# Lordship Salvation



## CharlieJ (Jan 20, 2009)

I was greatly helped to Reformed theology through the works of John MacArthur, particularly _The Gospel According to the Apostles_ and _Hard to Believe_. However, I am beginning to wonder about some specific statements, as well as some emphases in his work. 

I have read Horton's _Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation_ and profited from it. However, I still cannot clearly articulate the Reformed position vis a vis LS, and would appreciate conversation with someone of mature theological reflection who has worked through this issue.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 20, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> I was greatly helped to Reformed theology through the works of John MacArthur, particularly _The Gospel According to the Apostles_ and _Hard to Believe_. However, I am beginning to wonder about some specific statements, as well as some emphases in his work.
> 
> I have read Horton's _Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation_ and profited from it. However, I still cannot clearly articulate the Reformed position vis a vis LS, and would appreciate conversation with someone of mature theological reflection who has worked through this issue.



part of the problem may be that Lordship Salvation is only really "an issue" in dispensational circles, where the unbiblical "Carnal Christian" concept has some sway. So there aren't really many discussions of the idea of LS from the Reformed community, per se. 

My short and sweet presentation of the idea is this - if Jesus is not your Lord, He is not your Savior, either. In Reformed circles, it would be laughable to think that one can regard Jesus as having died for one's sins, but not strive daily for denial of self, and service to the Lord in obedience and submission to Him as king. It wouldn't ever occur to someone with a Reformed understanding of salvation and honor of God to construct a "carnal Christian" concept.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2009)

I would just say that JMcA has to deal with a particular tension created by his view of the NC/church.

One reason for the the Lordship-Controversy in the first place has to do with an irreconcilable tension between those who recognize faith as the only indispensable criteria for belonging to the church; and those who recognized reformation of life as indispensable, and possibly the only valid, externally visible criteria.

If the correct way of understanding the relation between these two aspects is not held to, then antinomianism will result from the first, and legalism from the second. Obviously, many persons within the Baptist-world, who see themselves more in one camp or the other, are still both seeking to fight against sliding into the morass of one or the other.

Consider this set of questions:*Is the church* a picture of an ideal: a "perfect" (Spiritual) society, actually made of imperfect people (*a society of sinners*)?

*Or is the church* a picture of an ideal: "perfect" people (*a society of saints*), actually an imperfect (mixed) society?​The former is the historic Presbyterian (WCF) view. It has an ongoing place for the law and the gospel.

The latter is the standard Baptist view. And "saints" either don't need the concept of "Lordship" preached to them, or they have got to have Lordship drilled into them.

Perhaps this explanation can account for some of JMcA's statements. BTW, I like JMcA generally. I do think he is trying to offer a necessary correction to antinomianism. But he's doing it from a standpoint inside the same basic frame as his particular opposition in that book.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 20, 2009)

I too came to reformed theology and the PB through "Hard to believe". What specifics are you looking for help with?


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 20, 2009)

We need to be careful not to attempt to label this under specific teaching or view it with blinders. One cannot paint with confining brush strokes in regard to LS vs. easy-believism/antinomianism. Dispensationalism and Baptists hardly have a monopoly on antinomianism or legalism. It's rampant in our Congregationalist, covenant and Presbyterian churches as well.

The confusion lies in how many perceive LS as viewing works as causative. In reality, LS embraces the necessity of a life changed by the Gospel if one is truly given new life. This renders LS a good an necessary result of an inner reality. Simply put, if Jesus is Lord then you will habitually obey. Your fruit betrays your heart. If your fruit is habitually unrighteousness then Jesus doesn't know/never knew you. John the Apostle gives a better treatment in 1 John than MacArthur does, but MacArthur's work made headways where some had failed to see the verity of 1 John.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 20, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> We need to be careful not to attempt to label this under specific teaching or view it with blinders. One cannot paint with confining brush strokes in regard to LS vs. easy-believism/antinomianism. Dispensationalism and Baptists hardly have a monopoly on antinomianism or legalism. It's rampant in our Congregationalist, covenant and Presbyterian churches as well.


I don’t know how rampant it is, but the difference is that within dispensationalist/baptistic circles the antinomian view that leads to the carnal Christian doctrine is foundational to the system. The system results in congregations that are proudly and defiantly antinomian. 

Presbyterians, etc. are confessionally both anti-antinomian and anti-legalistic. If some congregation lapses into either extreme it I from dereliction of duty, not by design.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 20, 2009)

> However, I still cannot clearly articulate the Reformed position vis a vis LS, and would appreciate conversation with someone of mature theological reflection who has worked through this issue.



Having come from the Lordship salvation camp to Christ and reformed theology, this is how I see the difference:

At the root of the LS position is arminianism. One chooses to come to Christ, puts their faith in Christ, and the works follow suit. However, works are also a result of choice and one's will. In the extreme LS groups, grace is actually a "dirty word". One does not make needs known, one relies on self to live holy before God. 

In reformed thinking, Christ is our righteousness, we rely in His grace and our works are a result of His deep working in our lives. Without Him, we can do nothing, literally. Christ is the Lord of our lives, but it is His power and grace that enables us to live holy lives.

Though the rhetoric in both views is almost the same, it plays out differently, because in LS there is no reliance on the grace of God.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jan 20, 2009)

One unhealthy tendency I have noticed among those who are fighting for the LS view is the extreme apprehension to recognize anyone as a believer.

For instance, when this person meets a baptized member in good standing with a church, they basically reject these criteria, and begin to analyze the person to find the "real signs" of being a believer, which are usually whatever peculiarities the individual is fond of.

In one of John Newton's letters, he stated that he welcomed anyone as a believer upon their profession, and only doubted their profession if they gave him sufficient reason. I have tried to follow that model, since I know the horrible tension of feeling like you have to prove yourself to every person in the church.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 20, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps this explanation can account for some of JMcA's statements. BTW, I like JMcA generally. I do think he is trying to offer a necessary correction to antinomianism. But he's doing it from a standpoint inside the same basic frame as his particular opposition in that book.



I would like to explore this idea. I've been a Baptist my whole life, and in the last year I've noticed that this is mostly a Baptist thing. Perhaps you can help me change my frame.



JBaldwin said:


> At the root of the LS position is arminianism.



I'm not sure if Arminianism is the right word (maybe it is), but I do see a sort of "decisionism." To me, it seems that the LS stance operates on two separate propositions. The first is that real believers will evidence fruit, as Wannabee said. The second is that saving faith either is or includes a commitment (promise?) to God to actively submit to His Lordship. The problem as I see it, is that faith looks outside of oneself, but this "commitment" seems to be offering something from oneself.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 20, 2009)

The controversy over "Lordship Salvation" was (is) basically an issue of Calvinism's "Perseverance of the Saints" versus the once-saved-always-saved "Easy Believism" resulting from a dispensationalist view of regeneration, sanctification, and eternal security. 

John MacArthur is a dispensationalist who finds himself butting heads with the logical outworking of what he claims to be his own theology. Non Lordship proponents like Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie were merely being consistent dispensationalists!

The dispensational understanding was set forth, perhaps clearer than ever before, in the following publications. In summary, the teaching is as follows:

The new life given _in response to_ man's faith may or may not be manifested in an individuals life. He may not bear any fruit at all, though he _ought_ to. In any event, the salvation and eternal security of the person are unquestioned. Ref. Charles C. Ryrie, _So Great a Salvation_.

Anyone who suggests that a lack of fruit may indicate a lack of saving faith (as MacArthur did) is perverting the gospel. If someone sincerely says he believes, by definition he savingly believes. Ref. Zane Hodges, _Absolutely Free_. Here, CharlieJ, is your link to "decisionism."

I think there is a fundamental difference in regard to the basis of our assurance. To the No-Lordship camp, the basis of our assurance is objective only. Whereas I would suggest the Reformed recognize both objective and subjective elements to the basis of our assurance.

Objectively, assurance is based on the promises of God. Subjectively, assurance is confirmed by our vital relationship with the God who makes the promises. On the one hand, the Word of God makes it clear that true believers (those who are in Christ) have eternal life. On the other hand the question is, "Are we true believers? Are we in Christ?" This is a legitimate question; for Scripture gives ample evidence that there is a believing which is not unto salvation.

Most of us see the first epistle of John as dealing with the subjective aspects of our assurance:

By this we know that we are in Him, 2:5
By this we shall know that we are of the truth, 3:19
By this we know that He abides in us, 3:24
By this we know that we abide in Him, 4:13

The Non-Lordship camp (specifically in Zane Hodges) argues that 1 John is not dealing with the question of eternal life and assurance, but merely with a question of being in or out of fellowship.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 20, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> The controversy over "Lordship Salvation" was (is) basically an issue of Calvinism's "Perseverance of the Saints" versus the once-saved-always-saved "Easy Believism" resulting from a dispensationalist view of regeneration, sanctification, and eternal security.



I am asserting (as did Michael Horton) that this does NOT seem to be all the LS controversy is about. My last post delineated two propositions that seem to me to define LS. The first is what you just said, and is not an issue.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 20, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > The controversy over "Lordship Salvation" was (is) basically an issue of Calvinism's "Perseverance of the Saints" versus the once-saved-always-saved "Easy Believism" resulting from a dispensationalist view of regeneration, sanctification, and eternal security.
> ...



I read Horton some time back and remember a favorable concurrence with him on this, but can't recall specifics at this time. I would suggest that the crux of the issue between LS and NLS is the _basis of assurance_, plain and simple.


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 20, 2009)

I thought the controversy between the advocates of Lordship Salvation and the non-Lordship Salvation position has to do with the nature of conversion or the nature of saving faith. Advocates of the Lordship Salvation position say that a person's conversion involves faith, repentance, surrender, commitment, and submitting to Christ's lordship. Advocates of the non-Lordship Salvation position such as Charles Ryrie or Zane Hodges say that a person's conversion does not involve repentance, surrender, commitment, or submitting to Christ's lordship. Conversion only consists of placing one's faith in Christ. After a person becomes a Christian, he repents of his sin, surrenders himself to Christ, and submits to Christ's lordship.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 20, 2009)

I understood the root of the issue to be:

The NLS position is based on the idea that belief is merely mental assent to the Gospel proposition, all you need is the mental assent and that is saving faith.

The LS position is based on the belief that faith involves a change of heart if the faith is to be salvic, not just mental assent.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 20, 2009)

Arminius was a dispensationalist? Maybe he was Baptist?
Finney was a dispensationalist and/or a Baptist?
How about Pelagius?
Surely the Pharisees, some of the greatest legalists in history, must have been dispensationalists. We know they weren't Baptists!
The Hellenists must have been both.

This is tiring. It is a bit incredible that so many of the contemporary issues and heresies are often pinned on the dispensationalists and those who hold to a different understanding of the covenant as though that were some new cause of apostasy. History simply won't bear this out. There is nothing new under the sun, and these tendencies have nothing to do with these doctrinal differences any more than gnosticism is a result of dispensationalism. But I'm sure someone will pin that one on Dispensationalists too. The ills of dispensationalism are symptoms of apostasy in general, not inherent in the root of the theology. I would talk to the local Presbyterian pastor about these things, but she and I don't really see eye to eye on things.

I would say Washer has a better perspective on LS.
[video=youtube;wCbYrdxNUwU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCbYrdxNUwU[/video]


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 20, 2009)

Thanks, Joe. Paul is a good preacher!


----------



## randog (Jan 20, 2009)

I recently left my church because of the no-lordship stance that they hold to. It is a false gospel and I have written much about it on my website. I would refer you to The True Gospel vs. The False Gospel Thlibo for starts.

Essentially the no-lordship stance denies Jesus as Lord. The good news is a free ticket out of heaven rather than the reconciliation of man to God.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 20, 2009)

OK, let me try to clarify. Other people may have more general questions, but I am not asking about LS vs. non-LS. I have read almost every single available piece of literature by both sides of the debate and have written papers on the controversy on both the undergraduate and graduate level.

I am asking whether Lordship Salvation as propogated by MacArthur is actually a clear and balanced presentation of the gospel from a Reformed perspective. In Michael Horton's book _Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation_, several authors pointed out errors and exaggerations in both MacArthur and his opponents.

I am asking for help in evaluating MacArthur in the light of historic Reformed theology. Some of my concerns involve possible confusions of law and gospel, as well as a definition of faith that underplays the extraspective nature of faith and verges on its own form of decisionism.

So, I'm looking for input from people who -
1) are already aware of these potential discrepancies 
2) have spent some time reflecting on and evaluating them
3) can help me connect ideas so that I can ask and answer more precise questions


----------



## randog (Jan 20, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> OK, let me try to clarify. Other people may have more general questions, but I am not asking about LS vs. non-LS. I have read almost every single available piece of literature by both sides of the debate and have written papers on the controversy on both the undergraduate and graduate level.
> 
> I am asking whether Lordship Salvation as propogated by MacArthur is actually a clear and balanced presentation of the gospel from a Reformed perspective. In Michael Horton's book _Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation_, several authors pointed out errors and exaggerations in both MacArthur and his opponents.
> 
> ...



Sorry:

There is a book review of MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" in the current issue of "Modern Reformation" The article is by J.V Fesko Modern Reformation - Articles

There is great criticism for MacArthur's book primarily for lack of scholarship and failure to address the underlying issue(s) at hand.


----------

