All LS Discussions and Debates

[Rippon]

Dictionary definition of ad hominem, here.

Ed

How so Ed?

 

[EdSutton]

It seems that Satan and His followers cannot stand the spread of the Biblical gospel by the men of God who support it and proclaim it (John Macarthur, John Piper, Ray Comfort (for his evangelistic efforts...very successful ones!) and thousands of pastors around the world), so he influences people like Lou to attack and demean them, to keep people from listening to them and being saved.

Your doing your job well, Lou. Keep it up. I bet you can make at least 10,000 people ignore these harbingers of God's word, and cause them to plunge into hell.

Definition, Part 2, it appears to me.

No doubt, your opinion of those you disagree with in this, namely those of the "free grace" crowd, by the implication in this post, is that we/they are followers of Satan?

Also, it would appear you do not think one can be saved who merely "believes on the Lord Jesus Christ" unless and until they also do some thing or things in addition, based on some of your posts, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

...that EVERYTHING proclaimed after Jesus and the 12 apostles is HEARSAY THEOLOGY?? Some good -- some bad, but HEARSAY! We told this to the Catholics. Can we not tell it to ourselves?? Hearsay is NOT ADMISSIBLE in the "court" of OUR FAITH!!

Can this be reworded to say everything not included in the Canon of Scripture?

Else we are dismissing all the Epistles except for those of Peter and John.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

How so Ed?

Main Entry:

1 ad ho·mi·nem Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\ Function:adjective Etymology:New Latin, literally, to the personDate:1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Ed, what is a kewpie doll?

A metaphorical gift given to deserving BB'ers who agree with his ideas!



Actually Kewpie Dolls are figurines based on illustrations by Rose O'Neill from the Ladies Home Journal of 1909 (back when Ed was a mere teen).

 

[EdSutton]

These are the defining points of LS, by those of us who are the proponents of it. It is from "Grace to You". So any points that say ANYTHING contrary to this, is simply non LS people wanting to argue and cause division. Other things might be believed by INDIVIDUALS , but it is NOT part of "Lordship Salvation".

Out of curiosity, who died so that "Grace to You" and Havensdad are left in charge of defining "Lordship Salvation"? Oh wait. It must have been the late Dr. John H. Gerstner, whom I have quoted on this subject, on the BB, who passed on in 1996.

First

Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.

So, Lordship Salvation teaches that "Repentance" is a change of mind/heart. If anyone says something else, they are lying, and INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the position. It DOES RESULT in a change of action, as any change of mind MUST (or it is not a change of mind).

FTR, your summation leaves out a part of the definition given in the above quote, namely the part about "turning from sin".

I do not agree with this definition of repentance, as regards salvation, as given above. This is a defining issue, I agree. But I'm merely a simple man, and I agree with the simple alternative - namely that the repentance that is involved with/for salvation is effectively a synonym for (I prefer to call it the "flip-side" of) faith, and that salvation does not "require" "turning from sin", but is entirely by grace through believe/faith. (Jn. 3:1-18, 36; 5:24; Act. 16:30-32, Eph. 2:8-10)

Second

Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.

NO WORKS required for salvation. Anyone who says LS involves salvation by works, is a liar. Also, the truly faithful are PRESERVED, by GOD> in other words, God is faithful.

Your summation is not in agreement with what Dr. John Gerstner has said, as I have cited three times lately, and most recently here, only a few hours ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1285336&postcount=155

Also I do not accept the 'Calvinistic' slant on this quote, either, once one gets beyond the first sentence. Nor your own re-word 'spin' of the quote, except that "NO WORKS (are) required for salvation," and that "God is faithful." The Bible knows nothing of any supposed difference between "faithful" and "truly faithful."

I'm gonna' skip the rest of the quotes you offered. They do represent the general position of the advocates of "Lordship Salvation," especially from the 'Calvinistic' perspective of that teaching, although most of this you presented, is also consistent with the 'Arminian' slant on the same teaching, as well.

There are some misrepresentations of what various "free grace" (read that in place of the pejorative term, "easy-believism") advocates (or at least what I actually advocate, and I am even more of a 'free grace' orientation than are webdog, skypair or Lou Martuneac, FTR) actually advocate, although most of them are not meant to intentionally mislead, IMO.

However, not every advocate of 'free grace' would likely agree with the 'pigeonholing' of each point, from my experience. I know that I certainly do not, and I don't believe that the late Dr. Mark G. Cambron or Lou Martuneac, Ronald R. Shea, or Drs. Robert P. Lightner, A. Ray Stanford, Ron R. Seecharan, Richard A. Seymour, James A. Scudder, R. Larry Moyer, Max R. Younce, or Charles C. Ryrie, all of whom are to be found somewhere among the 'leaders' of the 'free grace' position; all of whose names have come up at one time or another on this board or on a 'link' in the cases of Drs. Moyer and Younce; all of whose names are found in various articles about the subject; and every one of the ten who are living, also happens to be a personal friend of mine, as also was the late Dr. Cambron, would agree with every single thing posted from the site, as representative of 'easy-believism', either.

All believers are being sanctified. No exceptions (just like in scripture!)

I fully agree with what you have said, here. However, I definitely suspect that you and I are not saying the same thing, here, nonetheless.

If someone represents something different from the above, they are DELIBERATELY lying.

Since I have not given anyone permission to 'define' "easy-believism" for me, I reject this assessment. And I certainly disagree with some of the 'definition' and 'characterization' of that position as offered by "Grace to You", as I just mentioned, above. But I absolutely deny lying about it, in any manner, whatsoever.

I would suggest that the implication that one or more individuals is "DELIBERATELY lying", and accusations of "lying" and "liar" that have appeared multiple times, by more than one poster, are not helpful to this discussion, at all.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, what is a kewpie doll?

Here's one sample.



Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Ed:

Two men I would add to your list of Free Grace men would be Pastors Tom Stegall & Dennis Rokser.

I link to the Grace Family Journal where they deal with various issues, including the twin errors of MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation and Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel.

They are humble pastors with a special gift for expositing the Scriptures.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The Performance Gospel of LS

Originally Posted by Lukasaurus:
Meritous and Non-meritous works? If non-meritous works are required for salvation, then they are still works. It's double talk: It's basically saying "These works don't contribute to your salvation, but they are required, and if you don't do them, you aren't saved".

Another Kewpie Doll to Luka.

Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of eternal life on a commitment to behavior, doing the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mature born again Christian.

For LS believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation does NOT fully define the faith that saves. LS insists belief MUST be accompanied by a commitment to behavior that is expected of a Christian.

LS, therefore, conditions salvation on the lost man's promise to perform, i.e. his promise to forsake (committing) sin and to start obeying. This is the works-based, non-saving teaching of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

I believe that is SIX posts without a response from Lou. Is that a record?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

No doubt, your opinion of those you disagree with in this, namely those of the "free grace" crowd, by the implication in this post, is that we/they are followers of Satan?

Ed:

Lordship Salvation (LS) fails the test of Scripture, unless we accept the LS advocates attempts to force Scripture into conformity with LS. Therefore, they have to resort to the demonization of any who have biblically resisted the teaching of LS. These men at BB are not the first and will not be the last to use ad hominem to "demonize" any who reject the heretical, works based Lordship Salvation.

Also, it would appear you do not think one can be saved who merely "believes on the Lord Jesus Christ" unless and until they also do some thing or things in addition, based on some of your posts, as well.

For LS believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation does NOT fully define the faith that saves. LS insists belief MUST be accompanied by a commitment to behavior that is expected of a Christian.

LS, therefore, conditions salvation on the lost man's promise to perform, i.e. his promise to forsake (committing) sin and to start obeying. This is the works-based, non-saving teaching of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

Ed:

Lordship Salvation (LS) fails the test of Scripture, unless we accept the LS advocates attempts to force Scripture into conformity with LS. Therefore, they have to resort to the demonization of any who have biblically resisted the teaching of LS. These men at BB are not the first and will not be the last to use ad hominem to "demonize" any who reject the heretical, works based Lordship Salvation.

For LS believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation does NOT fully define the faith that saves. LS insists belief MUST be accompanied by a commitment to behavior that is expected of a Christian.

LS, therefore, conditions salvation on the lost man's promise to perform, i.e. his promise to forsake (committing) sin and to start obeying. This is the works-based, non-saving teaching of Lordship Salvation.


LM

CLASSIC!!:laugh:

He just called at least half the people on this board "Heretics" and perverters of the Gospel, and I AM the one doing attacking people!

Logic, apparently, is a scarce commodity, among "cheap grace" proponents...

 

[Havensdad]

Ed:

Lordship Salvation (LS) fails the test of Scripture, unless we accept the LS advocates attempts to force Scripture into conformity with LS. Therefore, they have to resort to the demonization of any who have biblically resisted the teaching of LS. These men at BB are not the first and will not be the last to use ad hominem to "demonize" any who reject the heretical, works based Lordship Salvation.

For LS believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation does NOT fully define the faith that saves. LS insists belief MUST be accompanied by a commitment to behavior that is expected of a Christian.

LS, therefore, conditions salvation on the lost man's promise to perform, i.e. his promise to forsake (committing) sin and to start obeying. This is the works-based, non-saving teaching of Lordship Salvation.


LM

Then Paul also, was a heretic:

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, 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.

 

[MB]

...that EVERYTHING proclaimed after Jesus and the 12 apostles is HEARSAY THEOLOGY?? Some good -- some bad, but HEARSAY! We told this to the Catholics. Can we not tell it to ourselves?? Hearsay is NOT ADMISSIBLE in the "court" of OUR FAITH!!

Everything Paul wrote is hear say?
MB

 

[skypair]

SkyPair:

I appreciate your concern, but the heresy of Lordship Salvation has been clearly identified for decades. There is no talking past one another, the issue is clear.

It is treason against the Lord Jesus Christ to work in any cooperative effort with the teachers of a false gospel. Lordship Salvation is false through the additions; the Crossless gospel is false by subtraction.

But these here are not the teachers, Lou. Some, as you know, haven't even read the books you critique. Some have yet to piece together the original framework much less the foundation which is Calvinism.

I believe Lordship is an instance where they try to make discipleship salvific. I tried to show that through the parallels of baptism and communion that there is a difference -- saved once eternally and baptized into our Lord but being saved daily and taking communion with our Lord. I hope the Spirit will speak in this and not just me, another hearsay withness. raying:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Everything Paul wrote is hear say?
MB

Paul included himself among the 12. It was Judas we don't listen to, MB. His spirit is coming again, BTW, in AC. I would suggest not listening to him then either!


skypair

 

[EdSutton]

Now I am angry!

CLASSIC!!:laugh:

He just called at least half the people on this board "Heretics" and perverters of the Gospel, and I AM the one doing attacking people!

Logic, apparently, is a scarce commodity, among "cheap grace" proponents...

I freely admit to being angered by this slam at the proponents of "free grace" by calling it "cheap grace."

FTR, you might want to look up the words "pervert" and "heretic" for they are words found in the Bible. I believe you will find both of them there, at least in the KJV. "Heretical" means "divisional", and this subject is certainly that, obviously.

BTW, instead of making a swipe at Lou Martuneac, why did you not reply to my post?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Paul included himself among the 12. It was Judas we don't listen to, MB. His spirit is coming again, BTW, in AC. I would suggest not listening to him then either!


skypair

I do not believe Paul ever included himself or James or Barnabas, or any of the generally lesser known apostles such as Andronicus and Junia among "the 12," nor does Acts. Matthias is the one who is included, here, for "the 12" is mentioned again, after "The 11" and after the lot falling on Matthias, and that long before Saul/Paul came on the scene. (Ac. 1:26; 2:14; 6:2)

BTW, at least 24 individuals are identified as apostles, in Scripture, according to Dr. Herbert Lockyer, and I agree with this. How many can you name??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed:

Two men I would add to your list of Free Grace men would be Pastors Tom Stegall & Dennis Rokser.

I link to the Grace Family Journal where they deal with various issues, including the twin errors of MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation and Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel.

They are humble pastors with a special gift for expositing the Scriptures.


LM

I am familiar with these two men, but they do not happen to be personal friends, which is the primary reason I did not include them, along with some others, in the post.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I believe that is SIX posts without a response from Lou. Is that a record?

I don't know about any record, but I wonder if it is possible to get an informative answer, rather than a snide remark directed at another, from some proponents of "Lordship Salvation," especially about what I have more than once asked about Rom. 4, for one Scripture, and if "believing in Jesus" is "all that is necessary" for one to have "everlasting life"?

BTW, any BBer may answer this question I just asked, and I welcome such a response.

Ed