Home > Apologetics > Lordship Salvation is Biblical

Lordship Salvation is Biblical

There is a move within Christendom known as ‘Dispensationalism’. This movement is widely popular among the western churches of the world; namely among those who identify themselves as Christians in America. This movement has gained vast popularity because of its emphasis on the doctrines concerning eschatology. The word eschatology is a word that is defined as ‘a study of things related to the end times’.

What most do not realize concerning this movement known as dispensationalism, is that it is very antinomian at the core of its teachings. The word ‘antinomianism’ simply means ‘against law’. The proponents of dispensationalism are of the sort who teach that the law has simply been done away with in Christ. They proclaim that all the laws of the Old Testament, namely the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws have been abolished. This type teaching has caused some serious damage to the doctrines of sanctification and how Christians are to walk and live their lives since coming to know Christ.

For instance a new doctrine has been added to the scriptures that never had existed until the rise of dispensationalism. This doctrine is a doctrine that distinguishes between three types of persons in the world. The first type of person would be the natural man. The natural man doesn’t know Christ, but lives after the sinful nature that he is born with. The second type person is a carnal Christian. A carnal Christian is one who has come to the knowledge of Christ and has accepted him as saviour, yet doesn’t allow him to reign as Lord in his life. This carnal Christian can live in all types of heinous sins and still be a Christian because he is just one who is still living after the flesh and not the spirit. The third type person would be the spiritual Christian. This is the Christian who has accepted Christ as both Saviour and Lord. Though he may at times still sin, nonetheless he allows Christ to be the Lord of his life.

The Bible knows of no such doctrines as I described above. The Bible distinguishes between the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man is unsaved, the spiritual man is one who has accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord.

A debate arose within dispensational circles between Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges and John MacArthur over this subject. Ryrie and Hodge were of the belief that one could accept Christ as Saviour, but not Lord, while still living in an unchanged state. MacArthur took the opposite approach and defended the historic Protestant position that conversion is an act of God that will cause the sinner to affirm Christ as both Saviour and Lord and a changed life will be the result of this affirmation. Only within a belief system such as dispensationalism would such a debate arise.

Below I want to show you a video by James White who is teaching on the fact that “Lordship Salvation is the Biblical Historic Protestant Teaching.”

Advertisements
  1. June 28, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Hey brother,
    The teaching you describe–antinomianism, anti-Lordship salvation–are things I reject. Would it be better to label the heresies you describe as Cheap Grace theology rather than dispensationalism itself? I do admit, that these beliefs are more popular around dispensationalists’ circle. I just thought it’s strange to label them as Dispensationalism when John MacArthur is a self-professing dispensationalist.

    • June 28, 2012 at 4:09 pm

      I appreciate your comment friend.

      I labeled what I described “dispensationalism” and not “cheap grace” because I wasnt describing “cheap grace” per se, but describing “dispensationalism”. The debate over ‘Lordship Salvation’ didnt originate within just any ole system that held to the concept of cheap grace, but originated within dispensationalism itself.

      One thing that dispensationalist try to do is distance themselves from the founding fathers of this system. Yet they can’t do it. If they are going to hold to the system, then they have to admit that earlier dispensationalists doctrines were nonbiblical. All one has to do is read some Lewis Sperry Chafer and they will discover semi-pelagianism and antinomianism.

      As for MacArthur is concerned: I commend him for standing against the idea of cheap grace, nevertheless I believe all his doctrines are permeated by dispensationalism because he has not rightly understood his New Testament. He is trying to interpret the Old Testament instead of listening to Christ and the apostles interpretation of it.

      That much said—-I am no big fan of MacArthur. You wouldnt believe the people I debate with on eschatology who will not deal with the New Testament passages I mention, but instead appeal to the authority of MacArthur and claim that MacArthur has nailed the nail in the coffin of amillennialism.

      Thanks again.

  2. Steve Mateuszow
    October 21, 2012 at 6:56 am

    Thanks for the blog. I agree, there is much false security under the guise of “eternal security”, or “once saved always saved”, as opposed to the true perseverence of the saints that is clearly taught with true saving faith, which is monergistic. There are some horrible ministries and web-sites out there, that wrongly divide the word of truth. However, lets not lose focus on the gospel message. Too often, Christians get into heated battles over peripheral subjects, that though they may be of some importance, cause division and take away from the message of the cross. As ambassadors for Christ in the ministry of reconciliation, the world is and it’s prince never miss an opportunity at ridiculing Christianity, especially when there is obvious dissension. By the way, I find it somewhat ironic that you have a clip of Dr. James White, who I have utmost respect for, who happens to be a dear friend of Phil Johnson. In case you are not aware, Phil Johnson is in charge of the ministry of Grace To You, which is John MacArthur’s ministry.

    • October 22, 2012 at 2:05 pm

      Thank you for your comment. I agree with you on the perseverance of the saints, friend.

      About the last part of your response, however I can’t see why having a clip by James White just because he is friends with Phil Johnson, who might work with MacArthur should even be a problem. I am not a fan of MacArthur, simply because of his dispensational views, nevertheless I have perused him, even when I was writing against Charismatic doctrines. I will use truth wherever I find it.

      • Steve Mateuszow
        October 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm

        My name is Steve, and you totally missed my point. As redeemed love gifts that the Father has predestined to give to His Son before the foundation of the world, we are privileged with the ministry of reconciliation and are Christ’s ambassadors to a world that lies in the lap of the evil one. We are also under close scrutiny of a world and it’s prince who look for any opportunity to ridicule and disdain the body of Christ. The fact that one might be an “Amillennialist , Premillennialist, or Postmillennialist, or whether or not they believe in a literal future for the nation of Israel, is something that while important, should not cause dissension, or take away from the message of the cross. There is one gospel and there has only ever been one way of salvation and that is in the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. While I disagree on some fine points with some, including John MacArthur, the integrity of the life of the pastor and the truth of the gospel outweigh peripheral disagreements. Let us not forget this truth, lest Satan should get an advantage over us.

      • October 22, 2012 at 4:58 pm

        I agree that our eschatology should not cause division, nevertheless when some redefine who the heir is to the Abrahamic promises and redefine who true Israel consist of, then they have distorted the gospel.

      • Steve Mateuszow
        October 22, 2012 at 6:20 pm

        I couldn’t agree more. All are one in Christ Jesus, and there is no distinction, Christ is all and in all. When someone teaches that there is more than one way of salvation which has always been through faith alone, this is heretical and needs to be exposed for the lie that it is.
        Blessings to you.

      • October 22, 2012 at 6:53 pm

        I agree with you, brother. I to at one time was held under the sway of dispensationalism. Though I affirmed one way of salvation and though I affirmed it was by faith alone, nonetheless in the final outcome my doctrines, at the time, necessarily led to more than one way. This is because I kept stating that the natural seed was the chosen of God and that one day, God will turn back to them and they would inherit the land; while the Church inherited heaven.

        I am now covenantal and believe that even if God brings the whole (natural Israel) in, then they will be part of the Church.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: