Pulpit's Last Day on Lordship Salvation

by Antonio da Rosa

Today is the last day of John MacArthur's Pulpit series on Lordship Salvation.

Here were my concluding comments:

----------
It has been difficult reading these interactions.

I was told that the second week of the series would have serious exegetical and expositional support of Lordship theology.

We had one article by Matthew Waymeyer that at the least attempted to consider a text. I made several observations about the passage and he failed, as did the rest, to discuss the passage with me and my comments.

Now we spend a week on discussing a book that holds to a soft lordship/soft grace position.

By all intents and purposes, this excursion into Lordship theology has been a major disappointment.

The exegetical and expositional content in Lordship argumentation is in utter lack. The superficiality of the study and comments of the Traditionalist does not cease to truly amaze me. They consider themselves the bastion of truth and objective biblical interpretation.

But they seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.

The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes.
----------

To which Nathan Busenitz responds by, you guessed it, a VERY LONG RAPID FIRE PROOFTEXT REFERENCING!

to which I responded:

----------
Did I not rightfully say:
———-
But [the Lordship advocates] seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.

The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes.
———-
?

I claim the above, and what do you answer my assertion with? A vindication of my charge, for you do none other than paste a “lengthy” rapid-fire proof-texting tirade.

The mere referencing to texts may convince superficial context-rippers and those who have already bought into your system, but it will not persuade the critical, exegetically thinking mind.

Is it as if the Free Gracers have never read those passages you rapid fire proof-text?

Maybe you are expecting the scales to fall off of our eyes as we read the passages that you present without an ounce of support for what you think through them God is conveying to men.

Can you show by a well-reasoned exegetical and expositional treatment of those texts which you drown us in that they are indeed supporting your Lordship Theology?

Or should the mere referencing of, and the superficial, context-ripped reading of Lordship proof-texts persuade the FG as to their errors?

I thought that the Lordship advocates had strong biblical arguments that were to be displayed here. I was under the impression that texts would be treated supporting Lordship doctrine. I was told by Phil Johnson that FGers were not serious. I find just the opposite: Lordship advocates arguments presented on supericial readings and prooftexts.

My disappointment is not disingenuous.

The expectations that I had for critical discussions of actual texts have been dashed in lieu of choir preaching, argument stringing, and proof-text machine-gunning.
----------

Submitted for your approval,

Antonio