Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[skypair]

OK. You believe J. Mac is moving toward a freewill theology because he speaks of "responding". The teaching of "responding" to the work God has done in our lives (especially responding to regeneration and the other works of Holy Spirit) is prominent in Calvinistic teaching.

Hope that helps your understanding of Calvinism.

peace to youraying:

Thanks, canady. I guess I got the notion from llstening to him on radio once, too. Whenever he talks about responding, I hope against hope that it is regarding receiving Christ while unregenerate. Oh well. :tear:

skypair

 

[HankD]

I skipped most of this thread and came right to the end.

Speaking for myself, while I acknowledge Jesus Christ as my God, my Lord and my Savior, I did not get there overnight.

The Corinthian Christians were carnal, the Word of God says so yet they were believers. Some of them however were sick and some even "slept".

Here is my point.

What does it matter what one says?
The tares among the wheat can claim Jesus as Lord, no?

Matthew 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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In other words its not what we say post-salvation but what we do

Just before this statement in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said this:

Matthew 7
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

HankD
​

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

In some of those cases, they just meant "sir." In koine Greek, kurios often just meant what we mean when we say "sir." Check out the places in John 4 and 5 when it is translated "sir," for examples.

Out of more than 700 uses of the word Kurios only 6 occasions did it mean sir. and 667 cases it meant Lord.

And again you cannot call on the Lord if you do not recognize who the Lord is.

 

[webdog]

Out of more than 700 uses of the word Kurios only 6 occasions did it mean sir. and 667 cases it meant Lord.

And again you cannot call on the Lord if you do not recognize who the Lord is.

Recognizing who the Lord is, and understanding the full meaning behind that is the crux of the matter. Recognizing Christ as Lord and calling out to Him for mercy for salvation is one thing, understanding the full implications of Him being the Lord of your life in exchange for salvation is totally separate. The latter is LS, the former is not.

 

[webdog]

Let me put it this way. In 106 verses in the NT we have all three of the following words: Lord, Jesus, Christ. Many of these verses deal with salvation. Now, by the same logic that LS uses, why do I not have to accept Jesus as Christ as well as Savior?

Lord and Christ are both titles of Jesus. They are both very important titles of Jesus. They both tell of His character. Why not argue that one must accept Jesus as the Messiah/Christ in order to be saved? No one makes that arguement. But the logic is the same.

Excellent point. I would like to here the LS'ers response to this...

The same argument from the LS'ers would have us accepting Christ as the jewish Messiah as well as Lord, and without the full understanding of what that entailed, could not be saved. LS is truly another gospel.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Recognizing who the Lord is, and understanding the full meaning behind that is the crux of the matter. Recognizing Christ as Lord and calling out to Him for mercy for salvation is one thing, understanding the full implications of Him being the Lord of your life in exchange for salvation is totally separate. The latter is LS, the former is not.

I do not know of anyone who exchanges Christ being Lord for salvation. that is a semantical confusion that is not necessary. I do not believe you can in reality kneel before the cross and not call Christ Lord. The act of humilty takes a willingness for Christ to be Lord.

 

[webdog]

I do not know of anyone who exchanges Christ being Lord for salvation. that is a semantical confusion that is not necessary. I do not believe you can in reality kneel before the cross and not call Christ Lord. The act of humilty takes a willingness for Christ to be Lord.

...in this you are correct, but as has been countinuously pointed out, the doctrine we are discussing called Lordship Salvation teaches EXACTLY THAT. You are arguing for a doctrine you do not even believe in by your post here.

 

[canadyjd]

Just a note for all…

What we have been witnessing that is coming from canadyjd is the standard mantra of most LS advocates,....

The standard "mantra" I have used is to actually quote what J. Mac believes and teaches from his own writings along side what Lou Martuneac is claiming he believes and teaches, and let people decide for themselves if J. Mac has been misrepresented? It is clear, Lou, that you are misrepresenting what he is saying.

or lastly do not take the time to do the study of LS so that they know what they are trying to defend in the first place. Canadyjd falls into the latter category.

I went to J.Mac's website, to the section titled "lordship salvation" and read what J. Mac believes and teaches. If you would do that, you might quit misrepresenting what he believes and teaches.

With canadyjd, it is the same mantra, just a new voice behind it. He/she is not the first and won’t be the last.

Just a note to all:

I had hoped we could have an honest debate on the Lordship issue. I have answered Lou's questions directly and in depth. Lou continues to refuse to answer mine.

Lou has turned to this personal attack directed toward me for only one reason. He has been exposed and he doesn't know how else to respond.

I have called him on his repeated accusations that J.Mac is teaching a "works salvation". I have taken what he says J.Mac believes, and then I have given him the actual writings from J.Mac that disprove on every count the accusations he has made.

He continues to ignore my questions, instead telling me I don't understand and directing me to his blog.

This has been the standard mantra for Lou. Ignore the questions. Direct everyone to his blog. Tell people they don't really understand if they disagree with him. Attack people personally if they demonstrate his errors with convincing proofs.

I think you have been exposed, Lou.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

The standard "mantra" I have used is to actually quote what J. Mac believes and teaches from his own writings along side what Lou Martuneac is claiming he believes and teaches, and let people decide for themselves if J. Mac has been misrepresented? It is clear, Lou, that you are misrepresenting what he is saying. I went to J.Mac's website, to the section titled "lordship salvation" and read what J. Mac believes and teaches. If you would do that, you might quit misrepresenting what he believes and teaches.Just a note to all:

I had hoped we could have an honest debate on the Lordship issue. I have answered Lou's questions directly and in depth. Lou continues to refuse to answer mine.

Lou has turned to this personal attack directed toward me for only one reason. He has been exposed and he doesn't know how else to respond.

I have called him on his repeated accusations that J.Mac is teaching a "works salvation". I have taken what he says J.Mac believes, and then I have given him the actual writings from J.Mac that disprove on every count the accusations he has made.

He continues to ignore my questions, instead telling me I don't understand and directing me to his blog.

This has been the standard mantra for Lou. Ignore the questions. Direct everyone to his blog. Tell people they don't really understand if they disagree with him. Attack people personally if they demonstrate his errors with convincing proofs.

I think you have been exposed, Lou.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

peace to youraying:

Are you kidding? Unreal! "Exposing" Lou when you have admitted to NOT reading Macarthur's work your self, besiedes a prepared statement on his website? THEN you find the nerve to yet again call Lou out on his intentions? Let's be a little more eithical, can we?

Me thinks instead of wiping the egg off your face you are deliberately trying to demean Lou.

 

[Amy.G]

Are you kidding? Unreal! "Exposing" Lou when you have admitted to NOT reading Macarthur's work your self, besiedes a prepared statement on his website? THEN you find the nerve to yet again call Lou out on his intentions? Let's be a little more eithical, can we?

Me thinks instead of wiping the egg off your face you are deliberately trying to demean Lou.

How many of MacArthur's books have you read?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

...in this you are correct, but as has been countinuously pointed out, the doctrine we are discussing called Lordship Salvation teaches EXACTLY THAT. You are arguing for a doctrine you do not even believe in by your post here.

It does not teach that and it is not JM's position. I have his book right here in my biscut grabbers. No one teaches an exchange.

 

[reformedbeliever]

In case no one has posted the link to JM's web site stating what he believes on LS.

http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Lordship_Salvation.pdf

I would ask that those who are misrepresenting JM read what JM states on his web site. Maybe then you will not continue to misrepresent JM.

 

[reformedbeliever]

The standard "mantra" I have used is to actually quote what J. Mac believes and teaches from his own writings along side what Lou Martuneac is claiming he believes and teaches, and let people decide for themselves if J. Mac has been misrepresented? It is clear, Lou, that you are misrepresenting what he is saying. I went to J.Mac's website, to the section titled "lordship salvation" and read what J. Mac believes and teaches. If you would do that, you might quit misrepresenting what he believes and teaches.Just a note to all:

I had hoped we could have an honest debate on the Lordship issue. I have answered Lou's questions directly and in depth. Lou continues to refuse to answer mine.

Lou has turned to this personal attack directed toward me for only one reason. He has been exposed and he doesn't know how else to respond.

I have called him on his repeated accusations that J.Mac is teaching a "works salvation". I have taken what he says J.Mac believes, and then I have given him the actual writings from J.Mac that disprove on every count the accusations he has made.

He continues to ignore my questions, instead telling me I don't understand and directing me to his blog.

This has been the standard mantra for Lou. Ignore the questions. Direct everyone to his blog. Tell people they don't really understand if they disagree with him. Attack people personally if they demonstrate his errors with convincing proofs.

I think you have been exposed, Lou.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

peace to youraying:

Hey, look at the bright side...... at least he didn't call you a liar. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

It does not teach that and it is not JM's position. I have his book right here in my biscut grabbers. No one teaches an exchange.

...then you don't see it, but it doesnt' mean it's not true. Lordship Salvation precedes Macarthur, and the theology is pretty straight forward.

 

[webdog]

How many of MacArthur's books have you read?

Besides his study Bible? None. One can read his sermons, though, and see the same things, I imagine as is written in his books (he has a 4 part lordship salvation series). I see the quotes supplied from his books squaring with what I read in his sermon series, and about LS in general.

One doesn't need to read Macarthur to understand the LS position, either. There are others not as highly profiled as JM.

 

[Amy.G]

Besides his study Bible? None. One can read his sermons, though, and see the same things, I imagine as is written in his books (he has a 4 part lordship salvation series). I see the quotes supplied from his books squaring with what I read in his sermon series, and about LS in general.

One doesn't need to read Macarthur to understand the LS position, either. There are others not as highly profiled as JM.

You've been defending Lou M. and his assertion the John MacArthur teaches a works salvation yet you haven't read the material in question?

It doesn't matter who else teaches LS. The point of this thread is whether or not John M. teaches a works based salvation. That has not been proven.
Two of us have posted quotes from JM's website that definitely show that he does not teach a works based salvation. Yet you keep on saying that he does based on Lou's quotes from books that you yourself have never read.

 

[webdog]

You've been defending Lou M. and his assertion the John MacArthur teaches a works salvation yet you haven't read the material in question?

It doesn't matter who else teaches LS. The point of this thread is whether or not John M. teaches a works based salvation. That has not been proven.
Two of us have posted quotes from JM's website that definitely show that he does not teach a works based salvation. Yet you keep on saying that he does based on Lou's quotes from books that you yourself have never read.

Did I not say I read his own 4 part sermon on Lordship Salvation? If you do a search, I'm sure you can find it.

FTR, I've only defended the accusation against Lou doing what he does for money. This is dishonest, unethical and totally uncalled for. I'm surprised you don't see this (or maybe the TULIP blinders are on).

What books or sermons have you read? I have not said that my view of JM's position is based on Lou's books....you did. I haven't read his book, either.

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks for the kind words. You do pretty well yourself in theology and Greek!

Thanks, for the kind words in return.

I haven't really studied out kyrios yet in a soteriological context. Please note that my statement was in answer to a specific question about people in the Gospels: "How many people in the gospels can you present that Jesis interacted with in a redemptive way that did not recognize Him as and call Him Lord?" Also, I did say, "some of those cases," you'll note. One case in which it is clear that kyrios means "sir" is John 4 and the woman at the well. I don't see how one could translate "Lord" as if she already meant Him to be her Lord in any of the three cases it occurs: vv. 17, 15, 19. Other cases are arguable, like v. 49 in the same chapter.

I'm in agreement on John 4.

 

[TCGreek]

In my view he was distinguishing between salvation by faith and attempted salvation by obedience to the Law. So he was discussion the human side of salvation. If it is necessary to receive Christ as Lord in order to be saved, I still maintain that Galatians would have been a perfect time to describe that part of the human side of salvation. But he did not.

1. Yes, the human perspective over against the divine as reflected in the gospel offer, but I still see no need for Paul to mention receiving Christ as Lord to substantiate his argument.

2. Rather, it is faith in Christ plus nothing--not works of the Law, which at its heart, at least in Galatians, included Circumcision. But what does Paul mean by "faith in Jesus Christ" becomes the issue.

I may be dense, but I still don't see any direct connection between this phrase and accepting Christ as Lord at salvation.

As for repentance, I'm always a little mystified when people bring repentance into the LS discussion. Many (including myself) are strong on repentance but oppose LS. Ernest Pickering was one. (God bless his memory.) I don't follow the "free grace" people in my definition of repentance, yet some LS people would call me weak on repentance simply because I don't accept LS. Beats me!

3. At Ephesus Paul says that he preached both repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21)---as I've maintained, in coming to the Lord for salvation is a renouncing of a life of rebellion in sin (repentance) and the embracing of Christ from salvation (faith)---this very process, implies a recognition of the Lordship of Christ in salvation over all other alternatives to be right with the Father.

But this argument can be applied to any book of the Bible. There was no defined doctrine of LS in Bible times or even among any of the church fathers that I know of. Can you show me a single statement from a church father that is similar to modern LS?

4. Neither can I at the moment, but I must delve into it.

And here it all depends on definitions and phraseology. Some will say, "Accept Him as Lord." You are saying to recognize Him as Lord. There is a big difference. The first is the original LS position. Yours is not.

5. Frankly speaking, I am disillusioned by the particular hard-nose LS formula---I do not see it in Scripture---at least, the way it is presently defined in the LS debate.

6. I do agree that there is a subtle difference in "Accepting Jesus as Lord" and the "Recognition of the Lordship of Christ."

7. I believe you and Lou are correct in maintaining that not an upfront commitment to discipleship, but I would still maintain that salvation is Jesus for the sinner is really because of the Lordship of Christ, whether the sinner acknowledges it or not.

8. What then do you make of Rom 10:9,10?

 

[canadyjd]

Are you kidding? Unreal! "Exposing" Lou when you have admitted to NOT reading Macarthur's work your self, besiedes a prepared statement on his website? THEN you find the nerve to yet again call Lou out on his intentions? Let's be a little more eithical, can we?

The "prepared statement" from J.Mac's website is a written account of what he believes and teaches concerning Lordship salvation. It is there for everyone to see. You don't have to have Lou to tell you, webdog, what J.Mac believes and teaches, you can read it yourself.

When you compare what J. Mac believes and teaches to what Lou claims he believes and teaches, anyone can readily see they are opposites. You don't have to be a "lordship salvation scholar" to see J.Mac has been misrepresented by Lou.

peace to youraying: