# "Lordship" Salvation, Free Grace, MacArthur, RT



## Maestroh (Mar 18, 2007)

As there are two other threads dealing with John MacArthur, I wanted to get the PB's view on the issue for which he is probably best-known (and I don't mean cessationism  - lordship salvation. Before beginning, please indulge me for a moment.

I am presently a student at Dallas Theological Seminary. The prime movers in the 'free grace' argument are former DTS professors Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and DTS grad (both Th.M. and Ph.D.) Bob Wilkin, who happens to reside here in Lewisville (TX).

Their view has, in fact, always been a minority view even on the campus of DTS (although the founder, LS Chafer, held essentially the same views) as it is today even among the profs. I fall more towards the MacArthur position on this issue and while I concur with a number of observations that he is not classically Reformed, he was a major impetus in my own journey from Pelgianism to so-called 'soft Calvinism.' 

So the question is this: where would most of you fall on this position? In the Hodges-Ryrie-Wilkin camp, the MacArthur camp, on another side or somewhere in between?

Those of you who have read "The Gospel Under Siege" by Zane Hodges probably saw a number of his task takings with Reformed theology. (I love how many people claim John Calvin held their view; if Calvin held every view I've ever heard imputed to him, he'd be a Pelgian-Arian-Baptist-Separated-Theologian, or PABST as in the beer .

I will sit back and watch for a bit, but please indulge me with your Reformed views. God bless you,

The Maestroh


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 18, 2007)

Maestroh said:


> As there are two other threads dealing with John MacArthur, I wanted to get the PB's view on the issue for which he is probably best-known (and I don't mean cessationism  - lordship salvation. Before beginning, please indulge me for a moment.
> 
> I am presently a student at Dallas Theological Seminary. The prime movers in the 'free grace' argument are former DTS professors Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and DTS grad (both Th.M. and Ph.D.) Bob Wilkin, who happens to reside here in Lewisville (TX).
> 
> ...



Well, Luke 9:23 is pretty clear(there are others, but I personally know this one from memory):

23And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 


John 14:15 says: 

15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."

Could this be anymore clear?


----------



## Maestroh (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: Some Thoughts*



Andrew P.C. said:


> Well, Luke 9:23 is pretty clear(there are others, but I personally know this one from memory):
> 
> 23And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.
> 
> ...



For starters, I agree with you. Here, however, is what they would say:

Luke 9:23 is a call to DISCIPLESHIP and NOT a call to salvation. Therefore, you can't use that to prove your case (speaking from their POV - not being provocative).

They would argue that the call to discipleship is distinct and separate from the call to believe.

Nevertheless, I think you and I concur.

thankx and looking forward to more replies..


maestroh


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 18, 2007)

Greetings:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, Acts 16:31.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## puritan lad (Mar 18, 2007)

See Free Grace or Cheap Grace?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 18, 2007)

I debated Wilkin in 04.

MacArthur's right.

Even moreso, the scriptures are right.

The FreeGracers approach of pitting John over all the other scriptures (esp. when passages like Luke 24 show that repentance IS a part of the gospel) should put folk on the altert to such antinomian theological nonsense immediately.


----------



## puritan lad (Mar 19, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> The FreeGracers approach of pitting John over all the other scriptures (esp. when passages like Luke 24 show that repentance IS a part of the gospel) should put folk on the altert to such antinomian theological nonsense immediately.


Correct. They ignore the fact the John 3 mainly concerns the new birth, not some vain "belief" that man can obtain through his own resources. John 3:16 simply identifies those who shall not perish as "whosoever believes". The verse, by itself, does not tell us how one comes to believe in the first place.


----------



## Chris (Mar 19, 2007)

Maestroh said:


> So the question is this: where would most of you fall on this position? In the Hodges-Ryrie-Wilkin camp, the MacArthur camp, on another side or somewhere in between?





I fall squarely in the 'Lordship' view, and honestly have no use whatsoever for the heretical 'free grace' nonsense.


----------



## puritan lad (Mar 20, 2007)

Chris said:


> I fall squarely in the 'Lordship' view, and honestly have no use whatsoever for the heretical 'free grace' nonsense.


Amen. Their "belief" is worthless. At least the belief of devils causes them to tremble.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 20, 2007)

Please bear in mind that the so-called "lordship salvation" controversy is mainly an intramural squabble among dispensationalists. It centers around the doctrine of the "carnal Christian" from Scofield's Notes. It was taught at Dallas Seminary and popularized by the largely dispensational Campus Crusade for Christ organization.

The carnal Christian doctrine generally does not find any favor among confessional Reformed folks. That being said, "lordship salvation" should not be an issue on PB.

It's odd that while MacArthur sees how absolutely awful the "carnal Christian" doctrine is, he can't seem to see the same for the pretrib rapture, which has far less support in Scrpture.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 20, 2007)

The irony with the 'free grace' is that many of them deny free grace by saying that we are capable of believing by ourselves and must make a 'decision for Christ' thus turning faith into a work of some kind. 

In any case, I am not sure I am in either camp but the classical, Reformed view is that good works are necessary in those that are saved but only as an inevitable consequence of their justification, and thus not part or parcel of the ground or instrument of our right standing by God's grace. The Heidelberg Catechism says:



> Q86: Since, then, we are redeemed from our misery by grace through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we do good works?
> 
> A86: Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we show ourselves thankful to God for His blessing, and that He be glorified through us; then also, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by the fruits thereof;and by our godly walk may win others also to Christ.



So sanctification is inevitable in those that are justified because salvation cannot be compartmentalized. Indeed Christ "became for us wisdom from God -- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." 1 Corinthians 1:30 

Therefore Calvin notes:



> “Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he “is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” [1 Corinthians 1:30]. Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.
> 
> But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [1 Corinthians 1:13].”
> -_Institutes_, 3.16.1



Any other view is either legalistic or antinomian.


----------

