact, you've redefined terms and believe the exact opposite.

BTW Jesus is Lord regardless of our opinion or acceptance. It's who He is.

Unquestionably true! One must trust and recognize Him as such - as THAT is precisely Who He is - the resurrected LORD God - and one must trust that the Jesus of Scripture/GOD! is the one they have placed their trust in. Yes, it is a commitment and desire to turn towards Jesus, away from their old selves. But, again, making Jesus LORD - as opposed to trusting and recognizing Him as such - is a life-long process. At the point of salvation, one's commitment is at its weakest and least-understood point - which is why so many struggle so hard and long as new Christians. NO one, especially at salvation, knows how to make Jesus LORD, because He will constantly teach and mature them to learn (through experiences) how to do this, how to trust Him more and more, in ever greater obedience, as they spend the rest of their lives maturing in Him. And NO one will ever fully have made Jesus LORD, because this would mean they have achieved perfection, that there are no flaws, no lacking in their faith or obedience - they have COMPLETELY submitted themselves, with nothing else to work on.

The Lordship Salvation guys all seem to assert some exceptionally strong knowledge and unshakable commitment must be fully understood and embraced, and their own future personal costs fully understood and carefully counted BEFORE they can be considered to have been saved - and thus the oft-stated "easy-peasy salvation" accusations the LS guys make, mocking that "someone has prayed a prayer." Of COURSE, we all know there ARE people for whom that's all it was - "a nice prayer." Well, was that prayer sincere from their heart and mind that they recognized Jesus as God and resurrected Savior, that they wanted to follow Him, desired forgiveness, wanted to obey Him, and asked Him to? All of those are key and true, but they are baby steps for someone just barely knowing who Jesus truly is. And yet, from the LS guys, one gets the impression that anyone with such a shallow and basic faith could not have possibly been saved - which is unScriptural. Again, if a CHILD can know enough to express what is in his heart, so as to be saved, if the saved thief on the cross could have, shortly before, ALSO been mocking Jesus (Matthew 27:44), before suddenly realizing exactly Who He must actually be - and yet was confirmed as acceptable to Jesus with such a basic faith of recognizing and asking Jesus to remember him - well, according to the criteria from most of the LS guys, this would have been impossible, or highly dubious.

Now, it's important to note that HOW one defines the term "Lordship Salvation" is key - as one most certainly recognize that He is the resurrected Lord, able and faithful to forgive sin/to save. But that's not the teachings that I'm reacting against. And Paul Washer, the Baptist pastor I referenced, speaks to the UnScriptural assertion over this issue. And, as he is Reformed, he also bathes the entire issue in liberal statements about how one must be "regenerated prior to salvation." As IF, people who know of the Gospel don't yet know enough to desire to seek salvation - "as IF it could be sought." And yet, throughout Scripture, in the NT, people are condemned that they will not turn to God - AS IF they COULD but WOULDN'T. Was God angry and admonishing people for not doing something they COULDN'T yet do because He had to first "regenerate" them? That makes NO sense!

It seems that John MacArthur's superpower is his ability to put his foot in his mouth, then convince all his followers that they lack the proper education and biblical exegetical knowledge to know that the foot is supposed to be in the mouth.

SoCalExile wrote:MacArthur is talking out both sides of his mouth (like the Mormons do), on the one hand it's grace via faith, but then it's works or it isn't faith, which doesn't merit grace. Which is to make works the underlying determining factor of grace, which flies into the face of Paul's own definition of grace in Romans 11:6.

Again, it's the fine art of telling people you believe the same thing they do but in fact, you've redefined terms and believe the exact opposite.

Bingo.

Another way to put it, is that MacArthur is smuggling in works through the back door.

I think a wise knave once said that.