Lordship Salvation volume 2

First the prodigal story is not about one son. It is about two and it is not about an individual, but about two types of people in Israel. So Yes I agree the prodigal was backslidden. The term means lost when used in the OT as it is never used for a saved person and is never used at all in the NT.
Look at the passage;
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry


The prodigal was lost! Not a saved child who turns from God and wallows in sin for a season and then returns. The prodigal was lost and even the passage says so.
The prodigal is the average Jew who is one day going to get tired of wallowing in the mud and retun to the Lord to be saved. His brother is the religious Pharisees who does not leave in practice but never comes in reality and cannot understand how this rebellious son could be forgiven. He even refuses to come to the party when envited. He shows his true state of being lost and remaining so by his refusal.

 

I disagree. From TGATJ and Hard to Believe it is apparent he believes in an exchange system.

False presuppositions lead to false conclusions. I also believe MacArthur does not hold to pre-faith regeneration, so that throws a monkey wrench into things

This misnomer of "easy believism" needs to be put to rest once and for all. You tell me...is believing hard? Crying out for mercy is the easiest thing to do since we cannot save ourselves.

No, they deny the LS understanding of salvation which is turning from sins for salvation (you hear it each time Ray Comfort opens his mouth). Repentance is turning TO Christ from self, it cannot be separated from faith.

Depends how you define "cognitive assent" since we apparently differ on the definition of repentance. Biblical faith is belief in action.

Then why are so many preterists?

 

I would watch this. It clearly portrays John MacArthur as a monergist, who believes that regeneration precedes faith.

This is part of the problem I have with these debates. Most don't even know what we believe thus you draw bad conclussions on our belief. Thus, even in the other issue that I can neither confirm nor deny, I find it difficult to believe. Why? I have heard MacArthur talk about dozens of times about regeneration, but people still mischaracterize his view.

Believing is impossible without God regenerating the soul. Thus, it is not easy. Yet, to get to the main issue of your statement. Ryrie and Hodge believes that a person can believe once and then the next day be unbelieving for the rest of their life, but still be a Christian. This is what we are addressing as "easy believism." Belief is not a one time event than passes into the shadows. Believing is a continual event. Easy Believism looks at the one time event, LS we see that you will continue to believe. I John uses specific words on believing to show it is continuous, not a one time occurrence.

So, in that framework and definition, it is not "easy" to believe, but this lasts throughout your life.

The changing of the definition of repentance is what Dispy's have done, a definition that has only existed in modern history.

Acts 3:19, the command was to repent from your sins and then turn to God. Repentance deals with sin. True repentance is always accompanied by faith, but Ryrie and others who downplays repentance of sin. However, it is truly repentance of sin.

Acts 8:22, we are told to repent of our wickedness (kjv) and it is linked to forgiveness of sins.

Now, I believe repentance is contained in the Ordo Salutis, thus faith is involved in repentance, and you cannot separate faith and repentance in the Ordo Salutis, one necessarily begets the other.

 

"The abrahamic promise can stake its claim to be not only the "gospel in advance", but even more so, the Great Commission in advance." (Wright)

 

Great quotation. Pretty sure that is from Mission of God??? I'm reading it right now and about half way through. Great book! I also highly recommend his book on Jesus in the Old Testament. This guy is good.

 

Yes. p. 236

 

Have you read "The God I Don't Understand"?

 

I must have been thinking of someone else, thanks for the clarification. At any rate an error on my part does not discount the whole of my argument and it is mighty presumptious of you to think I don't know what LS teaches based on a minor oversight and infraction on my part. You so easily dismiss quotes provided by MacArthur himself as being taken out of context.

All based on begging the question. Like I said, false presupposition lead to false conclusions.

Let's see about that...

19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Nope, nothing about repenting of sins there...

Actually "we" are not told to repent of anything, Simon (an infant believer) was told to repent of his wickedness which was trying to make a buck out of the Holy Spirit.

Now, can I conclude the same as you have that you don't understand the topic nor the debate?

One doesn't' beget the other, they are both intertwined, one in the same.

 

The fact that repentance is almost always tied to the forgiveness of sins makes it implicit that repentance is from sins. Passages like Lk 24:47 and Acts 2:38 make it clear what the repentance is all about.

Other passages like Lk 5:32, 15:10 make it more explicit calling sinners to repent.

2 Cor 12:21 speaks of repentance from impurity.

Heb. 6:1 speaks of repenting from dead works

Rev. 9:20 speaks of repenting from their evil works of their hands. v. 21 speaks of specific sins they did not repent from

Repentance from sin is implied and explicit in many passages.

 

...yet forgiveness of sins only comes via faith, which means repentance is turning to this source for forgiveness of sins.

 

According to Lk 24:47, forgiveness and repentance are bound together with no mention of faith.

Acts 3:19 makes it clear that repentance is what leads to forgiveness. Also cf. Lk 3:3

The fact that often repentance is associated with forgiveness so much implies that there is much less disjoint from the two than you would prefer. Cf. Mk 1:4, Lk 17:3, Acts 5:31.

 

Yes, repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins. This is only via faith. My point remains.

I see you edited your post and added Acts 3. That also doesn't disagree with what I have said.

 

So repent for forgiveness of sins means to you "believe for forgiveness"???

 

I understand it as a turn from self which is the source of all sin to the One who nailed these sins to the cross.

 

So what does it mean when it says a repentance for the forgiveness of sins??? What does it mean when it says "repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out"???

 

That Christians can and do sin is not the issue.

The epistles to the Corinthinans should forever settle that, they were doing horrendous things yet Paul says of them

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?​

I don't care how many books by how many men are written, Paul the apostle calls them carnal and not all the human apologetics in the world can take that away.

To deny this state of carnality that Christians can enter into (call it something else if you wish) can engender a form of legalism which will eventually cause one to claim sinless perfection or give up in despair and depart from the Lord (although He will NEVER depart from you if you are His sheep but will seek you out, chastise you and bring you back).

Each of us who claim to speak for the Lord (and everyone on this board including myself has done so by voicing there view of the scriptures in question).

What do you think this means?

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.​

One day we will answer for our "mastery".

The issue is the meaning of "committeth sin".

I used this illustration: If you are stopped by a state trooper and can't produce a driver's license you will be told "you cannot drive in the State of Washington without a valid driver's license".

It doesn't mean that you are unable to drive without a license but that it is unlawful and you will suffer the consequence of doing so.

Paul also uses this line of reasoning with the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.​

Obviously, this is exactly what they were doing, going back to their Pagan demon idolatry and then coming to the Lord's table some of them drunk from their debauchery.

Is it no wonder that he then says:

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.​

Also, the Christians at Thiatyra​

Revelation 2​

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

He gives them space to repent before he threatens them with "sleep".​

Revelation 2
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.​

Even the Lord says He seeks His wandering sheep but many of you seem content to cast them into the lake of fire.​

Now obviously there are pretenders, the tares, and they indeed will end up in the furnace of fire. And this is perhaps satan's strategy of this infiltrartion of his seed , to cause the church leadership to "root up the wheat" along with the tares. ​

My conclusion is this:​

There can only be (IMO) 2 interpretations of "cannot commit sin".​

The Christian cannot knowingly and continously be in a state of sin which carries the death penalty (e.g. having an adulterous affair) without being in danger of "the sin unto death". Physical death.​

We are led of the Spirit, if we wander off into the jurisdiction of the law, we will suffer the consequence.

The other possibility is that this is speaking of a particular sin because it literally says "cannot commit THE sin". "Commit" is a present particle and could be an indication of a state of being and more that just a particular sin of the flesh. but a sin resulting in spiritual death as well.​

And what is the one sin that indicates spritual death?​

A continous and abiding state of unbelief in Jesus Christ.
A regenerate person is incapable of this sin because His seed (the Spirit of God) remains (abides, stays) in him.​

There are so many other scripture that deals with the sins of the children of God that we must pay attention to them and take heed.​

Particularly against each other.​

1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.​

LS theology needs to make room for the fact that Jesus "Lordship" is often a realization over time that is accompanied by JOY and not by the harshness of rules, and unreasonable demands made to those who are yet weak.

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.​

God's results need God's methods.

HankD​

 

You believe that an infant can be saved? Simon was not saved prior to this point.

When John the Baptist called people to repent, what was he calling them to do? Repent of their wickedness, like in Acts 8 (clearly, we were to repent of our wickedness).

I think this is an important doctrine and refer you to the Doctrine of Repentance by Watson. I feel he has done a great job, unfortnately dispy's use a gloss of repentance that is not helpful.

As for the stereotype where I take exception to your interpretation of someone else. I conveyed in a previous post the accepted doctrine I think he was conveying. So, my objection to your quote of MacArthur rests on what I know about MacArthur and when you attribute to him a doctrine that I believe he does not hold, and I can explain what he is saying in acceptable doctrinal form, I think there is room to give him the benefit of the doubt. As well, when you later attribute to him a doctrine that he does not hold and admit to confusing his theology, I think it shows that you know little about the man. I knew MacArthur and have studied him for years, thus I understand areas I agree and disagree with him.

Even in one instance where I thought I disagreed with him, I contacted Grace Church and someone responded to me denying a commonly held misbelief on the Internet. I read the quote from a person on the Internet, wanted it confirmed, and received several pages in response on what they misinterpreted. In this situation, I think you are misinterpreting him as well. I could contact Grace and get clarification, but I have never even heard him come close to what you are attributing to him and what I attribute to him is what he does embrace. That is why I am skeptical.

 

Spelling correction... it is a present participle. Particles have no tenses.

 

Nope. John the Baptist wasn't calling people (the general population) to repentance, he was calling Jews to repentance. The call for repentance prior to Acts 17 was always (primarily) to the Jews. The audience in every instance up to Acts 17 were Jews. Gentiles were called upon to believe.

The call for repentance was not to repent of their wickedness but their unbelief in the Messiah.

Repentance literally means 'a change of mind'. Jews already believed a Messiah was coming. Jews needed a change of mind regarding the Messiah. They needed to change their mind as to who the Messiah was, that he was already here, and what he was here to do. Gentiles didn't believe in a Messiah, they were polytheistic. Thus they didn't need to change their mind about a Messiah, they needed to believe in Jesus.

This idea that repentance means turning from sin is a result of repentance, not the definition of it. Imploring someone to turn from their sin sounds like a good work instead of grace or faith.

 

What did the Apostle paul state in this regards?
beklieve upon the Lord Jesus, believe that God raised Him from the dead, believe in your heart and confess with your miuth unto salvation...

That is ALL that is required by God to get saved, intial faith in jesus, but we also will be expected to grow up in our grace and knowledge of Him, that is where we learn to surrender more of us unto Him, that is where "lordship" begins to happen, and will continue until death/secondcoming!