"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

[skypair]

They are stripping repentance from the Gospel,...

Not so. We are setting it BEFORE salvation where it belongs rather than AFTER salvation. Don't get the wrong idea, though. It belongs after salvation as well. It's just that the purpose before salvation is unto JUSTIFICATION of the soul and the purpose after salvation is to SANCTIFICATION of the spirit and flesh.

And here's another difference, RB --- Calvinists/LS won't let you repent ("do works")for salvation but will let you repent all you want after you "know you are elect" and upon the assumption that you are "regenerated" already. In fact, post-salvation, repentance is said to be LS "proof" that you are saved.

So what is the proof that one is "elect"/"regenerated?" Correct me if I am wrong but the first proof of one's "election"/"regeneration" is that one understands the gospel and believes it, right? Cause those who hear it but don't believe or can't hear it, God hasn't "given" salvation/regeneration to them yet and may never do so. It's not that they are "dumber" and Calvies smarter. It's just that they probably weren't "chosen" from the "foundation of the world."


So again, repenting unto salvation puts us, not God, "in control" of salvation, right? The idea here is that we are not "in control" of our own thoughts regarding spiritual issues.

I would submit that if that be so, then God is always in control of how much or how little we know of spiritual things and, therefore, every sin of ommission is His fault. If He can so change our minds to cause us to believe and do good works, He can also "sin" by not causing us to do what we ought to do in place of sin. And the fact that most never get saved is not the "reprobates'" faults but God's, right? They ought to be excused because they never had a chance. Is that what Rom 1:20 says? Or do Calvies have their sotierology all wrong?

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

For whomever made or copied this quote:FTR, to my knowledge, there is no 'theologian' named RC Ryle. The only person by that name I found with a quick search, possibly may have authored one book titled Home Truths, and even this is questionable, IMO. (No James Ryle, either, although I saw that misidentification on the Internet, as well.)

I suspect the 'source' of the quote meant the late English Bishop John Charles (J.C.) Ryle, who was a well known theologian of the last part of the 19th Century. I strongly suspect this is also the individual who authored Home Truths, as well. The quote is likely from Ryle's well known work titled Holiness, from which it seems consistent, as well.

It's R. C. Sproul but J. C. Ryle for today's wannabe' theologians.

Right you are...

Ed

P.S. Yes, I 'quibble' over names, for I think if one intends to cite them, one should at least, get them right!

In that case you just quoted me..and my name is James not "whomever". :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

"Well, ya got me there, pardna," cause how does one make an argument where Calvinism is SILENT??

skypair

Sky,

You have closed one thread yesterday with your over statements.

Will you recant or will you prove your statement?

Does a Calvinist know what a soul is? You said no. Prove it.

Put up or shutup. If you cannot produce in the next post you are full of hot air once again.

 

[webdog]

Very true. And this is the impression so far I have from the so-called No Lord camp. They are stripping repentance from the Gospel, setting up a different Gospel, which is not another, but it is perverted, and subsequently setting up a strawman "Lordship Salvation" and defeating it.

Just my impression so far...

Romans 3
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

 

[EdSutton]

In that case you just quoted me..and my name is James not "whomever". :laugh:

The quote was in a "quote box" without any identification as to source that I saw, thus I did not know from whence it came. Hence rather than misidentify anyone, I said "whomever". I do know your name, but my long-standing practice is to identify all BBers with the BB handles, even when I am on a long time, personal, first name basis with them, as I am with a small handful of BB members. Hence I do not even use abbreviations or shorthand when addressing BB members, since one now banned member (which 'banning' I had nothing to do with, FTR) took offense when I did it once, mainly because he did not agree with me, I guess. He did not object to others using the same shorthand I was using, and from whom I took it, actually.

Incidentally, his disagreement with me centered basically over "free grace" and "Lordship Salvation", as well.

But I decided, no 'nickname', shorthand, abbreviations or 'personal name' unless it happens to be the 'handle', - no reason to object. It's worked for me so far. I am still not much of a fan of 'handles' per se, and use my own shortened name (Ed is perfectly fine, as well), but I do not particularly care what I am called, just as long as it is not late for meals.

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Romans 3
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

And your meaning is? What is your statement of faith again?

 

[webdog]

And your meaning is? What is your statement of faith again?

If you don't know the meaning...maybe we need your statement of faith :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If you don't know the meaning...maybe we need your statement of faith :laugh:

So what is your statement of faith again?

 

[webdog]

So what is your statement of faith again?

12,000 plus posts...look it up.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

12,000 plus posts...look it up.

12,000 posts = nothing. I will not dialogue with a man that cannot put his theology in a coherent system. But it wouldn't even be dialogue with you. It would be debate and argument leading to strife. Welcome to my "will not respond to much" list. bye-bye now. :wavey:

 

[EdSutton]

Very true. And this is the impression so far I have from the so-called No Lord camp. They are stripping repentance from the Gospel, setting up a different Gospel, which is not another, but it is perverted, and subsequently setting up a strawman "Lordship Salvation" and defeating it.

Just my impression so far...

I suggest your impression is entirely incorrect, here. EdSutton (that's me, folks ) has posted no fewer than ten different times in 2 1/2 years on the BB that I believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. [Mind you, not that many are really listening or even reading, you do understand. I also believe that webdog, Lou Martuneac, and skypair have all said the same thing, if my memory is correct, here, (Some others including the late of the BB 'drive by poster' some of us lovingly referred to as 'spamderson', and Gwen (Hi, Gwen! Just saw you on-line on the BB!) John of Japan, DHK, and some others have said about the same thing about 'repentance', as well, if I recall.) whom you would falsely and incorrectly classify as part of "the so-called No Lord camp".]

Incidentally, how did we even get 'on this slippery slope' to this terminology? How did we go from 'No "Lordship Salvation"' (which I would indeed claim to believe and teach) to "non Lordship" (IronWill) to "No Lordship" (not sure who, but remember the phrase) to "No Lord gospel" (Jarthur001) to now, "No Lord" (Reformed Baptist)? I seem to detect a definite slide down a 'slippery slope', here, from a theological position to a pejorative naming to one that now actually questions someone's salvation, by implication, if not directly.

I apologize for getting sidetracked following the rabbit, but I did want to find out where the rabbit-hole is located, you see! He's been eating the carrots from the garden! Back to our regularly scheduled argument -

"You have to REPENT of your sins to be saved!! If you repent of your sins, don't you have to "forsake" them? "

Indeed you are right.

Very true.

Why is this so hard to get, for some?

The phrase(s) "repent of/from your/our sin(s) never occur an any standard English Bible translation of which I am aware (although one can find it in some 'paraphrase type' versions where 'theology' is read into the language, such as the NLV and the AMP, I admit) such as the KJV, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, DARBY, NIV, TNIV, YLT, or ASV, with the sole exception of the extremely free rendering of the NIV and TNIV in Isa. 59:20. Yet this is still repeated incessantly, along with their proclamations of how many in the Bible 'repented of their sins' when I can only find two - count 'em, two - individuals of whom it is ever said that ever repented (of anything), and they are Job and Judas. (Job 42:6, Mt. 27:3) The first was saved long before he ever 'repented'; the second was unsaved, even after he 'repented'.

I also find it extremely strange that when I ask those same individuals why they never use the verses of (or preach) "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ac. 20:21) or "repentance from dead works and faith toward God" (Heb. 6:1), yet continue to insist that 'repent' means "repent from sin", exactly what sins are they are attributing to God, since the Bible says God did (or did not) repent 30 times, that suddenly the silence becomes deafening.

I'll ask you all these same two questions, since some of you are insisting that 'repent' really means "repent from sin". What sins are you attributing to God?? (Personally, I'm not willing to attribute any, but maybe that's just me.)

The usual response(s) that I then get are "Well, repent means you are sorry for your sins." or "'It' means "turn from your sins." (You will, no doubt, note that this does not answer the question I just asked, but is an attempt to change the subject.)

Seemingly II Cor. 7:10 which says "Godly sorrow produces repentence to irrevocable salvation" (my rendering), not that sorrow is repentance, and Ac. 3:19 and 26:20 where 'repent' (metanoeO) and be turned/coverted (epistrephO) are nowhere even near the same word, yet are used with an "and" showing addition or joining, not to mention several verses in the OT that use repent and turn as well, where likewise 'nacham' and 'shub' are differnet words as well, must be missing from their Bibles (or at least get very short shrift!). When bringing these up, suddenly the sounds of silence become temporarily so loud that a feather falling sounds like a ton of bricks. Then the response usually becomes "you just don't see it; you believe that one can live like they please!", or something similar.

I admit to not seeing what 'they' are suggesting.

Is it just me, or is there some good reason not to use the Bible words and phrases as they are used in Scripture, as opposed to adding words to them to support someone's (anyone's) theology?

Repent is a change of mind, where the subject is salvation. The 'object' of repent is God, just as the 'object' of believe is God. In fact, one could well describe these to verbs (and the associated nouns) as 'flip sides' of the same thing. Both are directed, not 'inwardly' towards sin(s), but 'outwardly' toward God. One can have repentance that is not directed toward God, but this does not bring salvation. One can have (and should have) repentance after salvation, as well, including repentance (a change of mind/thinking) about sin.

Oh, one more thing! Do any of you know what is the only thing ever said in Scripture that leads someone to repentance?? Jesus called sinners to repentance, but Scripture does not say, here, how that was accomplished. I'll answer later!

I could (and would like to) say much more, but this post has already gotten long, and I have some other things to do, for now.

Gotta' run.

Ed

 

[skypair]

Does a Calvinist know what a soul is? You said no. Prove it.

I'm not a Calvinist, bro., but you are. Tell us what a soul is. I'll let you be my proof! :laugh: You tell us what the "soul" is that "dies" when we sin (Ezek 18:20). Is it our intellect? emotions? will? conscience? Are we "brain dead" like Lazarus? Was believing Lazarus' soul even dead when Jesus called him out of the grave? Or can you distinguish at all what dies?

(Silence will be an acceptable answer if you don't know, James. It's the same anwer we get from Calvinism.)

skypair

 

[skypair]

...that I believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. [Mind you, not that many are really listening or even reading, you do understand. I also believe that webdog, Lou Martuneac, and skypair have all said the same thing, if my memory is correct...

You are a "gem in the crown," Ed!! You're right as concerning my theology anyway!

Incidentally, how did we even get 'on this slippery slope' to this terminology?

Because John MacArthur wanted to translate Lordship in salvation into Lordship in sanctification. Of course, in salvation we approach GOD and in our sanctification that follows salvation, we look to Jesus. JM assumes the first but need "a warm fuzzy" regarding the latter from people who did NOTHING on their part in order to be saved. "Warm fuzzies" (the kingdom by "observation") have their place in his theology.

I apologize for getting sidetracked following the rabbit, but I did want to find out where the rabbit-hole is located, you see! He's been eating the carrots from the garden!

I love it (better go check my garden! Do rabbits like tomatoes??)!! :laugh: Close as I can tell it leads to Augustine and before that to the "fate vs. free will" debate of Greek mythology. BUt I can see Satan's POV as well. Whatever we must do, we must not be allowed to do -- like take an "active" part in our own salvation! Can you imagine if Macy's had a sale that your wife knew about but didn't go to?! Money saved but opportunity lost.

One can have repentance that is not directed toward God, but this does not bring salvation. One can have (and should have) repentance after salvation, as well, including repentance (a change of mind/thinking) about sin.

Right on! God is our "First Lord" in Lordship. His righteousness, truth, wisdom. When we "enthrone" Him in our soul, we are ready to follow Christ as Lord and not just Savior.

skypair

 

[webdog]

12,000 posts = nothing. I will not dialogue with a man that cannot put his theology in a coherent system. But it wouldn't even be dialogue with you. It would be debate and argument leading to strife. Welcome to my "will not respond to much" list. bye-bye now. :wavey:

Besides being rude, I sense pride and much arrogance in your post. I simply stated 12,000 posts plus because my beliefs are right there for the whole world to see...including you. If you actually cared, it would not be hard to understand my views.

Having said that, my "system" is the same as the thief on the cross. Easy enough...or did you want me to supply a list of dead theologians?

 

[convicted1]

I suggest your impression is entirely incorrect, here. EdSutton (that's me, folks ) has posted no fewer than ten different times in 2 1/2 years on the BB that I believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. [Mind you, not that many are really listening or even reading, you do understand. I also believe that webdog, Lou Martuneac, and skypair have all said the same thing, if my memory is correct, here, (Some others including the late of the BB 'drive by poster' some of us lovingly referred to as 'spamderson', and Gwen (Hi, Gwen! Just saw you on-line on the BB!) John of Japan, DHK, and some others have said about the same thing about 'repentance', as well, if I recall.) whom you would falsely and incorrectly classify as part of "the so-called No Lord camp".]

Incidentally, how did we even get 'on this slippery slope' to this terminology? How did we go from 'No "Lordship Salvation"' (which I would indeed claim to believe and teach) to "non Lordship" (IronWill) to "No Lordship" (not sure who, but remember the phrase) to "No Lord gospel" (Jarthur001) to now, "No Lord" (Reformed Baptist)? I seem to detect a definite slide down a 'slippery slope', here, from a theological position to a pejorative naming to one that now actually questions someone's salvation, by implication, if not directly.

I apologize for getting sidetracked following the rabbit, but I did want to find out where the rabbit-hole is located, you see! He's been eating the carrots from the garden! Back to our regularly scheduled argument -Why is this so hard to get, for some?

The phrase(s) "repent of/from your/our sin(s) never occur an any standard English Bible translation of which I am aware (although one can find it in some 'paraphrase type' versions where 'theology' is read into the language, such as the NLV and the AMP, I admit) such as the KJV, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, DARBY, NIV, TNIV, YLT, or ASV, with the sole exception of the extremely free rendering of the NIV and TNIV in Isa. 59:20. Yet this is still repeated incessantly, along with their proclamations of how many in the Bible 'repented of their sins' when I can only find two - count 'em, two - individuals of whom it is ever said that ever repented (of anything), and they are Job and Judas. (Job 42:6, Mt. 27:3) The first was saved long before he ever 'repented'; the second was unsaved, even after he 'repented'.

I also find it extremely strange that when I ask those same individuals why they never use the verses of (or preach) "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ac. 20:21) or "repentance from dead works and faith toward God" (Heb. 6:1), yet continue to insist that 'repent' means "repent from sin", exactly what sins are they are attributing to God, since the Bible says God did (or did not) repent 30 times, that suddenly the silence becomes deafening.

I'll ask you all these same two questions, since some of you are insisting that 'repent' really means "repent from sin". What sins are you attributing to God?? (Personally, I'm not willing to attribute any, but maybe that's just me.)

The usual response(s) that I then get are "Well, repent means you are sorry for your sins." or "'It' means "turn from your sins." (You will, no doubt, note that this does not answer the question I just asked, but is an attempt to change the subject.)

Seemingly II Cor. 7:10 which says "Godly sorrow produces repentence to irrevocable salvation" (my rendering), not that sorrow is repentance, and Ac. 3:19 and 26:20 where 'repent' (metanoeO) and be turned/coverted (epistrephO) are nowhere even near the same word, yet are used with an "and" showing addition or joining, not to mention several verses in the OT that use repent and turn as well, where likewise 'nacham' and 'shub' are differnet words as well, must be missing from their Bibles (or at least get very short shrift!). When bringing these up, suddenly the sounds of silence become temporarily so loud that a feather falling sounds like a ton of bricks. Then the response usually becomes "you just don't see it; you believe that one can live like they please!", or something similar.

I admit to not seeing what 'they' are suggesting.

Is it just me, or is there some good reason not to use the Bible words and phrases as they are used in Scripture, as opposed to adding words to them to support someone's (anyone's) theology?

Repent is a change of mind, where the subject is salvation. The 'object' of repent is God, just as the 'object' of believe is God. In fact, one could well describe these to verbs (and the associated nouns) as 'flip sides' of the same thing. Both are directed, not 'inwardly' towards sin(s), but 'outwardly' toward God. One can have repentance that is not directed toward God, but this does not bring salvation. One can have (and should have) repentance after salvation, as well, including repentance (a change of mind/thinking) about sin.

Oh, one more thing! Do any of you know what is the only thing ever said in Scripture that leads someone to repentance?? Jesus called sinners to repentance, but Scripture does not say, here, how that was accomplished. I'll answer later!

I could (and would like to) say much more, but this post has already gotten long, and I have some other things to do, for now.

Gotta' run.

Ed

As for me, I look at Luke chapter 16. The Prodical Son had to "forsake" the "hog lot" to make it back to his Father's house. If he had chosn to stay there, he would have died there. This is just like us, when God calls us, the ball is then in or court. We can either "forsake" our sinful life, or die in it. I just don't see any other way around this. We have to "forsake" all to be saved.

Willis

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Besides being rude, I sense pride and much arrogance in your post. I simply stated 12,000 posts plus because my beliefs are right there for the whole world to see...including you. If you actually cared, it would not be hard to understand my views.

Having said that, my "system" is the same as the thief on the cross. Easy enough...or did you want me to supply a list of dead theologians?

raying: May the Lord bless you raying:

 

[Marcia]

I'm not a Calvinist, bro., but you are. Tell us what a soul is. I'll let you be my proof! :laugh: You tell us what the "soul" is that "dies" when we sin (Ezek 18:20). Is it our intellect? emotions? will? conscience? Are we "brain dead" like Lazarus? Was believing Lazarus' soul even dead when Jesus called him out of the grave? Or can you distinguish at all what dies?

skypair

I think "soul" is used often in the OT to just mean a person. So it means the person who sins dies.

The word for soul is often used interchangeably with spirit as well as for a person's life in general. We see this sometimes in old-fashioned English: "Forty souls were lost when the ship went down."

 

[Rippon]

I think "soul" is used often in the OT to just mean a person. So it means the person who sins dies.

The word for soul is often used interchangeably with spirit as well as for a person's life in general. We see this sometimes in old-fashioned English: "Forty souls were lost when the ship went down."

Finally some words of sanity on the soul/spirit issue ( from a non-Cal). Thank you Marcia.

 

[EdSutton]

As for me, I look at Luke chapter 16. The Prodical Son had to "forsake" the "hog lot" to make it back to his Father's house. If he had chosn to stay there, he would have died there. This is just like us, when God calls us, the ball is then in or court. We can either "forsake" our sinful life, or die in it. I just don't see any other way around this. We have to "forsake" all to be saved.

Willis

Yes, I know of the account, which is actually found in Lk. 15:11-32 [This is not a parable, BTW, but an actual account of a particular family of which the Lord Jesus, being God, knew, but chose not to identify, specifically. (Good lesson there, BTW!) - "A certain man had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ..." (Lk. 15:11b-12a - NKJV)] of the father and his two sons.

I believe that often, in the attempt to "get an 'evangelistic type' sermon that will preach", however, several key points in this account are overlooked.

First, the father: - The father never changed his gracious love for or acceptance of the younger son. He would always be his son, where the Father was concerned. Did you notice that the much older father was the one who both looked for the son to return, had compassion, and ran to the son (who was busy rehearsing his speech he was going to give), fell on his neck, kissed him, and basically, told the son to shut up, for he wasn't interested in what the son was going to do for him. This was going to be what the father was doing for the son.

Second, the younger son: - Most of us know a lot of this part fairly well, I would say, having heard it preached on fairly often. However, a couple of points still get overlooked. The first was the famine that was so bad in that country, that even the hogs were starving (It was apparently a Gentile country.), because they were not in any 'lot', but scrounging in the fields, and reduced to eating what pods (NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB) or husks (KJV, ASV, DARBY, YLT), as opposed to grain or beans, that the citizen was able to acquire. The second point is that the son was always a son. That relationship never changed, although certainly the fellowship was broken. He was a son when he asked his father for his hoped for inheritance (which the father was under no obligation to give him being as he was alive and well, BTW); he was a son when he left for "a distant country"; he was a son in the fields, when he started practicing his speech, whch even he recognized (v. 19) although he considered himself unworthy of that relationship; he was a son on the road; a son when the father openly welcomed him back; and a son at the banquet. even when he was separated ("dead" and "lost" to the father) Much of this time he was a son totally out of fellowship, but a son, nevertheless. And the father gave him still more gifts, a robe, a ring, shoes, and a banquet, when he was back.

Third, the often overlooked older brother: - Often overlooked, IMO. Self-righteous, obnoxious, greedy, and judgmental to the max! Got his information 'second-handed'. Had a lot of "I" trouble.

Did you read his speech?? Paraphrased - " I - I've ... Look at how good I been, but you don't give me nothin'! And after all I've done, no less! I've heardly been out of your sight! But Him...! Don't you know what he has done??" (BTW, he had absolutely no way of knowing what his brother had or had not done, even though Jesus did! 'They warn't no cell phones in that day ("Can you hear me, now??") to keep in touch.')

Yep! A son, as well. Never stoped being a son, any more than did the younger brother! Had everything, but still it wasn't enough! Thought he'd 'earned' even more! Now he was mad about it. Did you notice that the father also came out to him and pleaded with him, something he did not even have to do with the younger son? The older son was just as much "out of fellowship", if not more, than his brother, and the Bible never says the older brother ever 'reconciled' with either the father or his younger brother, BTW. Did he stay "in his snit' for the rest of his days? The Bible doesn't say.

Two sons - both completely 'separated' from the father's love and concern for them; one could not have been found by 'Scotland Yard' on a bet; the other, was scarcely out of the father's sight. Still, no real difference in the fellowship, or understanding the father, by either. However there was a big difference in the rewards, for the younger son had 'blown' most of his!

And one father - always loving both sons equally, and looking out for them, and still giving them grace on top of grace they both did not deserve! (Jn. 1:16) The father is actually mentioned in the account more than either son, FTR, and I believe is a wonderful picture of the loving, forgiving Heavenly Father.

Ed

 

[skypair]

I think "soul" is used often in the OT to just mean a person. So it means the person who sins dies.

That could have some elements of truth to it seeing as how eventually the whole person (body, soul, and spirit) will die eventually in that state.

The word for soul is often used interchangeably with spirit as well as for a person's life in general. We see this sometimes in old-fashioned English: "Forty souls were lost when the ship went down."

Here's where I think many people err. They say they are used "interchangeably" without considering the meaning if they were NOT interchangeable. For instance, the "souls" that appear in heaven under the altar in Rev 6:9. My thought is that, ever since the cross, the soul of the believer "appears" in heaven when they believe, not when they die. That our "souls" are "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" right now and that makes us citizens of heaven and not of this world. So presumably (my thought) they are yet to be martyred and their "speech" is their prayer.

Similarly, though reversed, is Heb 12:23. Here Paul sees the "spirits of just men made perfect." These are actually the OT saints spirits and using the term "spirit" emphasizes that a) they are not part of the church and b) that their bodies are dead.

Many times Paul speaks of his "soul" being "pure." But you will notice that the thoughts of our "spirits" are most often not. John, in 1John, says we are sinless because His "seed" remaineth in us. I believe these speak to the soul that is eternallyl saved and perfect whereas we do constantly sin in the thoughts/lusts/temptations of our spiritis.

Do you follow my line of reasoning?

skypair