Many a fundamentalist has a real hard time with the idea of “Lordship Salvation”. (With Calvinism too, but that is another post…) They have a “knee jerk” reaction against these doctrines, and yet in many ways I would view this as healthy. You look shocked, but let me explain. Fundamentalists often misunderstand these views, and with regard to “Lordship Salvation” they think of it as a “works-based salvation”. And to react strongly against works based salvation is very commendable and healthy.
But Lordship Salvation is not a works based salvation scheme. Let me say that again, Lordship Salvation is not works based salvation!
I just finished reading a series of articles which in my opinion is extremely helpful for anyone desiring to understand Lordship Salvation. And in all honesty, to understand Lordship Salvation you need to go to the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I have little patience for people who claim to seriously hold a position on a debated issue yet who have never read anything written by the other side.
Well, here is your chance. Nathan Busenitz at Pulpit Live (affiliated with John MacArthur’s church) has just finished a series of five posts critiquing Lou Martuneac’s new book In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation. Lou is a fundamentalist who has concluded that Lordship Salvation is another gospel. And Nathan explains how Lou’s conclusion is wrong by showing how Lou misunderstands Lordship Salvation. So in Nathan’s critique of Lou’s book, he provides a clear explanation of what Lordship Salvation really is.
So without further ado, let me provide the links here to Nathan’s critique of this book, and let me encourage you to check out these posts in order to have a better understanding of Lordship Salvation.
- Lou and Lordship, part 1
- Lou and Lordship, part 2
- Lou and Lordship, part 3
- Lou and Lordship, part 4
- Lou and Lordship, part 5
UPDATE: Here are two last links to Nathan’s final discussion of Lordship Salvation. Also, I threw in a link to the last post of Phil Johnson’s personal testimony in regards to this debate. Phil’s posts are very informative as to the history of the Lordship debate. He provides links to all the posts in that series at the bottom of the post linked to below.
- A Few More Thoughts on Lordship, part 1
- A Few More Thoughts on Lordship, part 2
- Phil Johnson’s last post on “How I Got Drawn into the Lordship Debate”
[...] Repentance has recently been redefined by “Free Grace” advocates and others who oppose a so-called “Lordship Salvation”. I won’t get into that here, but will point you to this post for a series of articles which explain and defend the correct definition of repentance well. [...]
To All:
Lordship Salvation, as defined by John MacArthur, is a works based gospel. Following are two examples of several extreme statements by Dr. MacArthur,
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 140.)
“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)
That si a message based on upfront promise of “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again child of God.
For more comprehensive reading on the issues in Lordship theology please refer to my blog site.
LM
https://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
You are welcome to post dissenting opinions here. I don’t really want to get into a big debate on this over here, there is plenty of debate for everyone in the comments under the posts at Pulpit Live.
Just a few things however.
For the first quotation, let me provide a little more context for it, and I think it doesn’t sound as bad. I am taking this quote from this article, since I don’t have the book. I trust the quote is correct as it has the exact quotation you gave within it. Here is the fuller quote:
“Eternal life is indeed a free gift (Rom. 6:23). Salvation cannot be earned with good deeds or purchased with money. It has already been bought by Christ, who paid the ransom with His blood. But that does not mean there is not cost in terms of salvation’s impact on the sinner’s life. This paradox may be difficult but it is nevertheless true: salvation is both free and costly. Eternal life brings immediate death to self. ‘Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin’ (Rom 6:6).
Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. It is a total abandonment of self-will, like the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies so that it can bear much fruit (cf. John 12:24). It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.
Death to self does not mean immediate sanctification and glorification. But just as Adam died on the day he disobeyed God (yet did not see the completion of the death for many years), so we die on the day that we truly believe on the Son of Man (though the completion of that death will not be realized until we go to be with the Lord). And in dying we live unto eternal life.”
From the context, it is clear he is referencing Rom. 6:6. What does it mean that in Christ’s death our old self dies? His comments make more sense when seen as referencing this verse.
Similarly with the second quote you give, he is referring to the rich young ruler who asked Jesus “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” We have to explain why Jesus said to sell your goods and follow Him. Does this mean Jesus is teaching works salvation? No. MacArthur and you agree on that. So you might not like MacArthurs’ attempt at explaining it, but you likewise need to explain this text.
John 3:36 to me speaks volumes concerning this whole issue:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
If you believe you have eternal life, if you do not obey you don’t. Belief and obedience are parallel. Belief produces obedience, a belief which does not does not save. This points to the fact that a willingness to obey is part and parcel with faith. See Pastor Harding’s comments about “faith” under the fifth review post at Pulpit Live for more info.
It is passages like Jn. 3:36 and also Luke 13:22ff, with many others that force us to understand that faith and repentance includes a willingness to follow Christ. Jesus could have led the woman at the well to pray a prayer, but he first wanted to point out sin in her life that she needed to be willing to forsake. This is similar to the tactic he employed with the rich young ruler, who left sorrowing over his own unwillingness to forsake covetousness. He was unwilling to believe, because Jesus intimated that belief was a whole-hearted surrender to His Lordship.
I say these things to clarify my position. But Lou’s position is adequately explained and defended on his blog and at the articles linked to above.
Regardless, I view Lou as a brother in Christ and while he I believe he is mistaken on this one point, he does affirm many other non negotiable points about salvation and Christ and as such is my brother.
God bless you richly in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Hi Bob:
No big debates here. I saw from a Google search you mentioned me here. So I wanted to let your visitors know where to visit my blog site for my views.
By the way, my book has entire chapter dedicated to an explanation of the Rich Young Ruler. There is also a section on John 3:36.
Thanks,
LM
I certainly would like to point out an important oversight in Johnson’s slant from the jump given in the page above, and that is Michael Horton’s anthology “Christ the Lord,” published by Baker, in which Horton by no means throws his Reformed vote on the side of MacArthur. He criticizes Hodges for ordo salutis issues, but he critizes MacArthur for making justification dependent upon sanctification, in common with the Roman Catholicism of Trent (p. 43).
Lou,
Thanks for pointing us to your book for more info. I do not mind at all that you came on here to explain your position a little in light of my post.
God bless you,
Bob
Larry,
Interesting, I hadn’t heard that criticism of MacArthur. It is easy to have statements misinterpreted, and I am sure that MacArthur would overtly deny that justification is based on sanctification. It behooves us all to study the issues out and seek to hold to the best position possible. I don’t claim to be an expert on MacArthur’s position. The position as advocated on Pulpit Live recently and also over at Pyromaniacs, seems like my own position, but again I have not read MacArthur much on this.
Thanks for pointing out what you did.
God bless you richly in Christ,
Bob Hayton