John_C said: I've always put myself in the Lordship Salvation camp, but are there different forms of it?
I thought the argument was over whether someone can become a believer without submitting to Christ Jesus as Lord. Those arguiing against LS are saying that someone can become a believer without acknowleging Christ as Lord, just their Savior.
If LS is the proper way of understanding, why do some get jittery in thinking LS advocates a works rigtheousness path of salvation.
Are their LS proponenents taking it to far, or is my understanding of it faulty?
Wasn't the term more or less coin during the debate several years ago between MacArthur and Swindle with easy believism being at stake?
John,
This debate never got into the Reformed community, which is quite telling I believe. Submitting to Christ is basic Reformed soteriology. It was novel within the evangelical community when MacArthur began to grow in his understanding of God's work in salvation. MacArthur was becoming Reformed in his soteriology, which is what caused the hoo ha within pop-evangelicalism. For the Arminian, one can believe in Christ with the mere help of the Holy Spirit, but repentance would be a "work" and, therefore, need not accompany biblical salvation -- so say Arminians. MacArthur, on the other hand, had a “revelation.” He became keenly aware that one could not even believe, let alone repent, without the monergistic work of the Spirit. I remember John saying that “we must not strip out what God is doing in salvation.” His point was, not only does God grant faith he also grants repentance to all who trust in Christ alone for their salvation.
The problem is, although those who are justified do submit to Christ upon first believing the gospel, the gospel message must not be changed. The Gospel is that Jesus died for his people and rose for their justification. However, I believe that John had a tendency to skew the message of the gospel into a message of works, though he was correct that those who embrace Christ will have works.
