The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation

I'm currently going through the article from the Highway entitled ''LORDSHIP SALVATION: Biblical or Heretical?

by William Webster,... And as I do so I have an open discussion on Facebook about this and John MacArthur,.. its getting very heated as the individual is making strong accusations against him and even using language that ranks him as a heretic,.. Has anyone any clear views to what is and what is not being used by John MacArthur on this subject?.. I will continue to study the above mentioned article as I hold off from engaging further with this gentleman ..

It has been a long time sinse I actually looked into this topic in detail.
However, although the following may sound a little simplistic. But I would like to ask can Jesus be saviour without also being Lord?
Tom

You are correct Tom, and it seems very simplistic when we examine the meaning, or as William Webster states in the above article ''No one involved in the controversy denies the essential truth of the deity of Christ, that he is Lord and God. In this sense it is impossible to ‘make Christ Lord’ since he is Lord.''

I remember preaching to a large group of CRC (Christian Reformed Church) people many years ago and used Acts 2:36-41 as my text, focusing mainly upon verse 36 which happens to be most salient to this discussion which reads:

As I said then I will now repeat... NO ONE makes Jesus their Savior and/or Lord!! God, the most holy and sovereign GOD has made Jesus BOTH Lord and Christ. The Lord Christ is therefore ALREADY Lord. He is Lord of everyone without exception. He is either the Lord of your salvation or Lord of your damnation. Should God by His marvelous grace choose to call you by His Holy Spirit you will bow before the Lord Christ with a deep conviction of sin and with a hearty repentance and embrace Christ with a sincere and true faith, trusting in Him for your salvation.

This whole "Lordship Salvation" issue to me is nonsense and shouldn't even need to be considered. What right-minded person who professes to be united to Christ by a true living faith and thus studies His Word regularly would get caught up in such silliness? It reminds me of the similar gross error of the "Carnal Christian Theory", which is yet another fruit of "Sandemanianism" (aka: Easy Believism), among other things.

That's my

That is the nail that will and seal the deal,... thank you for that explanation of that verse which had escaped me, but as soon as I read it, I knew that clarity on its meaning was complete. The only problem that now will reside with those who for whatever reason, still choose to make a case against this and claim still that Lordship salvation is worked based. I will include your comment, if needed and by your permission if this comes up again in a future post.

Remind me of what it is that they believe makes John MacArthur a heretic.
If memory serves me correct, several theologians who defended MacArthur said not to agee with MacAthur is to be an Antominian.

Tom

I am trying to understand what it is that they feel is works based. Could you perhaps elaborate a little on that please?

That's a very good question, unfortunately I do not have the answer to that one, even from those who profess to oppose it have yet to give me a fundamental agreement as to what it is... exactly...

Could it possibly be that salvation requires repentance and faith?
If so, they forget that regeneration must occur before repentance and faith occur.
Tom

For the purpose of further discussion I found a link from someone who is against Lordship Salvation. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Lordship%20Salvation/macarthur.htm
Notice that the link states that the Westminster Standards as well as both Calvin and Luther would be against Lordship salvation.

Tom

Interesting article. It is clear, at least to me, that the writer and those who are opposed to "Lordship Salvation" are lacking in understanding when reading such men as John Murray, Calvin, et al on the matter of "salvation". Salvation is a pregnant term which consists of several essential parts, e.g., regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification and glorification along with corollary elements of adoption, assurance, et al.

The majority of those who would be cast into the "Lordship Salvation" camp (I say majority because there is most always some whom this does not apply) incontrovertibly hold to justification by grace through faith in Christ ALONE!! This would include Calvin and Luther, the Reformers, Puritans and all the historic Reformed Confessions. NONE of those (again with exceptions) hold that justification is the result of faith+works. ALL... religions outside of historic Calvinism are guilty of that heresy, although most Evangelicals are unaware of it.

So again, in the broader sense of the word "salvation", Sanctification is inextricably bound to justification and without good works, there is no salvation. At least James seems to think this is true and I have far more confidence in what he wrote than those who oppose Lordship Salvation. Sanctification is not the GROUND of salvation but rather the LORD Christ and His vicarious substitutionary work is; active and passive obedience imputed to the believer through a true living faith. As naturally as an unregenerate sinner sins, so a regenerate child of God seeks after holiness... not righteousness, for Christ is his righteousness.

Lastly, as I mentioned to McKinley, those opposing Lordship Salvation are the same ones who espouse "Sandemanianism", aka: Easy Believism, i.e., a simple assent to the truth is what saves. Augustine's quote used by the author of the article is just that. Of course, without the CONTEXT of the quote I would not find guilt with Augustine on that matter. Louis Berkhof does an excellent job explaining the essence of true saving faith in his Systematic Theology and says that true saving faith is "fiducia", i.e., the whole man is involved in believing upon Christ; heart, head and will. Knowledge of the truth moves the heart/affections which moves the will. Thus it is utterly impossible to claim to have saving faith and not have obedience (Follow ME), cf. Jh 14:15; 15:10; 1Jh 5:1-5. The bottom line is "faith without works is dead". The works that are inextricably bound to faith DO NOT JUSTIFY, but they EVIDENCE justification and offer one of three influences for assurance.

Pilgrim
Thank you for doing such a good job at handling what was said on that sight.
About the only thing I would like to add is the fact that the person who wrote that article is wrong about the Westminster standards being against Lordship salvation.
Although I am more familiar with the LBCF of 1689, and The Westminster confession of faith is in agreement with the Baptist confession. Although I don't have it in front of me, in the section 'of repentance and faith', I think it shows that the author of the article is wrong.
Tom