# "Lordship Salvation"



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

What was the deal with that whole John MacArthur vs. Zane Hodges controversy over Lordship Salvation. Anyone who thinks that Zane Hodges might have been defending 'easy-believism'?


----------



## cih1355 (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> What was the deal with that whole John MacArthur vs. Zane Hodges controversy over Lordship Salvation. Anyone who thinks that Zane Hodges might have been defending 'easy-believism'?



The Lordship Salvation controversy has to do with whether or not repentance of sin and yielding to Christ's authority are involved in conversion. In the book, The Gospel According to the Apostles, MacArthur said, "The gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. That, in a sentence, is what 'lordship salvation' teaches." Zane Hodges believes that repentance and yielding to Christ's authority are not a part of conversion. Zane Hodges thinks that if repentance is involved in a person's coming to Christ, then justification is not by faith alone.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

Zane Hodges thinks that if repentance is involved in a person's coming to Christ, then justification is not by faith alone. [/quote]

I personally have both "The Gospel According to Jesus" by MacArthur and "Absolutely Free" by Zane Hodges. It's funny how before I was genuinely converted I supported and fought for Zane Hodges view and despised the day MacArthur was born. But now that God has revealed the truth to me and I have grown in my faith, I look at "Absolutely Free" and can't believe what a heretic the author is.

Bottom line...Jesus came to save us from our sin. 

Go Johnny Mac!!!


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 21, 2005)

While John is not reformed, he turned me on to Calvinism. His book "Hard to believe" is amazing. And yes, in my opinion Hodges was defending "easy believism"


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

That's interesting you say John MacArthur isn't Reformed. What do you mean? I guess I don't really know the full definition or implication of "Reformed." 

Is Mr. Hodges in trouble when he meets God?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 21, 2005)

MacArthur, being influenced by dispensationalism, would not be considered "Reformed" in any major way. Calvinist, sure, but not Reformed.


----------



## Jeremy (May 21, 2005)

Hi Gabe, 

Are you able to give me a solid definition of the term "reformed"? I think that would help me. I don't like to say I'm something when I'm not sure what it means. I love the Lord with all my heart and serve Him with gladness for His mighty works. But I don't think I ever considered what "reformed" means before telling people I'm "reformed". I just know that I fit in best with those that call themselves "reformed". 

Thanks,

Jeremy

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 21, 2005)

_Reformed_ means that you subscribe & relate to the term historically. That said, if you are not paedo baptist, you are not truly reformed.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Hi Gabe,
> 
> Are you able to give me a solid definition of the term "reformed"? I think that would help me. I don't like to say I'm something when I'm not sure what it means. I love the Lord with all my heart and serve Him with gladness for His mighty works. But I don't think I ever considered what "reformed" means before telling people I'm "reformed". I just know that I fit in best with those that call themselves "reformed".
> ...



In our days, "Reformed" has become a generic term for those who hold to the 5 points of Calvinism. But historically, Reformed includes a whole lot more than just being a Calvinist. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Bapists Confession (for Reformed Baptists) to get the historical and more accurate picture. The Reformed Faith includes not only the 5 points, but also the Regulative Principle of Worship and Covenant Theology (which the 5 points are actually grounded in).

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## turmeric (May 21, 2005)

Jeremy;

So you used to hate John MacA and like Zane Hodges, then you got saved? That sounds like an interesting story, care to elaborate?

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

Before total surrender to Christ would be more exacting in terms. If you want to consider that the point of true salvation, so be it. I wouldn't disagree.

But in reality, since we are elect before the foundation of the world, weren't we saved in God's mind then? We only come to receive the gift He had predetermined to give us.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Before total surrender to Christ would be more exacting in terms. If you want to consider that the point of true salvation, so be it. I wouldn't disagree.
> 
> But in reality, since we are elect before the foundation of the world, weren't we saved in God's mind then? We only come to receive the gift He had predetermined to give us.



No. In fact, we were at emnity w/ God and aliens:

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:


----------



## Arch2k (May 22, 2005)

I think that the Westminster Confession gives a GREAT summery of the role of repentance in the Christian life:




> Chapter 15:
> Of Repentance
> 15:1 Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace (Zec_12:10; Act_11:18), the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ (Mar_1:15; Luk_24:47; Act_20:21).
> 15:2 By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God (Psa_51:4; Psa_119:128; Isa_30:22; Jer_31:18, Jer_31:19; Eze_18:30, Eze_18:31; Eze_36:31; Joe_2:12, Joe_2:13; Amo_5:15; 2Co_7:11), purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments(2Ki_23:25; Psa_119:6, Psa_119:59, Psa_119:106; Luk_1:6).
> ...


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> ...



Yes that's true. But we believers were foreordained to eternal life in Christ before we were born. Even though we were born strangers and aliens and God's enemies, before the foundation of the world He predestined us unto adoption as His sons according to the good pleasure of His will (Ephesians 1:4-5). I Peter 1:2 also explains that we are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

Also, the Westminster Confession is amazing.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 22, 2005)

We were predestined to hear and understand. Until we did though, we were enemies of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Jeremy,
Here is what you said:


> But in reality, since we are elect before the foundation of the world, weren't we saved in God's mind then? We only come to receive the gift He had predetermined to give us.



We were not saved until the time we were actually converted. Prior to that, we were at emnity and enemies of God. Reconciliation requires justification. We were not justified until we were converted. Election does not change that. 

Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

I guess I need to take classes on explaining myself. What I said was, 'saved in God's mind' not 'saved' and that's it. What I should have said was 'chosen to be saved' even though at one time we were not actually saved. 

Or better put, even though before conversion we did not please God and His wrath abode upon us, He had in mind to reconcile us through the death of His Son, slaying the enmity between us. So in God's mind, there was never any question as to who would be saved. It was settled in His mind before the foundation of the world. That's my understanding of the phrase, "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" "“Ephesians 1:4. Because we were his enemies and He could not look at our sin, He chose us in Christ who did please Him. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

Jeremy,
But we are not saved in Gods eye's until we are saved. We may be elected unto salvation, but that is not the same thing.


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeremy,
> But we are not saved in Gods eye's until we are saved. We may be elected unto salvation, but that is not the same thing.



I take it you don't subscribe to divine election.

Please take a look at my post prior to your last. I said "What I should have said was 'chosen to be saved' even though at one time we were not actually saved." 

There are people who think that God is waiting around for man to choose Him. This makes God's sovereignty dependent on us. That is a picture of a needy God. This is as impossible as it is for dead people to raise themselves to life again. He deliberately and definitely appointed His elect unto salvation before the foundation of the world apart from anything He foresaw in them, but based solely upon the work of Christ. 

God is not nervous that His elect might or might not be saved, because He is the one who saves them. He's in total control.

He does not, however, pull us around against our will. This is a mystery and a work of the Holy Spirit that is beyond explanation I believe. We just have to trust what God says, that He has chosen His elect, but at the same time...whosoever will may come to Him. Figure that out. ??


----------



## Solo Christo (May 22, 2005)

Jeremy,

I think it's pretty safe to say that Scott believes in divine election. You may want to check out his site, it's pretty good.

I believe what he is getting at is that there is a big difference in the eyes of God between when a sinner is elected (before the foundation of the world) and when he is finally saved and his sins are covered in the blood of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> Jeremy,
> 
> I think it's pretty safe to say that Scott believes in divine election. You may want to check out his site, it's pretty good.
> ...



Exactly. Until the blood of Christ is applied in our behalf, we are not justified; hence, we are not saved. To be elect means that God has in fact ordained the day when we will be _actually_ converted and saved. All this occurs within _time_. Men are elected outside of time; before the foundation of the world. There's a vast difference!

Jeremy writes:


> There are people who think that God is waiting around for man to choose Him. This makes God's sovereignty dependent on us. That is a picture of a needy God.



Jeremy, You're kidding, right? I own this board; the requirements are subscription to either the WCF or LBC of 1689. What you describe is a form of Arminianism. I would have been long ago burned at the stake if i was Arminian.
Clinically, this is what is known as synergism vs monergism..........Man choosing or God choosing.



> This is as impossible as it is for dead people to raise themselves to life again. He deliberately and definitely appointed His elect unto salvation before the foundation of the world apart from anything He foresaw in them, but based solely upon the work of Christ.



Our election is not based upon "the work of Christ". Men are elected because of Gods grace alone. 

Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 



[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritanhead (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> _Reformed_ means that you subscribe & relate to the term historically. That said, if you are not paedo baptist, you are not truly reformed.
> [Edited on 5-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Oh well, Scott says I'm not Reformed... I guess I'm an _unleaded Baptist_ then.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 22, 2005)

> What was the deal with that whole John MacArthur vs. Zane Hodges controversy over Lordship Salvation. Anyone who thinks that Zane Hodges might have been defending 'easy-believism'?



Jeremy,

A better, truly reformed book on this very issue, and responding to both these books (above) dangerous short fallings over the issue is "Christ the Lord". I highly recommend it for a true look at what is going on and the mess this ridiculous debate has made. Nothing less than the Gospel has been at stake.

Both their dispensational categories has confused the issue completely, though Hodges is on Planet Pluto. Dispensationalist are absolutely horrible when it comes to logical categories and this is why the confusion abounds. I would only recommend either of the two above books to 1. See what the internal Disp. debate is about, 2. Why both blow it relative to reformed theology.

Ldh


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

Jeremy, You're kidding, right? I own this board; the requirements are subscription to either the WCF or LBC of 1689.[/quote]

Is this something Jesus would say?

To be more accurate, God owns this board.


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

Well, Scott didn't call anyone a viper or whited sepulchre yet, he's actually being milder than Jesus was at times. You said (perhaps you mis-spoke) that Scott didn't believe in divine election! Is the Pope Catholic?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2005)

It is not our duty to think eternally as you are thinking Jeremy, at least not in a practical theological sense. We are responsible to repent and believe in the resurrection, and until we do so, we are at enmity with God and absolutely *not* justified until that point in time. We don't find the elect and then leave them alone because they are elect - we preach the gospel of repentance unto faith in Jesus Christ, with the prayer that God would open the hearts of sinful men and convert them, adopt them as His own, and justify them in Christ's blood. Even if you preach the gospel to an elect person, they are not justified until they repent and believe, and we have no way of knowing who is/isn't elect to begin with, so why worry about it. 



> "œThe secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
> Deuteronomy 29:29 (ESV)


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy,
Let me clearify. What I meant was that since I 'own this board', and since you are a member, you know we have requirements; This was explained prior to joining. I am sure you read the requirements-no? These requirements are in place to keep the like mindedness, i.e. the WCf or LBC. These creeds are Calvinistic. There is not a speck of Arminianism there. So, since I, as well as the other admins, have placed these requirements here, one might _know_ that none of us subscribe to anything even remotely Arminian. 

Does this help? 



[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## govols (May 23, 2005)

Badges - We don't need no stinkin badges.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

Just for the record, the statement was made in relation to the possibility that someone whom has a reformed discussion list could possibly have Arminian convictions.


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeremy,
> But we are not saved in Gods eye's until we are saved. We may be elected unto salvation, but that is not the same thing.



My bad. The confusion was coming from your statement, 'We may be elected unto salvation...'

I was aware of who you are...That's why I was flabergasted at a "perhaps" kind of statement like that. But the more I think about it, I think I was missing your point.

I think everyone was missing my point as well. Just for the record, Gabe, Scott and everyone else...

I understand that our salvation comes at a point in time ordained by God and that until then we are His enemies and unsaved on our way to hell.

So let no one think that I subscribe to some form of heresy that we are saved before we confess Christ. 

I simply was trying to say that the salvation of the God's elect...from an eternal perspective...was planned before creation. God had to rescue us and even while we were yet sinners...Christ died for us.

I'm not here to cause problems. I'm here basically to learn. I don't really have a consistent interaction with Reformed thinking Christians. As you see, my home church is an E-Free church. I don't really go there anymore and am kind of in limbo right now. In my area there really aren't any Reformed churches. 

So I don't purport to be a know it all. Actually, the more I grow in my faith and the better I get to know the Lord, the quieter I get. I am realizing more and more who I'm dealing with...Almighty God. His Word is an infinite source of information. My mind is finite and I am starting to heed God's request from Ecclesiastes "don't be too hasty to utter anything before the Lord" (paraphrase).

Hope this helps introduce me better.

In Christ,

Jeremy


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy,
Your post is most gracious. Please forgive me for being curt. We want you here. The Puritan Board is a community of loving people; as well, we are all learning.

Thanks for your participation brother.


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

No problem. It was my error. You have nothing to be sorry for.

I look forward to further fellowship with my brothers in Christ!

In Him,

Jeremy


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy,

I don't know how close these would be, but I found one RCUS (Providence) congegation in your area code ((570) 966-5992) and three OPC's and two PCA's 

Check the church directories for these confessional Reformed denominations:

http://www.naparc.org/

rsc


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

Thank you my friend. I will look into this and call the #s.

Will you please pray for my wife that God will turn her heart towards the reformed faith. She's still attached to the E-Free church and that could be a problem trying to go to a reformed church. 

But God can work miracles can't He.

J

My wife's name is Amanda.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Jeremy]


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Thank you my friend. I will look into this and call the #s.
> 
> Will you please pray for my wife that God will turn her heart towards the reformed faith. She's still attached to the E-Free church and that could be a problem trying to go to a reformed church.
> ...



Jeremy,

The PCA church in Moosic is pastored by Steve Wilson, a friend of mine. I just bumped into him recently at a Peacemakers seminar.

http://www.hopenepa.org/

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## tdowns (May 23, 2005)

*Scott Sorry.*



> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> No problem. It was my error. You have nothing to be sorry for.
> 
> I look forward to further fellowship with my brothers in Christ!
> ...



Jeremy, I think you are wrong here, your posts were great, information seeking statements and questions. We don't all have it all figured out in our minds, let alone have the practice to phrase it to perfection.

No offense to Scott, but Scott did have something to be sorry for and he apologized which was nice. I can't hold a candle to him or prob. anybody else on this board and wouldn't challenge him on doctrinal issues; but in reading your initial posts it was obvious to me where you were coming from and Scott went on the attack like a wolverine. What he said was accurate, but not in gentleness or respect. I think it's good he recognized it, and apologized, it might not of been to me, but I accept the apology.

I love this site, and Scott and every moderator on here, but I think an elect person not yet educated in reformed ways would have been put off, hopefully they take the time to read the entire post, because this is a great place to learn, growing in the knowledge of the faith, the key word there is growing.


----------



## Myshkin (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Jeremy,
> 
> A better, truly reformed book on this very issue, and responding to both these books (above) dangerous short fallings over the issue is "Christ the Lord"....
> ...



Is this the book by Mike Horton? Could you expand a little on this? By no means do I side with Hodges. However, since the time I first heard MacArthur until now, I have thought that he is very heavy on law without an equal emphasis on the gospel. I come away from his books and sermons feeling like I am back in my perfectionistic methodist days when I was younger. Someone mentioned in another post that the reason the puritans emphasized the law so much was because they emphasized the gospel just as much too, but when I listen to JMac I do not sense this balance. Did he overreact to the opposite extreme form Hodges? Is this just me or is this what this book (Horton?) talks about?


----------



## Batman (May 23, 2005)

RAS...I can't comment on the book, but after attending JMac's church for four years, I fully agree that the emphasis leans toward law/works. Many will dispute this, but it is a well thought out opinion based upon many years under his teaching. 

As for TDsurf's observation...he's right on the money. I haven't posted in a couple of months due to the fact that the last time I had a question about the reformed faith, I was shot down by a mental giant who didn't show much grace (and no...it wasn't Scott). Other's came back and guided me toward the answer I was looking for...which I appreciate...but it takes but one impatient response to scare some away. As with Jeremy, I'm learning...and I come to this site because of the knowledge many of you have to share...thank you to those who share gracefully.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

Just for the record, dialoging in an internet forum is at times ambiguous. There are times when we say something that is graceful but comes across as untempered. This comes with the territory. My comments earlier were at best curt; This I apologized for. 

In regards to being graceful: Is it graceful when God kills his children for taking the supper erroneously? Or when He chastens us? Or when we get rebuked? Is it graceful when I take the rod out on my daughter Zoe?

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

Yes, Scott, especially the last example. It may not be pleasant for either of you but it's certainly gracious. Chasten your children while there is still hope, to make a bad paraphrase.

Chastening, as you know, is not judgment, it's gracious.

We need to be gracious, but sometimes it's hard to distinguish between a pot-stirrer and a person who is honestly struggling and needs help. Especially on the Internet it's hard to tell, and I think mistakes get made.

MacArthur is reacting to the Antinomian Dispensationalists. If you read the book, Faith Works, by Johny Mac, I think that will become clear.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 23, 2005)

RAS,



> Did he overreact to the opposite extreme form Hodges? Is this just me or is this what this book (Horton?) talks about?



I love JM, but his book was honestly a bit ambigious concerning several issues surrounding the Gospel and re-defining saving faith. He actually defines it by a non-reformed formula and ends up defining it as "by works", albeit, I think, accidentally or really not thinking through what he was saying. Not to quibble about mere words, but as John Calvin said he would not quibble about a word if the whole of the Christian religion did not turn on it (re, Justification). But I don't want to get into a debate over JM, like I said I love a lot of his ministry. But yes, the book I recommended was edited by M. Horton and several other reformed/lutheran persons on this very issue.

I'm not certain if he (JM) over-reacted, which is understandable considering Hodges completely outside the orthodox pale foolishness, or the whole disp. confusion over Law/Gospel, or just bad unprecise language or all of the above. None-the-less, I highly recommend getting Horton's book for a true and careful perspective as they flesh out these details with much grace and accuracy. Actually it is not his book, he was just chief editor.

Ldh


----------



## Batman (May 24, 2005)

"In regards to being graceful: Is it graceful when God kills his children for taking the supper erroneously? Or when He chastens us? Or when we get rebuked? Is it graceful when I take the rod out on my daughter Zoe?"

I hate beating a dead horse...but this is taking what I wrote totally out of context...even misrepresenting what I said. If a guy is blantantly trying to "stir the pot," which I think is obvious most of the time, then take him to task. I've watched some, including myself, ask an honest question and get shot down by an impatient response, which lacks grace. That's all I'm saying...and you know what? Sometimes that'll happen...and we gotta' show grace to the guy who's not showing grace...so I realize it goes both ways. No hard feelings.


----------

