Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[Paul Kersey]

TC Greek:

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

I have always bristled at the "turn from sin" view, because it seems to imply a required "self-reformation", prior to salvation.

I like the rest of the BF&M, but this definition is a real challenge for me.

Your thoughts?

 

[webdog]

TC Greek:

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

I have always bristled at the "turn from sin" view, because it seems to imply a required "self-reformation", prior to salvation.

I like the rest of the BF&M, but this definition is a real challenge for me.

Your thoughts?

You have brought up a very good point. Even one who is regenerated doesn't "turn from sin" always, so we can't expect an unregenerated person to do so in order to receive salvation. They only need to admit the inevitable, that they are sinners and they are separated from God, and turn to Him for salvation (true repentance).

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I'm not trying to be a stickler here Lou but I had to laugh when I saw the part I have bolded. Even you must use the discriptor of 'Lord' and a turning or dependence to 'the Lord'.

I can take that and run a muck with it with misrepresentation.

Bu i'm just hassling you though. BTW - it is a sound definiton of repentence though.

Allan:

FWIW, I trust you understand there is a BIG difference between "dependence" on, and "whole-hearted commitment, full surrender."

You do recognize the difference; don't you?


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Thanks, Lou,

I find this to be a sound, biblical definition of Repentance.

TC:

Thanks for your comment.

That definition is an important part of the revised version of my book.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

TC Greek:

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

I have always bristled at the "turn from sin" view, because it seems to imply a required "self-reformation", prior to salvation.

I like the rest of the BF&M, but this definition is a real challenge for me.

Your thoughts?

Paul:

Thanks for the comment.

The "turn from sin" statement can be problematic as you noted. IMO, you can only to turn to God to do for you what you cannot do for yourself; and what the Holy Spirit is convincing and convicting of at the time (John 16:7-ff).

Kind regards,


Lou

 

[EdSutton]

TC Greek:

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

I have always bristled at the "turn from sin" view, because it seems to imply a required "self-reformation", prior to salvation.

I like the rest of the BF&M, but this definition is a real challenge for me.

Your thoughts?

Welcome to the BB.

I'll be back.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

TC Greek:

Hi Paul,

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

1. At one level the SBC statement is correct, because a sinner has been violating the holiness of God in sin---so the conviction and work of the Spirit brings about this realization, which causes the sinner to change her thinking toward this violation of the holiness of God because of sin and then turn to Christ in faith (Acts 20:21).

2. SBC only provides basic definitions, so one must turn to Scripture. Do not let the SBC statement of faith become your Bible.

I have always bristled at the "turn from sin" view, because it seems to imply a required "self-reformation", prior to salvation.

3. I know what you mean, but only the Spirit can bring about this conviction through the Word (John 16). When this happens the sinner would ask the question What must I do?

 

[canadyjd]

canadyjd asked this question of webdog:

Originally Posted by canadyjd
"Would you at least acknowledge that he isn't teaching a works based salvation?

The moment JM publicly retracts and corrects his "overstatements," and states without hesitataion or apology that the free gift of God cannot be received through "full surrender, unconditional surrender, whole hearted commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs, a commitment to take up the cross, deny self and follow Him," I will be happy to re-examine his teaching on the Gospel.

And note that I put those things in quotes!

If he will publicly state that none of these things play any role whatsoever in and for the reception of eternal life; that calling for these things for the reception of eternal life frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) I will be happy to say JM does not teach a works based message.

I do believe I understand you now.

John MacArthur believes (and has repeatedly stated) that salvation is a process that is completely a work of God that begins with regeneration by Holy Spirit, conviction (which leads to repentance) and drawing which leads to faith (including wholehearted commitment) as a response to what God Holy Spirit has done. Part of that salvation process includes an "exchange" of passions, so to speak. The resulting discipleship leads to sanctification and ultimately glorification.

According to J. Mac, since faith is a free gift of God, God will not give us a faith that is lacking in wholehearted commitment to follow His Son, Jesus.

You do not believe regeneration occurs prior to faith. It fact, you believe it is a false teaching.

You are, therefore, applying your understanding of regeneration (that it follows faith) to the last part of J.Mac's process of salvation (where he speaks of a faith that includes wholehearted commitment and the "exchanges" that occur as part of that salvation process).

When you do so, you ignore what he teaches concerning regeneration as preceding faith and the responses that follow God Holy Spirit's work, and then accuse him of "works based" salvation.

That is the only way that you can accuse the man of advocating a "works based" salvation, despite his very specific statements to the contrary.

It is, of course, a misrepresentation of his position.

That said, since I have yet to get you to answer a single question directly, I have said all I intend to at this point.

I sincerely hope you sell a million books....and that you recieve a million letters and/or e-mails pointing out that you are misrepresenting J.Mac's position on the issue.:smilewinkgrin:

peace to you and Merry Christmasraying:

 

[JustChristian]

You have brought up a very good point. Even one who is regenerated doesn't "turn from sin" always, so we can't expect an unregenerated person to do so in order to receive salvation. They only need to admit the inevitable, that they are sinners and they are separated from God, and turn to Him for salvation (true repentance).

I take issue with your unsupported claim that " even one who is regenerated doesn't "turn from sin" always." Someone who is regenerated ALWAYS turns away from sin. That may not be convenient or easy to accept but it's certainly Biblical.

 

[webdog]

I take issue with your unsupported claim that " even one who is regenerated doesn't "turn from sin" always." Someone who is regenerated ALWAYS turns away from sin. That may not be convenient or easy to accept but it's certainly Biblical.

You don't sin? Unreal... :BangHead:

I've been regenerated, and I continue to sin.

 

[HankD]

This is essentially correct. The most important element in determining meaning is current usage, so for a Greek word I study first its usage in the NT, secondly in secular koine, thirdly in classical Greek and fourthly it's etymology (needed sometimes in the case of rare words).

My definition of metanoia (metanoew being the verb) is: a change in fundamental thinking. My problem with the phrase "change of mind" is that in modern English a change of mind is usually a light, casual thing, ergo: "I was going to go to MacDonald's but changed my mind and went to KFC." When we talk about a serious issue we are more likely to use the term "thinking," as in, "I changed my thinking about abortion and I now think it is murder."

Yes that is my feeling as well, it is a wider and deeper word than our phrase "change of mind".

The similarity of these two words are in the fact that they are both compounds beginning with meta. Other than that I don't think you can make a deep connection between the two. The literal meaning of metanoew is "after-thinking" and of metamorphow is "after-changing." So to that extent they are similar.

My feeling is that the "morpho" is the form or image of Christ. We are changed from the image of Adam to the image of Christ and that to me has its root in our thinking which is impacted by the Spirit and the Word of God. If this is true then one aspect of "repentance" is life long.

Sorry, but I have a problem with all efforts to produce an order of salvation. It all takes place simultaneously, and the effort to produce a logical order is to me doomed to failure.

Dont be sorry

Alas, I don't have a Kittel's, though I've used it and would like the set. It just costs way too much for my salary! However, Kittel's is a mixed bag. For example, the article on pisteuw is by Rudolph Bultmann, a radical theological liberal. I much prefer the various normal lexicons that I have.

Kittels is indeed a mixed bag. But to me sometimes that is valuable.

Thank you for your response JoJ.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

My feeling is that the "morpho" is the form or image of Christ. We are changed from the image of Adam to the image of Christ and that to me has its root in our thinking which is impacted by the Spirit and the Word of God. If this is true then one aspect of "repentance" is life long.

I certainly agree that the results of true repentance are life long! I'll have to think through the rest.

Thank you for your response JoJ.

HankD

Any time, brother! :wavey:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I do believe I understand you now... You are, therefore, applying your understanding of regeneration (that it follows faith) to the last part of J.Mac's process of salvation (where he speaks of a faith that includes wholehearted commitment and the "exchanges" that occur as part of that salvation process).

Sorry, but no you don't.

J. Mac's process of salvation (where he speaks of a faith that includes wholehearted UPFRONT commitment and the "exchanges" that MUST occur FOR salvation).

Back to :sleep: mode.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Twin Errors on Repentance

I agree with you that the definition Lou provided of repentance is accurate. However, our denomination's (I am in the SBC also) statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, disagrees. It states, "Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God."

Paul:

Hi, I see you are new to BB.

Earlier in this thread I linked to an article I wrote on the Lordship Salvation view of Repentance. I'll provide the link once more to make sure you have a chance to read it.

Based on what I have read from you here I think you'll appreciate it.

How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

Then, I believe I saw you reference the Free Grace community. You may be aware of a huge rift and division in the FG community over the Zane Hodges "Crossless" interpretation of the Gospel. Bob Wilkin and the GES hold to this position and many have left the GES over it.

Anyway, Hodges, Wilkin and the GES take a different view of repentance than the LS side, but it is no less disconcerting.

You can read of it in this article, Is There Such a Thing as Repentance...?

Hope you find these helpful.


LM

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I take issue with your unsupported claim that " even one who is regenerated doesn't "turn from sin" always." Someone who is regenerated ALWAYS turns away from sin. That may not be convenient or easy to accept but it's certainly Biblical.

You don't sin? Unreal... :BangHead:

I've been regenerated, and I continue to sin.

Your simple illumination here exposes the end of erring rationalization. And this is a symptom of the ills of Calvinism. While God's Holy Word clearly presents certain absolutes, a body of absolutes forwarded by Calvinists are not reflective of those "real" absolutes in Scripture. Hence, Calvinists speak in very absolute terms that with even the most basic method of concluding s its fractured structure is exposed.

Here one claims that "someone who is regenerated ALWAYS turns away from sin" and you, in a most milk based doctrinal position demonstrate the obvious and fatal flaw of the end of this claims. Thank you WD.

A claim has been made, that believers "ALWAYS" act in a certain way. You accepted that claim, that "someone who is regenerated ALWAYS turns away from sin" and then investigated its truthfulness. You prescribed it to your self and found it a FAILURE since as a believer you, yourself, know you still sin which means you don't always turn away from it. You took a faulty idea and revealed its erring end. Never minding the plethora of accounts in the Bible of believers not always turning away from sin. You didn't have to go that far since your very first case found the idea to be invalid.

The only thing left of course is for someone to come along and now help you understand that "ALWAYS turns away from sin" doesn't mean what you thought it meant. :laugh:

 

[Paul Kersey]

Lou,
Thanks for the welcome and the information you provided. I have read your book and was blessed by it. I fall into the Charles Ryrie/Charles Stanley position, and I think Dr. Wilkin erred when he abandoned his original position on repentance. It seems that Professor Hodges is extremely influential over Wilkin and others in the extreme FG movement. His views seem to automatically become the default positions of the men you have described on your blog. This is unfortunate.

My primary concerns at the moment center around the generally poor understanding of repentance in its soteriological context in the Southern Baptist Convention and the rise of strict Calvinism (and the worship of John Piper) among young SBC pastors.

Keep providing the information on LS. I realize you are taking heat, but, to many of us, the material is quite helpful.

 

[canadyjd]

Sorry, but no you don't.

Quote:
J. Mac's process of salvation (where he speaks of a faith that includes wholehearted UPFRONT commitment and the "exchanges" that MUST occur FOR salvation).

Back to :sleep: mode.

Apparantly, you are quite adept in using partial quotes (out of context), and even changing the words in the partial quotes to make it fit what you want it to say. You seem to have had a lot of practice in this area.

However, it is still intellectually dishonest and unethical to do so, and I would appreciate it if you didn't change the words I have posted and then present it as if I had had actually said it.

Of course, I realize that since you have no regrets for continuing to misrepresent what John MacArthur believes and teaches (even when your statements are presented with his statements to demonstrate beyond question you are misrepresenting what he believes and teaches) I will not hold my breath while waiting for you to apologize.

peace to youraying:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Apparantly, you are quite adept in using partial quotes (out of context), and even changing the words in the partial quotes to make it fit what you want it to say. You seem to have had a lot of practice in this area.

However, it is still intellectually dishonest and unethical to do so, and I would appreciate it if you didn't change the words I have posted and then present it as if I had had actually said it.

Of course, I realize that since you have no regrets for continuing to misrepresent what John MacArthur believes and teaches (even when your statements are presented with his statements to demonstrate beyond question you are misrepresenting what he believes and teaches) I will not hold my breath while waiting for you to apologize.

peace to youraying:

Careful.......... he will call you a liar too.

 

[canadyjd]

Careful.......... he will call you a liar too.

I've been called worse things, I guess. It still hurts my feelings though.:tear:

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

Apparantly, you are quite adept in using partial quotes (out of context), and even changing the words in the partial quotes to make it fit what you want it to say. You seem to have had a lot of practice in this area.

However, it is still intellectually dishonest and unethical to do so, and I would appreciate it if you didn't change the words I have posted and then present it as if I had had actually said it.

Of course, I realize that since you have no regrets for continuing to misrepresent what John MacArthur believes and teaches (even when your statements are presented with his statements to demonstrate beyond question you are misrepresenting what he believes and teaches) I will not hold my breath while waiting for you to apologize.

peace to youraying:

Your posts read as "Nuh, uh!"

Continuing to state the same things over and over agains does not make them so.