"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

[Rippon]

I once heard the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson say in his inimitable Alabama drawl, "Ah have no doubt that when Ah stand befoah the 'Lawad' that 80 pahcent of what Ah believe will be confirmed exactly as Ah believe it; Ah also have no doubt, that on th' othah 20 pahcent, mah mind will be changed ..." [Snapping his fingers!] "just like that!"

I pretty much agree with that statement, except that I'm gonna' make it 85 to 15%, 'cause Dr. Johnson was a 'horticulturist' and I'm not.'

I don't cultivate no TULIPs! :laugh:

Ed

I admire the ministry of the late Dr.S. Lewis Johnson very much.Dr.MacArthur has regarded him as a mentor in the Faith.I'm glad you appreciate him EDs;despite his strong Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

Thank you, Ed. We all learn from someone who "models" Christ and I am tired of the disparaging remarks Adrian has been subjected to on this board. It seems clear that some don't know their "brothers" from their "adversaries." :tear:

skypair

Irony of ironies! Tell me Sp, you really are blind of your ways aren't you?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

ReStating he Issue

This thread has taken several twists and turns, some on message some well off. There are folks who come to threads, but start at the end. These will miss the opening post that was under discussion. For those folks I am reposting the article that began this thread and generated so many visits and comments.


Must a lost man "forsake sin" FOR salvation?

“The gospel call of Jesus was a call to forsake sin as much as it was a summons to believe in Him. It was a call to turn from sin. From His first message to His last, the Savior’s theme was calling sinners to turn from their sin, to embrace God, to pursue righteousness. It was not only that they had a new perspective on who He was, but that they turn from sin to follow Him.” (John MacArthur: The Call to Repentance, Part 3 from the four sermon series on the Lordship of Christ.)

In his sermon John MacArthur speaks of the Gospel. Any responsible Bible-believing Christian understands that the Gospel is the "good news" of salvation from sin, death and Hell. The Gospel is God’s redemptive plan for the lost.

The Gospel call of Jesus, according to John MacArthur, calls on the lost to “forsake sin, turn from sin, and pursue righteousness.” The Gospel FOR salvation, as defined MacArthur, equates a change in behavior as co-equal with believing.

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," (Acts 16:31) Is salvation through believeing or behaving? The lost are born again by believing in who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. LS adds a commitment to behave as one might expect a born again disciple of Christ should once he has believed and become a Christian.

This is a message that conditions eternal salvation on the lost man making a commitment to “forsake” (stop) sinning, start obeying and keep obeying over a life time. That is WORKS salvation! Lordship Salvation is a corruption of the “simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).


LM

 

[EdSutton]

Eds,in post #111 of yours you said something curious. You objected to the NIV/TNIV rendering of Isaiah 59:20. The latter two have it as :"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,"declares the Lord.

The NET Bible has ... "to those in Jacob who repent of their rebellious deeds."

You prefer more of an ESV flavoring :...to those in Jacob who turn from transgression."

Doesn't turn from sin = repent from sin ? It's one of those synonyms again.

I don't believe that repent of their sins in Isaiah 59:20 is an "extremely free rendering" at all. Maybe your thesaurus is in need of revision.

[SIGH!]*Yeah, I guess "turn from sin = repent from sin," in the sense that you are intending.

However, in the sense of the use of the Hebrew and Greek languages, these words rendered as 'repent' and 'turn' are not synonomous, at all, which was my objection, considering I have a decided aversion to "reading theology" intothe Scripture's texts.

And the word rendered as the English word "repent" in Isa. 59:20 in the NIV and TNIV is the word "shuwb" (Strong #7725) which has the force of "turn" or return" as all the other major standard versions render this word, in about every instance, I believe, except for the KJV (which renders "shuwb" three times as "repent", and in which case, the RV and ASV 'updates' this (and the NKJV follows suit) by more accurately rendering this also as "turn", making it basically consistent with the other over 500 uses of that Hebrew word in Scripture.

There is also a great deal of difference between "shuwb" and "nacham"
(Strong #5162) which is, I believe, the Hebrew word normally rendered as "repent" in the OT, and carries the idea of 'to be eased', in its force, and is rendered as 'comfort, 'ease,' or 'repent.'

Likewise, the NT words 'metamellomai', (to care afterward, or differently or 'feel differently' and carrying the implied idea of regret, which word is not used as touching on salvation, to my knowledge) and "metanoeO/metanoia" (to think afterward, or differently or "change one's mind" or 'think differently') are both far different than "epistrephO" (to turn or 'convert').

Incidentally, Judas did 'metamellomai' (regret), however he did not 'metanoeO' (think differently), hence receive the gift of salvation. "'Regret' ain't where its at!" in the vernacular.

Additionally, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the phrases of "repent of/from (one's) sin", as well as "turn from sin" are neither found in Scripture, to my knowledge, in any standard version, with this single exception, here. One can find a few variants (some 5-10, depending on which version) of "turn from sin" with a few additional words in most standard versions in the OT, but even in this is never speaking unambigiously of personal salvation, to my knowledge, although I did not do an exhaustive study of the verses, I admit.

I have posted no fewer than ten times in 2 1/2 years, now on the BB, fairly exhaustive definitions and expositions of repentance regarding salvation, and why this repentance that is indeed necessary, is not turning from or feeling sorry for one's sin(s). If one has managed to miss all of them, somehow (and you have been on the BB for longer than I have), just try this link.

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=454030

It should cover about all of them, and in far more detail than I have either the time or patience for, this evening. I don't mean to sound 'short,' but it seems that it has fallen on completely deaf ears, somehow, and I simply don't physically feel up to staying up till 4 AM, yet once again, to compose it "just one more time." Maybe my P.S. footnote will help some to remember this, however.

Ed

P.S. * [SIGH!] I just 'repented' here, in the OT sense. Look at the above definition, where "shuwb" properly means exactly that, a heavy sigh.

 

[webdog]

Ed, your link doesn't work. It reads

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

You "shuwb" provide another link

 

[Rippon]

Ed, your link doesn't work. It reads

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

You "shuwb" provide another link

I let out a loud guffaw on your last line.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This thread has taken several twists and turns, some on message some well off. There are folks who come to threads, but start at the end. These will miss the opening post that was under discussion. For those folks I am reposting the article that began this thread and generated so many visits and comments.


Must a lost man "forsake sin" FOR salvation?


In his sermon John MacArthur speaks of the Gospel. Any responsible Bible-believing Christian understands that the Gospel is the "good news" of salvation from sin, death and Hell. The Gospel is God’s redemptive plan for the lost.

The Gospel call of Jesus, according to John MacArthur, calls on the lost to “forsake sin, turn from sin, and pursue righteousness.” The Gospel FOR salvation, as defined MacArthur, equates a change in behavior as co-equal with believing.

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," (Acts 16:31) Is salvation through believeing or behaving? The lost are born again by believing in who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. LS adds a commitment to behave as one might expect a born again disciple of Christ should once he has believed and become a Christian.

This is a message that conditions eternal salvation on the lost man making a commitment to “forsake” (stop) sinning, start obeying and keep obeying over a life time. That is WORKS salvation! Lordship Salvation is a corruption of the “simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).


LM

Ok Lou, I'll bite. Show me where MacArthur actually teaches that one must forsake sin FOR salvation. I expect to see these words and explaination by JM. The quote you provided doesn't say "Forsake sin for salvation" it is an exhortation to repentence from dead works and faith toward God, in my opinion.

One wonders if you believe repentance is not needed UNTO salvation. I see nothing here in what you have presented as JM's views that says what you say he is teaching. I don't have his book. So I can't look at the above quote in its context. Please provide a larger portion of it.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, your link doesn't work. It reads

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

You "shuwb" provide another link [Smilie removed, in order to print,]

I dunno why it doesn't work.

I'll try to do this one more time and see what happens. :type:

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=454170

Sending, and I will check.

Ok, I just checked, and it worked for me, this time, so you might try it again.

The previous time I got the same message as you did, for some reason.

BTW, I like your humor, as well, as this is somwhat akin to mine.

"When it comes to laughs, go for the 'cheapies'!"

It's what I do. :thumbs:

Hey, you can get in ten 'cheapies" for the cost of one good laugh! [Big Grin!]

Ed

P.S. Folks, this post and the link to posts is for informational purposes, not because I have any great desire to impress anyone with my knowledge, or let them see my lack of the same (since at least one individual on this subject has doubted my exegetical skills, which is in itself, telling, since I never claimed to have any such in the first place), as the case may be.

I assure all, I have no particular need to have my ego stroked in any way, and I don't get any great thrill in decrying any other, by any stretch, so I try and not let anything seem 'personal.'

Like some others have posted, this is not personal, in any manner. I have nothing to sell, nor any homepage or 'blog spot' that I want folks to read, as this is my one and only 'public forum' where I regularly appear in any manner, whatsoever. I do not even have any of the skills necessary to accomplish the last two things, if I even wished to do so, I assure you.

I have to get my bride :love2: to 'fix' to the computer, when and if I mess something up, as I have no ability to undo any my own "goofs," even.

My call of "Honey! Can I et you to fix the computer? I messed it up, somehow!" is usually followed with her three part response of "Again??" "[Sigh!]"

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I don't have his book. So I can't look at the above quote in its context.

Another man trying to defend something he may have NEVER read!?? Please go do the homework


LM

 

[EdSutton]

Ok Lou, I'll bite. Show me where MacArthur actually teaches that one must forsake sin FOR salvation. I expect to see these words and explaination by JM. The quote you provided doesn't say "Forsake sin for salvation" it is an exhortation to repentence from dead works and faith toward God, in my opinion.

One wonders if you believe repentance is not needed UNTO salvation. I see nothing here in what you have presented as JM's views that says what you say he is teaching. I don't have his book. So I can't look at the above quote in its context. Please provide a larger portion of it.

Lou Martuneac is, as am I, on record on the BB, saying we both believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. (That means it's a "requirement", for you sports fans without good access to Messers Roget and Webster!)

In fact, I am on record more than ten times where I have, in essence, said this, starting here, in this thread, in my first month on the BB:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4734&highlight=repent+turn+sins

However, I am also fully on record, just as many times, as refusing to allow someone else to impose their definition of the repentance that is required for salvation, as "repentance from sin(s)" on the Biblical texts. I believe, if my memory serves, that Lou Martuneac has said effectively the same thing, as well.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Lou Martuneac is, as am I, on record on the BB, saying we both believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. (That means it's a "requirement", for you sports fans without good access to Messers Roget and Webster!)

In fact, I am on record more than ten times where I have, in essence, said this, starting here, in this thread, in my first month on the BB:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4734&highlight=repent+turn+sins

However, I am also fully on record, just as many times, as refusing to allow someone else to impose their definition of the repentance that is required for salvation, as "repentance from sin(s)" on the Biblical texts. I believe, if my memory serves, that Lou Martuneac has said effectively the same thing, as well.

Ed

Hang in there ED, someday maybe in your life time, they will quit saying "repent of your sins and be saved"............................ :laugh: :BangHead:

I should of said "we"............

 

[Pilgrimer]

I have even heard Reform preachers say that salvation is a lifetime endeavor (in so many words). NO! Sanctification is a lifetime endeavor --- salvation is a once in a lifetime DECISION that includes 1) justification of the SOUL (which was formerly "dead") immediately and eternally, 2) sanctification of the spirit (our thinking, our emotions, and our wills) progressively, and 3) glorification (bodily) eventually!

skypair

Hello Skypair, it's been a long time. I trust you are well?

I agree with what you said about salvation and sanctification, but I think it is the soul that is composed of the mind, will and emotions, not the spirit. Everyone, even the lost, has (or rather is) a living soul with a completely functioning mind, will and emotions (granted, some "function" a bit better than others perhaps! :laugh: ).

So I don't think it's the soul that is dead and needs to be regenerated, I think it's the spirit. All men are born living souls who are spiritually dead. That's why we can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or in any way perceive or have a conscious awareness of God, He is Spirit and dwells in a spiritual realm that we are dead to. It's like a dead body in a casket at a funeral that has no conscious awareness of the life that is going on around it, it's the same way with the spirit, men are born dead to the world of God which is going on all around us. Unless we are born again we cannot even "see" that spiritual Kingdom or realm of Heaven. But once we are are born again we are raised in the spirit from death to life and our dead spiritual eyes and ears are opened to see and hear and discern the spiritual things of God and His Kingdom. That's why eternal life is a gift of God, because a man can no more do anything to restore himself to spiritual life than a dead body can to restore itself to physical life.

And about behavior being coequal with believing, I am only half Baptist, the other half is Pentecostal so I have no problem understanding, both doctrinally as well as experientially, that those who abide in the Vine will bear the fruit of righteousness that the Vine produces . . .

And to God be the glory!

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Brother Bob]

Hello Skypair, it's been a long time. I trust you are well?

I agree with what you said about salvation and sanctification, but I think it is the soul that is composed of the mind, will and emotions, not the spirit. Everyone, even the lost, has (or rather is) a living soul with a completely functioning mind, will and emotions (granted, some "function" a bit better than others perhaps! :laugh: ).

So I don't think it's the soul that is dead and needs to be regenerated, I think it's the spirit. All men are born living souls who are spiritually dead. That's why we can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell or in any way perceive or have a conscious awareness of God, He is Spirit and dwells in a spiritual realm that we are dead to. It's like a dead body in a casket at a funeral that has no conscious awareness of the life that is going on around it, it's the same way with the spirit, men are born dead to the world of God which is going on all around us. Unless we are born again we cannot even "see" that spiritual Kingdom or realm of Heaven. But once we are are born again we are raised in the spirit from death to life and our dead spiritual eyes and ears are opened to see and hear and discern the spiritual things of God and His Kingdom. That's why eternal life is a gift of God, because a man can no more do anything to restore himself to spiritual life than a dead body can to restore itself to physical life.

And about behavior being coequal with believing, I am only half Baptist, the other half is Pentecostal so I have no problem understanding, both doctrinally as well as experientially, that those who abide in the Vine will bear the fruit of righteousness that the Vine produces . . .

And to God be the glory!

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Then how can the "soul that sinneth, shall die", if its already dead ????????

 

[Pilgrimer]

Then how can the "soul that sinneth, shall die", if its already dead ????????

Hello Brother Bob,

I didn't say the soul is already dead. Quite the opposite, I said the soul is not dead, but alive. It's the spirit that is dead.

The moment of conception is the conception of a living soul which life will continue, even after the death of the body, until the day of judgment at which time the sinner will be cast body and soul into the lake of fire and will perish, ergo, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou Martuneac is, as am I, on record on the BB, saying we both believe repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. (That means it's a "requirement", for you sports fans without good access to Messers Roget and Webster!)

In fact, I am on record more than ten times where I have, in essence, said this, starting here, in this thread, in my first month on the BB:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4734&highlight=repent+turn+sins

However, I am also fully on record, just as many times, as refusing to allow someone else to impose their definition of the repentance that is required for salvation, as "repentance from sin(s)" on the Biblical texts. I believe, if my memory serves, that Lou Martuneac has said effectively the same thing, as well.

Ed

Ed:

You have accurately represented me. See What is Biblical Repentance?

In the Lordship Salvation controversy the doctrine of repentance probably draws more attention, scrutiny, debate, fire and criticism than any other doctrine in the debate. Men on both sides of the Lordship debate agree repentance has a role in salvation. They disagree sharply on the exact role and definition of repentance, but agree repentance is involved in the salvation experience.

Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, of the Grace Evangelical Society, are notable exceptions to this general consensus on repentance. The teaching of these men entirely eliminates repentance toward God as a condition of salvation. In his book, Harmony With God Hodges takes the position that the process of repentance may be a preparatory step in coming to salvation, and should be evident in the life of a believer, but a lost man can be born again apart from repentance by any definition.

Hodges also said he no longer holds to the “change of mind” view of repentance. Hodges says there is only one answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” Hodges emphatically states that repentance is not part of that answer. Furthermore, Hodges and Wilkin reject the almost universally held “change of mind” definition of repentance. This teaching can be found in Zane Hodges’ books Absolutely Free and Harmony With God.

Ironically, Wilkins’s 1985 doctrinal dissertation is titled, Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament. At that time Wilkin held the “change of mind” view and believed repentance was a condition for salvation. The influence of Hodges eventually led Wilkin to abandon the position he defended in his dissertation. At the 1998 Grace Evangelical Society’s National Conference Bob Wilkin revealed he had a “change of mind” about repentance. Hodges and Wilkin defined repentance as “turning from sin,” and also announced their view that repentance, by any definition, is not a condition for salvation.


LM

For a more detailed examination of the heretical views of the GES Crossless Gospel and the doctrine of repentance, please see- Is There Such a Thing as Repentance in the “Crossless” Gospel?

For detailed examination of how Lordship Salvation defines repentance, please see-
How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't want to get into any personal differences here, but why should there be some sort of "standard position" set forth for 'this "group" of so-called non-lordship advocates' (a misnomer in itself, as I have already attempted to point out, for both webdog and EdSutton, among others, have stated that they in fact do fully believe and preach the Lordship of Jesus Christ)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1267501&postcount=40

any more than there should be a "standard position" for any and/or all other group(s), anywhere? There are multiple doctrinal and position statements that would cover about every group around, as far as I know. Certainly the FGA, and GES have them, to name two "groups" whose names have recently appeared on these pages and in the threads that touch on this subject, just as do Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church (which just hosted the 'Grace Conference'), Dallas Seminary, Master's Seminary, and IFCA to name some others that have appeared, by name. It is not exactly a secret as to what most of these believe and teach.

Nor, FTR, is it that hard to find out what webdog (12K plus posts and counting) or EdSutton (6500+ posts) believe on this or about any other subject, with a little searching of the topics of the BB archives.

I do not attempt to discern what ReformedBaptist believes by searching another's posts - only yours. Nor can any other speak with any authority for me, whether as an individual or in a "group" (although they could 'cite' someting I have written, and be accurate, I suppose). Why should what webdog believes be any different?

Let me add a couple final notes, to this post. I opposed the teachings of what is known as Lordship Salvation long before I ever even heard of an individual named John MacArthur.

And well over 35 years ago, I realized that "Lordship Salvation" as taught by 'Calvinists' was in the final analysis no different from "Lordship Salvation" taught by 'Arminians'. Both denied salvation by grace, in that they 'added' something to this. It made absolutely no difference as to whether this was any "up-front" commitment" or was a "back-door" commitment. "Lordship salvation" was still 'demanding' a "commitment" for salvation, (regardless of how loudly or how often it was claimed not to be) and as such, 'demanded' some sort of 'works' from an individual in addition to "faith/believe/belief/repent/repentance/trust", all of which are words both nouns and verbs used as synonyms for that which is 'necessary' for salvation/justification (or eternal life) in Scripture (Eph. 1:12-13; 2:8-10; Lk. 5:32; 15:7; Jo. 3:13-18, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Rom. 4:1-8; I Tim. 4:10; II Cor. 7:10) and which words do not carry the idea that any 'good works' are either 'implicitly contained' in them or need be in addition, for salvation.

These quotes are from individuals regarding 'Lordship Salvation".And just in case you happened to have missed it, the first time around, Dr. Gerstner repeats - I, as a dispensationalist, do "get it", contrary to what Dr. Gerstner asserts. I do not see a difference, here. I do not agree that any works, whether meritorious or non-meritorious are part of the integral definition of faith. Paul did not add this disclaimer in Rom. 4, so I will not either.

Scripture says we should be careful to maintain good works, and does not say anywhere that these will be 'automatic'. (Tit. 3:8, 14) I fully agree - on both counts!

Ed

Why do you speak of yourself in the third person? It's weird. Wiggin me out.

 

[EdSutton]

Why do you speak of yourself in the third person? It's weird. Wiggin me out.

Now this is a substantive response.

And I also have some lovely oceanfront property for sale, at a great price, right here in central KY. :thumbs:

I spoke "in the "first person'" 18 times in the post, by my count. I spoke in "the third person" only to identify for others, and be compared with other posters on the BB. I uses the "BB handles" for that whenever I do.

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Now this is a substantive response.

And I also have some lovely oceanfront property for sale, at a great price, right here in central KY. :thumbs:

I spoke "in the "first person'" 18 times in the post, by my count. I spoke in "the third person" only to identify for others, and be compared with other posters on the BB. I uses the "BB handles" for that whenever I do.

Ed

I will trade ya 4 million shares in a new company called Ponzi Incorporated for title to your property. Just sign it over to me and send it to 1234 Ponzi Scheme Lane, Wacko Texas, 73245.

And if yer countin yer pronouns...weeds are growing on the farm. :laugh:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear BB Readers:

Following is the exact quote that verifies and affirms LS conditions salvation, the reception of eternal life, on the lost man's commitment to believe and to "forsake sin." This is faith, plus a commitment to works.

“The gospel call of Jesus was a call to forsake sin as much as it was a summons to believe in Him. It was a call to turn from sin. From His first message to His last, the Savior’s theme was calling sinners to turn from their sin, to embrace God, to pursue righteousness. It was not only that they had a new perspective on who He was, but that they turn from sin to follow Him.” (John MacArthur: The Call to Repentance, Part 3 from the four sermon series on The Lordship of Christ.)

Must a lost man "forsake sin, turn from sin" FOR salvation? According to Dr. MacArthur, YES!

JM is directing his comments above to the lost, he is speaking in terms of an evangelistic appeal. He equates believing with behavior, calling on sinners, those who were still unsaved, to embrace believe and behave to come to Christ. LS, however, puts the premium on behavior.

Lordship Salvation is a works-based, non-saving message that redefines the Gospel by viewing a commitment to he results of salvation as the requirement FOR salvation.

Lordship Salvation frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) and must be biblically resisted for the sake of unsuspecting believers and the lost who may come under the sound of this corruption of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

JM is directing his comments above to the lost...

So did Jesus.