Doctrinal Defintions of Faith

[Lou Martuneac]

canadyjd:

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

Is This an Invitation to Salvation?


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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

Hi Ed:

Good to see you here.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I see npetreley is into judging motives, too... :tear:

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

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Please accept my appology sir. Will you forgive me?

I would be so interested in John's response.

I took no offense.


LM

 

[Amy.G]

That has NOTHING to do with "keeping the faith". Amy, I was ALMOST a full blown 5 pointer...I know what the "P" stands for.

Here is the quote from the article you posted again.

It is argued that God has changed that person in ways that are outside of his or her own ability to alter fundamentally, and he or she will therefore persevere in the faith.

persevere in the faith.

 

[EdSutton]

That is not what the P means. Replace it with preservation and you'll have it right. God preserves those who are His. I think all of us OSAS folks believe that.
We persevere because He preserves us.

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

 

[Amy.G]

Perseverance of the Saints
Will the saints endure to the end? Can we know if we are going to endure?


Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin are not changed and saved by grace. They are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation. God motions the heart to good work, and continues that good work to the end

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.

 

[EdSutton]

Hi Ed:

Good to see you here.


LM

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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

 

[Amy.G]

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

 

[npetreley]

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...

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

 

[Amy.G]

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!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Be Very Cautious!

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.

Amy:

JM wrote,

“Perhaps the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”

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

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up,” (James 4:7-10).

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

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations,” (James 1:1-2).

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

JM stumbles over this.


LM

 

[skypair]

Amy. Npet,

(4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation;

Lou is right --- JM is showing his own blindness to scripture when he takes that passage articulates pre-salvation work -- “submit, resist, draw nigh, cleanse, purify, be afflicted, mourn, weep, humble yourself” -- and then ignores them.

The REAL "pre-salvation" work that is REQUIRED of ALL who would be saved is REPENTANCE toward God. There is absolutely no way you will be saved until you realize your own sinful nature and "fall upon" the provision of God. You are not saved in order TO repent but BY repenting. If that doesn't make sense to you then you have another gospel in mind.

And this is not just NT but OT as well. Even when Adam clothed himself with the skins God provided instead of the leaves which he had covered with, he was showing repentance!

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

Lou, you quoted JM as saying this:

JM wrote,
Quote:
“Perhaps the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”

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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou, 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

 

[npetreley]

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?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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

 

[canadyjd]

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: