All LS Discussions and Debates

[skypair]

James,

In this thread, "Lordship" has become another nuanced word meaning "if I do not become Jesus' disciple, I have not been saved." I've even heard this logic used by some of the Reform persuasion to try to prove the Judas Escariot WAS saved and just made a "incey wincey mistake" in betraying Jesus! The truth of the matter is, you got 2 decisions to make: 1) Will I believe on Christ as Savior and be reconciled to God and 2) will I be sanctified by the Holy Spirit or by Calvinism/Lordship or Pentecostalism or any number of other seemingly believing denominations.

You do choose which church you go to, right? You do so, I take it, fully persuaded that they have more truth than anyone else except the Spirit, right?

The fact is, Calvinism adds lots of nuanced words to our vocabulary in the interest in explaining God and theology that just flat are deceptive half-truths. I personally don't find the Holy Spirit using such words and phrases to explain God and theology to me in scripture nor in coscience (our 2 witnesses). So I've decided I won't be SANCTIFIED by men but by the SPIRIT. As Paul once rightly asked the Corinthians, "Did Cephas die for you? did Paul?" And now I guess I would add, "Did JM?" Why do you make yourself out to be a disciple saying "I am of Cephas," "of Paul", of JM?? Does Christ's Spirit not speak to you?? Can we just "drop" these "theological models" that just keep needing "refinement" (to use Obama's excuse) and revision and go back to the words of "SOLA SCRIPTURA" as your founders once proclaimed??

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't remember deciding to believe anything. I was convinced of the truth by the preaching of the gospel. Decision was never an oppition.

As you said right off, rejection was an option. You chose not to reject then, did you not? You chose to submit because you were convinced/persuaded, right? It was something that you had to think about in your heart/spirit before you would believe or reject.

And just because something is true doesn't make it "irresistible." Obviously, if all people hear the same words you do but most are not persuaded, that doesn't tell us that a) they didn't hear or b) they didn't understand what you yourself understood. It tells us the c) they processed what they heard, same as you, and came to a different decision.

Even as I try to explain my view to you, there are certain truths that, in the context of what you think you know in your spirit (basically, just intellectual context but it could be emotional as well in our case right?), you will reject. That is why the gospel is so simple.

Gotta to to the doctor's. See ya later. :wave:

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The Emotional Attachment to LS Personalities

To Objective Readers:

At this point in another thread we found, for a third time in a few weeks a passionate sympathizer of Lordship Salvation (LS), especially John MacArthur’s interpretation of LS, has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s five major books on the subject.

In the Lordship Salvation debates note how men like Jarthur are driven to create a personality clash where there is none. He does not even know what LS is as defined by John MacArthur, but constantly cries, “misrepresentation.” He convinces himself that MacArthur’s character is under attack. He (Jarthur) is taking it personally because he does not know where the error of LS is, and that is because he has never done the homework to study (let alone read) MacArthur’s major LS apologetics.

This is what you must expect from many of the LS sympathizers. They are largely driven by an emotional attachment to MacArthur. You are seeing as I have for years, that they attach their emotions to MacArthur without ever having read or carefully studied his LS doctrine. This is why they cry, “misrepresentation,” which ironically always follows claiming we, who (after reading and studying the issue) reject LS, don’t and/or can’t understand LS.

It is shocking how many are in the blogs, trying to defend LS and don’t even know what LS is as defined by its leading advocates.* They simply trust a well-known name and assume name recognition guarantees fidelity to the Scriptures.

Following John MacArthur into Lordship Salvation and fiercely defending JM’s LS interpretation without ever having read his major LS books is a classic example of how trusting theology based on nothing more than reputation can be a dangerous mistake.

If the LS sympathizers would have done the work of the noble Bereans (Acts 17), testing what is in MacArthur’s books against the BOOK, before accepting LS, thy might not have fallen into the trap of Lordship Salvation.

It is foolish to dismiss or defend a doctrinal position simply because its source comes from a previously trusted friend, fellowship, or institution. Fidelity to biblical truth is the greatest expression of love. When a man’s doctrine is brought into question and that question is based on public statements he has made, is it unreasonable to ask that man to clarify his doctrine? Is it unreasonable to expect defenders of Lordship Salvation might have done the homework to understand what they seek to defend? Is it unreasonable to search the Scriptures to determine the soundness of a man’s theological position?


LM

*When, as I sometimes do, find men attacking LS, but do not understand the crux of the doctrinal controversy, or misinterpret LS, I will offer instruction to that man as well.

 

[skypair]

There is a difference between belief and knowing the truth. The word belief implies faith. If we are convinced and convicted of our sins to the point of remorse and repentance we will have faith. However if we know the truth and when convicted we reject it...

"Rejection" is called "unbelief," right?

And here's how I would distinguish knowing -- belief -- faith. Yes, knowing the truth is nothing except that now you are responsible for what you do with it.

Believing the truth is, as you say, being "convinced and convicted ... to the point of remorse and repentance." Or, really, to the point of deciding in favor of it. It is putting your hope in something you are convinced of.

But faith is given, can only be given, by God. It is the assurance that you have chosen right. Though the words for belief and faith are the same in scripture, Heb 11:1 tells us "...faith is the substance of things hoped for [believed], the evidence of things not seen." God gives us this substance and evidence in a number of ways: He gives us the indwelling Spirit along with faith. Our spirits agree with His Spirit that we are His, Rom 8:16. Like 1John 5:9-12 says, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." You really have no assurance or faith before you have remorse and repent in accordance with the gospel, do you?

Salvation is more than belief. You must also surrender all. which faith in action.

You do not have faith with out action, that action must be submission.

Good! You got it right AND you realize that you chose to surrender and chose to submit. And from the rest of your post, you seem to agree that salvation is "conditional" as well -- conditioned on belief that acts, right?

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

(Revised)- The Emotional Attachment to LS Personalities

Dear BB Guests:

At this point in another thread we found, for a third time in a few weeks a passionate sympathizer of Lordship Salvation (LS), especially John MacArthur’s interpretation of LS, has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s five major books on the subject.

In the Lordship Salvation debates please note how men are driven to create a personality clash where there is none. Many LS sympathizers do not even know what LS is, as defined by John MacArthur, but constantly cry, “misrepresentation.” They convince themselves that MacArthur’s character is under attack. They take it personally when MacArthur’s teaching is under scrutiny because they do not recognize the error of LS, and that is because some of them have never done the homework to study (let alone read) MacArthur’s major LS apologetics.

This is what you must expect from many of the LS sympathizers. They are largely driven by an emotional attachment to MacArthur. You are seeing as I have for years, that they attach their emotions to MacArthur without ever having read or carefully studied his LS doctrine. This is why they cry, “misrepresentation,” which ironically always follows claiming we, who (after reading and studying the issue) reject LS, don’t and/or can’t understand LS.

It is shocking how many are in the blogs, trying to defend LS and don’t even know what LS is as defined by its leading advocates.* They simply trust a well-known name and assume name recognition guarantees fidelity to the Scriptures.

Following John MacArthur into Lordship Salvation and fiercely defending JM’s LS interpretation without ever having read his major LS books is a classic example of how trusting theology based on nothing more than reputation can be a dangerous mistake.

If the LS sympathizers would have done the work of the noble Bereans (Acts 17), testing what is in MacArthur’s books against the BOOK, before accepting LS, thy might not have fallen into the trap of Lordship Salvation.

It is foolish to dismiss or defend a doctrinal position simply because its source comes from a previously trusted friend, fellowship, or institution. Fidelity to biblical truth is the greatest expression of love. When a man’s doctrine is brought into question and that question is based on public statements he has made, is it unreasonable to ask that man to clarify his doctrine? Is it unreasonable to expect defenders of Lordship Salvation might have done the homework to understand what they seek to defend? Is it unreasonable to search the Scriptures to determine the soundness of a man’s theological position?


LM

*When, as I sometimes do, find men attacking LS, but do not understand the crux of the doctrinal controversy, or misinterpret LS, I will offer instruction to that man as well.

**Moderator- please delete the original version of this topic, posted today at 8:47am. Thanks.

 

[donnA]

Anyone who can't call Christ Lord, isn't of Him. The Holy Spirit in us causes us to call Jesus Lord.
But thats just what the bible says.
It's a well know fact you do not answer questions, especially when you can not use scripture to defend your view that Jesus is not Lord, then why bother any further.
I state again, Paul didn't have a problem calling Jesus Lord. Seems Thomas didn't when he said "my Lord and my God".
Scripture is clear, if people belong to Jesus He is Lord, if they do not then He is not Lord.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Donna:

You have some truth to your views on the Lordship of Christ. The lost must know and believe that Jesus is Lord, in the sense of His deity. The saved should recognize, obey Him and serve Him as Lord. If they were born again by faith in Him, but do not serve Him as they should, they are out of God’s will, but not out of a position in Christ.

The crux of the problem is that the LS interpretation of the Gospel conditions the reception of eternal life on a lost man making an upfront commitment to cross bearing, following and self-denial. LS is a promise for a promise message. LS requires lost men to promise obedience in exchange for the promise of eternal life.

The Bible is very clear that no works or the intention to do works can save. That is a LS message that frustrates grace, (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:21).

As for the alleged “well known fact,” you might want to refrain from accepting the falsehoods coming from LS sympathizers who have never read JM’s books in the first place. My character and motives will be attacked again for even mentioning this, but here goes: In my book of nearly 300 pages there are scores of Scriptural answers to the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation. The subtitle is: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Furthermore, if you were to scan my 750+ BB posts, 800+ at Sharper Iron and scores of articles on LS at my blog and others you will find me on record answering and interacting at length on questions by LS sympathizers.

Kind regards,


LM

 

[Havensdad]

LS requires lost men to promise obedience in exchange for the promise of eternal life.

This is an absolutely ridiculous contention, one that has been refuted by many, and ignored by Lou.

Lordship Salvation, according to J. Mac., is "a change of mind and heart", which leads to (ALWAYS!!!!) a change in action.

What Lou wants to do, is allow people who give Lip service, but have no actual change of heart and mind, to call themselves Christians. Jesus tied our "beliefs" in with our actions, when He said :

"They honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me"...

Jesus called those who did not actually change their actions "hypocrites".

So what should we be preaching? The same thing Paul preached:

"We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, 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. "

Our Gospel proclamation should be "Turn from your sin, forsake your old ways, and put your faith and trust in Christ", as Paul proclaimed it. If we do not preach turning from sin FOR SALVATION (repentance: a change of mind that results in changing of actions{ALWAYS}) , then we are NOT preaching what Paul preached!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dear BB Guests:

At this point in another thread we found, for a third time in a few weeks a passionate sympathizer of Lordship Salvation (LS), especially John MacArthur’s interpretation of LS, has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s five major books on the subject.

In the Lordship Salvation debates please note how men are driven to create a personality clash where there is none. Many LS sympathizers do not even know what LS is, as defined by John MacArthur, but constantly cry, “misrepresentation.” They convince themselves that MacArthur’s character is under attack. They take it personally when MacArthur’s teaching is under scrutiny because they do not recognize the error of LS, and that is because some of them have never done the homework to study (let alone read) MacArthur’s major LS apologetics.

This is what you must expect from many of the LS sympathizers. They are largely driven by an emotional attachment to MacArthur. You are seeing as I have for years, that they attach their emotions to MacArthur without ever having read or carefully studied his LS doctrine. This is why they cry, “misrepresentation,” which ironically always follows claiming we, who (after reading and studying the issue) reject LS, don’t and/or can’t understand LS.

It is shocking how many are in the blogs, trying to defend LS and don’t even know what LS is as defined by its leading advocates.* They simply trust a well-known name and assume name recognition guarantees fidelity to the Scriptures.

Following John MacArthur into Lordship Salvation and fiercely defending JM’s LS interpretation without ever having read his major LS books is a classic example of how trusting theology based on nothing more than reputation can be a dangerous mistake.

If the LS sympathizers would have done the work of the noble Bereans (Acts 17), testing what is in MacArthur’s books against the BOOK, before accepting LS, thy might not have fallen into the trap of Lordship Salvation.

It is foolish to dismiss or defend a doctrinal position simply because its source comes from a previously trusted friend, fellowship, or institution. Fidelity to biblical truth is the greatest expression of love. When a man’s doctrine is brought into question and that question is based on public statements he has made, is it unreasonable to ask that man to clarify his doctrine? Is it unreasonable to expect defenders of Lordship Salvation might have done the homework to understand what they seek to defend? Is it unreasonable to search the Scriptures to determine the soundness of a man’s theological position?


LM

*When, as I sometimes do, find men attacking LS, but do not understand the crux of the doctrinal controversy, or misinterpret LS, I will offer instruction to that man as well.

**Moderator- please delete the original version of this topic, posted today at 8:47am. Thanks.

I haven't read JM and have no idea what Lordship salvation is. Can you inform me? I like reading a few authors. Lets see: I like CS Lewis, Oswald Chambers (usually for devotions), Watchman Nee, Bonhoffer, Francis Scheafer (spelling?), AW Tozer, JND Kelly, and a few others. I stay away from things like the purpose driven life or the prayer of Jabez. If I think something is fadish I'm usually turned off. I also like (who wrote) the Grace Awakening. That was back in the 80's so I haven't read him in awhile. Actually I'm caught up in writings of the early church and the ecuminical councils which is taking all sorts of time. I also like the author of a shepards look at psalm 23 by Philip Keller. I'll eventually get to reading the institutes by Calvin but I have a few centuries to go yet.

 

[donnA]

As has been brought up in other threads, in this and other forums. Why is this op allowed
to violate BB rules by posting multiple threads on the same topic?

13. No cross posting. Do not post the same message to more than one forum

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html
Does this mean, aperson can post teh same thread over and over again as long as it's in the same forum?
Probably not since I've seen this happen and them be locked for violating rules.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Books Answering Lordship Salvation

I haven't read JM and have no idea what Lordship salvation is. Can you inform me? I like reading a few authors.

I recommend the following answers to Lordship Salvation, all of which quote LS teachers very liberally and in context.

Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response. This one you can read on line. It is among the best refutations of the errors of LS (technically challenging for some).

So Great Salvation

John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ

Summary of Lordship Salvation on a Single Page

These will be very helpful.


LM

PS: A Shepherd's Look at 23rd Pslam is excellent.
Swindoll's Grace Awakening is bad news.
Warren's Purpose Driven Life is a travesty. See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Rick Warren

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Donna:

This was a revised version. I asked the MOD to delete the original.


LM

 

[annsni]

I recommend the following answers to Lordship Salvation, all of which quote LS teachers very liberally and in context.

Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response. This one you can read on line. It is among the best refutations of the errors of LS (technically challenging for some).

So Great Salvation

John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ

Summary of Lordship Salvation on a Single Page

These will be very helpful.


LM

PS: A Shepherd's Look at 23rd Pslam is excellent.
Swindoll's Grace Awakening is bad news.
Warren's Purpose Driven Life is a travesty. See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Rick Warren

Thinkingstuff - I would then recommend that you look at John MacArthur's own site to see what the truth is. Lou has a tendency - no a habit - of posting half truths to support himself.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2438

 

[skypair]

Lou,

Just on a you-and-me level, I have often suggested how you might deflect these criticisms but never get an answer, and opinion, nada nor any change of tact on your part. Are you serious about resolving the differences or just mad about them? Are you even willing to face the "half" of the "half truth" that JM gets right?

skypair

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I recommend the following answers to Lordship Salvation, all of which quote LS teachers very liberally and in context.

Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response. This one you can read on line. It is among the best refutations of the errors of LS (technically challenging for some).

So Great Salvation

John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ

Summary of Lordship Salvation on a Single Page

These will be very helpful.


LM

PS: A Shepherd's Look at 23rd Pslam is excellent.
Swindoll's Grace Awakening is bad news.
Warren's Purpose Driven Life is a travesty. See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Rick Warren

So if my understanding is correct, I'll break it down to an understandable point for me. What you're saying that JM is saying or those who subscribe to Lordship Salvations(this title seems ridiculous to me BTW) is that a person is Justified not by belief alone but accompanied with works? Is this correct? Is their a distinction between Justification (a positional consept) and Sanctification (a active consept)? Are you then taking the position of Free Grace theology? I'm asking not making any points at this time.

 

[Havensdad]

So if my understanding is correct, I'll break it down to an understandable point for me. What you're saying that JM is saying or those who subscribe to Lordship Salvations(this title seems ridiculous to me BTW) is that a person is Justified not by belief alone but accompanied with works? Is this correct? Is their a distinction between Justification (a positional consept) and Sanctification (a active consept)? Are you then taking the position of Free Grace theology? I'm asking not making any points at this time.

#1 That IS what He saying.

But it is not correct. In John Macarthur's own words, "we are justified completely by grace through faith".

The sticking point, bro, is that Lou wants people to be able to SAY "I repent", but go on doing just as they were doing, without a corresponding change in action.

In other word's when the disciples command people multiple times in the Scriptures to turn from "vanities", "sin", and "darkness" AND believe the good news (as they do preach) they are preaching "works" salvation, according to Lou's definition.

For instance (I keep using this one, because Lou has not responded to it) Paul preaches:

We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news(this word is "euangelizo" and means to "preach the Gospel"), 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.

This is EXACTLY what Macarthur preaches, and is exactly what Lou attacks him for. According to Lou any "turning from" things such as is clearly expressed by Paul's own mouth here, equates "works salvation". So according to Lou, Paul misspoke here, and he is preaching a false gospel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

#1 That IS what He saying.

But it is not correct. In John Macarthur's own words, "we are justified completely by grace through faith".

The sticking point, bro, is that Lou wants people to be able to SAY "I repent", but go on doing just as they were doing, without a corresponding change in action.

In other word's when the disciples command people multiple times in the Scriptures to turn from "vanities", "sin", and "darkness" AND believe the good news (as they do preach) they are preaching "works" salvation, according to Lou's definition.

For instance (I keep using this one, because Lou has not responded to it) Paul preaches:

We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news(this word is "euangelizo" and means to "preach the Gospel"), 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.

This is EXACTLY what Macarthur preaches, and is exactly what Lou attacks him for. According to Lou any "turning from" things such as is clearly expressed by Paul's own mouth here, equates "works salvation". So according to Lou, Paul misspoke here, and he is preaching a false gospel.

It seems to me that your argument would be better supported by the epistle of James indicating that Faith without works is dead. The very reason Luther called it a straw letter. Or where Paul says that we are saved unto good works. But don't take this as I'm defending your position at this point.

 

[EdSutton]

LS requires lost men to promise obedience in exchange for the promise of eternal life.

This quote was, I believe, made by Lou Martuneac.

This is an absolutely ridiculous contention, one that has been refuted by many, and ignored by Lou.

Lordship Salvation, according to J. Mac., is "a change of mind and heart", which leads to (ALWAYS!!!!) a change in action.

What Lou wants to do, is allow people who give Lip service, but have no actual change of heart and mind, to call themselves Christians. [Snipped!]

If we do not preach turning from sin FOR SALVATION (repentance: a change of mind that results in changing of actions{ALWAYS}) , then we are NOT preaching what Paul preached!

Regardless of what Dr. John MacArthur says, as well as the fact that you are attempting to put words into the mouth of Lou Martuneac, here, which to my knowledge, at least, he has never even suggested, what is the effective difference between what you are saying in my bolded part and what Lou Martuneac has said, above? More than one poster on this board and forum have said that 'obedience' is necessary for salvation, in so many words, if not using my exact phraseology. I believe they would come under the category of "Lordship Salvation" advocates. I can look up names, if absolutely necessary, but I believe you would (or at least should) know this to be true.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I ... have no idea what Lordship salvation is. Can you inform me?

Well, you could start by reading my posts that use that exact term. I have made over 100 of them on that subject. You can find that many more which name 'repentance' as weel, and I was here making them for almost a year before Lou Martuneac, or a year and a half before Havensdad were even members, FTR.

Just don't be getting too 'emotionally attached', 'cause my bride might not approve.

Ed

 

[Havensdad]

Here is the difference Ed>

"works" as defined by scripture, is things done actively which bestow merit. For instance, circumcision. Feeding the poor. Priestly sacrifices. Etc.

"Giving up" something (such as ceasing to do something you shouldn't) is never described as "works" in scripture.

Notice that it is impossible for "turning from a sinful lifestyle" to be "works salvation", for this is what Paul preached, the very one who most eloquently expounds on the Doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith!