All LS Discussions and Debates

[Jarthur001]

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

No.

Now give me the quotes already.

 

[Jarthur001]

JArthur:

I have offered to give you quotes from two of MacArthur’s books to show how he misuses 1 Thess. 1:9 to support his definition of repentance. You asked for these because you said you want to check the quotes and pages numbers.

I have for days asked you to disclose whether or not you have read any of MacArthur's major LS books. Thus far you are ignoring and/or dodging this issue.

Could it be you are yet another LS defender (MacArthur’s version) who NEVER read any of his books on the subject? You would be the third in less than two months.

To date, have you read, in their entirety, and of his five major books on LS? Yes or No?


LM

Lou,

I have a life. At times I cannot reply.

One needs only go by your own words to see how you mislead.

 

[Jarthur001]

James said...

That being said..you said its more about those that believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation".

No, I did not say that, at all. You did.

Ed

Quote by Ed....

The question, issue, and debate is fairly accurately designated as those who believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation'." I'll take the second categorization, and be included in it, for it is fairly accurate, as I said.

Link here..

 

[Jarthur001]

Could it be you are yet another LS defender (MacArthur’s version) who NEVER read any of his books on the subject? You would be the third in less than two months.


LM

If I recall Lou, most of the others were not as much defending MacArthur as they were not allowing you to misquote and mislead. If MacArthur is wrong I along with others will say so. To this date you have yet to prove he is wrong.

 

[Lukasaurus]

I'd just like to throw in the fact that The Bible never contains the phrase "being saved" anywhere.

You are either saved or lost. There is no "being saved" in an individual progressive sense, but people are being saved, which would be a synonym for the phrase "getting saved". People are getting saved every day, but there is no one "being saved" in the sense of it being a progressive salvation.

Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

 

[EdSutton]

I'd just like to throw in the fact that The Bible never contains the phrase "being saved" anywhere.

You are either saved or lost. There is no "being saved" in an individual progressive sense, but people are being saved, which would be a synonym for the phrase "getting saved". People are getting saved every day, but there is no one "being saved" in the sense of it being a progressive salvation.

Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

First off, welcome to the Baptist Board! :wavey:

Now, I agree with the "saved or lost" analogy, for in this sense, there is no "in-between" position.

However, "May I Say -"

23 "Lord," someone asked Him, "are there few being saved?" He said to them, 24 "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, (C) because I tell you, many will try to enter and won't be able 25 once the homeowner gets up and shuts the door. (Lk. 13:23-25a - HCSB c.f. NASB)

47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Ac. 2:47 - NKJV c.f. YLT, NCV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, RV, WEB)

20 And neither sun nor stars appearing for many days, and no small storm lying on us, in the end all hope of our being saved was taken away. (Ac. 27:20 - DBY, YLT)

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (I Cor. 1:18 - NKJV c.f. YLT, NCV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, RV)

1 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood,
2 through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain, (I Cor. 15:1-2 - YLT c.f. NCV, ESV)


15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. [II Cor. 2:15 - NKJV c.f. YLT, NCV (also vs. 16), ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, RV]

it appears you might be mistaken!

So, ya' wanna' rethink your position?

Personally, I use the NKJV, and have for some time. The phrase, "being saved" certainly is in "The Bible".

Ed

 

[Lukasaurus]

Thanks for the welcome brother

Well, I put my avatar as it is to show my opinion of modern Bible versions and my beliefs about the King James. Having said that, I won't say anymore lest the thread turn into a Bible version debate.

 

[Havensdad]

Thanks for the welcome brother

Well, I put my avatar as it is to show my opinion of modern Bible versions and my beliefs about the King James. Having said that, I won't say anymore lest the thread turn into a Bible version debate.

So you think that because the King James translators made a mistake, that it "became" the Bible?? (The Greek in the Textus Receptus (where the King James version comes from), ALSO says "being saved".

The KJ translators messed up, and failed to correctly apply the Greek tense/voice/mood....

 

[Lukasaurus]

Alright. It's on. Let's take it to another thread shall we.

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks for the welcome brother

Well, I put my avatar as it is to show my opinion of modern Bible versions and my beliefs about the King James. Having said that, I won't say anymore lest the thread turn into a Bible version debate.

FTR, I didn't even notice your "picture" until now, but did notice that I did not recall the name, looked over to see the few posts, and join date, and welcomed you, then. Personally, again FTR, I used one particular KJV, which had all my irreplaceable notes, both good and bad, for 27 1/2 years, to be nearly exact, including most of my time at Bible College, in it, until it was apparently "borrowed" from my cab, one night, without either my knowledge or permission. I would happily give ten times the real value of it, from any bookstore, just to have it back, and so I could continue using it.

The NKJV I acquired, as a replacement is simply a decent "second" choice (size of print and margin space are important, to me), since the 1967 KJV, in the printing and style of the KJV I had, is no longer available, in any place I have searched, for any price. The 'publisher' simply does not print that edition, anymore, either.

I don't ask for all that much. I just want a 1967 KJV, New Scofield Reference Edition, in wide margin, black letter Edition, Leather cover.

Not much at all, really.

Why, just to be easy to get along with, I'd even settle for the "looseleaf" version.

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

JArthur- Never Read JM's Books

No. Now give me the quotes already.

To All:

For days I have been asking Jarthur if he has read any of MacArthur's five major books in their entirety, on Lordship Salvation?

Finally, after days of his posting at BB, but dodging this issue, we get an admission that he has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s LS books.

Here we have a fierce defender of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel, but coming from a man who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s books. The first was canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist, now Jarthur.

This goes a long way toward explaining why these men have to resort to twisting a doctrinal debate into a personality clash. They have latched onto (hitched their wagons) to a “star” personality, and therefore, take any legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of the man’s theology, personally.

They do not even take the time to learn what the teaching is they are embracing.


LM

PS: Give you the quotes? Why? You do the honest thing first: Get JM's latest LS book, read it, then report back with your request for those page numbers. Until you do the homework you remain ignorant of and irrelevant to any discussion of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel.

 

[Havensdad]

To All:

For days I have been asking Jarthur if he has read any of MacArthur's five major books in their entirety, on Lordship Salvation?

Finally, after days of his posting at BB, but dodging this issue, we get an admission that he has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s LS books.

Here we have a fierce defender of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel, but coming from a man who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s books. The first was canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist, now Jarthur.

This goes a long way toward explaining why these men have to resort to twisting a doctrinal debate into a personality clash. They have latched onto (hitched their wagons) to a “star” personality, and therefore, take any legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of the man’s theology, personally.

They do not even take the time to learn what the teaching is they are embracing.


LM

PS: Give you the quotes? Why? You do the honest thing first: Get JM's latest LS book, read it, then report back with your request for those page numbers. Until you do the homework you remain ignorant of and irrelevant to any discussion of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel.

As I have stated multiple times, I HAVE read them, I own one of them, and I have asked for the quotes...and yet, you dodge again.

Get a life.

 

[Rippon]

I don't ask for all that much. I just want a 1967 KJV, New Scofield Reference Edition, in wide margin, black letter Edition, Leather cover.

Ed

Say Ed,would you say that that Scofield Edition was kind of a median point between the old KJV and the NKJV?I know the translation was KJV;but the notes corrected a number of errors in the found in the text.

 

[Lukasaurus]

What I find amusing is that Scofield is listed as EDITOR in the New Scofield Reference Bible, even though he died 45 years before it's notes were edited. And with that, I'll not say another word about the NSRB

 

[EdSutton]

What I find amusing is that Scofield is listed as EDITOR in the New Scofield Reference Bible, even though he died 45 years before it's notes were edited. And with that, I'll not say another word about the NSRB

That is not any particular inaccuracy, as regards this "Study Bible", regardless of your insinuation. (And Dr. Gipp's inaccuracies.) Dr. C. I. Scofield was the (Chief) Editor of "the Scofield® Study system." The overall "system" of the New Scofield Reference Bible©, though a "Revision", is essentially the same, as that employed by Dr. Scofield. Oxford University possessed, and still possesses exclusive rights to the System and the trademarked name of Scofield, which is and was a patented trademark of Oxford University Press, and which name is registered with the U. S. Patent office. In 1967, all the Scofield® notes from the 1909 and 1917 Editions were still under copyright, as well. (That is no longer the case, having passed into the "public domain", which is why you can now procure an "Original Scofield" that is not an Oxford publication.) Dr. E. Schuyler English is correctly listed as the Chairman of the Editorial Revision Committee. The 1967 Edition of The New Scofield Reference Bible© is still under copyright.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Say Ed,would you say that that Scofield Edition was kind of a median point between the old KJV and the NKJV?I know the translation was KJV;but the notes corrected a number of errors in the found in the text.

Could be, I guess. I never really thought about it, in this way, although several of the "New Scofield" people very likely had at least some influence on some of the NKJV translators.

Ed.

 

[EdSutton]

Quote by Ed....

James said...
Quote:
That being said..you said its more about those that believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation".
No, I did not say that, at all. You did.

Quote by Ed....
Quote:
The question, issue, and debate is fairly accurately designated as those who believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation'." I'll take the second categorization, and be included in it, for it is fairly accurate, as I said.

Link here..

From the 'link' ed post::

The issue is not personalities - not now, nor has it ever been so for the entire time since the Reformation (despite some fairly 'high profile' individuals seen at times, in the discussion, most notably Drs. John W. MacArthur, Charles C. Ryrie, John S. Piper, A. Ray Stanford, the late John Gerstner and H. A. Ironside, Robert G. Wilkin, Prof. Zane C. Hodges and the late Mr. Miles. J. Stanford, for a few of those who are better known), since it really started to arise to prominence and was recognized as a serious question with the late B. B. Warfield and the late Lewis Sperry Chafer starting to debate the issue nearly a century ago; and which was clearly framed (and given the moniker of "Lordship Salvation") now nearly a half century ago, in 1959 in "Eternity" by Drs. Everett F. Harrison, and John R. W. Stott, both of whom I believe are still alive, from what I was able to deternmine this AM.

Uh, which part of this paragraph did you manage to miss? I do not care about "who' is "on one side or another", from the most noted theologian, and/or greatest preacher of all time (whoever either or both of those may be), to William Tyndale's proverbial "ploughboy". There is no "more about" issue, at all, regarding this subject, in any of my posts! I went on to say this, in the same post. (Spelling and a missed word corrected)

The issue is simply boiled down to this - "What must I do to be saved?" The 'content' of the answer to that question, as given by Paul of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved...". This is the entire issue, in one nutshell.

No place in Scripture can one find this direct question asked (or specifically implied, even) with an answer that is given, elsewhere.

The simple fact of the matter is that many, if not most, "Lordship Salvation" advocates do not accept this "answer" as 'sufficient,' in order for one to be saved, despite the statements and claims of many Scriptures, such as Rom. 4, thus having "no problem" with "adding to" Scripture's clear declarations, by confuting "the free gift" with costly discipleship.

One who would say a "free gift" "will cost you everything," really needs to learn some basic English meanings of words, IMO.

Ed.

 

[Jarthur001]

To All:

For days I have been asking Jarthur if he has read any of MacArthur's five major books in their entirety, on Lordship Salvation?

Finally, after days of his posting at BB, but dodging this issue, we get an admission that he has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s LS books.

Here we have a fierce defender of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel, but coming from a man who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s books. The first was canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist, now Jarthur.

This goes a long way toward explaining why these men have to resort to twisting a doctrinal debate into a personality clash. They have latched onto (hitched their wagons) to a “star” personality, and therefore, take any legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of the man’s theology, personally.

They do not even take the time to learn what the teaching is they are embracing.


LM

PS: Give you the quotes? Why? You do the honest thing first: Get JM's latest LS book, read it, then report back with your request for those page numbers. Until you do the homework you remain ignorant of and irrelevant to any discussion of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel.

Let it be known that Lou has once again been dishonest. He said over and over for days on end that he would give quotes if I answered. I have answered...now he still withholds the quotes. Me thinks its another Lou game.

Lou said...

This goes a long way toward explaining why these men have to resort to twisting a doctrinal debate into a personality clash. They have latched onto (hitched their wagons) to a “star” personality, and therefore, take any legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of the man’s theology, personally.

All of us , canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist and now I, have replied to YOUR words. It must be that you cannot defend your book, blog, and post here on the BB. No twisting was needed other then untwisting of your post. Just say the truth and let others judge.

Give me the quotes that you treasure so dear and let me judge on my own if you are right on John. What is so hard about that?

Now if you give the quotes on not, I will not be able to reply for a few days. I say this because I don't want you to get all worked up again over nothing.

Quotes please...................

 

[Jarthur001]

Quote by Ed....From the 'link' ed post::Uh, which part of this paragraph did you manage to miss?



Ed.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


wrong paragraph ed....

Ed said...

The question, issue, and debate is fairly accurately designated as those who believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation'." I'll take the second categorization, and be included in it, for it is fairly accurate, as I said.

I will copy and paste down to the quote..

The error is : Lordship or "No Lord" Salvation ??

No, the error is the very title of this thread!!!

[Attack Deleted]

The title alone is a pejorative wording, and I definitely suspect the OP really knows this.

If he does not, then the OP does not even have a clue on the real issue, and/or current debate, sad to say.

Every individual who is within a thousand miles of being orthodox, has believed unequivocably that Jesus Christ is the Lord, for more two millennia. He is declared by Scripture with his most complete name and title of "Lord Jesus Christ", and this is rendered in these exact words, and has been for more the six and a quarter centuries, and between 60 and 100 times, by every English Bible translation*, worth half of "the price of the the paper, on which it is printed" (not to mention "the cost of the ink") since John Wycliffe's painstakingly hand copied NT appeared in 1382. (Did you know that the Wycliffe NT still contained the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and that exactly 1000 years after the Council of Rome 'officially' declared the exact NT Canon? But I digress.)

Christ Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus Christ is God, the Son. Jesus, the Christ, is Lord. He is, not only Lord, He is Lord of all. (How many ways does one have to express this Biblical truth??) This has been believed, stated, and held by the entire church since her "birthday", where Peter first declared to Israel that God made Him so: #

Quote:
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Ac. 2:36)
repeated it with emphasis to the Gentiles

Quote:
36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—(Ac. 10:36)
declared to the Jerusalem Church

Quote:
17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Ac. 11:17)
possibly repeated to the 'Jerusalem Church Council'@

Quote:
11 “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (Ac. 15:11)
which definitely declared this in their 'edict' that "circumcision and keeing the law" were not required for salvation, but with certain 'necessary' admonitions for 'disciples.'

Quote:
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f]—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. (Ac.15:24-29) 15:26)

(There is a "troubling" that continues even to this day, which I hope to address, probably in a later post, but time may prevent me from doing this for a few days, if the thread is still going, then.)

Every writer (and most books) of the NT, except for 3 - Mathew, Mark and Apollos (It's my post, and I believe Apollos, not Paul, is likely the author of Hebrews. ) expressly also declare the words ("Lord Jesus Christ") which Peter first declared in Ac. 11:17. Apollos puts this together in two verses, without using these direct words, and Matthew and Mark both put this all together, as well, in their gospels. He, alone, is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is "very God of very God" in the words of the Council of Nicea of 325, which Council was convend to 'settle' the question of the nature of Christ.

The "Church fathers" declare this very thing - who He is.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinityquotes.htm

There is salvation in no other than He.

Quote:
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’[a] 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Ac. 4:10-12 cp. I Cor. 1:2)

There is no such thing as "'No Lord' salvation". I have requested multiple times on this board, that this deliberately misleading appellation, along with the slur of "No-Lordship" which has been applied to those who also hold the general beliefs I do, not be used, as well. Yet it continues to appear. Why is that??

The question, issue, and debate is fairly accurately designated as those who believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation'." I'll take the second categorization, and be included in it, for it is fairly accurate, as I said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The bold above are your posted words.


Change them if you want...I don't care. But you did post them at some point.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Intellectual Blindness

If I recall Lou, most of the others were not as much defending MacArthur as they were not allowing you to misquote and mislead. If MacArthur is wrong I along with others will say so. To this date you have yet to prove he is wrong.

JArthur:

This is almost humorous. How could they know if I was misquoting MacArthur when they had never read or owned his books in the first place?

Second, I am amused at the LS sympathizers predictable mantra: “You are misquoting MacArthur,” which they use with anyone who calls into question the works based LS as taught by MacArthur or any major Lordship advocate. Many have quoted MacArthur from his LS books, in context and are able to show, from JM’s own writing that he conditions eternal salvation on a commitment to behavior, more so than believing.

The quotes that prove LS is works based and man centered are available, easily understood, they have been reiterated and reinforced by JM with each of his successive LS book. The many quotes are in print, in context, but LS sympathizers still cry, “misrepresentation.”

These shrill cries of “misrepresentation” coming from a man (Jarthur) who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s major books on LS. Talk about intellectual blindness and/or dishonesty, this is it.


LM