All LS Discussions and Debates

[Jarthur001]

Yes, I do know that, so this is a good start!

The start began on post number one. You have been called to address the OP and you have failed.
**********

To all readers..

This has become amazingly sad at the length one goes to dodge the crux of the debate. While other readers can reply with easy to the OP, for they have no agenda, some have demonstrated a determination to uphold their smorgasbord theology at all cost, even to the point of shame. Please notice that even given many changes to redeem himself, the no-lord salvationist can not bring himself to say the true meaning of the word even though others have said it, even though he has taken the time to see if the Greek word metanoia is found in one verse, and even though he at any time could look up and read for himself the meaning of the Greek word metanoia, if in fact he did not know the meaning, and he did not believe the meaning that others had posted for him to read, for it is his pride and agenda that binds him to his own bent of theology to the point that the truth is painful for him to say. He would much rather mislead then have the truth be said in his post. The same truth that destroys his agenda.

***********
To Lou..

Lou have you no shame?

Lou said..

What would your reaction be if one starts talking about the Greek word metanoia, as it is used in the New Testament, and then quotes 1 Thess. 1:9 for support when it does not even contain the word metanoia?

Please notice that I placed in quotes the word metanoia in my last post. I have to admit; I knew where you were going with this. The Greek word metanoia is not found in the verse, but even better is the definition of the Greek word metanoia is found there.

For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how “ye turned to God from idols” to serve the living and true God;

“ye turned to God from idols” is the same idea of repenting.

I however must admit I do not know the writer you are talking about. However, it is also my guess that you are talking about John MacArthur, for to degrade MacArthur at all cost is your agenda. If its not MacArthur, I must now extend my apologies for being presumptuous toward your post. Time will tell.

Lou ask...

Would that be a misuse of 1 Thess. 1:9?

You need to post the quote and let me read it in context. You have shown in the past that you leave out some words of quotes and therefore cannot be trusted. However, going by how you have asked about it, it does not seem to me that it is a misuse at all. You need to post the full quote and page number for me to give my option.

Please give page number and the full quote in context. Thanks

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Col. 4:6

JA:

You should try to rein in your emotional outbursts and vitriol.

You may find memorizing Col. 4:6 very helpful, "...Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The noun μετανοια (metanoia, repentance) and its verb form μετανοεω (metanoeo, to repent) are the New Testament counterparts to the Old Testament nacham. It would be incorrect, however, to view the two words as identical in meaning. That the use of μετανοεω (metanoeo) in the LXX differs from its use in the New Testament demonstrates the development of a precise theological meaning for μετανοια (metanoia, repentance) in the New Testament. For an explanation of this development, see “Conversion” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

In the New Testament μετανοια (metanoia, repentance) expresses the root meaning of the word “repentance,” which is a change of mind. The etymology of the word also brings out this idea. Regarding the prefix μετα (meta), which is generally translated after, Thayer states,

. . . a preposition . . . and hence prop. in the midst of, amid, denoting association, union, accompaniment. . . . In composition, [when prefixed to another word as with metanoia] meta denotes 1. Association, fellowship, participating, with . . . 2. Exchange, transfer, transmutation.

The root noia comes from the word (nous), which means mind. The connection between meta and nous leads us to define “repentance” as “afterthought, change of mind.”

 

[Lou Martuneac]

When repentance is defined as “turning from sin” its basic nature is changed from what occurs in the heart and mind to an action. A commitment to certain behavior expected of a Christian turns the gospel of grace on its head. Salvation then is no longer “the gift of God,” but instead a works based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9). Sin is the problem for every lost man, and Hell is the inevitable consequence. Forsaking sin, the resolve to forsake and turn from sin is not the solution. Christ is the answer!

Biblically defined- repentance to salvation is to change the mind. To define metanoia as “turn from sin,” i.e. stop sinning and the intent to obey, is an abuse of metanoia. The works based Lordship Salvation presuppositions are being forced into the Scriptures to force Scripture into conformity with Lordship Salvation. (See Lordship's "Turn From Sin" FOR Salvation)

With that settled, let’s look at why you feel it is acceptable to define metanoia from a verse, 1 Thess. 1:9, that does not even contain the word.

 

[skypair]

AWP never said that people must belong to "his church"to be saved.

Sorry, I stand corrected, rip. It was that Chinese guy ????? -- Watchman Nee?

I admit you know more about the details of history than I do, rip. I don't like to go there except if I remember an example that could be prophetic. From what I remember, Watchman started out pretty orthodox but more and more got to thinking no one was saved except those who agreed with his theology. And if memory serves, he retired a lonely outcast in Great Britain somewhere.

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

The noun μετανοια (metanoia, repentance) and its verb form μετανοεω (metanoeo, to repent) are the New Testament counterparts to the Old Testament nacham. It would be incorrect, however, to view the two words as identical in meaning. That the use of μετανοεω (metanoeo) in the LXX differs from its use in the New Testament demonstrates the development of a precise theological meaning for μετανοια (metanoia, repentance) in the New Testament. For an explanation of this development, see “Conversion” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

False. Unless you hold a "Paul was right and Jesus was wrong" attitude. There is ample evidence to prove Jesus was NOT speaking Greek when He said "unless you repent, you will likewise Perish". Jesus almost certainly used the Hebrew word (possibly Aramaic), NOT the Greek word metanoia.

The words "Nacham" and "Metanoia" are indeed synonomous, with the possible exception that "Metanoia" carries ADDITIONAL meaning> not different meaning. The fact that the careful translators of the Septuagint used the words synonymously, count for much more than YOU, a 21st century man with an agenda, reading a reconstructed, reassembled 2,000 year old language and declaring it "Not so cause I say so".

Sorry, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Uh-Uh!" is not a sound theological argument, Lou.

 

[skypair]

Aren't all those things mentioned above our reasonable service? I think there are to many who believe they can be saved and sin all they want to. Christ said you cannot serve two masters.

For some reason I don't yet believe that JM is saying this at all. However commitment is necessary in order to love and follow Christ.
Commitment is necessary for our surrender to His righteousness. Salvation is much more than just believing. Many believe but very few of those are actually saved.

I believe free will adds the "commitment" you speak of to belief unto salvation, no? The question is, "commitment to what?"

Rom 6:14 brings in the question you seem to be addressing -- "shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?" Here the stipulation is made that we are saved and that sinning is an option, even a possible outcome, in spite of our salvation.

I believe that what Paul means by "serve two masters" is that the believer has 2 options open to him still -- sin or Christ. Indeed, the lost person only has one, no? To the lost person, God or Christ is by no means an acknowledged "master," is He?

So JM's error is in not separating the decision regarding salvation (justification) from the decision regarding discipleship or followership (sanctification). Yes, discipleship is the "reasonable service" of a saved person -- but it is NOT an imperative for salvation as seems to come across in his "paradigm."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Lou,

I believe you are losing that debate on 2 accounts:

1) Regardless of what the word repent means (basically "turn from-to"), it is how it is used in context that is important. In both OT and NT, we are to turn from ourselves and receive "the righteousness of God." It is also known as "reconciliation" or "conversion" and JUSTIFICATION. This part IS making Christ Lord of our lives. This is the part that LS says is done without our personal choice in the matter, BTW.

After we are "reconciled" to God and "given" "into the kingdom of His dear Son," we are to continually repent of sins that Christ reveals in our lives. This is part of our SANCTIFICATION. This part is making Christ the Pattern for our lives.

We basically see this all the time among the liberal church -- they seek to make Christ the Pattern before He is the Lord.

2) I believe you must, for the sake of scriptural correctness and for understanding, make a distinction between SOUL and SPIRIT. It is the SOUL that dies immediately upon sinning, Ezek 18:20. It is the SOUL (conscience, "internalized standard") that is reconciled to God upon repentance from self/sinner to God (sinner's prayer"). It's basically saying "God's Truth/Wisdom, revealed to me by God in t eh law* or in Christ[/b], will be my truth/wisdom." It's basically like choosing a "new standard for living."

It is the SPIRIT that is progressively growing into the Pattern of the Son, Rom 8:29.

I believe if you could get over these "hurdles," you might make your objections to LS more cogent. Basically, they are trying to say that it is all handled at once -- which ends up often meaning that the only assurance of salvation is living a Christian life. But we know that the OT saints neither lived a Christian life nor have they been "regenerated" yet.

skypair

* For that matter, it was revealed before the law in Abraham/family which is why the Jews all went to "Abraham's bosom" when they died. Again, this is for their SANCTIFICATION, not for their JUSTIFICATION.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Misuse of 1 Thess. 1:9

JArthur:

As you surmised, John MacArthur looks to 1 Thess. 1:9 to define metanoia. He looks to a verse that does NOT even use the word, metanoia to define it.

He begins by misinterpreting metanioa through his LS works based presuppositions and then goes to a verse for support that does not have the word metanoia. That is a misuse of Scripture for the purpose of forcing it into conformity with Lordship Salvation.

I can give you quotes from two of his books, but BEFORE I do: have you read, in their entirety, and of his five major books on LS?

Canadyjd & Reformed Baptist tried to defend LS witout ever having read a LS book by JM. I am hopeful you have read them and have them on your shelf. Do you?


LM

 

[MB]

I believe free will adds the "commitment" you speak of to belief unto salvation, no? The question is, "commitment to what?"

Rom 6:14 brings in the question you seem to be addressing -- "shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?" Here the stipulation is made that we are saved and that sinning is an option, even a possible outcome, in spite of our salvation.

I believe that what Paul means by "serve two masters" is that the believer has 2 options open to him still -- sin or Christ. Indeed, the lost person only has one, no? To the lost person, God or Christ is by no means an acknowledged "master," is He?

So JM's error is in not separating the decision regarding salvation (justification) from the decision regarding discipleship or followership (sanctification). Yes, discipleship is the "reasonable service" of a saved person -- but it is NOT an imperative for salvation as seems to come across in his "paradigm."

skypair

I'm not a Calvinist but I have listened to John MacAuthur. He has preached against works for Salvation. So either the complaint about him is either a mistake or MacAuthur is preaching two different views about the same thing. We all mis speak once in a while, I do, I know most here do as well. To err is human.
When we submit to the righteousness of Christ what is it we are submitting? Unless it is our full devotion. Like I've said many times most do not understand the real meaning of such a commitment as one to God. This isn't one we can change our minds about later because we have some complaint. A submission to His righteousness is a commitment of all we have and all we are. We hold nothing back for our selves later in case we change our minds. The richman mathew 19 realized that he couldn't keep his wealth and follow Christ too. His wealth possesed him, instead of him possessing his wealth, He could not submit.
The disciples on the other hand left everything behind to follow Christ. The reason they did is that they were so focused on Christ everything else faded into the back ground.
Submission is
("Resignation; a yielding of one's will to the will or appointment of a superior without murmuring. Entire and cheerful submission to the will of God is a christian duty of prime excellence.")

Resignation;
"
1. The act of resigning or giving up, as a claim or possession; as the resignation of a crown or commission.
2. Submission; unresisting acquiescence; as a blind resignation to the authority of other men's opinions.
3. Quiet submission to the will of Providence; submission without discontent, and with entire acquiescence in the divine dispensations. This is christian resignation."
(quotes from Websters dictionary)

Man is not saved with out submission Romans 10:1-4. No matter whether or not you believe or how much zeal you may have. Salvation involves a commitment to God. It's a surrender a giving up of everything else to be with Jesus Christ. We give up as a defeated warrior. "Lord take us and use us as you will." ( from a pastor)
The surrender of everything is not a work unless you can prove that giving up is doing something. Giving up is the opposite of doing. it is the dropping of all else in order to focus on Christ.

Christ gave Himself as a gift to us and He is greater than anything else. Nothing compares to Him. Nothing is as important as Him. He is all I'll ever need because in Him I have everything. Because I have Christ I am wealthy beyond anything I could have ever imagined. Real wealth to me, is measured on having Christ. He is my treasure. What mundane thing could I possibly have that could be compared to Him?

If you have submitted to Christ realize that true submission is complete. Holding nothing back but, giving your all

MB

 

[Havensdad]

JArthur:

As you surmised, John MacArthur looks to 1 Thess. 1:9 to define metanoia. He looks to a verse that does NOT even use the word, metanoia to define it.

He begins by misinterpreting metanioa through his LS works based presuppositions and then goes to a verse for support that does not have the word metanoia. That is a misuse of Scripture for the purpose of forcing it into conformity with Lordship Salvation.

I can give you quotes from two of his books, but BEFORE I do: have you read, in their entirety, and of his five major books on LS?

Canadyjd & Reformed Baptist tried to defend LS witout ever having read a LS book by JM. I am hopeful you have read them and have them on your shelf. Do you?


LM

I know I do> and your Mis-Characterization of J. Macs theology borders on purposeful deception.

Also> I noticed you purposefully skipped over my post regarding the almost certain synonymous meaning of Nacham and Metanoia...and your skewed and improper understanding of the Biblical meaning of repentance.

 

[Havensdad]

Submission is
("Resignation; a yielding of one's will to the will or appointment of a superior without murmuring. Entire and cheerful submission to the will of God is a christian duty of prime excellence.")

Resignation;
"
1. The act of resigning or giving up, as a claim or possession; as the resignation of a crown or commission.
2. Submission; unresisting acquiescence; as a blind resignation to the authority of other men's opinions.
3. Quiet submission to the will of Providence; submission without discontent, and with entire acquiescence in the divine dispensations. This is christian resignation."
(quotes from Websters dictionary)

Man is not saved with out submission Romans 10:1-4. No matter whether or not you believe or how much zeal you may have. Salvation involves a commitment to God. It's a surrender a giving up of everything else to be with Jesus Christ. We give up as a defeated warrior. "Lord take us and use us as you will." ( from a pastor)
The surrender of everything is not a work unless you can prove that giving up is doing something. Giving up is the opposite of doing. it is the dropping of all else in order to focus on Christ.

Christ gave Himself as a gift to us and He is greater than anything else. Nothing compares to Him. Nothing is as important as Him. He is all I'll ever need because in Him I have everything. Because I have Christ I am wealthy beyond anything I could have ever imagined. Real wealth to me, is measured on having Christ. He is my treasure. What mundane thing could I possibly have that could be compared to Him?

If you have submitted to Christ realize that true submission is complete. Holding nothing back but, giving your all

MB

I love this! Awesome, man. I might put that in my signature..."The surrender of everything is not a work unless you can prove that giving up is doing something"

 

[MB]

JArthur:

As you surmised, John MacArthur looks to 1 Thess. 1:9 to define metanoia. He looks to a verse that does NOT even use the word, metanoia to define it.

He begins by misinterpreting metanioa through his LS works based presuppositions and then goes to a verse for support that does not have the word metanoia. That is a misuse of Scripture for the purpose of forcing it into conformity with Lordship Salvation.

I can give you quotes from two of his books, but BEFORE I do: have you read, in their entirety, and of his five major books on LS?

Canadyjd & Reformed Baptist tried to defend LS witout ever having read a LS book by JM. I am hopeful you have read them and have them on your shelf. Do you?


LM

The thing you've missed here is that 1st Thess 1:9 uses a different term meaning the same as repent.
1Th 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

I wonder does this mean they repented?
MB

 

[skypair]

I'm not a Calvinist but I have listened to John MacAuthur. He has preached against works for Salvation. So either the complaint about him is either a mistake or MacAuthur is preaching two different views about the same thing.

He sees "sanctification" as "justification." They are 2 different issues as is shown by the OT saints. The OT saints were "justified" but they could not be "sanctified" by the Spirit (Jesus having not come and left and sent the Spirit yet). So sanctificaction is a separate issue, right?

But under the new covenant, they are initiated at the same time. JM's error: he assumes justification if people appear to be being sanctified. But such is the case of the "new wine in old skins" or "new cloth on an old garment." You can go ahead and do it but it won't work. And that probably makes JM very frustrated seeing he looks around at "Christians" not acting like Christians.

The problem is JM is trying to impose a "political" solution to a "spiritual" situation. You do realize, don't you, that the law was to be both political (control behavior) as well as spiritual (represent spiritual truth). JM is basically mandating some "political" behaviors of those who profess a "spiritual" relationship. Well, first off, the spiritual relationship is not to JM so where does he come by making any "political" laws? unless he is a "Nicolaitan," he better start hingeing salvation on what GOD demands. But like Calvin (in Geneva) or Augustine before him ("City of God"), I would suggest that JM is trying to merge the political and spiritual worlds which CANNOT happen until Christ is King (in the MK).

Better investigate what JM's eschatology is. Is he postmil -- Christ only comes after we have set up His kingdom for Him? Is he amil -- this is the kingdom and JM "reigns"/speaks for Christ? Or is he premil -- the kingdom is INVISIBLE and only revealed at the rapture of both good and bad but JUSTIFIED and Holy Spirit SANCTIFIED believers?


skypair

 

[Havensdad]

He sees "sanctification" as "justification."


skypair

LOL! No he doesn't! He just does not believe "sanctification" is optional, like Lou seems to.

John states explicitly that He sins all the time> so i do not see how you can even say that, unless you think John thinks he is not saved Himself (or you have a misunderstanding of the definition of "sanctification")

 

[Havensdad]

BTW,

JMac is pre-Mil. Which is why the rest of your post is false. he is not trying to "merge" anything.

He actually wrote a book about it. You really ought to read a guys writings, before knocking Him.

 

[Havensdad]

Let me ask a question, a very simple one>

SHOULD WE PREACH THE GOSPEL THE WAY PAUL AND THE APOSTLES DID??

I would hope the answer would be yes> if that is so, though, we should preach that men should turn away from their sin, TO God....for that is what Paul and the apostles preached. A forsaking of sin, and turning to God.

Act 14:15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news(AND WHAT< PRAY TELL IS THIS GOOD NEWS? RIGHT HERE>), that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.


What we should be preaching to unbelievers, is that they must turn FROM their sin, TO God. That is what the apostles preached. And THAT IS the definition of repentance.

 

[skypair]

What we should be preaching to unbelievers, is that they must turn FROM their sin, TO God. That is what the apostles preached. And THAT IS the definition of repentance.

I agree. When you state it like that and not "repent of sins," I believe it communicates the same thing I would in saying one "repents of being a sinner."

If compared to the "proposal of marriage," you would be saying "I forsake all others for You" whereas I would be saying, "I repent of not being worthy of You."

skypair

 

[skypair]

havensdad,

I appreciate you comments. Of course, he is premil and this "City of God"/Geneva political thing is inherited from his basic theology, not his eschatology whereby he distances himself from his peers.

More to the point, does a believer have the "option" of "backsliding" and not thereby losing his salvation? Could I be saved and never open the Bible again and end up like the "sprouts" in Mt 13:5-6 -- no depth to my faith and so "withered" away? Could I be saved and go back to my old job, my old home, my old debts and those things engage me so much that the "choke out" my faith, Mt 13:7?

You know, the children of Israel were saved out of Egypt but they failed when it came to entering into sanctifying "rest." They were still escaped from Egypt, though.

What I think Lou and I are envisioning from JM is that Moses was told that they couldn't leave Egypt unless they agreed to go into the Promised Land a whoop the giants. Everyone can see by that notion that there is a "step missing," right? The "missing step" is that they wouldn't necessarily have committed themselves to God, would they. They would have "repented TO" the "mission" in their own power and not "repented TO" God.*

But God said He wanted to a) take them out of Egypt (sin) and b) GIVE them the land IF they would trust Him. And that's what the gospel says, too, isn't it? "Repent [to My justification] ... and receive the Holy Spirit [of Promise unto sanctification].

skypair

*This is a very appropriate illustration of the Calvinist ciew of "election." They believe they are "elect" unto justification (the "get out of Egypt" part) -- they don't have to, nor can they of themselves, choose that. And because that is true, they are empowered by God to choose the "mission" that sanctifies (taking the Promised Land) never having chosen or repented to God first.

The interesting illustration of this was when Joshua prepared the next generation to go into the land, he wanted God's assurance that He would go in with them. He did NOT want to commit to the mission without God committed to them and vice versa! If some Calvinist would find him or herself in that situation -- embarking on their "election" purpose without Christ -- I would suggest they go back and choose God through Christ, first, wouldn't you?

 

[Havensdad]

havensdad,

More to the point, does a believer have the "option" of "backsliding" and not thereby losing his salvation? Could I be saved and never open the Bible again and end up like the "sprouts" in Mt 13:5-6 -- no depth to my faith and so "withered" away? Could I be saved and go back to my old job, my old home, my old debts and those things engage me so much that the "choke out" my faith, Mt 13:7?

Not according to Scripture. According to scripture, those who are "choked", that "wither away", etc. are those who never repent, never produce fruit, and are therefore "thrown into the fire" where there will
be "weeping and gnashing of teeth". Every single time in scripture, when "fruitlessness" is spoken of, it is ALWAYS and without exception, related to the unsaved and condemned. A saved man WILL bear fruit...not "may". The Bible is clear if you live how you wish, the you are "illegitimate" and "not sons". You will be "cast out". For God "disciplines those He loves".

You know, the children of Israel were saved out of Egypt but they failed when it came to entering into sanctifying "rest." They were still escaped from Egypt, though.

The promised land is a picture of salvation "New Jerusalem", not some abstract idea of personal fulfillment. This is a picture of those who have "tasted of the spirit" being delivered from things in this world, but have failed to attain the prize at the end (salvation).

Such analogous interpretations of scripture can be twisted in whatever direction one wishes: this is why the reformers rejected it. The plain reading of scripture is that those who do not turn from their sinful life, that do not produce "fruit", and which are unwilling to give their life for Christ, are "cut down and thrown into the fire", "cast out" in danger of "forfeiting their soul", etc. etc. Nowhere in scripture, does it warn that if you trust in Christ, but refuse to obey Him (as if such a thing were possible!) you will have an "unfulfilled Christian life" or an "unrestful" life> rather, those who do such things will be in the lake of fire, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

What I think Lou and I are envisioning from JM is that Moses was told that they couldn't leave Egypt unless they agreed to go into the Promised Land a whoop the giants. Everyone can see by that notion that there is a "step missing," right? The "missing step" is that they wouldn't necessarily have committed themselves to God, would they. They would have "repented TO" the "mission" in their own power and not "repented TO" God.*

But God said He wanted to a) take them out of Egypt (sin) and b) GIVE them the land IF they would trust Him. And that's what the gospel says, too, isn't it? "Repent [to My justification] ... and receive the Holy Spirit [of Promise unto sanctification].

skypair

IF they would trust Him...which was to turn, and go where He told them to go. If they said "we trust you" and then refused to go anyway, they would still not have attained the New Kingdom. Faith is completed by works. One who says "I trust you" and then does something other than what is instructed, is a liar and a hypocrite, not a person who has faith and trust.

Mat 21:28 But what do you think? A man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work in my vineyard today.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not. But afterwards he repented and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and did not go.
Mat 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father? They said to Him, The first. Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that the tax-collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
Mat 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax-collectors and the harlots believed him. And when you had seen it, you did not repent afterwards so that you might believe him.

Notice in this parable three things>

#1 Repentance is shown clearly to be a CHANGING OF ONES ACTIONS. The man refused to go, then repented and went.

#2 This repentance IS NECESSARY FOR belief> see verse 32. The Pharisees did not "repent" SO THAT they might believe Him.

#3 The consequence of not REPENTING concerns entering Heaven, NOT some simply some temporal problems, or an unfulfilled life.