-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Lordship salvation
- Thread starter tjw
- Start date
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
Lordship salvation and faith + works salvation are both derogatory terms for the truth of scripture, created by those that oppose the truth to stigmatize those that accept it.tjw said:
Lordship salvation mean that you cannot make Jesus savior unless you make Him Lord which is true. Faith + works salvation means that that those that produce no fruit are not saved which is true.
To answer you second question. ''if someone who believes in Jesus continues to knowingly do a certain sin, are they stilled saved?'' The answer is no they are not.
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
i'm glad that you havent struggle with any powerhold sins that are addictive then. ie porn and the gay thing. not so easy for someone on porn most of his life to stop if the lord hasnt given him the strenght, forget about a gay man who has never known a woman to just change without divine intervention.watchman F said:
Vic C.
Member
- Mar 16, 2003
- 18,230
- 4
I wouldn't say it's derogatory. But many will confuse it with salvation. It has more to do with spiritual growth. All believers grow spiritually at different rates. Yes, we all new creations at the point of justification, but look at it this way:tjw said:
Two oak trees are growing. But ten years later, tree A is larger than tree B, yet they are still oaks. :yes Tree A may produce more acorns than tree B for a time, but they are still oak trees.
So yes, maybe a better term is needed for this doctrine.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
Call it the gospel.tjw said:
Jesus says....
John 14
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
and again
John 15
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Love without obedience is just talk, faith without works is dead this is Lordship salvation, this is the gospel.
James 2
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I personally have no problem with the term Lordship salvation, matter of fact I kind of like it. After all if He is not your Lord, He is not your Savior either. I was simply saying how the term itself came about.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
If you are reborn it shouldn't be a problem. I started smoking weed and for the next 19 years did every drug there was not to mention that I was a sex addict (you dont have to be gay to be perverted you know). I went cold turkey the day I surrendered to Christ. Selling and smoking weed, crack, sex, mountain-dew/caffine and more. You think that didn't take divine intervention. God is amazing, and I He is my Savior, and Lord, and I will obey Him even if it takes him to do it for me.jasoncran said:
That is what a love relationship is.
.
Tjw
Lordship Salvation. John MacArthur’s bit. He gives the best evidence for faith-works salvation, without believing in faith-works salvation, that I have ever seen. If one were to begin to believe the way he does, and could see the significance of what he says, one would be a Catholic in short order. What is fascinating to me is that the Catholic author Robert Sungenis, who wrote a thick book called “Not by Faith Alone†didn’t notice that at all, even though the greater part of his book concerns MacArthur’s doctrine on salvation. It is not that MacArthur is in error about the necessity of Jesus being Lord. But it was the way he went about proving it, a totally reactionary presentation that was more Catholic than Protestant. Look for that as you research MacArthur’s writings. And get that book by Sungenis, it will be an eye opener. Zane Hodges was the main Protestant writer against MacArthur’s position in my day. I understand that Norman Geisler and Charles Stanley are the ones to read today. Having already seen something different, I’m not familiar with that scene anymore.
As far as besetting sins, we all have them. And I would venture to say that anyone who can not sense the sinful nature of their own flesh, or who thinks that they are overcoming their sinful flesh to the extent that they can judge the salvation of others, may be the one who should be questioning themselves whether they are truly in Christ, rather than questioning the salvation of others. Cold Turkey? I know people who quit all sorts of things cold turkey. And I know people who can’t seem to quit anything at all. And among those two classes of people I know Christians and non-Christians. And those who are able to quit cold turkey, Christian and non-Christian, are most often the proudest of all. And the proud always judge the rest. But I have noticed one thing unique among Christians. They blame their pride on God, the one who they credit with “quitting cold turkeyâ€. Come down from that pedestal, Oh Man. It is unbecoming and you are not worthy.
We are saved because we are in Christ, not because of our ability to overcome certain sins of our own choosing or that happen to be most evident to us. Being in Christ does not change every time we sin. If it did, we would spend a lot of time under water being rebaptized. That is if we retained our interest in being in Christ long enough. Because it would surely mean that every time we sin, we are no longer in Christ and the only way to get back in is not confession, but through refaith and rebaptism. We would have to be continuously reborn again and again and again. Confession of sins is only for those who are still in Christ, who are still “savedâ€. Note the irony of thinking that we are able to judge the status of the salvation of others.
If being saved were up to our own strength, our own faith, even augmented by the Grace of God, the human/Divine faith synergy concept of the Catholics, we would never be saved. Not because God is not strong enough to keep us, but because sin is anything that is not of faith, and God is not in the business of keeping robots. And I know that those who do not have a sense of sin or are under a denominational doctrine will have to object. And their objections may prove their own status. Nevertheless, the Catholics are right in one sense. The salvation that is in Christ is not a salvation that is achieved outside of ourselves. The forensic idea of salvation, so popular in Protestant Evangelical circles today, and that includes John MacArthur, is a human myth.
Paul refers in 1Corinthians to people who look more like non-believers than believers, but never once referred to them as if they were not in Christ. Rather, he encouraged them to realize what they have and what they are in Christ. And there is a sense of striving against sin that we who are Christ must do. It is a life-long striving toward something that is never attained until we see Jesus face to face and the corrupted flesh is a thing of the past. Paul made that clear in Philippians where he gave testimony of same at the end of his life. But he also made it clear that it is not we who are striving. We are reaching forward toward a goal. We continue to reach because of someone in us. Someone who continuously lifts us up when we fall. And to the point that we let Jesus live in us, “not I, but Christ lives in meâ€, it is to that point that sin will be overcome. And when we think that we have anything that is good enough to overcome sin ourselves, that is when Christ is not living in us at all.
The fact that we continue to stand against sin after we have been made low by our sin, no matter what the degree of habitualness may be, is a sign that we are truly in Christ. If we were not truly in Christ, we would eventually give up altogether seeing how ineffectual our own strivings really are showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Or we will begin to think that in the small ways that some sins are actually being overcome is really due to our own strength of faith or whatever, and we will become proud, again showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Or we will ignore the significance of the stirrings of the sinful flesh, again showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Herein is the evidence that such are not in Christ. And yet, how can we tell what is within the hearts of men, to say that they are not saved? Are we God? The only person that we can judge is ourselves. And even then, we need God to judge us.
Those who think that they are perfect may not be in Christ. But if they are, they will go through experiences that will show them that perfection is not theirs, but belongs to Jesus Christ alone. He is our overcomer within us through the Spirit of God. Those who are truly in Christ sometimes have to learn that the hard way. It is not without reason that the maxim “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble†is repeated so many times and in so many different ways in the Bible. The Jews were not the only stiff-necked people. We should learn from them and then realize that many times it is we, the ones who claim to be in Christ, that often are more stiff-necked than they ever were.
JamesG
Tjw
Lordship Salvation. John MacArthur’s bit. He gives the best evidence for faith-works salvation, without believing in faith-works salvation, that I have ever seen. If one were to begin to believe the way he does, and could see the significance of what he says, one would be a Catholic in short order. What is fascinating to me is that the Catholic author Robert Sungenis, who wrote a thick book called “Not by Faith Alone†didn’t notice that at all, even though the greater part of his book concerns MacArthur’s doctrine on salvation. It is not that MacArthur is in error about the necessity of Jesus being Lord. But it was the way he went about proving it, a totally reactionary presentation that was more Catholic than Protestant. Look for that as you research MacArthur’s writings. And get that book by Sungenis, it will be an eye opener. Zane Hodges was the main Protestant writer against MacArthur’s position in my day. I understand that Norman Geisler and Charles Stanley are the ones to read today. Having already seen something different, I’m not familiar with that scene anymore.
As far as besetting sins, we all have them. And I would venture to say that anyone who can not sense the sinful nature of their own flesh, or who thinks that they are overcoming their sinful flesh to the extent that they can judge the salvation of others, may be the one who should be questioning themselves whether they are truly in Christ, rather than questioning the salvation of others. Cold Turkey? I know people who quit all sorts of things cold turkey. And I know people who can’t seem to quit anything at all. And among those two classes of people I know Christians and non-Christians. And those who are able to quit cold turkey, Christian and non-Christian, are most often the proudest of all. And the proud always judge the rest. But I have noticed one thing unique among Christians. They blame their pride on God, the one who they credit with “quitting cold turkeyâ€. Come down from that pedestal, Oh Man. It is unbecoming and you are not worthy.
We are saved because we are in Christ, not because of our ability to overcome certain sins of our own choosing or that happen to be most evident to us. Being in Christ does not change every time we sin. If it did, we would spend a lot of time under water being rebaptized. That is if we retained our interest in being in Christ long enough. Because it would surely mean that every time we sin, we are no longer in Christ and the only way to get back in is not confession, but through refaith and rebaptism. We would have to be continuously reborn again and again and again. Confession of sins is only for those who are still in Christ, who are still “savedâ€. Note the irony of thinking that we are able to judge the status of the salvation of others.
If being saved were up to our own strength, our own faith, even augmented by the Grace of God, the human/Divine faith synergy concept of the Catholics, we would never be saved. Not because God is not strong enough to keep us, but because sin is anything that is not of faith, and God is not in the business of keeping robots. And I know that those who do not have a sense of sin or are under a denominational doctrine will have to object. And their objections may prove their own status. Nevertheless, the Catholics are right in one sense. The salvation that is in Christ is not a salvation that is achieved outside of ourselves. The forensic idea of salvation, so popular in Protestant Evangelical circles today, and that includes John MacArthur, is a human myth.
Paul refers in 1Corinthians to people who look more like non-believers than believers, but never once referred to them as if they were not in Christ. Rather, he encouraged them to realize what they have and what they are in Christ. And there is a sense of striving against sin that we who are Christ must do. It is a life-long striving toward something that is never attained until we see Jesus face to face and the corrupted flesh is a thing of the past. Paul made that clear in Philippians where he gave testimony of same at the end of his life. But he also made it clear that it is not we who are striving. We are reaching forward toward a goal. We continue to reach because of someone in us. Someone who continuously lifts us up when we fall. And to the point that we let Jesus live in us, “not I, but Christ lives in meâ€, it is to that point that sin will be overcome. And when we think that we have anything that is good enough to overcome sin ourselves, that is when Christ is not living in us at all.
The fact that we continue to stand against sin after we have been made low by our sin, no matter what the degree of habitualness may be, is a sign that we are truly in Christ. If we were not truly in Christ, we would eventually give up altogether seeing how ineffectual our own strivings really are showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Or we will begin to think that in the small ways that some sins are actually being overcome is really due to our own strength of faith or whatever, and we will become proud, again showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Or we will ignore the significance of the stirrings of the sinful flesh, again showing that our salvation was through ourselves rather than Christ to begin with. Herein is the evidence that such are not in Christ. And yet, how can we tell what is within the hearts of men, to say that they are not saved? Are we God? The only person that we can judge is ourselves. And even then, we need God to judge us.
Those who think that they are perfect may not be in Christ. But if they are, they will go through experiences that will show them that perfection is not theirs, but belongs to Jesus Christ alone. He is our overcomer within us through the Spirit of God. Those who are truly in Christ sometimes have to learn that the hard way. It is not without reason that the maxim “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble†is repeated so many times and in so many different ways in the Bible. The Jews were not the only stiff-necked people. We should learn from them and then realize that many times it is we, the ones who claim to be in Christ, that often are more stiff-necked than they ever were.
JamesG
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
If you are reborn it shouldn't be a problem. I started smoking weed and for the next 19 years did every drug there was not to mention that I was a sex addict (you dont have to be gay to be perverted you know). I went cold turkey the day I surrendered to Christ. Selling and smoking weed, crack, sex, mountain-dew/caffine and more. You think that didn't take divine intervention. God is amazing, and I He is my Savior, and Lord, and I will obey Him even if it takes him to do it for me.
That is what a love relationship is.[/quote:2njnux9k]
some arent delivered that way, for the bi thing i was, but not porn, and if you look hard, theres more to sex addiction (a root cause). if that was the case all the time. then we could pray and ask and be perfected in one day. where has that happened in the bible?hmm paul spoke of his struggle in sin. the law of sin warring with the spirit within him.see Romans 7.
E
elijah23
Guest
People throw this word “saved†around all the time. They don’t do that in my church. When we sin we suffer. Right?tjw said:
I don't know what Lordship salvation means. But I do know that my Bible says " If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God raised Jesus from the dead you WILL be saved." We're all dead to sin and that's why were under grace.
Righteousness doesn't always come right away. Sanctification is a life long process. In fact our righteousness is "filthy rags" to God. Our job is to have faith, seek God, and to whole heartedly desire delieverance.
When I first came to Christ I had a serious addiction problem. And it took a lot of messing up and trying again and crying out to God and reading the Word to get me through. Believe me, when I would overdose, It wasn't because I wanted to. I would often take a pill and cry at the same time. Fortunately, some of us have never had to experience such a powerful bondage.
So my message to anyone who is stuck in sin is don't give up. God WILL come through. He doesn't fail.
Righteousness doesn't always come right away. Sanctification is a life long process. In fact our righteousness is "filthy rags" to God. Our job is to have faith, seek God, and to whole heartedly desire delieverance.
When I first came to Christ I had a serious addiction problem. And it took a lot of messing up and trying again and crying out to God and reading the Word to get me through. Believe me, when I would overdose, It wasn't because I wanted to. I would often take a pill and cry at the same time. Fortunately, some of us have never had to experience such a powerful bondage.
So my message to anyone who is stuck in sin is don't give up. God WILL come through. He doesn't fail.
tjw said:
Hello James, I am one on this thread that leans toward what is called "Lordship Salvation" by those commonly in a more reformed camp. I have read MacArthers's book twice. I currently do not have it because I loaned the book to a friend. I want to say that I strongly disagree with your caricature of MacArther's position as one in which he gives "the best evidence for faith-works salvation." That is is a misrepresentation of his position and the entire "Lordship salvation" group.JamesG said:
Of course MacArther was a late comer to the discussion. James M Boice and others preceded him.
I also wish to mention right off the bat that the "faith alone" position was the reformed position hundreds of years before you non-reformed came on the scene.
Sungenis does not see the connection between MacArther's position and his own because there is no connection.JamesG said:
Actually, the correct term is "justification" here. The term "justify" has a semantic range that so many refuse to acknowledge. While there are passages where the forensic concept does not fit, there are other passages where the word justification has an obvious forensic context. Would you like me to quote a few passages? I can easily do that.JamesG said:
Also, your reference to synergism and monergism is confusing. Maybe I am not sure what you are saying. Most (or all) Lordship salvation people are monergists. The synergists are generally Catholics and Arminian protestants.
Last, I would take issue with your understanding of Lordship salvation as a discussion in which people's salvation is judged. While that might relate to the discussion, it is not the intent of the Lordship salvation people to judge peoples salvation. We are already aware that Christians can sin, and that many of the Corinthian people were saved. The actual discussion involves more the nature of faith and regeneration.
Those who do not take a Lordship salvation view take a lower view of faith and regeneration. The power of the HS is not life changing, the kind of faith needed can be without repentance, in non-Lordship salvation views.
Adullam
Member
- Mar 28, 2009
- 2,175
- 2
There are basically 2 approaches to salvation.
The modern approach is to believe that Jesus died for individuals and that the blood of Christ covers all sins for all time. In this view it is the death of Christ that counts. This makes salvation a one-time event. It becomes an unconditional salvation.
The apostolic viewpoint is to believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world and that the blood of Christ covers PAST sins in they that believe. In this view it is the life of Christ that saves. IF one continues to walk in the life of Christ then that one is saved by so doing. If one stops or draws back into the flesh, then salvation is not attained. One must run lawfully in the Spirit to obtain the promises. This makes salvation a process. This salvation is conditional on continued abiding in Christ who is our life.
The modern approach is to believe that Jesus died for individuals and that the blood of Christ covers all sins for all time. In this view it is the death of Christ that counts. This makes salvation a one-time event. It becomes an unconditional salvation.
The apostolic viewpoint is to believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world and that the blood of Christ covers PAST sins in they that believe. In this view it is the life of Christ that saves. IF one continues to walk in the life of Christ then that one is saved by so doing. If one stops or draws back into the flesh, then salvation is not attained. One must run lawfully in the Spirit to obtain the promises. This makes salvation a process. This salvation is conditional on continued abiding in Christ who is our life.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
Excellent explanation, and you are dead on. We must walk in the Spirit fulfilling the law of Christ enduring until the end to be saved.Adullam said:
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Adullam said:
Good to hear some people got this figured out...
Regards
.
Mondar
““I want to say that I strongly disagree with your caricature of MacArther's position as one in which he gives "the best evidence for faith-works salvation." That is is a misrepresentation of his position and the entire "Lordship salvation" group.â€â€
As I said, “He gives the best evidence for faith-works salvation, without believing in faith-works salvationâ€. But “it was the way he went about proving it, a totally reactionary presentation that was more Catholic than Protestant.â€
MacArthur is a strong advocate of the Protestant concept of Justification by faith alone. He is right that when one accepts Jesus as Savior one must also accept Jesus as Lord. Both are integral to being in Christ. But his presentation is a reaction to a common Protestant understanding of Justification by faith alone called Free Grace, or Easy Believism by its opponents. You know, “Just believe in Jesus Christ and you will be savedâ€. It is like believing in George Washington and does just about as much good. What MacArthur said was right, IMHO. It was how he said it that came out in a way that I tend to believe was not his intention. MacArthur is a very strong minded person. And when a strong minded person reacts, it tends to be an over reaction.
The whole gist of the argument to MacArthur has to do with his understanding of repentance. MacArthur believes in an idea that is common in Christianity. Repentance in Christianity means to forsake ones sins and to not do them anymore. The obvious conclusion to such an idea is that if one keeps on sinning even though it is not what is wanted, one is obviously not Saved, at least not yet. And to MacArthur, the Free Grace idea exacerbates, if it is not the very cause, of the lack of salvation. And this is a false idea. Anyone with a sense of their own sinfulness and that has had to battle even one kind of addiction knows that such a definition does not apply to those who are truly in Christ. The real battle is life long against one “addiction†after another as each addiction is brought to light through the Spirit of God, in our journey to being conformed to the image of Christ in a practical way here on earth.
The Greek word metanoia that is translated as repentance does not have the meaning that has been ascribed to it. The Greek word means “to change one’s mindâ€. Repentance is not related to just sin. It is related to everything. Like the drug addict, the first step is to see that we have a problem and that there is a solution to the problem. That is the Greek word metanoia. In Adam all are lost. “but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of Godâ€. (John 3:18) God has given his Son in order that all who believe into the Son might be a part of something other than being in Adam. And that is the second step, giving ourselves over to the solution of our problem by believing into and being baptized into Jesus Christ. Because the problem is solved only in Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of the new race or the new humanity. The new humanity in Christ is a new creation in Christ. Jesus is the living Lord of that new humanity. If we do not accept Jesus as Lord, then we have not been transferred into the Kingdom of the Son and we have not accepted the new humanity that is in Christ. So MacArthur is correct to say that one must know Jesus as Lord to be Justified. But he misunderstands what the matter entails. It is a Protestant failing.
We are Justified by faith. Whether that is the faith alone idea of the original Protestants or the faith and the works that expresses the faith idea of the Catholics and half of the Protestants today…the reference is to human faith. Whether or not it is also claimed that the faith is somehow aided by God, it is still the human faith that is the emphasis. And that we are Justified by human faith is the big misconception of Christianity.
MacArthur agrees with that misconception. MacArthur believes strongly, and rightly so, that faith must be expressed by works. Then he assumes that if the works are not there, then neither is the faith. A logical assumption. And because he believes that Justification is by faith, human faith, he rightly emphasizes the necessity of the human works that express that faith. Thus, being the excellent Protestant “Bible teacher†that he is, he gives the best evidence that Justification is by human faith and human works, even though he is a staunch defender of the idea of Justification by human faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, the concept of the original Protestants. MacArthur can’t necessarily be blamed for this. And I did not mean to imply that. It is not his intention. He is reacting to an obvious fallacy, that Justification is by faith alone in a too literal a sense so that even Jesus as Lord is eliminated.
““Sungenis does not see the connection between MacArther's position and his own because there is no connection.â€â€
Well, you agree with a Catholic. What are you feeling right now? LOL
Actually, the reason Sungenis didn’t see the connection is because he was emphasizing that Justification by faith alone is not a true understanding of Justification, not according to the Catholic Church. It may interest you to know that Sungenis is getting a lot of flack from his Catholic peers because he also believes that Creationism as espoused by the Intelligent Design Movement is true. It is not the understanding that is espoused by the Catholic Church. Perhaps he is a smart man that likes to argue. So he emphasizes that which generates argumentation. Or it may be that he just believes what he believes is the true Catholic understanding of reality. He isn’t the only Catholic to believe as he does.
““While there are passages where the forensic concept does not fit, there are other passages where the word justification has an obvious forensic context. Would you like me to quote a few passages? I can easily do that.â€â€
No doubt you can. Protestants are good at quoting passages for all sorts of ideas. It’s the Protestant interpretations that are related to those passages that I rarely agree with.
““Also, your reference to synergism and monergism is confusing. Maybe I am not sure what you are saying. Most (or all) Lordship salvation people are monergists. The synergists are generally Catholics and Arminian protestants.â€â€
I had not heard of the word monergism before. But I found this definition on the Wikepedia that seems reasonable to me:
Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God through the Holy Spirit works to effectually bring about the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism (e.g.,Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) and its doctrine of irresistible grace and in particular with historic doctrinal differences between Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other. This position is often presented in contrast to synergism, the belief that God and individuals cooperate for salvation. Lutherans generally adhere to a modified and less stringent form of monergism.
The discussion here is not about the controversy concerning the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. This controversy is totally within the understanding of Calvinism. It is a controversy that concerns Evangelical Protestants within the Evangelical community.
But since you and others have mentioned the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, I believe that we are Justified in Christ through the faith of Christ rather than through our own human faith. Thus I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian.
““Last, I would take issue with your understanding of Lordship salvation as a discussion in which people's salvation is judged. While that might relate to the discussion, it is not the intent of the Lordship salvation people to judge peoples salvation. We are already aware that Christians can sin, and that many of the Corinthian people were saved. The actual discussion involves more the nature of faith and regeneration.
Those who do not take a Lordship salvation view take a lower view of faith and regeneration. The power of the HS is not life changing, the kind of faith needed can be without repentance, in non-Lordship salvation views.â€â€
Most Christians do not see the difference between Justification and Salvation. With good reason since they are most often referred to as synonymous today. They do not see that Justification is only one aspect of the experience in Christ. And unfortunately, in a practical sense, MacArthur equates the two as well. He definitely questions whether one who does not agree with his viewpoint on Justification is even saved. When not specifically, then indirectly. One has to be unbiased in relation to the typical Christian mindset to see that. I initially reacted very emotionally to what MacArthur wrote many years ago. It was obvious that according to the way he presented Lordship Salvation, he was denying salvation to a lot of people, including me. And at the time I didn’t think that his popularity as a Protestant Bible Teacher gave him the right to be such a judge. Who does he think he is, the Vicar of Christ? Or does he think that he is a special priest of the Church that has the right to forgive or not forgive sins? Since MacArthur is not favorable to the Catholic position on that matter, and is a Protestant, it is not a position that he could or should practice with any legitimacy. I felt that he could have gotten his point across without that kind of judgement. And before you say it, I don’t think that he intended to get his point across in a way that implied judgment.
I know people who believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but never state it in that way. And I know people who are struggling with sin in one form or another who are staunch believers otherwise. Judging whether these people are saved because they do not define the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the same way that we do, or because they are struggling with a particular besetting sin, is not within our purview. God is the only righteous judge and the only one who can read hearts. The Spirit witnesses to this fact, that we are not to judge, and Jesus says as much according to the Biblical writers. (Luke 6:37-38) And the Catholic understanding on the matter of judgment through and by the Church is a totally different matter concerning authority than what I am referring to here.
JamesG
Mondar
““I want to say that I strongly disagree with your caricature of MacArther's position as one in which he gives "the best evidence for faith-works salvation." That is is a misrepresentation of his position and the entire "Lordship salvation" group.â€â€
As I said, “He gives the best evidence for faith-works salvation, without believing in faith-works salvationâ€. But “it was the way he went about proving it, a totally reactionary presentation that was more Catholic than Protestant.â€
MacArthur is a strong advocate of the Protestant concept of Justification by faith alone. He is right that when one accepts Jesus as Savior one must also accept Jesus as Lord. Both are integral to being in Christ. But his presentation is a reaction to a common Protestant understanding of Justification by faith alone called Free Grace, or Easy Believism by its opponents. You know, “Just believe in Jesus Christ and you will be savedâ€. It is like believing in George Washington and does just about as much good. What MacArthur said was right, IMHO. It was how he said it that came out in a way that I tend to believe was not his intention. MacArthur is a very strong minded person. And when a strong minded person reacts, it tends to be an over reaction.
The whole gist of the argument to MacArthur has to do with his understanding of repentance. MacArthur believes in an idea that is common in Christianity. Repentance in Christianity means to forsake ones sins and to not do them anymore. The obvious conclusion to such an idea is that if one keeps on sinning even though it is not what is wanted, one is obviously not Saved, at least not yet. And to MacArthur, the Free Grace idea exacerbates, if it is not the very cause, of the lack of salvation. And this is a false idea. Anyone with a sense of their own sinfulness and that has had to battle even one kind of addiction knows that such a definition does not apply to those who are truly in Christ. The real battle is life long against one “addiction†after another as each addiction is brought to light through the Spirit of God, in our journey to being conformed to the image of Christ in a practical way here on earth.
The Greek word metanoia that is translated as repentance does not have the meaning that has been ascribed to it. The Greek word means “to change one’s mindâ€. Repentance is not related to just sin. It is related to everything. Like the drug addict, the first step is to see that we have a problem and that there is a solution to the problem. That is the Greek word metanoia. In Adam all are lost. “but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of Godâ€. (John 3:18) God has given his Son in order that all who believe into the Son might be a part of something other than being in Adam. And that is the second step, giving ourselves over to the solution of our problem by believing into and being baptized into Jesus Christ. Because the problem is solved only in Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of the new race or the new humanity. The new humanity in Christ is a new creation in Christ. Jesus is the living Lord of that new humanity. If we do not accept Jesus as Lord, then we have not been transferred into the Kingdom of the Son and we have not accepted the new humanity that is in Christ. So MacArthur is correct to say that one must know Jesus as Lord to be Justified. But he misunderstands what the matter entails. It is a Protestant failing.
We are Justified by faith. Whether that is the faith alone idea of the original Protestants or the faith and the works that expresses the faith idea of the Catholics and half of the Protestants today…the reference is to human faith. Whether or not it is also claimed that the faith is somehow aided by God, it is still the human faith that is the emphasis. And that we are Justified by human faith is the big misconception of Christianity.
MacArthur agrees with that misconception. MacArthur believes strongly, and rightly so, that faith must be expressed by works. Then he assumes that if the works are not there, then neither is the faith. A logical assumption. And because he believes that Justification is by faith, human faith, he rightly emphasizes the necessity of the human works that express that faith. Thus, being the excellent Protestant “Bible teacher†that he is, he gives the best evidence that Justification is by human faith and human works, even though he is a staunch defender of the idea of Justification by human faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, the concept of the original Protestants. MacArthur can’t necessarily be blamed for this. And I did not mean to imply that. It is not his intention. He is reacting to an obvious fallacy, that Justification is by faith alone in a too literal a sense so that even Jesus as Lord is eliminated.
““Sungenis does not see the connection between MacArther's position and his own because there is no connection.â€â€
Well, you agree with a Catholic. What are you feeling right now? LOL
Actually, the reason Sungenis didn’t see the connection is because he was emphasizing that Justification by faith alone is not a true understanding of Justification, not according to the Catholic Church. It may interest you to know that Sungenis is getting a lot of flack from his Catholic peers because he also believes that Creationism as espoused by the Intelligent Design Movement is true. It is not the understanding that is espoused by the Catholic Church. Perhaps he is a smart man that likes to argue. So he emphasizes that which generates argumentation. Or it may be that he just believes what he believes is the true Catholic understanding of reality. He isn’t the only Catholic to believe as he does.
““While there are passages where the forensic concept does not fit, there are other passages where the word justification has an obvious forensic context. Would you like me to quote a few passages? I can easily do that.â€â€
No doubt you can. Protestants are good at quoting passages for all sorts of ideas. It’s the Protestant interpretations that are related to those passages that I rarely agree with.
““Also, your reference to synergism and monergism is confusing. Maybe I am not sure what you are saying. Most (or all) Lordship salvation people are monergists. The synergists are generally Catholics and Arminian protestants.â€â€
I had not heard of the word monergism before. But I found this definition on the Wikepedia that seems reasonable to me:
Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God through the Holy Spirit works to effectually bring about the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism (e.g.,Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) and its doctrine of irresistible grace and in particular with historic doctrinal differences between Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other. This position is often presented in contrast to synergism, the belief that God and individuals cooperate for salvation. Lutherans generally adhere to a modified and less stringent form of monergism.
The discussion here is not about the controversy concerning the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. This controversy is totally within the understanding of Calvinism. It is a controversy that concerns Evangelical Protestants within the Evangelical community.
But since you and others have mentioned the Calvinist/Arminian controversy, I believe that we are Justified in Christ through the faith of Christ rather than through our own human faith. Thus I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian.
““Last, I would take issue with your understanding of Lordship salvation as a discussion in which people's salvation is judged. While that might relate to the discussion, it is not the intent of the Lordship salvation people to judge peoples salvation. We are already aware that Christians can sin, and that many of the Corinthian people were saved. The actual discussion involves more the nature of faith and regeneration.
Those who do not take a Lordship salvation view take a lower view of faith and regeneration. The power of the HS is not life changing, the kind of faith needed can be without repentance, in non-Lordship salvation views.â€â€
Most Christians do not see the difference between Justification and Salvation. With good reason since they are most often referred to as synonymous today. They do not see that Justification is only one aspect of the experience in Christ. And unfortunately, in a practical sense, MacArthur equates the two as well. He definitely questions whether one who does not agree with his viewpoint on Justification is even saved. When not specifically, then indirectly. One has to be unbiased in relation to the typical Christian mindset to see that. I initially reacted very emotionally to what MacArthur wrote many years ago. It was obvious that according to the way he presented Lordship Salvation, he was denying salvation to a lot of people, including me. And at the time I didn’t think that his popularity as a Protestant Bible Teacher gave him the right to be such a judge. Who does he think he is, the Vicar of Christ? Or does he think that he is a special priest of the Church that has the right to forgive or not forgive sins? Since MacArthur is not favorable to the Catholic position on that matter, and is a Protestant, it is not a position that he could or should practice with any legitimacy. I felt that he could have gotten his point across without that kind of judgement. And before you say it, I don’t think that he intended to get his point across in a way that implied judgment.
I know people who believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but never state it in that way. And I know people who are struggling with sin in one form or another who are staunch believers otherwise. Judging whether these people are saved because they do not define the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the same way that we do, or because they are struggling with a particular besetting sin, is not within our purview. God is the only righteous judge and the only one who can read hearts. The Spirit witnesses to this fact, that we are not to judge, and Jesus says as much according to the Biblical writers. (Luke 6:37-38) And the Catholic understanding on the matter of judgment through and by the Church is a totally different matter concerning authority than what I am referring to here.
JamesG