All LS Discussions and Debates

[Havensdad]

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

When J. Mac says "Forsake sin", that is EXACTLY what he is speaking of> turning from a sinful lifestyle TO God's path.

Repentance unto eternal life is a forsaking of sinfulness unto God. Sanctification in the Christian walk, is where individual sins are revealed by the Holy Spirit, conviction is brought upon the person, and the person repents of that individual sin.

If you agree with that, we are in essential agreement, at least on this issue.

 

[webdog]

When J. Mac says "Forsake sin", that is EXACTLY what he is speaking of> turning from a sinful lifestyle TO God's path.

Repentance unto eternal life is a forsaking of sinfulness unto God. Sanctification in the Christian walk, is where individual sins are revealed by the Holy Spirit, conviction is brought upon the person, and the person repents of that individual sin.

If you agree with that, we are in essential agreement, at least on this issue.

If turning from a lifestyle of sin to God's path was all that was required for salvation, what's the point of faith?

 

[Havensdad]

If turning from a lifestyle of sin to God's path was all that was required for salvation, what's the point of faith?

That is the definition of faith.

If my kid is standing on a window sill of a burning building, with me below, and I tell her to jump, and she does, it is because she has faith. If she does not, she does not have faith.

Faith and trust is placing yourself in someone else's hands.

God says "Give up all of that garbage. Trust me. Have faith in me." The two naturally go together.

 

[webdog]

That is the definition of faith.

If my kid is standing on a window sill of a burning building, with me below, and I tell her to jump, and she does, it is because she has faith. If she does not, she does not have faith.

Faith and trust is placing yourself in someone else's hands.

God says "Give up all of that garbage. Trust me. Have faith in me." The two naturally go together.

I'm not saying I disagree, as I believe faith and repentance cannot be separated, like two sides of the same coin...but wasn't that your definition for repentance?

 

[skypair]

Well, dad,

I just lost my original, long response and I don't know why. I'll get back to you when I can.

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

I'm not saying I disagree, as I believe faith and repentance cannot be separated, like two sides of the same coin...but wasn't that your definition for repentance?

I agree with this to a large part. "Repentance and faith" is turning from our world loving, world trusting life, TO God....

"Repentance" is the turning away FROM (sin, hatred of God,all of that, as a WHOLE)...

"Faith" is the turning TO God, and trusting in Him alone..

The problem is people try to put the cart before the horse. You have to turn FROM worldliness, before you can turn TO God. They are in opposite directions.

 

[canadyjd]

Well, dad,

I just lost my original, long response and I don't know why. I'll get back to you when I can.

skypair

:godisgood: :smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Let me ask a question, a very simple one> SHOULD WE PREACH THE GOSPEL THE WAY PAUL AND THE APOSTLES DID??

I have answered this question. See-

Did the Apostles Preach Lordship Salvation?


LM

 

[Havensdad]

I have answered this question. See-

Did the Apostles Preach Lordship Salvation?


LM

Sorry

I don't follow links, and I can read. The apostles preached repentance from sins, and/before faith in Christ. Sounds like L.S. to me.

"We bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God"

Lordship salvation (btw, this was preached to Greeks, not to Jews, FYI)

Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

So much in these verses> Jesus makes it obvious, people must turn FROM their former lifestyle, TO God, IN ORDER that they may receive "forgiveness of sins" and a "place among those who are sanctified by faith in me".

Turning FROM your dark, sinful lifestyle, is a REQUIREMENT BEFORE turning to God...

A five page dissertation saying "it can't be", does not change the plain meaning of the text. The apostles, and Jesus himself, preached Lordship Salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

Lou,

I went ahead and followed your link. Very unscientific way to approach scriptural studies...

Why don't you do a search on How many times people are told to turn from sins, darkness, Satan, vanity, etc. FOR salvation: there are dozens.

ALSO> Your quoting seems almost deliberately deceptive. From the link>

The gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul,

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4).

Yet, you REDEFINE IT, in your own terms, by DELIBERATELY deleting part of the apostles words...Let me show everyone what it is you deleted, from the scripture post....

The REAL definition of the Gospel (Paul's, instead of Lou's):

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4).

Hmm. THAT'S a LOT different than what Lou wrote in his link. I wonder what it means, "unless you believed in vain"? Obviously the sentence references "being saved". It says you are "being saved" UNLESS you "believed in vain". What DOES that mean...

Thankfully, this is one of the rare instances where scripture actually DEFINES the words FOR you. Skip down just a few verses..

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

WOW! A completely OPPOSITE meaning than what Lou is trying to convey, just by looking at the verse in context, as a whole, rather than chopping it into pieces...Faith that is "in vain" is the OPPOSITE of one that produces works: those that are "being saved" and that do not have a faith that is "in vain", are "being saved"....

It amazes me how Lou and his comrades butcher scripture: I bet you go through a lot of scissors, Lou.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yet, you REDEFINE IT, in your own terms, by DELIBERATELY deleting part of the apostles words...Let me show everyone what it is you deleted, from the scripture post....

The REAL definition of the Gospel (Paul's, instead of Lou's):

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4).

It amazes me how Lou and his comrades butcher scripture: I bet you go through a lot of scissors, Lou.

That's Lou......

This is why I always ask for what page in the book when he quotes. The guy has a problem with being honest.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

JA:

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?

Have you read MacArthur's books on LS? Yes or No?


LM

 

[webdog]

Lou,

I went ahead and followed your link. Very unscientific way to approach scriptural studies...

Why don't you do a search on How many times people are told to turn from sins, darkness, Satan, vanity, etc. FOR salvation: there are dozens.

ALSO> Your quoting seems almost deliberately deceptive. From the link>



Yet, you REDEFINE IT, in your own terms, by DELIBERATELY deleting part of the apostles words...Let me show everyone what it is you deleted, from the scripture post....

The REAL definition of the Gospel (Paul's, instead of Lou's):

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-4).

Hmm. THAT'S a LOT different than what Lou wrote in his link. I wonder what it means, "unless you believed in vain"? Obviously the sentence references "being saved". It says you are "being saved" UNLESS you "believed in vain". What DOES that mean...

Thankfully, this is one of the rare instances where scripture actually DEFINES the words FOR you. Skip down just a few verses..

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

WOW! A completely OPPOSITE meaning than what Lou is trying to convey, just by looking at the verse in context, as a whole, rather than chopping it into pieces...Faith that is "in vain" is the OPPOSITE of one that produces works: those that are "being saved" and that do not have a faith that is "in vain", are "being saved"....

It amazes me how Lou and his comrades butcher scripture: I bet you go through a lot of scissors, Lou.

If you think 1 Cor 15:10 is in regards to working for salvation, forget the scissors...you have brought out the shears!

If you would have taken your own advice, and looked at the text in context, it is clear that 1. It was written to believers, and 2. The "working" Paul is speaking about stems from verse 9

For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul is speaking of working harder than the other apostles in bringing the Gopel, as God had determined. This is CLEAR from verse 11:

Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

If you believe salvation needs to be worked for, brother you need to get back to the drawing board!

 

[webdog]

That's Lou......

This is why I always ask for what page in the book when he quotes. The guy has a problem with being honest.

An ad hominem accompanied by a smiley face for good measure...nice.

 

[Havensdad]

If you think 1 Cor 15:10 is in regards to working for salvation, forget the scissors...you have brought out the shears!

Not working for salvation> you put words in my mouth! Yet there ARE only TWO options....

#1 He is talking about a faith that produces works> a true faith.

#2 He IS talking about works for salvation, which I agree, would not fit scripture, or the Gospel in other places.

If you would have taken your own advice, and looked at the text in context, it is clear that 1. It was written to believers, and 2. The "working" Paul is speaking about stems from verse 9

#1. The book nowhere states it is ONLY written to believers> you are imposing on the text. It is written to a gathering of PROFESSING Christians, just as we have today, some of which are true believers, and some which are false.

#2 It cannot be from verse 9> notice the "but". Verse 2, is clear that one can have a faith that is "in vain" (meaningless) and which is NOT "saving" the person. In fact, the mere fact that He says "unless YOU" shows that He is in fact NOT exclusively addressing believers.

Paul is speaking of working harder than the other apostles in bringing the Gospel, as God had determined. This is CLEAR from verse 11:

Paul is speaking of working harder proclaiming the Gospel...YET it was NOT Him working, but the Spirit THROUGH him> which puts an end to the debate of Paul himself working for salvation. Paul's faith was not "in vain" (He was being saved), and therefore it produced works.

If you believe salvation needs to be worked for, brother you need to get back to the drawing board!

Salvation does not need to be worked for> Salvation ALWAYS produces works, though!

Back to the little girl example> if my little girl is standing on a second story window sill, of a burning building, and I tell her to "jump" and I catch her, if she has FAITH, she WILL jump. Her "faith is completed, BY her works. If shes says "o.k." and then does not do it, she has no faith, or a "meaningless" (in vain) faith.

Such a vain faith, according to Paul, cannot save.

 

[skypair]

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.." This is a good observation, dad, but I think Paul is talking about "being saved" in this life -- sanctification. There is a place for "works" in salvation but a) it can only help those who are eternally justified first and b) "works" are used to "conform us the the image of His Son."

BTW, we will be rewarded for the latter at the Bema, right?

I believe you would understand Lou's perspective if you read Rom 5:10. Paul does recognize the distinction between justification and sanctification but JM appears not to. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Do you see it? Justification is being "reconciled to God" and that one-time-for-eternally. This is the thing that DOESN'T involve "works."

Sanctification is being saved daily by Christ's life. This DOES involve works" even if it is only reading your Bible!

So now how could one "receive the gospel" and not be "being saved?" Well, look at how the verse is arranged. Preached -- received -- stand -- remember -- being saved (sanctified).

But what if Paul goes back to the first premise ("I preached") and says "I preached but you believed in vain?" Doesn't that mean that they "received the gospel" but did not "stand" in it -- were not, therefore, justified nor reconciled to God? How could that be? They believed without repenting. They believed without saying a "sinner's prayer" -- without giving their lives to God. Can you see how that would mean that they weren't really "being saved" daily in their "works?"

dad, this is distinction between justification and sanctification (between having eternal life and being a disciple/follower) is a HUGE "stumblingblock" between us. I would like for you to see if you can present a good sotierology without observing the difference 1) between justification and sanctification, 2) between soul and spirit, 3) between repenting from self unto eternal life and repenting daily of sins unto the saving life of Christ (Rom 5:10).

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.." This is a good observation, dad, but I think Paul is talking about "being saved" in this life -- sanctification. There is a place for "works" in salvation but a) it can only help those who are eternally justified first and b) "works" are used to "conform us the the image of His Son."

This is simply impossible. "saved" and "sanctified" are in no way synonymous. Those who are "being saved" cannot refer to sanctification. If you are going to go that far in twisting the meanings of words, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. We need to take the text, as written, instead of pressing it into our theology.

BTW, we will be rewarded for the latter at the Bema, right?

Yes, we will be rewarded according to our good works> but only because of the grace of God, not because we really deserve them.

I believe you would understand Lou's perspective if you read Rom 5:10. Paul does recognize the distinction between justification and sanctification but JM appears not to. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

I believe it is you who do not understand. J. Mac understands very well the difference between Justification and sanctification. The difference in their soteriologies, is that J. Mac says sanctification is NOT optional, and Lou says it is. Lou in effect, makes sanctification an optional second step in the Christian life, contrary to scripture, whereas J. Mac understands the definition of the word "faith", demands that it produces works.

Do you see it? Justification is being "reconciled to God" and that one-time-for-eternally. This is the thing that DOESN'T involve "works."

Right and wrong. Right that we are saved by faith. WRONG in that it "doesn't involve works". Works is the "completion" of faith.

We are saved, TOTALLY apart from our works, BY "a FAITH that produces works".

No works? No faith.

Sanctification is being saved daily by Christ's life. This DOES involve works" even if it is only reading your Bible!

This is a stretch. We are being "sanctified" (made holy) by God> not "being saved". What are we "being saved" from, pray tell? Since faithfulness brings trials and tribulations, and reward in the "next life".....

So now how could one "receive the gospel" and not be "being saved?" Well, look at how the verse is arranged. Preached -- received -- stand -- remember -- being saved (sanctified).

You need to understand sentence construction better.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, #1>which you received, #2>in which you stand, #3>and by which you are being saved, if( now here, it introduces conditions to the three points above> #1 you hold fast to the word I preached to you--#2 unless you believed in vain.

"The gospel, which they "received"....unless they believed in vain. Those who "believed in vain" did not have a true saving faith, but a "vain" or "meaningless" one. A faith that was all talk...no action> and therefore not true faith!

But what if Paul goes back to the first premise ("I preached") and says "I preached but you believed in vain?" Doesn't that mean that they "received the gospel" but did not "stand" in it -- were not, therefore, justified nor reconciled to God? How could that be? They believed without repenting. They believed without saying a "sinner's prayer" -- without giving their lives to God. Can you see how that would mean that they weren't really "being saved" daily in their "works?"

Again> they were saved by a non vain faith> one that would inevitably produce works. That is the only meaning that fits, that does not require theological gymnastics.

dad, this is distinction between justification and sanctification (between having eternal life and being a disciple/follower) is a HUGE "stumblingblock" between us. I would like for you to see if you can present a good sotierology without observing the difference 1) between justification and sanctification, 2) between soul and spirit, 3) between repenting from self unto eternal life and repenting daily of sins unto the saving life of Christ (Rom 5:10).

There is a distinction between sanctification and justification> Justification ALWAYS begins sanctification though> the second step is not optional. The bible declares those not being sanctified, are lost.

 

[skypair]

Just a few comments for all who are exchanging views on this thread:

1) Sanctification/works do NOT confer eternal life. I think all agree with that principle but most are not making the right application. If one is "justified" with God, then sanctification/"works" will come. We don't have to make our definition of works the "litmus test" by which we guage ours or anyone else's salvation. Maybe works won't come immediately -- maybe not that we can detect -- but God knows.

2) The same mistake crept in in the OT in in believing that sanctification conferred eternal life. Remember how the Pharisees answered Jesus? "We are of our father Abraham" and that was it regarding their salvation for many of them. Remember Paul allowed as how the children of Israel were "baptized into Moses" in the Exodus. I mean, these people really thought that by being followers of Abraham and Moses and the prophets saved them.

NOT SO! Any believer knows it isn't by "family" or "the law" that we are saved. It was not that they did the works of Abraham or Moses did that saved -- it was by believing in the "gospel of the kingdom" and "gospel of the sacrifice" that they were saved.

God works the same today regarding JUSTIFICATION of eternal life -- receive the gospel of reconciliation with God and then receive sanctification of a disciple/follower.

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

Just a few comments for all who are exchanging views on this thread:

1) Sanctification/works do NOT confer eternal life. I think all agree with that principle but most are not making the right application. If one is "justified" with God, then sanctification/"works" will come. We don't have to make our definition of works the "litmus test" by which we guage ours or anyone else's salvation. Maybe works won't come immediately -- maybe not that we can detect -- but God knows.

Depends on what you mean by "works". There should be an IMMEDIATE "Desire" to follow God, and a desire to turn away from the world. One moment, you are a slave to darkness, sin, etc., the next you are set free, and indwelled by the Holy Spirit> this will cause an immediate change in attitude, with consequential changes in actions. If you were "saved" one day, and then went about the same sinful lifestyle the next day, with no guilt, contrition of heart, desire to change, etc., you were never saved.

2) The same mistake crept in in the OT in in believing that sanctification conferred eternal life. Remember how the Pharisees answered Jesus? "We are of our father Abraham" and that was it regarding their salvation for many of them. Remember Paul allowed as how the children of Israel were "baptized into Moses" in the Exodus. I mean, these people really thought that by being followers of Abraham and Moses and the prophets saved them.

NOT SO! The Pharisees thought they were saved because of their bloodline (Abraham is our father!), and they did not have to do anything! What, btw, was Jesus' primary problem with them? Well....

Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
Mat 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;

Now why did Jesus say that? He gives the answer to His apostles...

Mat 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,
Mat 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

The scribes, and Pharisees, ALSO had a "vain" faith in God> they preached, but did not practice....such a meaningless faith cannot save.

God works the same today regarding JUSTIFICATION of eternal life -- receive the gospel of reconciliation with God and then receive sanctification of a disciple/follower.

skypair

As soon as one is saved, they are a disciple of Jesus. I agree He works the same today. So what should we expect from saved men and women today?

Act 7:59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Act 7:60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Act 4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold
Act 4:35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.


Etc. Etc.....

 

[skypair]

Well, we're getting remarkably close despite your pugnacious attitude. :laugh:

This is simply impossible. "saved" and "sanctified" are in no way synonymous. Those who are "being saved" cannot refer to sanctification. If you are going to go that far in twisting the meanings of words, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. We need to take the text, as written, instead of pressing it into our theology.

Salvation occurs on 3 levels just as the fall did: As in Adam's case, the SOUL dies in sin or is justified in repentance immediately. The SPIRIT is dying in more sin or is being saved in more "works" progressively, daily. Justification saves us in eternity and as you read down through this same chapter, you will see that that was all the Corinthians believed in -- "pie in the sky." By dismissing sanctification during this life, you are basically dismissing being "saved by the life of Christ."

The difference in their soteriologies, is that J. Mac says sanctification is NOT optional, and Lou says it is.

Which is precisely why Lou accuses JM of teaching a "works" salvation. Here's why Lou perceives that: Calvinism has no prior act that a lost person can do to be saved. He is either presumed to be "elect" or presumed to be reprobate still. If, then, he starts behaving as JM thinks he should by reflecting the Lordship of Christ in his life, he is only doing what is MANDATORY in JM's mind for salvation. So now the "elect" might be behaving after JM's model and not the Spirit's, right? He makes himself no different than the Pope in this, dad. And that, again, is why Lou repudiates JM.

Lou in effect, makes sanctification an optional second step in the Christian life, contrary to scripture,

It IS optional. It's optional for several reasons. 1) Justification has altogether different considerations than sanctification. In justification, without knowing anything about what Jesus life would be like, I agree to exchange my life for Christ's in death and in resurrection to "new life." In sanctification, we make the individual choices on how we will apply that principle to our lives.

The 60's peace movement was an outgrowth of "born agains" with NO knowledge of God's truth. They just looked at Jesus as the "Prince of Peace" and applied that. These early "hippies" weren't unsaved for that. They were trying to display the Lordship of Christ in their lives (Of course, it went haywire because there really was a political will of lost people to join in.). What would JM have said about those believers?

The important point here is that we make decisions about our sanctification and a) hopefully they are Spirit-based but b) if we are saved, God will use "chastisement" as a means to sanctify us in our wrong decisions.

Right and wrong. Right that we are saved by faith. WRONG in that it "doesn't involve works". Works is the "completion" of faith.

EXACTLY!! So why does JM not let someone pray a "sinner's prayer" and profess salvation right up front? Why does he demand works of believers but not demand repentance in order to come to salvation? It's because his paradigm is faulty!

No works? No faith.

Which absolutely SCREAMS for a "sinner's prayer" in place of "it is all of God."

We are being "sanctified" (made holy) by God> not "being saved". What are we "being saved" from, pray tell?

From sin. Do you like sin or would you rather be saved from it? From "wrong place - wrong time." Do you like working a job that God hasn't led you to? Being at a bar when a fight breaks out? From bad marriage. Do you like being married to "Mrs. Wrong?" How about would you like to be able to heal your marriage? Basically, from any area that you take your hands off of and let God direct you in.

"The gospel, which they "received"....unless they believed in vain. Those who "believed in vain" did not have a true saving faith, but a "vain" or "meaningless" one. A faith that was all talk...no action> and therefore not true faith!

Basically, you are agreeing with me. You are saying that they first must have done something "by faith" to be reconciled with God and then they could begin "being saved" by the things Paul preached beyond the gospel. I would say that same thing to JM -- before you embark them on being like Jesus, you better be sure that they are reconciled to God.

Again> they were saved by a non vain faith> one that would inevitably produce works. That is the only meaning that fits, that does not require theological gymnastics.

Not inevitably produces works -- you just said faith was the "completion of works." Therefore, I would argue that the faith they needed for sanctification must assuredly come from a faith that they needed to be reconciled to God in the first place!

The bible declares those not being sanctified, are lost.

That is so. But turn it around -- are those endeavoring to be sanctified, those doing "works," necessarily saved? No.

skypair