Lordship’s “Turn From Sin” FOR Salvation

[Paul Kersey]

Reply to Havensdad

Havensdad,

Your biting sarcasm and harsh tone overshadow what you are writing. I left an earlier thread a few months ago, due to your venomous and mocking approach.

Regardless of your disagreement with Lou, the insulting ugliness of your writing really detracts from what you are attempting to say.

 

[annsni]

canadyjd - I am seeing what you're saying is true. LM is pushing his own agenda without using the facts and truth.

And Havensdad - I think you're responses are right on.

The Bible says to "repent" - to turn away from our sin. A regenerate heart can do that - an unregenerate heart cannot do that. An unregenerate heart is dead in sin. Christ makes it alive so that we can respond to Him. I don't see the problem with that.

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad,

Your biting sarcasm and harsh tone overshadow what you are writing. I left an earlier thread a few months ago, due to your venomous and mocking approach.

Regardless of your disagreement with Lou, the insulting ugliness of your writing really detracts from what you are attempting to say.

Could you please show this to me? I admit I get a little harsh, but then so did every single person in the Bible, who was a man of God. This man "Lou", is deliberately smearing, maligning and attacking John Macarthur, who is by all appearances a faithful man of God. This has been shown several times, not only by me. What kind of attitude would you suggest? Do you think we should simply sit back and let this liar continue?

If someone were on here talking such filth of YOUR PASTOR, would you not respond?

Elijah, Jesus, Paul, etc., ALL used biting wit and sarcasm, when confronting false teachers. John called people a "brood of vipers!". That wasn't very loving!

 

[canadyjd]

canadyjd - I am seeing what you're saying is true. LM is pushing his own agenda without using the facts and truth.

And Havensdad - I think you're responses are right on.

The Bible says to "repent" - to turn away from our sin. A regenerate heart can do that - an unregenerate heart cannot do that. An unregenerate heart is dead in sin. Christ makes it alive so that we can respond to Him. I don't see the problem with that.

Thank you. Without a doubt, that is MacArthur's argument. And he backs up his position with scripture.

For the record, I didn't know much about MacArthur prior to these threads. The more I have looked into his beliefs, the more I have appreciated his devotion to understanding the words of scripture in the context they were written.

And if you read his books, you will see he is gracious to those who disagree with him, calling them "brothers in Christ" and "sincere Christians" and the like.

Any disagreement he has with them is based totally of the words of scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

Even in the face of the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence from MacArthur’s own books that LS conditions salvation on a lost man’s commitment to perform the good works of a born again disciple of Christ some LS apologists are determined to defend and/or attack personalites rather than deal with the documented proof of how LS frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

LS is a reaction to the obvious errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin (the Grace Evangelical Society). But the answer is not found in changing the terms of the Gospel, which is what John MacArthur has done.

The following by Dr. Ernest Pickering appears in my book, In Defense of the Gospel. A comment with which I fully agree.

John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.

Dr. Charlie Bing made a similar observation:

They are motivated by the worthy desire to see those who profess Christ go on to maturity and fruitfulness. Faced with the sad realities of inconsistent behavior, “backsliding,” and outright apostasy by some professing Christians, they have proposed a gospel that demands up front an exclusive commitment to an obedient lifestyle in hopes of minimizing these problems.

LM

 

[canadyjd]

To All:

Even in the face of the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence from MacArthur’s own books that LS conditions salvation on a lost man’s commitment to perform the good works of a born again disciple of Christ some LS apologists are determined to defend and/or attack personalites rather than deal with the documented proof of how LS frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

LS is a reaction to the obvious errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin (the Grace Evangelical Society). But the answer is not found in changing the terms of the Gospel, which is what John MacArthur has done.

The following by Dr. Ernest Pickering appears in my book, In Defense of the Gospel. A comment with which I fully agree.

Dr. Charlie Bing made a similar observation:


LM

John MacArthur uses the Words of God to support his beliefs. Lou Martuneac continually gives us the words of men and calls it "overwhelming incontrovertible evidence".

Lou Martuneac continues to refuse to address the clear contradictions of his statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches concerning regeneration (being born again).

Lou Martuneac continues to refuse to address his inability to accurately state the context of a quote from MacArthur's book which he has repeatedly used to smear MacArthur.

Instead of addressing these issues, Lou Martuneac continues the smear without shame or conscience.

Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to give an accurate and honest statement concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

peace to allraying:

 

[Baptist Believer]

Even in the face of the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence from MacArthur’s own books that LS conditions salvation on a lost man’s commitment to perform the good works of a born again disciple of Christ some LS apologists are determined to defend and/or attack personalites rather than deal with the documented proof of how LS frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Sounds like you're bailing out on the conversation since someone pointed out that your "quotes" are not true quotations, and I challenged you to demonstrate your position from the teachings of Jesus.

Since you are unwilling or unable (more likely) to demonstrate your position from the teachings of Jesus, I have to conclude you are the one who is teaching a lessor gospel.

I, for one, don't really care what John MacArthur or Lou Martuneac thinks about the gospel. I care about what Jesus says about the gospel. And if John MacArthur agrees with Jesus, I'll agree with John MacArthur. If Lou Maruneac disagrees with Jesus about the gospel, I'm going to stick with Jesus.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

I began this thread with this opening comment,

There has been an on-going pattern of a certain few Lordship Salvation (LS) apologists demonstrating that they/he do not recognize or understand how Dr. MacArthur is writing and is teaching on the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The LS apologist wrote, “John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’.” This misunderstanding and error on the teaching of John MacArthur necessitates opening this new thread to properly highlight the issue.

It was canadyjd whom I was referencing that does not understand these issues.

Because of their emotionalism and lack of fair discussion practices I try not to name or directly reference the LS/MacArthur apologists. However, canadyjd just posted another ill-advised comment that needs to be drawn attention to. I would rather not have to embarrass him again, but he needs to be shown and others warned of how far askew of the true nature of the Lordship controversy he is looking in from.

His (canadyjd’s) history shows that for months he was trying to defend LS as MacArthur defines it, but admitted he had never read any of MacArthur's books. All the while he kept instructing BB readers to go to the Grace to You site and read MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation for the truth of what MacArthur believes.

Here is an example of what must have been the dozens of repostings by canadyjd of this referral and link to MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation.

I would urge all who desire to know what John MacArthur believes concerning Lordship Salvation to visit his website at:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

(See comment #2 under my article, Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed, which ironically is based on MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation.

Today, in another BB thread on LS, canadyjd posts this amazing statement,

“When Lou Martuneac claims that this quote from MacArthur is ‘his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again.’ he is putting his intellectually dishonesty on display for all to see.”

Canadyjd spent months directing BB readers to that very same on line article by MacArthur. Dozens of times he linked to and referenced that article as the source of what MacArthur really believes about LS. Now that I have referenced a paragraph from the same article he endorsed and demonstrated from that paragraph one of the egregious errors of LS canadyjd back peddles on his dozens of previous endorsements of MacArthur’s Introduction to LS.

This is what happens when a man who does not read or fails to read with discernment and therefore, does not understand what he is trying to defend.

Canadyjd, you should prayerfully consider bowing out of these discussions until such time you come to understand LS and exactly what MacArthur is teaching through his various apologetics on Lordship Salvation. If that time ever comes you might at least be able to deal with the teaching instead of the personality issues that dominate your comments and enflames your passions.

IMO, the tone and nature of your repetitive comments do not reflect the heart of a man who is living a Spirit-filled life at this particular time.


LM

 

[webdog]

canadyjd - I am seeing what you're saying is true. LM is pushing his own agenda without using the facts and truth.

And Havensdad - I think you're responses are right on.

The Bible says to "repent" - to turn away from our sin. A regenerate heart can do that - an unregenerate heart cannot do that. An unregenerate heart is dead in sin. Christ makes it alive so that we can respond to Him. I don't see the problem with that.

One can only turn from sin when one has the power to do such. This power only comes from the Holy Spirit upon regeneration. Since regeneration happens upon faith in Christ, one cannot "turn away from our sin" UNTIL one has faith in Christ. This clearly means that turning from sin is a result OF regeneration, and NOT a condition FOR regeneration.

An unregenerate heart is dead in sin. Christ makes it alive so that we can respond to Him. I don't see the problem with that.

The problem with that lies in the fact if Christ makes us alive PRIOR to faith in Him, we have already passed from death to life WITHOUT faith in Christ. This is another gospel and false doctrine.

 

[webdog]

Could you please show this to me? I admit I get a little harsh, but then so did every single person in the Bible, who was a man of God. This man "Lou", is deliberately smearing, maligning and attacking John Macarthur, who is by all appearances a faithful man of God. This has been shown several times, not only by me. What kind of attitude would you suggest? Do you think we should simply sit back and let this liar continue?

If someone were on here talking such filth of YOUR PASTOR, would you not respond?

Elijah, Jesus, Paul, etc., ALL used biting wit and sarcasm, when confronting false teachers. John called people a "brood of vipers!". That wasn't very loving!

It would appear that the "liar" would be the one accusing LM of smearing, maligning and attacking John Macarthur. If one takes off the LS apologetics lenses for a moment, it is evident that the false doctrine of LS is being attacked and not the individual. Plenty of hypocrites attacking LM here, though.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

It would appear that the "liar" would be the one accusing LM of smearing, maligning and attacking John Macarthur. If one takes off the LS apologetics lenses for a moment, it is evident that the false doctrine of LS is being attacked and not the individual. Plenty of hypocrites attacking LM here, though.

Hi Web:

Thanks for the helpful contribution to what should be a doctrinal discussion.

As for the tones by my critics, I am of the opinion that objective readers understand that this is a doctrinal debate, and do not appreciate the harsh tones. I am not discouraged or deterred by them or their remarks. For them it is as much a personality clash as it is a doctrinal divide, but because favorite personalities are involved that seems to dominate and enflame their passions.

In any event, I will not be deterred from contending for the faith once delievered (Jude 3) and resisting the assaults on the Gospel by the advocates of Lordship Salvation. I will continue to stand In Defense of the Gospel.


LM

 

[annsni]

To All:

Even in the face of the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence from MacArthur’s own books that LS conditions salvation on a lost man’s commitment to perform the good works of a born again disciple of Christ some LS apologists are determined to defend and/or attack personalites rather than deal with the documented proof of how LS frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

You mean the overwhelming use of words taken out of context? Hint - if you can't post the entire paragraph or idea, then don't post it. When you need to use multiple quotes or ..., then you know that you're taking things out of context.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I find it fascinating (and very telling) that a person who would criticize the content of a book entitled, The Gospel According to Jesus, can only criticize the book based on a popular brand of theology, but not according to the teaching of Jesus.

I've only read the first edition of the book once, a little over 20 years ago, but it was clear that John MacArthur knew it would be controversial. But he tried to be faithful to the teaching of Jesus anyway.

Two times in this thread I've asked LM to demonstrate why Lordship Salvation (with John MacArthur as its apparent spokesman) is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, yet he has failed to even attempt it.

It seems to be that the best way to demonstrate that The Gospel According to Jesus is faulty is to demonstrate how the book deviates from what Jesus said. But that's just me...

 

[Baptist Believer]

In any event, I will not be deterred from contending for the faith once delievered (Jude 3) and resisting the assaults on the Gospel by the advocates of Lordship Salvation. I will continue to stand In Defense of the Gospel.

Then demonstrate that Lordship Salvation is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Havensdad]

It would appear that the "liar" would be the one accusing LM of smearing, maligning and attacking John Macarthur. If one takes off the LS apologetics lenses for a moment, it is evident that the false doctrine of LS is being attacked and not the individual. Plenty of hypocrites attacking LM here, though.

Listen, I know you and I disagree on this subject, and that is fine. But both I, and several others, have shown places where "Lou", deliberately lied, and misled. Instead of apologizing, and showing some scripture, he just continues his rant against Macarthur.

Is this the "Christian" way of conducting oneself (lying and smearing a person to make a point)?

 

[annsni]

One can only turn from sin when one has the power to do such. This power only comes from the Holy Spirit upon regeneration. Since regeneration happens upon faith in Christ, one cannot "turn away from our sin" UNTIL one has faith in Christ. This clearly means that turning from sin is a result OF regeneration, and NOT a condition FOR regeneration.
The problem with that lies in the fact if Christ makes us alive PRIOR to faith in Him, we have already passed from death to life WITHOUT faith in Christ. This is another gospel and false doctrine.

John 6:44 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Ephesians 2:4-5 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—"

No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him and makes him alive. He cannot choose to come when he is dead.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation

To All:

Lordship apologists continue with various mantra like comments that are disingenuous and IMO meant to distract attention away from the documented doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation (LS). Furthermore, their extra-biblical presuppositions that flow from the circle logic of five-point Calvinism cloud and confuse what otherwise would be a balanced view of the Gospel.

The post I opened this thread with demonstrates from a published work of John MacArthur that LS is a man-centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

As for full disclosure of how Lordship Salvation as defined by Dr. John MacArthur is a departure from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ I have several sources that thoroughly address this.

My book, In Defense of the Gospel (296 pages). The Revised & Expanded Edition will be published later this year.

My blog, with over three dozen articles dedicated to a thorough discussion of Lordship Salvation. The most recent, Is Lordship Salvation a "Barter" System?

Any objective readers of my book and blog note that I have quoted LS advocates liberally so that their views are portrayed accurately.

The problem for LS apologists is that the exposure of the obvious and unscriptural ramifications of LS make them very uncomfortable especially since some of them do not read and/or understand what they are trying to defend in the first place.

I will continue to let LS advocates speak for themselves and provide the Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Kind regards,


LM

 

[webdog]

John 6:44 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Ephesians 2:4-5 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—"

No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him and makes him alive. He cannot choose to come when he is dead.

Neither verse is a proof text of pre faith regeneration. I agree that without the working of the Holy Spirit nobody would have faith in Christ, but the fact remains that if the Father makes one alive in order to come to Christ, they have passed from death to life without Christ. That is another gospel, and one not presented, as everybody here is whining, by the teachings of Jesus.

 

[webdog]

Listen, I know you and I disagree on this subject, and that is fine. But both I, and several others, have shown places where "Lou", deliberately lied, and misled. Instead of apologizing, and showing some scripture, he just continues his rant against Macarthur.

Is this the "Christian" way of conducting oneself (lying and smearing a person to make a point)?

If this is in fact what you believe...wouldn't you need to get the log out of your own eye first?

 

[webdog]

I find it fascinating (and very telling) that a person who would criticize the content of a book entitled, The Gospel According to Jesus, can only criticize the book based on a popular brand of theology, but not according to the teaching of Jesus.

I've only read the first edition of the book once, a little over 20 years ago, but it was clear that John MacArthur knew it would be controversial. But he tried to be faithful to the teaching of Jesus anyway.

Two times in this thread I've asked LM to demonstrate why Lordship Salvation (with John MacArthur as its apparent spokesman) is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, yet he has failed to even attempt it.

It seems to be that the best way to demonstrate that The Gospel According to Jesus is faulty is to demonstrate how the book deviates from what Jesus said. But that's just me...

Baptist Believer, JM believes in pre faith regeneration. He believes that an upfront commitment to turn from sin happens because as annsi has stated she believes also, that person has already been given spiritual life. I agree that one spiritually alive is the ONLY person that can turn from sin...BUT...this happens AFTER faith in Christ, as an unregenerated person is incapable of doing so. Scripture teaches regeneration upon faith in Christ. JM and Lordship Salvation erroniously base their views clearly on another gospel...pre faith regeneration.

I find it telling that the votes are double for "no" in the poll at this point.