Doctrinal Defintions of Faith

Sorry, but you have misunderstood JM. You need to read more of his books on LS.

Subsequent means- to come after...following conversion.

JM means "forsaking oneself for Christ's sake" must precede and is a condition for salvation. Remember, he is defining his view "saving faith." Therefore, the faith that saves, according to JM, does not follow conversion, it is the sine qua non (indespensible condition) for salvation. He demands an upfront commitment to discipleship for salvation.

I trust that makes it more clear for you.


LM

 

Thank you Amy. I call it as I see it. Seems the only thing Lou wants to do is put down reformed theology, and all those who hold to it. He promotes his book and condemns other Godly men in the process. I know for a fact that John McArthur is one of the most Godly men and teachers we have today. In fact, npet hit the nail on the head. Lou and others are taking out of context what John is actually saying. He would never front load or add anything to God's sovereign work in grace. I know that. He has been misrepresented. Period.
What kind of character promotes his own scholarship at the cost of the reputation of another brother in Christ. At least i'm not trying to sell my book or web site. :tear:

 

How wonderfully put! John McArthur would not argue with this at all.... but be in total agreement. He does not have to use forums such as this to promote his material..... His scholarship stands on its own biblically.

 

Anyone who wants to "be" a Christian, not "be saved".

As best as I can tell, J. Mac is speaking to what being a disciple of Christ should look like. If you aren't doing those things, you aren't "being" a disciple of Christ.

Are you telling me that J. Mac doesn't embrace the the doctrine of "you are saved by grace through faith"? Doesn't he affirm his belief of that very doctrine?

peace to youraying:

 

Perhaps I have. Let's look at the quote again.

In my first, and second, reading of this statement seems that J. Mac is saying "forsaking oneself for Christ's sake" is not something that is optional following your conversion. It is the thing that accompanies saving faith.

You think he is saying that "forsaking oneself for Christ' sake" doesn't occur subsequent to conversion, it is the thing that one must have prior to conversion. Is that what you are saying?

Perhaps you can answer a question for me. Doesn't J. Mac affirm the doctrine that a person is "saved by grace through faith"?

peace to youraying:

 

I would agree that salvation is a process rather than an event. Jesus said Come and Follow Me not look at Me. He stressed abiding in Him, loving Him and our neighbors, and keeping His commandments. But the journey has to start somewhere. Are you saying you believe someone is born saved?

 

Seems like I've heard someone say that justification and glorification are events, and sanctification is a process. That makes sense to me. But it's all on a continuum - all part of one single plan - a seamless progression.

The question arises in my mind: "if someone dies immediately after trusting Christ, is their salvation incomplete?" Of course the answer is no. They are complete in Christ. But we have to think in terms of purpose. What purpose did the life and death of that person serve? What purpose does the continued life of a believer serve? And what purpose does the pre-conversion life of a believer serve?

The case of the typical believer is one who is converted as some point in their life and continues to live for some number of years following. In that case, the purpose is to glorify God in sanctification, which consists of separation and growth in the Lord. And sanctification is just as much a part of being saved as justification is. Notice I said "being" saved, not "getting" saved.

The typical modern evangelical understanding of salvation is that justification and glorification is guaranteed to those that believe, but sanctification is a big MAYBE. I can't go along with that. It's like saying that God has the power to deliver his children from the penalty of sin, and the presence of sin, but not the power of sin. Think about it. Isn't sanctification just as much a guarantee as the other aspects of salvation? Separation and growth are surely guaranteed to take place in the life of a true believer, but the RATE of growth can vary, hence we must be careful in passing judgment on someone whose growth might be slower than we expect.

I'm not willing to say that anyone is "born saved", but a question could be asked as to whether or not an infant that dies in childbirth is "born saved". I mean think about it - if we assume that an infant goes to heaven, and it dies during delivery, was it born saved? I don't know, I think I'll just leave that up to God. That might be a good topic for another thread.

 

JD, you are just not leaving any room for debate today!

I can't argue with you about anything! :laugh:

 

The doctrine of Justification has a two-fold application that is undeniable in Scripture:

1. Christ became our Substitute and removed the wrath of God and satisfied the demands of the Law (2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8: 3, 4).

2. Christ also became our righteousness, both at the Justication level and the Sanctification level (1 Cor 1:30).

3. All those who are saved will inevitably walk in the Lordship of Christ, because Christ's righteousness is the ground of both our salvation and sanctification.

 

While I was typing that post I was thinking to myself "this is too much like an academic paper". Not leaving any room for conversation. Guess I was in that mental state. I'll try to stir some debate later. It's off to bed for now. :wavey:

 

JM means the thing that is required for "saving faith."

No, LS demands Upfront commitment to what is expected of a disciple for the reception of eternal life, and then life long keeping of the upfront commitment.

Yes, but his interpretation is redefined through his LS and Calvnistic presuppositions. "whole-heated commitment, willing to die for Jesus sake," etc. All of these are his sine qua non (indispensable condition) for salvation.

It is in print, those who say this is misrepresentation are woefully uniformed or just reacting because a favorite personalities doctrine is under question, and they take it personally as though questioning what a man teaches is a personal attack.




LM

 

Amy:

I'll address his statements above to prove a character problem.

Seems the only thing Lou wants to do is put down reformed theology, and all those who hold to it. (Lie #1)

He promotes his book and condemns other Godly men in the process. (Lie #2)

Lou and others are taking out of context what John is actually saying. (Uninformed LS mantra statement)

He would never front load or add anything to God's sovereign work in grace. (Uninformed LS mantra statement; "sovereign work in grace" is double-speak for Irresistible Grace)

He has been misrepresented. (Uninformed LS mantra statement)

What kind of character promotes his own scholarship at the cost of the reputation of another brother in Christ. (Judging motives, see Matt. 7:1-2)

At least i'm not trying to sell my book or web site. (Judging motives, see Matt. 7:1-2)

Finally, do you see any interaction on a doctrinal level with me?

He is "calling" what he wants to see. Then fabricates a series of lies and misinformation.


LM

 

Lou. If one says it seems like you want to put down reformed theology and those who hold to it....... you call them a liar?

Do you promote your book on your web page?.... the same web page where you misrepresent other Godly men?

You say i'm uninformed...... thats your opinion.

I have interacted with you on a doctrinal level. I called you on your prevenient grace and you could not defend the fact that not all are given the Gospel..... remember?

Should we not judge the motives of those who cause division and attack other brothers in Christ? I would be interested ..... have you spoken to John McArthur? I appologize in advance if you have given John the opportunity to defend his position. It would be biblical of you to do that. Have you? Awaiting your response.

 

Do you have any quotes from J. Mac that uses these exact words...."an upfront commitment to discipleship is required prior to salvation"?

You have slightly changed your vocabulary here. Early, I believe, you quoted him as saying it was the indispensable condition for saving faith. Now you say it is the indispensable condition for salvation.

The reason that is important is that, as I stated earlier, the quotes you have of J.Mac seem to me to indicate he believes this commitment to Christ will always accompany saving faith, and is subsequent to conversion. That is what he said.

What I am trying to determine is if you are accurately representing J. Mac's beliefs on this issue. From what I have seen, I don't believe you are.

For instance, in the quote you have used over and over, J. Mac. says that commitment to Christ is not optional subsequent to conversion... I see the "not optional" and understand he is saying commitment will always accompany conversion. You see J. Mac. as saying commitment is required prior to salvation. I believe you are misrepresenting his position.

If, however, you can find quotes from J. Mac that uses the same vocabulary you are using (instead of your interpretation of what he is saying using different vocabulary) then I could be persuaded.

peace to youraying:

 

MacArthur does clearly teach "saved by grace through faith", unfortunately it appears before one can be "saved by grace through faith" "an upfront commitment to discipleship is required".

 

Faith

Faith is really important in our lives, but any man who thinks they are on top of the mountain of salvation and not even God can knock them down off of it they are pretty arrogant.

Romans 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.


but praise be to God

23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Hebrews 3:
Warning Against Unbelief
7So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
8do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert,
9where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.
10That is why I was angry with that generation,
and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "[Psalm 95:7-11]
12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."[Psalm 95:7,8 ]

16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[Or disbelieved
]? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

 

Cute kitten, Amy G.! :thumbs:

Not sure how I got to be on your 'ignore list' , as I apparently have, based on the last sentence in his post I'm responding to, but I'll try and answer some of this, anyway. First, "No, I have no pleasure, at all, in arguing, just for the sake of arguing. And No, I have no personal problem with you, at all." If my memory is correct, I have actually agreed with you several times, (and more times than I have actually disagreed, BTW) and 'taken up for you' at times in the past, when I thought you were unjustly 'attacked' by other posters.

Every word. I do not comment or reply to any post, unless I have read it.

I don't recall ever saying, or implying that you said anything different. (FTR, neither did I say, that you said anything about "making Jesus Lord of your life", either, in a previous post.) I do question, perhaps, how you are defining "faith alone". [BTW, this is a phrase I seldom, if ever use, as it is not found in Scripture, in the versions I normally cite, save in Jas. 2:24 in the NASB, ESV, and HCSB, where it states that "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.", (My emphasis.) which passage I already commented on, in the post that apparently got you so upset.]

However, I did post some Scripture references, as well, in the post. I believe I cited or referred to some 30 of them, as well as gave 6 Scriptural examples of individuals, FTR. Sorry, brevity is not exactly my "strong suit".

I find it difficult to merely make a couple of sentences of 'religious sounding stuff' that may or may not have any Scriptural backing. And yes, I honestly do think you have probably misunderstood what "Lordship Salvation" advocates are both suggesting, and actually saying. You have virtually said as much, in later posts, I believe.

I tend to agree with Alex Quackenbush, Lou Martuneac, skypair, and webdog (cute kid! :thumbs on this, basically, from what I've seen them post. FTR, I do not recall any of these four ever saying we should not, by our lives and conduct, have a good testimony, either.

I never said this. Further, I do not believe I ever said this is not taught nor is it not the expected norm for a believer. However, I did ask where does it say some (or all) of what you are claiming "will" (your word) necessarily, and/or surely, be the case.

I cited Scripture to show that this does not happen, automatically, as I think you are implying.

And I do believe that there are some common misunderstandings, one of which comes, even though usually unintentionally, from the 'mixing' of 'the free gift of salvation' and 'discipleship', for an example. A second thing is the failure to realize exactly what it means that a Christian now has two natures. He has a fully developed 'old sin nature', known as the 'natural man', 'old man', an 'flesh' (Rom. 6:6; 7:25; I Cor. 2:14; etc.), and a 'new nature', known as the "spiritual", and "new man" (I Cor. 3:1; Col. 3:10; etc.), as well. The new does not 'automatically' cancel out the old, else Paul was entirely mistaken, in his own experience. (Rom. 7:15 ff.) The third is a difference between "our standing" and "our state". For an example, we are commanded to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. (II Pet. 3:18) Unfortuanately, not all do this growing and reach this maturity. (Heb. 5:12- 6:9) I commented on some of this, as well, in the post.[/quote]

I'm not sure of what you mean exactly, by this, since this wording is found exactly twice in most standard translations, is not applied to an individual, as far as I can determine, in the case of salvation but is said only to the whole nation of Israel. (Ezek. 18:31, 26:36) God does say that on who is in Christ is "a new creation" (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)I guess one could say that that applies, here, but it specifically is not what is being addressed by "a new heart".

I actually would say "fellowship", as opposed to relationship, here, for I believe that once one is a child of God, that never changes. My relationship with my father and mother never changed, from my birth, but my 'fellowship' may not always have been so constant. I believe the same is true of our relationship with God, in short. We, as believers, are children of God. (Jn. 1:12; 6:37,39; Rom. 8:14; I Jn. 3:1,2)

I don't recall ever saying any such words. If so, and my memory is failing (which is possible), when and where did I supposedly say this?

As do I. I believe and teach this exactly!

I really hope this is not the case, but if so, it just has to be, I guess. I have made no personal attack (or 'put down'), in any way, that I am aware of. If I have, I apologize, for it certainly was not intended. But I have stood up for what I think Scripture teaches, in this. I can do nothing else, in this. I really wish you would re-read the post that got you so upset, and see if I made any attack, at all. And I am sorry that I am so 'wordy', but I seem to unable to do anything else. I never attempt to "preach a sermon", at all, for I am not nor have I ever been 'a preacher'. But I am trying to teach, as that is where my own limited 'spiritual gift' lies.

Ed

 

Yup! Sometimes.

Lordship Salvation can and does just as easily arise from "Arminianism", as well.

Oh, I forgot! There is no real difference in these two "systems", is there?

Ed

 

Ed, I apologize if I offended you. I felt as though you were attacking me and obviously I was being oversensative. Let's start over.

I think we are actually agreeing. I really don't know what to think about LS, but if Web and Lou's quotes are correct, I do not agree with LS. I hope that I have made my views known by now on the bb that I believe in salvation by grace through faith + nothing. I do belielve there is a change in a person who is saved. Not that we will be sinless or perfect in any way and sometimes we may wander away from God for a time, but He will always bring us home to Him.

It's still hard for me to accept that a teacher as solid as John MacArthur who is also a Calvinist could possibly believe and teach that one must make a commitment to Christ before he is saved. That just doesn't add up to me. I'm not saying the opposers aren't right, just that it doesn't make sense to me. Does that make sense? :laugh:

I agree that I should have used the word fellowship instead of relationship. Our relationship doesn't change with God. I just used the wrong word.

Thanks for the compliment on my kitten. You're ALRIGHT! I can't stay upset with you when you are saying my "baby" is cute! :laugh: I raised her and her sister since they were 3 days old, so they're kinda special to me.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Glad we're still friends! :thumbs:

BTW, I don't have you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore.

 

Exactly what I have said in two rather long posts, already on this thread.

(Do I actually have anything anywhere close to an informative 'short post'?) :type:

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed