Lordship’s “Turn From Sin” FOR Salvation

[EdSutton]

Ed,

So was this one:



Disingenuous: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).

Now, just because Mr. Martuneac wishes to veil his insults in more highbrow language, that some might not fully appreciate, in no way lessens what he is saying.

I don't recall having posted anything 'backing' Lou Martuneac either, in this thread, but no matter. I am interested in the subject of the thread, and the poll, not particularly the personalities of any individuals posting on it.

Lou Martuneac opened the thread and poll, with two quotes, the first by John MacArthur, and the second by George Zeller, which happens to include one by Miles J. Stanford. I reproduce them here.

“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

Dr. MacArthur tends to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance, and to confuse faith with that which faith ought to produce. He confuses saving faith (which takes place in a moment of time--Rom. 13:11; Eph. 1:13) with discipleship (which is a lifelong process). As Miles Stanford has said, “Lordship salvation is not the childlike faith of John 3:16. It rightly insists upon repentance but wrongly includes a change of behavior IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Saviour, but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith.” (Miles Stanford, in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus).

MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance “inevitably results in a change of behavior” (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, “true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose” (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.

I have a few (6) questions. I do hope you will answer them for me, please.

1.) Are the above quotations accurate? If not, why not?

2.) What do the above embolded sentences mean? (Note, I am not the one that embolded them.)

3.) Next, I have a three question quiz:

A.) What must I do to be saved?

B.) Is it sufficient to merely believe in Jesus for eternal life, based on his teachings? (Someone did ask words to the effect of what did Jesus teach, I believe, on the thread, but I do not remember who it was, frankly.)

C.) If one who at least claims to be a believer does not do any work at all, but believes in Jesus Christ, is this enough for righteousness?

4.) Finally, my last question: Where does the Bible say either to "'turn from sin' for salvation' (in the thread title) or that 'a Lost Man Must "turn from sin" to Receive the Gift of Eternal Life' (the question asked in the poll)?

I will await your answers.

Ed

 

[Havensdad]

1.) Are the above quotations accurate? If not, why not?

These were not the specific quotes that I was speaking to. However, yes these are inaccurate. Lou paints MacArthur's "turning from sin", as a PHYSICAL ACTION, which is NOT what MacArthur is saying. "Turning from sin", has to do with ones focus/mind/heart. Jesus said "no man can serve two masters". His focus will be on ONE, or the other. The unsaved man has his mind fixed on the things of the world. For him to "Fix His eyes upon Jesus", for salvation, He must "repent", which is a change, or more accurately, a TURNING of ones mind/focus. The "repentant" sinner turns his focus, and agrees with God that He is a sinner. The FRUIT of this action, is a change in outward actions, or as Jesus said "A good tree produces Good fruit".

3.) Next, I have a three question quiz:

A.) What must I do to be saved?

Repent, and put your faith/trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sin, according to scripture. If your faith/trust is in Christ, it is not in the world/sin.No one can serve two masters.

B.) Is it sufficient to merely believe in Jesus for eternal life, based on his teachings?

(Someone did ask words to the effect of what did Jesus teach, I believe, on the thread, but I do not remember who it was, frankly.)

Jesus taught repentance and pistis, which is not just belief, but a trusting belief. Jesus proclaimed to the multitudes "Oklos" (not just his disciples) "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me...for what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul".

When the rich young ruler refused to sale all he owned and follow Christ, Jesus said therefore that it was difficult for a rich man to be SAVED, NOT for Him to be a disciple. Jesus NEVER separates the two: those who are saved, are called disciples.

C.) If one who at least claims to be a believer does not do any work at all, but believes in Jesus Christ, is this enough for righteousness?

This depends: is he locked in a box? Jesus said

Mat 24:48 But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,'
Mat 24:49 and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards,
Mat 24:50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know
Mat 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
Mat 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Also James makes it clear that a faith that does not produce works, is not a saving faith....

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

4.) Finally, my last question: Where does the Bible say either to "'turn from sin' for salvation' (in the thread title) or that 'a Lost Man Must "turn from sin" to Receive the Gift of Eternal Life' (the question asked in the poll)?

I will await your answers.

Ed

I believe I already answered this. Repentance is "turning from sin" (it is NOT to "stop sinning'). When we compare passages in the Septuagint where the word "metanoia" is used, we see clearly that "metanoia" involves a turning from sin/worldly pursuits, TO a faith and trust in God.

 

[Amy.G]

Ed Sutton, I would like to thank you for teaching me what repentance means. I have always thought it meant to turn from sin, but due to your dilegence, I now understand that repentance means to have a change of mind, or to go in another direction, which makes scripture much clearer and the understanding that salvation is brought about by a change of mind toward God, not by a turning away from sin which is impossible for an unregenerated sinner to accomplish anyway.

If repentance is turning away from sin, then it must be said that God turned from sin as scripture says that He repented. So.....thanks. :thumbs:

 

[Havensdad]

Ed Sutton, I would like to thank you for teaching me what repentance means. I have always thought it meant to turn from sin, but due to your dilegence, I now understand that repentance means to have a change of mind, or to go in another direction, which makes scripture much clearer and the understanding that salvation is brought about by a change of mind toward God, not by a turning away from sin which is impossible for an unregenerated sinner to accomplish anyway.

If repentance is turning away from sin, then it must be said that God turned from sin as scripture says that He repented. So.....thanks. :thumbs:

This is incorrect. Nawcham is a Hebrew word, not the Greek used in the NT for salvation. This word means to "Take pity" on someone. This is confirmed in the Greek Septuagint, where we see a different word is used, which is translated "repent". The Greek word is μεταμελέομαι and it means to feel sorry, take pity, or regret.

Mr. Sutton is correct that Metanoia is a change of mind. Yet "metanoia" denotes a turning of your mind and focus from one thing, to a different thing. In this case, it is FROM worldy/sinful things TO God.

 

[Amy.G]

This is incorrect. Nawcham is a Hebrew word, not the Greek used in the NT for salvation. This word means to "Take pity" on someone. This is confirmed in the Greek Septuagint, where we see a different word is used, which is translated "repent". The Greek word is μεταμελέομαι and it means to feel sorry, take pity, or regret.

Mr. Sutton is correct that Metanoia is a change of mind. Yet "metanoia" denotes a turning of your mind and focus from one thing, to a different thing. In this case, it is FROM worldy/sinful things TO God.

You lost me with the Greek stuff! :laugh:
Are you saying that the word "repent" in the NT means basically "regret"? In the OT repent means something entirely different?


Act 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,


Does repent in this verse mean to "feel sorry for your sins"?

 

[Amy.G]

I just went to my gigantic Strong's Concordance and according to it, repent in Acts 3:19 is the word metanoeo, meaning "to think differently or afterwards i.e. reconsider (feel compunction), repent.

I don't see anything about sins.

 

[Havensdad]

I just went to my gigantic Strong's Concordance and according to it, repent in Acts 3:19 is the word metanoeo, meaning "to think differently or afterwards i.e. reconsider (feel compunction), repent.

I don't see anything about sins.

Sorry, sis. Strong's can be a bit outdated at time. Here is the same word, from Thayers:

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins

Correctly, it would be better rendered "Change your thinking", rather than "Change your mind". That phrase in today's society carries baggage that the word "metanoia" is not implying. We think in terms of "I wanted the steak, but I changed my mind and had fish". This is not the thrust of this word.

First, "repentance" is in a tense (I am not going to give you a Greek lesson, don't worry) that denotes continual action. In other words, it is NOT a one time decision, but the beginning of a continual process.

Second, as I already stated, you must thin of it more in terms of "changing your thinking". Maybe you used to love to get drunk. But you "change your thinking", and agree with God that it is sinful and wrong. Your turn your mind FROM what you used to love/trust in, TO Christ, whom you now love/trust in.

I hope that at least clears up what L.S. means by "turning from" or "Forsaking" your sin. It is not a "Work", but a turning of ones mind, which leads to works (or bears fruit).

 

[skypair]

In other words, it is NOT a one time decision, but the beginning of a continual process.

True, but there is a first time that you properly repented, right? Cause if there wasn't, there is no effecaciousness of the rest of them.

In fact, did you ever repent before you were even saved? I'm sure you did. Our first instinct when we know we have sinned and don't know how to get saved is to "repent" from sin but not TO the cross. There is only one moment in our lives when we repent to the cross and are saved and that is what Amy and I are talking about.

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry, sis. Strong's can be a bit outdated at time. Here is the same word, from Thayers:

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins

Correctly, it would be better rendered "Change your thinking", rather than "Change your mind". That phrase in today's society carries baggage that the word "metanoia" is not implying. We think in terms of "I wanted the steak, but I changed my mind and had fish". This is not the thrust of this word.

First, "repentance" is in a tense (I am not going to give you a Greek lesson, don't worry) that denotes continual action. In other words, it is NOT a one time decision, but the beginning of a continual process.

Second, as I already stated, you must thin of it more in terms of "changing your thinking". Maybe you used to love to get drunk. But you "change your thinking", and agree with God that it is sinful and wrong. Your turn your mind FROM what you used to love/trust in, TO Christ, whom you now love/trust in.

I hope that at least clears up what L.S. means by "turning from" or "Forsaking" your sin. It is not a "Work", but a turning of ones mind, which leads to works (or bears fruit).

Thanks. I see it that way too. I don't think repentance in the biblical sense means just changing your mind about various trivial things, but it also cannot mean to have the ability to forsake your sins while still in an unregenerated state. We are only able to forsake sin with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Havensdad]

Thanks. I see it that way too. I don't think repentance in the biblical sense means just changing your mind about various trivial things, but it also cannot mean to have the ability to forsake your sins while still in an unregenerated state. We are only able to forsake sin with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, cool. L.S. proponents really need to get some different terminology. Most of the confusion over these things come from MacArthur and others using terminology, which, if you are not acquainted with their works, and what they mean by certain things, causes people to reject it.

"Forsaking sins" is a prime example. You agree with MacArthur, and you don't even know it. :laugh:

(And I believe this is His fault, not yours)

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Brother Ed:

Good to see you joining the discussion. I'll be at the Grace Conferecne on Friday. Anyway, a few thoughts for the group's consideration.


The root noia comes from the word nouß (nous), which means mind. The connection between meta and nous leads us to define “repentance” as “afterthought, change of mind.” Thayer defines metanoia thus:

a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done, . . . esp. the change of mind of those who have begun to abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have entered upon a better course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty amendment, the tokens and effects of which are good deeds. (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 405-406)

It is important to note the distinction that Thayer makes between true repentance, a change of mind with consequent results, and the “tokens” or fruit of true repentance, amended deeds. The deeds are the evidence, not the substance of repentance. Repentance is an attitude that should result in action. I once heard a preacher express the sentiment this way, “the fruit of repentance must follow the root.”

It is agreed that true repentance should and probably will result in a visible change of conduct because it is the new inner disposition of a person and indicates a new desire and bearing. However, to make outward transformation essential to the meaning of repentance itself is to confuse the two beyond biblical validity. (Dr. Charlie Bing: Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response, p. 86.)

By using terms such as “better course of life” and “amendment” in the latter part of his definition, Thayer seems to suggest the opposite—that repentance is an action. The cloudiness of Thayer’s definition makes it possible for the latter portion to be misused.

John MacArthur cites the same passage from Thayer to bolster his Lordship gospel emphasis on behavior rather than believing. He focuses on a change of life and behavior. I do not believe Thayer would agree with MacArthur’s interpretation of his meaning. Genuine biblical repentance should produce a change of life evidenced by a new behavior as one yields to the working of God’s Spirit. Without a preceding changing of the mind, however, there will be no genuine change of life.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

Brother Ed:

Good to see you joining the discussion. I'll be at the Grace Conferecne on Friday. Anyway, a few thoughts for the group's consideration.


The root noia comes from the word nouß (nous), which means mind. The connection between meta and nous leads us to define “repentance” as “afterthought, change of mind.” Thayer defines metanoia thus:

It is important to note the distinction that Thayer makes between true repentance, a change of mind with consequent results, and the “tokens” or fruit of true repentance, amended deeds. The deeds are the evidence, not the substance of repentance. Repentance is an attitude that should result in action. I once heard a preacher express the sentiment this way, “the fruit of repentance must follow the root.”
By using terms such as “better course of life” and “amendment” in the latter part of his definition, Thayer seems to suggest the opposite—that repentance is an action. The cloudiness of Thayer’s definition makes it possible for the latter portion to be misused.

John MacArthur cites the same passage from Thayer to bolster his Lordship gospel emphasis on behavior rather than believing. He focuses on a change of life and behavior. I do not believe Thayer would agree with MacArthur’s interpretation of his meaning. Genuine biblical repentance should produce a change of life evidenced by a new behavior as one yields to the working of God’s Spirit. Without a preceding changing of the mind, however, there will be no genuine change of life.


LM

AGAIN you lie against MacArthur. Have you no shame, Sir?

First, anyone who knows how to read a lexicon, knows you are simply incorrect regarding Thayers. The "abhorrence of ones sins" is PART OF the definition Thayers gives, not some kind of "result" of one of it's definitions.
Thayers says:

"to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins"

Notice the "with", Mr. Martuneac?? Not "Leading to"? Thayer, just from this one sentence, agrees with MacArthur.

IN ADDITTION> you AGAIN either blatantly LIE concerning MacArthur's teachings, or you are ignorant of it (which is inexcusable in light of your book).

On page 47, of "The Gospel According to Jesus", MacArthur defines repentance as
A "turning from self and sin to God". Yet he states EXPLICITLY that this "is not a work"(not an outward cessation of sinful behavior) but "God's work in the Human heart".



You have a lot to answer for, Mr. Martuneac. You are smearing a faithful man of God, for the purpose of selling a book.

While I am at it, you keep saying repentance and faith "should" result in works, and "usually" does. Yet Jesus says something different....

"Every tree that does not bear fruit, is cut down and thrown into the fire"

Repentance and faith WILL (not should) produce good works. The TIMING of that is debatable, as Macarthur admits. Even saying "in rare cases this may take years".

 

[EdSutton]

1.) Are the above quotations accurate? If not, why not?

These were not the specific quotes that I was speaking to. However, yes these are inaccurate. Lou paints MacArthur's "turning from sin", as a PHYSICAL ACTION, which is NOT what MacArthur is saying. "Turning from sin", has to do with ones focus/mind/heart. Jesus said "no man can serve two masters". His focus will be on ONE, or the other. The unsaved man has his mind fixed on the things of the world. For him to "Fix His eyes upon Jesus", for salvation, He must "repent", which is a change, or more accurately, a TURNING of ones mind/focus. The "repentant" sinner turns his focus, and agrees with God that He is a sinner. The FRUIT of this action, is a change in outward actions, or as Jesus said "A good tree produces Good fruit".

With all respect, you are not answering my question, here. It does not make any difference how Havensdad, EdSutton, Lou Martuneac, Amy.G, webdog, John MacArthur, Zane Hodges, or any 'Joe Blow' interprets a passage or passages for this question. Nor how anyone attempts to "paint" another, for that matter, here. Either the quotation is accurate or it is not. It can be wrongly understood, out of context, or whatever. But if it is in fact, a word for word quotation, it must be accurate, even if it may be lacking in length. As I do not see any reason to suspect it has been 'modified' by Lou Martuneac, I assume it therefore to be an accurate quotation. No one has suggested otherwise, merely that Lou Martuneac (and some others) 'misunderstand' John MacArthur, here. The second quote is accurate, BTW, for I did find it verbatim, as Lou M. had posted it.

I next asked a question about the initial quote by Lou Martuneac from Dr. MacArthur.

“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

2.) What do the above embolded sentences mean? (Note, I am not the one that embolded them.)Is it telling that you did not choose to answer this question with your own idea?

3.) Next, I have a three question quiz:

A.) What must I do to be saved?

Repent, and put your faith/trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sin, according to scripture. If your faith/trust is in Christ, it is not in the world/sin.No one can serve two masters.

It would appear that you might be in disagreement with the Bible on this one. The question of "What must I do to be saved?" is a direct question asked of Paul by the Phillipian jailer in Acts. I believe the answer is fairly clear to it. Let's see the passage in question.

25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.”
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Ac. 16:25-35 - NKJV)

As Paul claimed the gospel he preached was taught to him by the Lord Jesus Christ, and I find this answer in Scripture, I am faced with three choices. Paul (and the Holy Spirit) was mistaken, here, since this is found in Scripture-; Paul was preaching an incomplete message, and therefore the Phillipian jailer was not saved, at all-; Or that this is exactly what one must do to be saved - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". With all respect to what you believe, and your answer to this question, I think I'll go along with Paul's answer on this one. Incidentally, I do not see that Paul said anything about him needing to repent, either, or anything about serving any masters here. Hmmm! That salvation bit is the OP question and poll, you do remember.

B.) Is it sufficient to merely believe in Jesus for eternal life, based on his teachings?

Jesus taught repentance and pistis, which is not just belief, but a trusting belief. Jesus proclaimed to the multitudes "Oklos" (not just his disciples) "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me...for what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul".

When the rich young ruler refused to sale all he owned and follow Christ, Jesus said therefore that it was difficult for a rich man to be SAVED, NOT for Him to be a disciple. Jesus NEVER separates the two: those who are saved, are called disciples.[/quote]

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jo. 3:12-18 - NKJV)
22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. (Jo. 5:22-25 - NKJV)
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[c] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. (Jo. 6:46-48 - NKJV)
26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. (Lk. 14:26-27 - NKJV)

Again, I differ with your understanding, here. Jesus did make some distinction, here between simply 'believing in Him' for eternal life, and coming after Him, as a disciple, it would seem. I'm going to go with His teaching, here.

End of Part one.

 

[EdSutton]

Part two:

C.) If one who at least claims to be a believer does not do any work at all, but believes in Jesus Christ, is this enough for righteousness?

This depends: is he locked in a box?

Cute response, I guess, but if this person believes (as I said) are Paul, Abraham, and David mistaken, here?

Abraham Justified by Faith

1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?[a] 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[b] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

David Celebrates the Same Truth

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”[c]

Abraham Justified Before Circumcision

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. (Rom. 4:1-9 - NKJV)

The question was is this enough for righteousness? These Biblical voices seem to think so.

4.) Finally, my last question: Where does the Bible say either to "'turn from sin' for salvation' (in the thread title) or that 'a Lost Man Must "turn from sin" to Receive the Gift of Eternal Life' (the question asked in the poll)?

I believe I already answered this. Repentance is "turning from sin" (it is NOT to "stop sinning'). When we compare passages in the Septuagint where the word "metanoia" is used, we see clearly that "metanoia" involves a turning from sin/worldly pursuits, TO a faith and trust in God.

My question is where are these words found, not how they are interpreted. I challenge anyone to show where these words in quotation marks above are found in proximity in a verse or verses, in Scripture, being as I did not find them anywhere [kind of like finding that 'biblical' phrase "repent of/from sin(s)" in Scripture]. If I missed them, perhaps someone would show me where they are to be found.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

AGAIN you lie against MacArthur. Have you no shame, Sir?

First, anyone who knows how to read a lexicon, knows you are simply incorrect regarding Thayers. The "abhorrence of ones sins" is PART OF the definition Thayers gives, not some kind of "result" of one of it's definitions.
Thayers says:

"to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins"

Notice the "with", Mr. Martuneac?? Not "Leading to"? Thayer, just from this one sentence, agrees with MacArthur.

IN ADDITTION> you AGAIN either blatantly LIE concerning MacArthur's teachings, or you are ignorant of it (which is inexcusable in light of your book).

On page 47, of "The Gospel According to Jesus", MacArthur defines repentance as
A "turning from self and sin to God". Yet he states EXPLICITLY that this "is not a work"(not an outward cessation of sinful behavior) but "God's work in the Human heart".



You have a lot to answer for, Mr. Martuneac. You are smearing a faithful man of God, for the purpose of selling a book.

While I am at it, you keep saying repentance and faith "should" result in works, and "usually" does. Yet Jesus says something different....

"Every tree that does not bear fruit, is cut down and thrown into the fire"

Repentance and faith WILL (not should) produce good works. The TIMING of that is debatable, as Macarthur admits. Even saying "in rare cases this may take years".

FTR:

Lou Martuneac did not misquote Thayer. He accurately quoted from the definition of the NOUN 'metanoia'.

Havensdad did not misquote Thayer, either. He accurately quoted from the definition of the VERB 'metanoeO'.

But Havensdad did apparently misread what Lou Martuneac wrote in his response to this.

(Or could stand some remedial reading in the Lexicon!)

Incidentally, I have a 'hard copy' of Thayer, and I checked, and not in any on-line version, FTR.

Also, FTR, I did not vote in the poll, as is my per usual practice, since I usually do not like the wording of questions very often, as they may be misunderstood.

Ed

 

[Havensdad]

With all respect, you are not answering my question, here. It does not make any difference how Havensdad, EdSutton, Lou Martuneac, Amy.G, webdog, John MacArthur, Zane Hodges, or any 'Joe Blow' interprets a passage or passages for this question. Nor how anyone attempts to "paint" another, for that matter, here. Either the quotation is accurate or it is not. It can be wrongly understood, out of context, or whatever. But if it is in fact, a word for word quotation, it must be accurate, even if it may be lacking in length. As I do not see any reason to suspect it has been 'modified' by Lou Martuneac, I assume it therefore to be an accurate quotation. No one has suggested otherwise, merely that Lou Martuneac (and some others) 'misunderstand' John MacArthur, here. The second quote is accurate, BTW, for I did find it verbatim, as Lou M. had posted it.

I suppose I misunderstood your question. However, not putting the full quote can actually give the opposite meaning of what the author is saying, which is what Mr. Martuneac has done several times.

I next asked a question about the initial quote by Lou Martuneac from Dr. MacArthur. 2.) What do the above embolded sentences mean? (Note, I am not the one that embolded them.)Is it telling that you did not choose to answer this question with your own idea?

No, it is not "telling". I misunderstood what you were asking in the first question, and it seemed as if my first response covered this one as well.

It would appear that you might be in disagreement with the Bible on this one. The question of "What must I do to be saved?" is a direct question asked of Paul by the Phillipian jailer in Acts. I believe the answer is fairly clear to it. Let's see the passage in question.

As we can see from the passage, the jailer was ALREADY repentant. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that he said "Sir, what must I do to be saved".

What did Jesus say about repentance?

Luk 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Luk 13:5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Notice the parallelism.

Also:
Act 20:21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

And:
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

and:

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.


I am sorry. But you cannot build a doctrinal stance on the absence of a particular, especially when it is stated as essential elsewhere. If someone came to me weeping and said "What must I do to be saved", I too would tell them "have Faith..." they already HAVE repentance, or they would not have asked the question.

I am sorry, but I think I will go with the entirety of scripture here.

As Paul claimed the gospel he preached was taught to him by the Lord Jesus Christ, and I find this answer in Scripture, I am faced with three choices. Paul (and the Holy Spirit) was mistaken, here, since this is found in Scripture-; Paul was preaching an incomplete message, and therefore the Phillipian jailer was not saved, at all-; Or that this is exactly what one must do to be saved - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". With all respect to what you believe, and your answer to this question, I think I'll go along with Paul's answer on this one. Incidentally, I do not see that Paul said anything about him needing to repent, either, or anything about serving any masters here. Hmmm!

As I have CLEARLY shown, this jailer was repentant, and therefore all he had to do was "Have faith". If you look at Paul's Gospel proclamations (above), you will see that repentance precedes faith. Also, since Christ clearly said without repentance, you will perish, I think I will go with Him AND Paul, and say: repentance is necessary for salvation.


Again: Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Mat 3:8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Mar 4:20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold."

True saving faith produces fruit. ALWAYS, according to Jesus. According to James, faith that does not produce works, CANNOT save. I think I will take THEIR word, over yours.

 

[Havensdad]

FTR:

Lou Martuneac did not misquote Thayer. He accurately quoted from the definition of the NOUN 'metanoia'.

Havensdad did not misquote Thayer, either. He accurately quoted from the definition of the VERB 'metanoeO'.

But Havensdad did apparently misread what Lou Martuneac wrote in his response to this.

(Or could stand some remedial reading in the Lexicon!)

Incidentally, I have a 'hard copy' of Thayer, and I checked, and not in any on-line version, FTR.

Also, FTR, I did not vote in the poll, as is my per usual practice, since I usually do not like the wording of questions very often, as they may be misunderstood.

Ed

Ed,

I did not misread it. I have continually pointed out that MacArthur defines "turning from sin", as an attitude that happens in ones heart, NOT some kind of work/action. Mr. Maruteneac continues to malign J Mac. J. Mac says that repentance is a change of mind with an accompanying abhorrence of sin, which leads to a change of action. Mr. Martuneac keeps trying to make J. Macs definition of repentance some kind of external action. IT IS NOT.

 

[canadyjd]

...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....
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.

To all. I haven't backpeddled on anything. Please go to MacArthur's website or read his books to discover what he believes.

Lou Martuneac has told you the article in question gives John MacArthur's position of being "born again". I'll post the article again. If someone other that Lou Martuneac can see the words "born again" or "regenerated", please point me to them.

The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)

We shouldn't overlook the fact that MacArthur is accurate in what Jesus has said. Matt. 5:20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven."
(7:21)"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord. will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My father who is in heaven will enter." (7:24) "Therefore eveyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man..."

But, back to the point of interest.

Lou Martuneac has occassionally acknoweldged that John MacArthur believes and teaches a man is regenerated (born again) prior to faith. He then claims this quote gives MacArthur's beliefs on being born again (regenerated) as occuring after making a commitment to Christ proving MacArthur teaches a works based salvation. That is a contradiction that Lou Martuneac doesn't appear to be able to explain.

Again, if anyone sees the words "born again" or "regeneration" in this quote, point them out to me and I will offer a heartfelt apology to Lou Martuneac.

This is one of the many reasons why I have stated that Lou Martuneac is intellectually dishonest in the way in which he presents MarArthur's beliefs. This is one of the many reasons that I have repeatedly said Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

Lou Martuneac, nor anyone else, has to agree with anything John MacArthur believes and teaches. If Lou Martuneac wants to be considered an expert in this field, IMHO, he must be able to accurately and honestly state the other person's beliefs. So far, Lou Martuneac has been unable or unwilling to do that.

Will Lou Martuneac ever accurately and honestly tell you what John MacArthur believes and teaches?

peace to you allraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Matthew 7:1-2

It is likely some of you men that I mean to share this passage and admonition with will react badly and question my motive for posting even this. Nevertheless, I feel as though I owe you the admonition of Jesus to those who call into question the motives of another.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,” (Matthew 7:1-2)

J. Vernon McGee made an interesting comment on this passage that I think some of you might benefit from. McGee wrote,

These verses have really been misunderstood. To judge can mean “to decide, to distinguish, to condemn, to avenge,” and it actually can mean “to damn.” These verses do not mean that a child of God is forbidden to judge others, but it does mean that we are not to judge the inward motives of others in the sense of condemning them.

We do not know or understand why a brother in Christ does a certain thing. We see only outward acts. God doesn’t forbid judging wrong and evil actions, as we will see. The point is that if you are harsh in your judgments of others, you will be known as the type of person who is severe in his considerations of others. (Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, Vol. 4, p. 40.)

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,

I did not misread it. I have continually pointed out that MacArthur defines "turning from sin", as an attitude that happens in ones heart, NOT some kind of work/action. Mr. Maruteneac continues to malign J Mac. J. Mac says that repentance is a change of mind with an accompanying abhorrence of sin, which leads to a change of action. Mr. Martuneac keeps trying to make J. Macs definition of repentance some kind of external action. IT IS NOT.

Out of curiosity, if you "did not misread it", why did you cite the definiton of the VERB "metanoeO" when Lou Martuneac cited the definition of the NOUN "metanoia" in the previous post, and then say that he was misquoting it?

I really have no interest in either attacking or defending anyone in particular, in any point. I do have an interest in what is being taught by each and every individual concerned. There is a difference.

For example, I believe and have posted multiple times on the BB that I believe that the verbs "repent/believe" and the nouns "faith/belief" effectively represent "flip-sides" of the same thing, where this "repentance" is directed toward God, for salvation. I have also stated multiple times that the Bible never uses the phrase (or defines the word 'repent') as 'repent of/from one(s) sin(s)".

I have also stated multiple times that I do believe one must have Biblically defined repentance for salvation - that is "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ac. 20:21) and "repentance from dead works and of faith toward God" (Heb. 6:1). Yet incidentally, I have still been accused on these BB pages of not believing in repentance, somehow, simply because I refuse to let anyone get away with adding of the words "of/from one(s) sin(s)" to the definition of the Greek word "metanoeO". Nor will I allow anyone to define it as 'sorrow', 'regret', or 'being sorry for one(s) sin(s)' either. The Bible simply does not say this. [Incidentally, I believe Lou Martuneac and some others of the "free grace" (It is most definitely a "cheap shot'" to refer to this position as "cheap grace", BTW. The very nerve of anyone who would refer to the grace of God as "cheap" astounds me!) persuasion have said roughly the same thing, as well, at times, if I recall.]

I also do not define repent/repentance as "turn", for the Bible does not, as well. The word "turn" or 'convert' (Gk. 'epistrephO' and I believe always used in a 'passive' sense, as opposed to the 'active' sense of 'repent') is not even close to being the same word(s) as any of 'metanoeO', 'metanoia' or 'metamellomai'.

And while I am at it, the only thing I can find anywhere in Scripture that ever is said to lead someone to repentance is "the goodness of God". (Rom. 2:4) In other words, grace!

Godly sorrow does indeed 'work' or produce repentance leading to an irrevocable salvation, (II Cor. 7:10), but sorrow is not the Biblical repentance in view, here, (Matt. 27:3-5) as the example of Judas shows. Incidentally, this passage links Judas when he "repented himself" ('metamellomai') with his acknowledgement of sin, also FTR, but again it has/had nothing to do with 'getting saved'.

This is the 'nutshell' version (like I can really say anything in a 'nutshell') :laugh: of what I believe Scripture says about 'repentance' and salvation. I submit that this is not the same thing that Mr. John MacArthur is saying about 'repentance', at least in the cited works listed in this thread. I am a farmer, not a theologian. I admit I have not waded through 87 books by any one (or any group of) author(s).

Ed