"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

[EdSutton]

It's at least nice to know multiple views are possibly being misrepresented.

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

It's at least nice to know multiple views are possibly being misrepresented.

Ed

Then you now agree that lordship is being misrepresented?

 

[EdSutton]

Then you now agree that lordship is being misrepresented?

Actually, no - perhaps, but not necessarily, in answer to your question.

Various individuals have their own idea of what they mean by "lordship". These ideas may or may not be the same, as what yours (or mine) happen to be.

The reason I said what I said is that both Lou Martuneac, whom I happen to know personally, and Dr. Charles Ryrie, whom I have personally spoken with on more than one occasion, although I would not say that I know him well personally, on more than one occasion on these pages, have been stated to have apparently misrepresented the views of Dr. John Mac Arthur.

I shall not attempt to go there, in this post, to define who is or is not correct in this, for it is irrelevant to this post. Both Dr. Charles Ryrie and Mr. Lou Martuneac, as well as such as Mr. Zane Hodges and Dr. Jack Schapp are around and can defend themselves, should they so choose.

That does not hapopen to be the case for such as the late Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and the late Dr. Jack Hyles.

I believe both have been maligned by implication, here, and words are being ascribed to at least thesw two individuals that they did not Disagree with the conclusions and implications of what they actually have said, if you must.

However, the comment (and 'nickname') of

And there you go. Mr Gospel with no Lord himself. (my emphasis - Ed)

implying that Dr. Jack Hyles does not actually believe that Jesus is Lord, or worse, is not even saved, is uncalled for, and a complete misrepresentation, IMO.

I am no particular fan of Dr. Jack Hyles. (Yes, I do refer to anyone as "Dr." when that title has been conferred on them, regardless of how little or how much I may think of the origins and conferrers of that title.) I have not referred to him in 6700+ posts more than once on the BB in two years, until now. (I am much more of a 'fan' of Dr. Lewis S. Chafer, FTR.)

However, I am even far less of a fan of seeing anyone's views deliberately misrepresented.

Anyone's views, including those of Jarthur001 and EdSutton are fair game, when the posts are publicly made here (and incidentally, they are copyrighted), here in this 'Debate' forum. However, 'interpretation' and/or disagreement is one thing; misrepresentation and caricature is another, entirely.

Some of my most strident defenses, where any individual is concerned, have been regarding individuals with whom I strongly disagreed, but were not able to defend themselves, here, including one BB poster who was 'banned' for a time.

'Nuff said on this??

FTR, I did ask another poster what he thought about this sentence by Dr. MacArthur, where he said (and Lou Martuneac quoted) this -

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur - The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78)

I will ask again the same thing. I will also ask (anyone) if salvation is for one who does not forsake everything, whatever that is really supposed to mean.

Does 'forsaking everything' mean relying totally on the risen Lord Jesus Christ, based on his atonement and by his grace through faith alone, to save us? That is in a (probably poorly worded) nutshell, what I believe. By grace through faith plus and minus nothing, in the vernacular.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

No, all men have sinned, period. And then their SOUL died but their SPIRIT -- their intellect, emotions and will -- remain "alive" and intact (they aren't "brain dead").

I might question this "brain dead" part for some I know. :tongue3:

even when their bodies are in far better shape than mine. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

No, all men have sinned, period. And then their SOUL died but their SPIRIT -- their intellect, emotions and will -- remain "alive" and intact (they aren't "brain dead").

I might question this "brain dead" part for some I know. :tongue3:

even when their bodies are in far better shape than mine. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Hello Ed:

Enjoying your notes and comments. You wrote,

"FTR, I did ask another poster what he thought about this sentence by Dr. MacArthur, where he said (and Lou Martuneac quoted) this..."

The quote is

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

MacArthur is calling on the lost for a commitment to, “forsake everything” FOR salvation. This is not just over what should follow and be part of salvation. No, MacArthur says that to become a Christian a commitment to “forsake everything” is required FOR salvation.

I am asking for any pro-LS advocate for a clear response to whether or not "salvation is for those who are willing forsake everything?"

Thanks,


LM

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Ed:

Enjoying your notes and comments. You wrote, The quote is
MacArthur is calling on the lost for a commitment to, “forsake everything” FOR salvation. This is not just over what should follow and be part of salvation. No, MacArthur says that to become a Christian a commitment to “forsake everything” is required FOR salvation.

I am asking for any pro-LS advocate for a clear response to whether or not "salvation is for those who are willing forsake everything?"

Thanks,

LM

Again Lou, you mislead.

MacArthur knew that some would not understand this statement and therefore opened the preface to his Gospel according to Jesus with this line...

"Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God's sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. . . . Real salvation cannot and will not fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer" (p. xiii.)

Why do you keep misleading others?

 

[Jarthur001]

Various individuals have their own idea of what they mean by "lordship". These ideas may or may not be the same, as what yours (or mine) happen to be.

I agree. But there is no need to mislead what others have said.

The reason I said what I said is that both Lou Martuneac, whom I happen to know personally, and Dr. Charles Ryrie, whom I have personally spoken with on more than one occasion, although I would not say that I know him well personally, on more than one occasion on these pages, have been stated to have apparently misrepresented the views of Dr. John Mac Arthur.

Why? Why misrepresented? I mean it is one thing to not understand their views. But when many many people have shown then they are wrong, and they just keep going what is the point other than hate?

I shall not attempt to go there, in this post, to define who is or is not correct in this, for it is irrelevant to this post. Both Dr. Charles Ryrie and Mr. Lou Martuneac, as well as such as Mr. Zane Hodges and Dr. Jack Schapp are around and can defend themselves, should they so choose.

You will not take a stand and tell someone they are wrong, when you said above that they have misrepresented???

That does not hapopen to be the case for such as the late Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and the late Dr. Jack Hyles.

I believe both have been maligned by implication, here, and words are being ascribed to at least thesw two individuals that they did not Disagree with the conclusions and implications of what they actually have said, if you must.

However, the comment (and 'nickname') of implying that Dr. Jack Hyles does not actually believe that Jesus is Lord, or worse, is not even saved, is uncalled for, and a complete misrepresentation, IMO.

I have no idea what Chafer believes and never heard of him, but if you want to do a study on the doctrines of Hyles, start a thread and I'll be there.

However, I am even far less of a fan of seeing anyone's views deliberately misrepresented.

But you will not take a stand?

Some of my most strident defenses, where any individual is concerned, have been regarding individuals with whom I strongly disagreed, but were not able to defend themselves, here, including one BB poster who was 'banned' for a time.

If they cannot back they need to take it back.

****************

FTR, I did ask another poster what he thought about this sentence by Dr. MacArthur, where he said (and Lou Martuneac quoted) this -I will ask again the same thing. I will also ask (anyone) if salvation is for one who does not forsake everything, whatever that is really supposed to mean.

Those that hate MacArthur and tell lies about him say he wants people to quit sinning before they are saved. That is a lie. He is saying that the reason for being saved is to be saved from sin. Easy Believeism sales a salvation to Heaven. Ask anyone who wants to be save unto heaven and all will say yes. Ask who wants to be saved from their sins, most will say know. Most do not want to be rid of their sins. They like sin.

MacArthur is clear that grace is the only way that God saves. But what we are saved from is SIN. Therefore the sinner must want Christ based on this reason. Will that person be stop sinning all together? NO!!

Lordship is having the desire of turning from sin and to follow the Lord that can bring change.

Now this is the key point that MacArthur haters don't get.

Works do not help. If we could work, we would do it own. It is seeing that works does not help that we are drawn to Christ and his work on the cross.

Does 'forsaking everything' mean relying totally on the risen Lord Jesus Christ, based on his atonement and by his grace through faith alone, to save us?

YES...

Its a desire to be whole and knowing we cannot do it on our own, and not relying on our works, but in this desire o be whole we rest in what Christ has done.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Brother Arthur:

Thank you for posting that preface by Dr. MacArthur. Let me reiterate I have listened to Dr. MacArthur for ten years, and I have never heard him state in any way, shape, or form, that salvation is any other than what he has stated in that preface. Which is why I suspect that there is something personal in what Lou Martuneac is doing because I do not believe he will be careless to not read the preface of any book he has particular interest in, like any supposed scholar will, and should, do.

If he should say he did read the preface, then why does he insist on portraying Dr. MacArthur's doctrine as works-based salvation ?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Salvation in Exchange for Forsaking?

Ed:

Thanks for your notes and comments.

All these LS apologists can do is cry “misrepresentation,” or further cloud and confuse the Gospel through extra-biblical presuppositions drawn from the circle-logic of five point Calvinism.

BTW, a helpful series by George Zeller is The Dangers of Reformed Theology. I encourge those who are uncertain about Calvinism to read that series. Especially these:

The Danger of Teaching Regeneration Precedes Faith

The Danger of Teaching Faith is a Gift

The Danger of Adding Additional Requirements to Saving Faith

Anyway, it is also interesting to me how one can quote the exact words of a LS advocate, with meaning and implications being very obvious, but LS apologists consistently cry, “that is NOT what he is saying.” NO matter who is addressing LS, whether it be me, George Zeller or Charles Ryrie, all of us are in some way misrepresenting LS.

Anyway, it appears the LS apologists do not want to deal with the meaning and implications of the statement,

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

MacArthur is calling on the lost for a commitment to, “forsake everything” FOR salvation. This is not just over what should follow and be part of salvation. No, MacArthur says that to become a Christian a commitment to “forsake everything” is required FOR salvation. This is a works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21)!

Instead of dealing squarely with that statement they try to bury the disturbing implications in the extra-biblical Calvinistic presuppositions or entirely ignore the statement and the many others just like it. Zeller wrote, "We need to avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the RESULT of salvation and making it the REQUIREMENT for salvation."

I am asking for any pro-LS advocate for a clear Bible response, apart from the trappings of extra-biblical logic, to whether or not “salvation is for those who are willing forsake everything?”


LM

 

[skypair]

Again Lou, you mislead.

MacArthur knew that some would not understand this statement and therefore opened the preface to his Gospel according to Jesus with this line...

"Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God's sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. . . . Real salvation cannot and will not fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer" (p. xiii.)

I believe the objection is to that which I have underlined. God, by convicting us, gives us the will to have faith, repent, commit and obey but a) He does not force us irresistibly to do so and b) it is we who provide the "motive force" to cooperate and do so.

Then note: "Real salvation cannot..." If words mean anything, it seems transparent that JM is inferring that we are given "real salvation" before we exhibit "saving faith, repent, commit, and obey," no? But how can "faith" be "saving" if it doesn't lead to salvation rather than result from salvation as JM and Calvinism would have it??

"Saving faith" is not "in vain." It has accomplished something at the hand of the one who has it. What would be "in vain" is for faith or belief to stand alone -- to be merely "intellectual fodder" that, no matter how many times it is "chewed," never gets "swallowed." :smilewinkgrin: In my "model," stays in the spirit without changing the soul that establishes our "moral compasses," our "worldview." Better yet and in keeping with 1Cor 3:12-13, 18-19, and 20) "thoughts" abide in the spirit but "wisdom," however we have decided to define it, abides in the soul.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

Better yet and in keeping with 1Cor 3:12-13, 18-19, and 20) "thoughts" abide in the spirit but "wisdom," however we have decided to define it, abides in the soul.

skypair

Oh yeah? Try these passages on for size.(Remember it's the Bible telling you that you're wrong,not the messenger Rip.)

Deuteronomy 34:9 : Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the Spirit of wisdom...

Isaiah 11:2 : The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him -- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding...

Acts 6:3 :...choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.

Acts 6:10 : But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.

1 Corinthians 12:8 : To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom...

Ephesians 1:17 : I keep asking that the God of Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

 

[Jarthur001]

I believe the objection is to that which I have underlined. God, by convicting us, gives us the will to have faith, repent, commit and obey but

then why do you mislead others as Lou does, and want them to believe Mac is saying something about works salvation?

a) He does not force us irresistibly to do so and b) it is we who provide the "motive force" to cooperate and do so.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works

It is GOD working in us. no?

Then note: "Real salvation cannot..." If words mean anything, it seems transparent that JM is inferring that we are given "real salvation" before we exhibit "saving faith, repent, commit, and obey," no? But how can "faith" be "saving" if it doesn't lead to salvation rather than result from salvation as JM and Calvinism would have it??

Faith in a car will not save you. Even faith in Christ if it is not applied as the Bible teaches is not saving faith. JWs say they have faith/believe in Christ. What is the meaning of that faith? It must be as the Bible say, not as man wants.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear BB Readers:

I am reiterating the quote on “forsaking sin” FOR salvation to demonstrate that the LS apologists will NOT engage in clear unvarnished terms what MacArthur has stated, which is reiterated and reinforced in all of his major LS apologetics.

They simply do NOT want to deal plainly with the obvious meaning and implication of Lordship's demands of a promise for performance from the lost man that the Bible does not place on him. This is why you will read over-and-over the mantra of “misrepresentation” and the extra-biblical presuppositions to redirect the discussion away from the teaching of LS advocates and toward a personality clash where there is none.

As I noted earlier it is interesting how one can quote the exact words of a Lordship advocate, with meaning and implications being very obvious, but LS apologists consistently cry, “that is NOT what he is saying.”

The LS apologists do not want to deal with the meaning and implications of this statement,

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

MacArthur is calling on the lost for a commitment to, “forsake everything” FOR salvation. This is not just over what should follow and be part of salvation. No, MacArthur says that to become a Christian a commitment to “forsake everything” is required FOR salvation. This is a works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21)!

Zeller wrote, "We need to avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the RESULT of salvation and making it the REQUIREMENT for salvation." That concisely addresses those who are looking at this through the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. I deal with and thoroughly document this issue in John MacArthur’s Discipleship Salvation.

I am asking for any pro-LS advocate for a clear Bible response, apart from the trappings of extra-biblical logic, to whether or not “salvation is for those who are willing forsake everything?”

To Lurkers: Lordship Salvation calls on lost men to “forsake everything,” to make a commitment to obedience FOR salvation. The results of salvation are never the requirements FOR salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is the crux of the doctrinal controversy, and what proves Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).


LM

PS: Be sure to read the helpful series by George Zeller, The Dangers of Reformed Theology.

 

[MB]

Is it the will of God that we avoid sin? Christ said:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

It is my belief that if you really Love God in the first place you will at least try to live a holy life. Not for Salvation but for Love of the Father.
MB

 

[Jarthur001]

Dear BB Readers:

I am reiterating the quote on “forsaking sin” FOR salvation to demonstrate that the LS apologists will NOT engage in clear unvarnished terms what MacArthur has stated, which is reiterated and reinforced in all of his major LS apologetics.

They simply do NOT want to deal plainly with the obvious meaning and implication of Lordship's demands of a promise for performance from the lost man that the Bible does not place on him. This is why you will read over-and-over the mantra of “misrepresentation” and the extra-biblical presuppositions to redirect the discussion away from the teaching of LS advocates and toward a personality clash where there is none.

Dear BB reader

Let me post agin the very words of John MacArthur showing once again Lou is misleading...

"Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God's sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. . . . Real salvation cannot and will not fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer" (p. xiii.)

Why mislead Lou?

 

[Jarthur001]

Dear BB Readers:


PS: Be sure to read the helpful series by George Zeller, The Dangers of Reformed Theology.

yes...make sure you read Lou's link. I read 2 pages and it was full of folly. Maybe you can get a smile also.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Notice how the LS apologists continue to evade dealing with the meaning and implications of this statement,

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

MacArthur is calling on the lost for a commitment to, “forsake everything” FOR salvation. This is not just over what should follow and be part of salvation. No, MacArthur says that to become a Christian a commitment to “forsake everything” is required FOR salvation. This is a works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21)!

Zeller wrote, "We need to avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the RESULT of salvation and making it the REQUIREMENT for salvation." That concisely addresses those who are looking at this through the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. I deal with and thoroughly document this issue in John MacArthur’s Discipleship Salvation.

I am asking for any pro-LS advocate for a clear Bible response, apart from the trappings of extra-biblical logic, to whether or not “salvation is for those who are willing forsake everything?”

To Lurkers: Lordship Salvation calls on lost men to “forsake everything,” to make a commitment to obedience FOR salvation. The results of salvation are never the requirements FOR salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is the crux of the doctrinal controversy, and what proves Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).


LM

PS: Be sure to read the helpful series by George Zeller, The Dangers of Reformed Theology.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

yes...make sure you read Lou's link. I read 2 pages and it was full of folly. Maybe you can get a smile also.

Wow. I expected the work to be much stronger than that. Is that considered a book? And I would descibe the brief article on the refutation of vicarous law-keeping as reprehensible.

One wonders if this church also denies imputed rigtheousness and justification by faith alone!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To Lurkers: Lordship Salvation calls on lost men to “forsake everything,” to make a commitment to obedience FOR salvation. The results of salvation are never the requirements FOR salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is the crux of the doctrinal controversy, and what proves Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

I came, I lurked, I :laugh:

And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Then said he unto him,

A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

17And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

18And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

19And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

20And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

21So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

22And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

23And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

24For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

28For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

33So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matt 28:18-20

Lordship Salvation doesn't call men to forsake everything, the LORD of Salvation does. Have you forsook all to follow Jesus Lou? Unless you do, you CANNOT be His disciple.