WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION?
Part Two
SO IS THERE A GOSPEL THAT IS A FALSE GOSPEL?
‘‘‘‘
The John MacArthur’s Lordship Position vs
The Lou Martuineac’s Position

MY SYNOPSIS CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE GOSPEL,
{A brief outline or general view and a record of events in the order of their occurrence}

PRESENTING THE GOSPEL WITH A VIEW TO CHRIST’S LORDSHIP

What changed in my teaching was to present the text in its context as clearly as I could. To give as clear an interpretation of the portion of scripture as I could, and then I stepped back as it were, and said "Lord, I have done my best in presenting the Word, now it’s your turn." That was my invitation.

So the Lordship position combined with the Doctrine of Grace, known as Calvinism:

• Calvinism teaches that salvation is initiated by God, not by man (John 6:44). It is wholly a work of God in which He imparts new life to the spiritually dead sinner (Eph. 2:1-10). Conversion––which includes regeneration, faith, and repentance––occurs in a moment of time, in which God creates a new spiritual life. Thus, according to the reformed ordo salutis, regeneration has causal priority over faith and repentance. This is simply a way of showing that God initiates salvation, enabling and empowering the sinner to believe and repent. Like Jesus told Nicodemus, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

So the evolution was:

• A gospel Roman Road presentation sermon and invitation and inviting people to come to Jesus and receive Him by faith. Every service was ended by giving a "invitation for someone to be saved." Whether the message was on salvation or not. (1964-1982)
• In teaching expositionally, verse by verse, the passage of Scripture set before me. And then at the end of the message, we had prayer, and generally a brief time that anyone could respond. I did not give any appeal at all for any response. (1983-presently).

So the question to me is in the method of preaching and the appeal for someone to respond to the Word of God.

• First method of "preaching the Gospel of Salvation and then giving an appeal for the lost to be saved.. Secondly, the method of teaching the Word of God expositionally and within the message give an appeal to be obedient to the teaching of the Word.

Now my concern has become this, did those who sat under my ministry in those first years receive adequate teaching of the Gospel that would have brought them to a true conversion to Jesus Christ? And the identical question is on the other hand, when you simply teach the scripture as it is before you, and then you simply trust the Lord, that He in His sovereignty will bring to Himself those whom He will.

Several observations from these two methods of preaching or teaching and the "invitation."

• There certainly was no reference to "Lordship Salvation" position in the first method of presenting the Gospel.
• And the second method was decisive in the manner when referring to the Gospel of Salvation of making Christ your Lord and Savior. Coming to Him in personal trust to worship, love and serve Him.

Now again I ask, were people saved in using both methods? If in either case, people were saved, why would I prefer the second method versus the first method?

1. No altar call at the end of the services vs. five verses of Just As I Am.
2. Expositional preaching versus topical.
3. Preaching the content of the text only , i.e. without necessarily always bringing in a salvation message versus hitting sin every sermon.
4. Teaching the scripture, rather than an emotional, theatrical preaching style.
5. Teaching the idea of the sola’s. Rather than "you made a decision for Christ."

Yet I would hope that neither approach is "false gospel," and that God has the ability of saving His elect in either format.

Now we come to the present 2006. What do I understand now about:

• The presenting of the Gospel message.
• In giving an invitation to receive Christ as Savior, and Lord.

AN EXAMPLE OF PRESENTING THE GOSPEL:

• I heard Paul Harper preach at Bigelow Church several times. He is from England, and he is very theatrical in his preaching. His preaching is topical in form. But what I learned is that within the message he would insert and gave an invitation to receive the gospel into their lives. He would do this several times, "open your heart to the voice God." That was the invitation.
• Frank, the pastor at Bigelow Church, here in Portsmouth, is an expositional preacher. He teaches from the Old and the New Testament books. He will address what the chapter and verses are teaching. And there is no invitation given at the end of the services. What I have noticed of late is that in the messages Christ will become a part of the message itself. Every message will bring in Christ at some point.

Part Three Next

Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant Proof-Checked by Charity 11-15 06 #92