Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[reformedbeliever]

Your posts read as "Nuh, uh!"

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

Awwww now web.... you do this all the time. I thought that you believed if you do that it makes them so.......... :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Awwww now web.... you do this all the time. I thought that you believed if you do that it makes them so.......... :laugh:

There is a difference between repeating oneself numerous times...and stating something numerous times to validate what is being stated

 

[reformedbeliever]

There is a difference between repeating oneself numerous times...and stating something numerous times to validate what is being stated

If you say so bro! :wavey:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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.

Paul:

Thanks for the kind remarks.

You are right about men like Wilkin defaulting what Hodges teaches. One friend told me that during a panel discussion Wilkin made a point, Hodges disagreed, and Wilkin said, “I guess I’ll have to change my position.” My friend was there and heard it himself.

Plus, many do not realize that Hodges and Wilkin have polarized themselves with their strange twist on the Gospel. Many have left the GES over what is coming from Hodges and Wilkin.

The “poor understanding of repentance” for salvation is one of the few major issues around which the LS debate revolves. MacArthur, for LS, complicates it…Hodges for Crossless theology dismisses it. Both are wrong and have departed from orthodoxy.

Men in my IFB circles have noted the resurgence of Calvinism. It is disconcerting to many. Some in my circles have move to a Calvinistic view of Scripture.

I have also noted the attention John Piper is receiving from many in evangelical circles. Reformed theology is the attraction and glue. Men are willing to over look numerous issues with Piper, such as:

His views on Spirit baptism, charismatic gifts, use of Rap artists/music in his church, his attraction with the Toronto Blessing, using the “Cussing pastor” (Mark Driscoll) at his conferences, his own use of vulgarity, and trying to institute a policy for inclusion of non-baptized people into the membership of his church are among the issues with Piper.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between Piper’s theology and practice.

My concern with him and MacArthur is that these men are a potential bridge for our younger men to New Evangelicalism.

Finally, I am glad that you found my book helpful.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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

Thanks, I'll do what I can.

I pay little or no attention to the men who have let the personalities involved in the LS debate cloud and drive their reactions.

JM, just a Piper, has a very large and loyal following. Some followers will not even consider the possibility that he (JM) is wrong on the Gospel. They view any questioning of his LS teaching as a personal attack on the man. That has been evident here and other venues.

As I say, I pay very little attention to them.


LM

 

[reformedbeliever]

Thanks, I'll do what I can.

I pay little or no attention to the men who have let the personalities involved in the LS debate cloud and drive their reactions.

JM, just a Piper, has a very large and loyal following. Some followers will not even consider the possibility that he (JM) is wrong on the Gospel. They view any questioning of his LS teaching as a personal attack on the man. That has been evident here and other venues.

As I say, I pay very little attention to them.


LM

I think personalities are very important. Such as when someone says that it seems that Lou is misrepresenting people like JM..... and then Lou calls them a liar for saying "it seems to me." Lou, if someone says " it seems to me" then that is what their perception of something is. You should not call them a liar. I'm waiting for your appology....... but like canady...... I'll not hold my breath.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I think personalities are very important. Such as when someone says that it seems that Lou is misrepresenting people like JM..... and then Lou calls them a liar for saying "it seems to me." Lou, if someone says " it seems to me" then that is what their perception of something is. You should not call them a liar. I'm waiting for your appology....... but like canady...... I'll not hold my breath.

:laugh: When you Calvinists develop enough to be as offended when one of your own make the very kind of remarks you now claim are offensive, well then someone will take your cries seriously. Until then, as you look the other way for your own but cry wolf otherwise, you will only have your echoing companions to comfort your tender ears.

 

[Rippon]

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 .

Q is confused once more . Baptist Believer ( fine guy though he may be ) is not a Calvinist . Therefore Q , your verbiage was for nought . ( I think I'm getting the hang of Q-talk

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

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 .

Q is confused once more . Baptist Believer ( fine guy though he may be ) is not a Calvinist . Therefore Q , your verbiage was for nought . ( I think I'm getting the hang of Q-talk

Isn't that cute, you wanna be a super hero for BB. :laugh:
Whether you want to call an ear an eye and pretend it is so, that's your problem. But whatever you or BB decide they are, the statement by BB to which I was referring reflected a Calvinistic theology. So, if one is going to wear Calvinist garb, they ought not complain when they are mistaken for one, neither should their theological wanna be heroes ing to save them.

 

[Rippon]

Isn't that cute, you wanna be a super hero for BB. :laugh:
Whether you want to call an ear an eye and pretend it is so, that's your problem. But whatever you or BB decide they are, the statement by BB to which I was referring reflected a Calvinistic theology. So, if one is going to wear Calvinist garb, they ought not complain when they are mistaken for one, neither should their theological wanna be heroes ing to save them.

What's the matter Q ? Can't you admit you made a blunder ? BB is not a Calvinist ( apparently you thought so ) so you made an unwarranted leap and charged Calvinists with holding to his views . Please document just one Calvinist here or elsewhere who claims that someone who is regenerate always turns away from sin . If you can't furnish such a quote admit your folly and move on . But please don't go on a grandiloquent rant in an attempt to cover-up your unfounded assertions .

 

[webdog]

What's the matter Q ? Can't you admit you made a blunder ? BB is not a Calvinist ( apparently you thought so ) so you made an unwarranted leap and charged Calvinists with holding to his views . Please document just one Calvinist here or elsewhere who claims that someone who is regenerate always turns away from sin . If you can't furnish such a quote admit your folly and move on . But please don't go on a grandiloquent rant in an attempt to cover-up your unfounded assertions .

One does not need to be a calvinist to be confused (or wrong) as BB has shown.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Let me go on record as saying: that I remain a 5-point Calvinist, but that doesn't mean I see no flaw in the LS approach.

2. LS is a distortion of the gospel offer, in my estimation, and I hope that my other Calvinist friends on BB don't runaway with the impression, that as long as you are a Calvinist, you must agree to LS.

3. For me this is not about Calvinism--it is about the LS debate.

4. Lou, John and I will continue to disagree on Calvinism, but I agree with what they have been saying so far on the LS issue.

 

[reformedbeliever]

1. Let me go on record as saying: that I remain a 5-point Calvinist, but that doesn't mean I see no flaw in the LS approach.

2. LS is a distortion of the gospel offer, in my estimation, and I hope that my other Calvinist friends on BB don't runaway with the impression, that as long as you are a Calvinist, you must agree to LS.

3. For me this is not about Calvinism--it is about the LS debate.

4. Lou, John and I will continue to disagree on Calvinism, but I agree with what they have been saying so far on the LS issue.

As far as the Lordship of Jesus Christ is concerned....... He will be Lord of the life that receives Him as LORD and Savior. As far as how committed a regenerate person is ........... I think that can vary among the regenerate. What this thread is about is an HONEST debate about LS. The point canady has made many times is that some are coming at this debate dishonestly. I too would like to learn more about LS... and make up my own mind about it. But I don't need people to muddy the waters with misrepresentations... that is not helpful in the least.

 

[webdog]

Because canady has said there are those coming at this dishonestly, doe not make it so. Nobody has done this, IMO, and the title of the thread is misleading.

 

[TCGreek]

As far as the Lordship of Jesus Christ is concerned....... He will be Lord of the life that receives Him as LORD and Savior. As far as how committed a regenerate person is ........... I think that can vary among the regenerate. What this thread is about is an HONEST debate about LS. The point canady has made many times is that some are coming at this debate dishonestly. I too would like to learn more about LS... and make up my own mind about it. But I don't need people to muddy the waters with misrepresentations... that is not helpful in the least.

RB,

1. The fundament question in this whole debate is: The framing of the LS offer, Is it in Scripture?

2. Those who wish to make it about Calvinism are free to do so---but for me, it is not about Calvinism. It is about what I see in Scripture.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

What's the matter Q ? Can't you admit you made a blunder ? BB is not a Calvinist ( apparently you thought so ) so you made an unwarranted leap and charged Calvinists with holding to his views . Please document just one Calvinist here or elsewhere who claims that someone who is regenerate always turns away from sin . If you can't furnish such a quote admit your folly and move on . But please don't go on a grandiloquent rant in an attempt to cover-up your unfounded assertions .

I see, someone dresses their speech with Calvinism and I am suppose to feel bad for calling them a Calvinist?

Oh gee, blunder of blunders.

So after you have had your meltdown over this identity blunder, when you have recovered yourself let me know and maybe we can keep a conversation on topic.

 

[Rippon]

Again , please document or admit you messed up . Rather simple .

 

[reformedbeliever]

RB,

1. The fundament question in this whole debate is: The framing of the LS offer, Is it in Scripture?

2. Those who wish to make it about Calvinism are free to do so---but for me, it is not about Calvinism. It is about what I see in Scripture.

I understand sir....... and that is my wish too. It is not about Calvinism for me either..... but I do believe sir that Calvinism is at the root of the disagreement between Lou, Quack and other non calvinist with those who hold to reformed theology.

 

[webdog]

I understand sir....... and that is my wish too. It is not about Calvinism for me either..... but I do believe sir that Calvinism is at the root of the disagreement between Lou, Quack and other non calvinist with those who hold to reformed theology.

You say it's not about calvinism for you...but then state calvinism is at the root of the disagreement

 

[reformedbeliever]

You say it's not about calvinism for you...but then state calvinism is at the root of the disagreement

You read well web.