Hi Lou

While the T4G men may all hold to a Lordship view (I have no idea if that is true or not), it isn’t the central reason for their fellowship as can easily be seen by listening to the messages they preach. They are together for Calvinism, not for Lordship.

I don’t want this thread to turn into a Lordship discussion, so let’s leave the topic alone from here on out.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You wrote, “I disagree…that Lordship Salvation is the rallying point. The issue is much broader than that. The claims of Lordship Salvation are an overstatement of the truth made in zeal to combat easy believism.”

Fair enough-

1) I believe LS is a KEY rallying point, but not the only one. Think of the two major conferences- T4G and The Gospel Coalition. It is the LS interpretation that is held by virtually every member (top-to-bottom) in these fellowships and it is the LS gospel they are defending from within that sphere of fellowship. And we have Reformed IFB men who are moving toward and joining the T4G men around that so-called “pure [LS] gospel.”

2) These alleged “overstatements” have never been edited, explained, or eliminated by the men who make them. In fact, over the years, these statements have been reiterated and reinforced. These “overstatements” run like a thread through virtually all LS materials, which means to me they are not overstatements at all.

Lou

I’ve been in the hospital for much of the past two weeks, just home.

You wrote, “Who invented the terminology ‘lordship salvation?’ It’s sad that something called ‘lordship salvation’ would have to be something ‘bad.’ Could there be such a thing as ‘no-lordship salvation,’ where the Jesus you believe in you also deny as Lord?”

The theology known today as “Lordship Salvation” was previously known by other titles such as Mastery, Com¬mitment, or Discipleship Salvation. The label “Lordship Salvation” while first detested by JMac has been embraced by him to identify his peculiar interpretation of the Gospel, which is bad. Today, he uses “LS” without complaint or excuse.

LS advocates decry any Gospel message that does not conform to JMac’s LS as a “no-lordship” gospel.

You also wrote, “I agree with Don. Not all the Calvinists actually believe in ‘lordship salvation,’ for one.” Agreed; I speak to quite a number of Calvinists who reject LS

LM

Well that depends on what you label worldliness. VanTil would have been just fine with drinking and smoking — it was pretty common among the Dutch reformed. Are those things “worldly” to you?

He wouldn’t have much time for all the fundamentalists claiming to be VanTillians, or for the dispensationalists claiming to be reformed — that much is true. But I don’t know about the whole “worldliness” concern.

“PS: Van Til was wrong!”

He’d say the same about you.

“I don’t have any anti-Lordship buddies”

Sorry for not being clear. I was joking. You have been clear that you are not on an “anti-Lordship” crusade.

I don’t even know who Ray Comfort or Paul Washer are.

I do know that none of the presbyterian or reformed folks I know would ever use the term “Lordship Salvation”, and they are not a part of or aware of the “debate”. That’s an obsession of those downstream of fundamentalism and dispensationalism (which, yes includes John Macarthur).

Keith

Keith,

The real “neo calvinists” were Kuyper and his followers.

Whatever. The term is in current usage and I think Kuyper is dead.

VanTil thought that you should contend for what he understood to be consistent biblical Christianity — he understood that to be Christianity as incorporated in reformed theology.

True. And the modern neo-Calvinists are fine with all kinds of worldliness as long as it is reformed. I agree with PS that Van Til would have no time for the likes of them. I am just comparing the mindset. I see some similarity. (PS: Van Til was wrong!)

Of course we have to decide who to work with and who not to work with. It’s just not as linear and objective as you want it to be.

I don’t think it is linear and objective. It is often agonizing. But there are some fellows who are beyond the pale, and I think fundamentalists at least should be able to see that. By ‘fundamentalists’ here, I mean those who wish to identify themselves as fundamentalists.

I’m a presbyterian but I have no problem working with a Nazarene. Can some of your anti-Lordship buddies return the favor?

It would be nice if they could. I don’t have any anti-Lordship buddies, BTW. I think the Lordship salvation advocates have overstated the case and confused justification with sanctification, but I don’t see them as the spawn of Satan. Some of the anti-Lordship talk is over the top also, and tries to define the distinctions too narrowly.

There are, however, some fellows who are harming the church and confusing Christians by their promotion of Lordship ideas. I am thinking here of Ray Comfort, Paul Washer, and the like. But that is an issue for another day.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

“There is a similarity in that the important thing to contend for is Reformed thought, rather than Christianity.”

Don, you don’t really get it. VanTil thought that you should contend for what he understood to be consistent biblical Christianity — he understood that to be Christianity as incorporated in reformed theology. In other words, contending for reformed theology was to him what contending for the fundamentals is to you. I’m not commenting on which of you is right or wrong, I’m just trying to point out how to look at the question differently. Fundamentalist categories can’t be applied to VanTil, he didn’t think in those categories at all. They were foreign and meaningless to him.

“I don’t think you understand Fundamentalism.”

Well of course you don’t. But I do. I guess the jury’s out.

“We are interested in discerning where people stand because we have a duty to lead and protect the flocks God has given us.”

Yes, and you do that by multiplying taxonomies. You do that by trying to make fool proof categories. You want to be certain of who is ok and who is not ok and then make sure to avoid even getting near those who are clearly not ok. Of course we have to decide who to work with and who not to work with. It’s just not as linear and objective as you want it to be.

“They maintained a close relationship in spite of their sometimes sharp divisions.”

I don’t think that they always maintained a close relationship. I think there were years a part and then some reconciliation. But, I am not certain about that and it doesn’t really matter. My point was that they didn’t minister together because of their differences but they didn’t have animosity toward the other. I think that is still possible.

I’m a presbyterian but I have no problem working with a Nazarene. Can some of your anti-Lordship buddies return the favor?

Keith

Paul, I am not suggesting a direct connection between Van Til and the Neo-Calvinists, but rather an analogy. There is a similarity in that the important thing to contend for is Reformed thought, rather than Christianity.

As to Van Til’s narrowness, you can listen to recordings of him on Sermon Audio. It doesn’t take long to find out that he views his position as quite distinct from Fundamentalism.

~~~

Keith, I don’t think you understand Fundamentalism. It isn’t about picking teams at all. But we are interested in discerning where people stand because we have a duty to lead and protect the flocks God has given us.

I agree that the Wesleys and Whitefield mostly worked independently, but John Wesley preached Whitefield’s funeral. They maintained a close relationship in spite of their sometimes sharp divisions.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I have read the biography twice and I don’t get the correlation between Van Til and the Neo-Calvinists. Van Til was wedded to a consistent Reformed position and would have regarded the un-Reformed excesses of Piper and Driscoll with horror. He certainly did not give Karl Barth a pass just because he claimed to believe in predestination.

It is not true, as many claim, that Van Til was as narrow to those who did not share his Reformed Confessional distinctives. For instance, he is often accused of being hostile to premillennialism yet he worked happily alongside the premillennialist Erdman at Princeton and it was Van Til who proposed the Premillenialist J. Oliver Buswell as first moderator of the OPC.

BTW – I think Van Til was not Reformed enough as he was not consistently presuppositional in respect of the preservation of Scripture. But thats another deabte…

I’m not sure that the best and most significant leaders of the current coalitions have animosity toward arminians. They just aren’t arminians.

Keith

What I’m most not a fan of is the fundamentalist obsession with establishing teams (shall we say “coalitions”) and expecting everyone to pick a side and stick with it. The habit of trying to make everything neat, tidy, and easy.

For example the utter surprise exhibited here that someone who is not on the “fundamentalist” team practiced “separation”. There really is no reason for such surprise. Unless, of course, everyone must be on the New Evangelical Team (and perpetually focused on things that group focused on 50 years ago) or the Fundamentalist Team (likewise).

And, by the way, even the Neos weren’t against every kind of separation. They were just against the fundamentalists’ abuse of separation. But I digress . . .

You asked about VanTil. He’s fine and dandy. He was a remarkably original and brilliant philosopher and theologian. I have benefitted greatly from his work (actually from the work of his students). Further, I think that he and Machen were right in pointing out that the fundamentalists were trying to build some good things on some weak foundations. Their reformed foundations were better.

However, even though I’m no expert on him, it does seem that he had a tendency to be too dogmatic on certain things. Ironically even though he was no fan of the fundamentalists, in certain areas he acted like one. The politics and polemics of the Clark/VanTil controversy in the OPC were very reminiscent of fundamentalist infighting. And, some of VanTils disciples have been even worse than VanTil himself.

However, I think that a lot of this is due to temperament. It certainly does not appear to be an essential part of Kuyperian thought.

Well, enough rambling. Not sure I’ve answered the question, but I better stop now.

Keith