Doctrinal Defintions of Faith

canadyjd:

Give this by John MacArthur a read, then let me know what your opinion is.

Is This an Invitation to Salvation?


LM

 

Hi Ed:

Good to see you here.


LM

 

Hi Web:

I really couldn't care less what he/they say about it. My blog is, what it is and I make no apology for linking to it below.


LM

 

I took no offense.


LM

 

Here is the quote from the article you posted again.

persevere in the faith.

 

In fact, the "P" in the theological "system" means exactly that - "Persevere". It, unfortunately, does not mean "Preservation of the Saints" in that system, at all.

Please do not think I am after you, again Amy G., for that is not the case, at all.

You merely have here provided the perfect opportunity to show this, IMO.

This will seem hard for many to grasp, as they have heard so often that Calvinism is equated with "grace", but that is incorrect. Please consider what I am here about to say.

I do know whereof I speak, but it is not that I get any kick out of "tooting my own horn".

The system known as Calvinism is no less a system of 'works', than is the system known as 'Arminianism'. And both of these systems can and do spawn "Lordship Salvation-ism". All three 'demand' an undefined "Perseverance", in some form or another, as their own 'evidence' that either they or (usually) someone else is saved. This standard is 'unspoken' and constantly shifting, for there is no specific standard given, only that one may not meet that undefined final standard. (Someone touched on this earlier in the thread.)

The systems have and offer no assurance, save that of Calvinism, which can only offer the assurance that some have been chosen to salvation, but one can never be sure exactly who is included in that 'choosing'. They also all demand the right to define "believe" or faith as "faith PLUS" (in the case of Arminianism) or "faith INCLUDING" (in the case of Calvinism), or "faith WITH" (in the case of Lordship Salvation), to attempt to sum this up in a nutshell. And all these are opposed to "easy believism", which is likewise undefined, but makes a good 'catch slogan'.

AND all three effectively deny and frustrate the grace of God.

There is no difference, folks.

They all merely wear different clothes to 'church'.

I have said before, that most of these theological systems, if the truth really be known, have little place for a "righteous Lot", given his lifestyle. Do most of us, again, if the truth be known?

Would you want it to be known that you rated the Mayor of Sodom (not Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Paul, or Peter) as the Biblical "Saint of saints"? But that is exactly what the Bible does.

(BTW, I also have a Biblical idea of why Abraham 'stopped' bargaining with the LORD if ten righteous could be found, to spare Sodom and Gomorrah, if anyone is interested.)

Ed

 

Well, I was obviously wrong about the OSAS part, although it means the same to me because I believe all of this quote and always have. I guess I was a Calvinist all along and didn't know it.

The point is, we persevere because of God's work, not ours. I doesn't mean we will never commit another sin, but we don't have a license to sin either. This is what Paul taught. IMHO.

 

Good to see you, as well. Happy Thanksgiving, to you and all other BB'ers. I need to knock off, now, for I have to travel fairly early tomorrow. :sleeping_2:

God bless all.

Ed

 

I must say that the last book of John's that I was reading, I put it down and never finished it. I can't even remember the name of the book. I'm going to have to dig through the library and find it. I may need to finish the book. It did seem to raise the theological antanae however.... hense not finishing the book. I've read every other book of his all the way through... its just that this one didn't seem right. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.
If John is truly advocating anything but grace through faith.... I will have to join in with you on denouncing it. Our best is but filthy rags.

 

You likely refer to MacArthur's Hard to Believe. That was his fourth LS apologetic.

There are numerous polarizing statements in that book. It raised many antennas, again.


LM

 

Here is an article from John MacArthur's website, Grace to you.
It's kind of long, so I'll just post the link.

This is Lordship Salvation in JM's own words. See what you think.

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

 

Interesting article, Amy. I don't have a problem with it, personally. As for LS being a preparatory work, he says this...

 

I didn't have a problem with it either, but then there are the quotes Lou gave from JM's book that seem to say otherwise, so I'm still cautious.

I think it needs more research.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Be Very Cautious!

Amy:

JM wrote,

Here is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

npet quotes from JM’s article, “(4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation.” Here, however, we have JM describing the “invitation to salvation” as though salvation is dependent upon, “submit, resist, draw nigh, cleanse, purify, be afflicted, mourn, weep, humble yourself.” This is a perfect description of the works based, man-centered message of LS that frustrates the grace of God (Gal. 2:21).

Here is the opening of James’ epistle

Hmm, “twelve tribes, brethren?” Difficult question; Is this to the saved or unsaved?

JM stumbles over this.


LM

 

Lou, you quoted JM as saying this:

Did this come from one of his books? I didn't find it in the article that I posted earlier.

As I have said, if JM teaches that conditions must be met in order to be saved, I will disagree with that. I also said that I think I need to do further research, and that's what I'm doing. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just want to research it for myself. I hope you understand.

 

Amy:

It comes from his first LS book The Gospel According to Jesus and the revised and expanded edition. See pp. 218, 252 respectively.


LM

 

Lou, I find it amazing that you obsess over something like this.

On the one hand, we have clear heresies such as Millennial Exclusion, false faith-healing ministries, name-it-and-claim-it prosperity gospels, people who predict the end times start next week every week -- and in the extreme, false messiahs, space ships to come and take us to heaven, and hundreds of other insane but seductive lies.

On the other hand, we have JM. He clearly identifies Lordship obedience as EVIDENCE of salvation. You have to stretch what he says and speculate a lot in order to make it a work for salvation, and even then it's debatable. And THIS is the basis for your personal crusade? What, did John MacArthur spit on your mother or something? Did he run over your puppy?

 

Npet:

The hard documented evidence is troubling to you. I can see that.

Please try to stick to the doctrinal issues we are reviewing with Lordship Salvation and JM's interpretation in particular.

It does not serve your cause well when to try to portray a doctrinal discussion as though it is a personality war.

Thanks,


LM

 

Amy G., thank you for the link to J. Mac's website.
http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Lordship_Salvation.pdf

Lou M.: After reading what J. Mac says I see the following.

He affirms salvation is by grace through faith with no human works involved.

He affirms there is no "preparation work" before salvation.

He says what I thought he was saying from the quotes you gave, that commitment to follow Jesus Christ always accompanies true saving faith.

He absolutely does not say a person must have an "upfront" commitment to follow Christ prior to salvation. In fact, he clearly rejects the notion.

Concerning the James 4 quote. You base argument on J. Mac calling v.7-7-10 an invitation to salvation, whereas James was written to believers.

But the context of James 4 goes directly to J. Mac's argument that following Christ accompanies salvation. James has already scolded the professing believers as being "friends of the world and enemies of God". V. 6 says "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble".

James is clearly speaking here of two different kinds of people. God is opposed to one (unsaved, proud, and of the world) and to one God is giving grace to (the humble, not of the world, saved).

It is in that context that the verses 7-10 come. James is concerned with what saving faith should look like, how it is expressed among the believers. v.7-10 expand on that. J. Mac's exposition of the passage is quite good, and certainly reasonable in the context given.

I believe you are misrepresenting what J. Mac says on this issue.

peace to youraying: