Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

I documented (author and source) what proves Lordship Salvation conditions eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to forsake everything.

I want you to notice that this carefully documented and the meaning of the citations is clear. I encourage all readers to read these citations objectively without any preconceived notions or feelings toward or about who the writer is. Just read objectively and as you read ask yourself: Is this how the lost are born again?

In Matthew 19:16-22 when the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works. In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes,

“Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what points of doctrine he affirmed, because he was unwilling to turn from what else he loved most, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is only for those who are willing to give Christ first place in their lives.”

That citation is from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. It is a revision of what John MacArthur wrote in the original edition, which was:

”Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.”

From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:

”And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.”

From the quotes from three of MacArthur’s LS books you can see that he is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Again, I encourage all readers to carefully and objectively consider how John MacArthur defines the way he believes the lost must be born again. Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?

The obvious implication of LS by JM is forsaking everything FOR salvation.


LM


PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons. It's all consistent- salvation is conditioned on the lost man's commitment to and performance the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian. Faith is front-loaded with commitment to works. I suggest all to read this by Zeller http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To All:

I documented (author and source) what proves Lordship Salvation conditions eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to forsake everything.

I want you to notice that this carefully documented and the meaning of the citations is clear. I encourage all readers to read these citations objectively without any preconceived notions or feelings toward or about who the writer is. Just read objectively and as you read ask yourself: Is this how the lost are born again?

In Matthew 19:16-22 when the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works. In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes, That citation is from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. It is a revision of what John MacArthur wrote in the original edition, which was: From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote: From the quotes from three of MacArthur’s LS books you can see that he is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Again, I encourage all readers to carefully and objectively consider how John MacArthur defines the way he believes the lost must be born again. Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?

The obvious implication of LS by JM is forsaking everything FOR salvation.


LM


PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons. It's all consistent- salvation is conditioned on the lost man's commitment to and performance the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian. Faith is front-loaded with commitment to works. I suggest all to read this by Zeller http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm

Lou,

Falsely accusing your brother in Christ, namely me, is no light matter. I urge you to reconsider.

 

[Rippon]

Don't you believe that God knows ahead of time who will believe? You are in a sad state of affairs if you don't believe in the foreknowledge of God.

Rip :You diminish the biblical God by saying He merely knows ahead of time who will believe.Your idea of foreknowledge is very weak and unbiblical.The Lord sets His love on His own -- He foreloves His elect ones.
______________________________________________________________

No:
1. I don't have low view of God. and
2. I don't disbelieve the Bible.
3. I don't believe (as you seem to) that God is a big bully ordering some to heaven and throwing others to Hell at his own whim and will just depending on what kind of mood he was in "before the foundations of the earth." Now, that is a low view of God.
[/quote]


Rip:
1. Well naturally you would deny that.
2. You have done so numerous times in my history of interaction with you on the BB.
3. Your "seem to" is an off-the-wall extrapolation.You're copying Sp's style here. Such stupidity doesn't deserve a response.
_____________________________________________________________




"God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own."

The above statement is yours. Summarized it says that God forces salvation on who he wills. We don't have a choice in the matter. All is pre-determined. No one has any choice in the matter. Again, why the Great Commission if everything is pre-determined and God just forces his salvation on "his elect."
[/quote]

Rip : That kind of sloppy theology is not too impressive.Your summary is dead wrong.But you knew that as you were typing it.God doesn't force Himself on anyone. He melts hearts of stone. He convicts and draws His own to Himself.All true Christians whether Calvinists or not believe in the Great Commission.You're stuck in your mischaracterizations.

______________________________________________________________



God gives commands for a reason. He did not make us all little robots without any wills or reason, or ability to choose whether to obey him in carrying out the Great Commission. If God simply "ordained" the means, then why put the Great Commission in the Bible at all? It really isn't needed is it. You have just fallen in the same trap as RB did. Everything is pre-determined. Why should God even require us? Why didn't he just make robots, automatons instead?
[/quote]

Rip :I just knew you'd revert to your robot scheme.It's just like old times.Bring out your little toy props to attempt to play havoc with the facts.Next,your dog & pony show might please your legions of fans.Grow up.
God appoints,establishes,decrees. Those things get under your skin.They are too biblical for your blood. Predestination is predetermination! You can't get away from it -- the Scriptures are saturated with these teachings.However, God also uses means to bring things about.He uses people as His instruments.Pastors/teachers and ordinary laypeople are God's tools. Bibles and Christian books such as commentaries etc. are all employed by the Lord to bring folks into the Kingdom.

____________________________________________________________



Regarding church history or Calvinists and the Great Commission, when William Carey wanted to go India his church tried to dissuade him. They were not evangelistic at all. They tried to do everything in their power to keep Carey from going to India, believing that God could save the people of India without Carey's help.
[/quote]

Rip :His church did not try to dissuade him. A rumor which his son denied was that John Ryland Senior told Carey to "Sit down young man!"Then he followed with something to the effect that if God wanted anyone saved in far off pagan lands the Lord would do it without our help.

_____________________________________________________________



My wife comes from a church with reformed doctrine. They were not evangelistic: no missions program, no visitation program. Eventually the church dried up and died. I look at that as typical Calvinism.
[/quote]

Rip :Well that's her story,and I'm sorry about that.You look at that with jaundiced eyes. You do take some leaps;don't you?You figure "Well, that's a bad church.It's so dry and full of deadness. There's no fire.There's no burden for souls. They say they're Calvinists. I bettcha all Calvinists are the same." You better do some more investigation before making such unreasonable assertions.

_______________________________________________________________


That kind of shoots Calvinism in the foot doesn't it?
[/quote]

Rip : What, that God is under no obligation to save anyone?He owes no one anything.It is by His sole mercy that He has decided long before the world was created that He chose some for His glory.That does no harm to Calvinism in the least.

_____________________________________________________________

The truth is: God is not obligated to save anyone (as you say).
Also, Man is not obligated to receive the salvation that God has provided.
Both parts of the equation are needed. There must be a choice on man's part.
[/quote]

Rip :I'm glad you admitted that God is not obligated to save anyone.But your following sentences need clarification.The call of the Lord goes out to repent and belive the Gospel. Man is accountable. He is responsible.The truths that he is exposed to will rest on his head.But only those who the Lord has determined to save will in-fact be saved.

______________________________________________________________

Now look again what you unwittingly said:
A."God does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life."
Let's look at the statement's corollary:
B. "God forces the salvation on those that He does choose for eternal
life."
[/quote]

Rip : B. is something from your overly-active imagination.Since I have repeatedly you that God does not force Himself on anyone to keep insisting on that premise is dishonest on your part.It is not A.'s corollary.

____________________________________________________________

If statement A (your quote) is true, then the corollary also (statement B), of a necessity must also be true. You are indeed saying that God forces salvation on people. This is exactly what you are saying. You couldn't have made it any clearer.
[/quote]

Rip : And I say your ideas here are rubbish.

________________________________________________________________




You say you know what He knew before the foundation of the earth--even the very elect. You are very presumptuous. We say we cannot know, and thus we evangelize. God knows who will be saved, but doesn't force anyone to be saved as you have posted here. The gospel needs to be preached so that "whosover shall call upon his name shall be saved." That involves choice, a decision.[/quote]

Rip :Of course God knew before the foundation of the world who the elect are.Their names were inscribed in the Lamb's Book Of Life.The names were inscribed before any of us were born.I don't understand how I can be called presumptuous for that.

The Gospel needs to be preached/taught by every Christian to anyone in their path.The "whosoevers" are the ones He has already selected for salvation.In John 3:16 for instance, "...whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."( TNIV)God has arranged for specific ones to believe. He causes them to believe. They can't believe on their own because of their Total Depravity.The Lord supernaturally interces on their behalf and bestows salvation on them

 

[webdog]

Lou,

Please respond by referencing the number of which of these you agree with. Thanks.

For example, the no-lordship advocates teach that:

1. Repentance is simply a change of mind about Christ (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 96, 99).?? In the context of the gospel invitation, repentance is just a synonym for faith (SGS 97-99). No turning from sin is required for salvation (SGS 99).

2. The whole of salvation, including faith, is a gift of God (SGS 96). But faith might not last. A true Christian can completely cease believing (SGS 141).

3. Saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel (SGS 156). It is confidence that Christ can remove guilt and give eternal life, not a personal commitment to Him (SGS 119).

4. Some spiritual fruit is inevitable in every Christian's experience. The fruit, however, might not be visible to others (SGS 45). Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness (SGS 53-54).

5. Only the judicial aspects of salvation--such as justification, adoption, imputed righteousness, and positional sanctification--are guaranteed for believers in this life (SGS 150-52). Practical sanctification and growth in grace require a postconversion act of dedication.?

6. Submission to Christ's supreme authority as Lord is not germane to the saving transaction (SGS 71-76). Neither dedication nor willingness to be dedicated to Christ are issues in salvation (SGS 74). The news that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead is the complete gospel. Nothing else must be believed for salvation (SGS 40-41).

7. Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality. A whole category of "carnal Christians"--born-again people who continuously live like the unsaved--exists in the church (SGS 31, 59-66).

8. Disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith (SGS 48).

9. A believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing. God has guaranteed that He will not disown those who thus abandon the faith (SGS 141). Those who have once believed are secure forever, even if they turn away (SGS 143).

Some of the more radical advocates of no-lordship doctrine do not stop there. The "Free-Grace" movement further stipulates:

1. Repentance is not essential to the gospel message. In no sense is repentance related to saving faith (Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free, 144-46).?

2. Faith is a human act, not a gift from God (AF 219). It occurs in a decisive moment but does not necessarily continue (AF xiv, 107). True faith can be subverted, be overthrown, collapse, or even turn to unbelief (AF 111).

3. To "believe" unto salvation is to believe the facts of the gospel (AF 37-39). "Trusting Jesus" means believing the "saving facts" about Him (AF 39), and to believe those facts is to appropriate the gift of eternal life (AF 40). Those who add any suggestion of commitment have departed from the New Testament idea of salvation (AF 27).

4. Spiritual fruit is not guaranteed in the Christian life (AF 73-75, 119). Some Christians spend their lives in a barren wasteland of defeat, confusion, and every kind of evil (AF 119-25).

5. Heaven is guaranteed to believers (AF 112) but Christian victory is not (AF 118-19). One could even say "the saved" still need salvation (AF 195-99). Christ offers a whole range of postconversion deliverance experiences to supply what Christians lack (AF 196). But these other "salvations" all require the addition of human works, such as obedience, submission, and confession of Jesus as Lord (AF 74, 119, 124-25, 196). Thus God is dependent to some degree on human effort in achieving deliverance from sin in this life (AF 220).

6. Submission is not in any sense a condition for eternal life (AF 172). "Calling on the Lord" means appealing to Him, not submitting to Him (AF 193-95).

7. Nothing guarantees that a true Christian will love God (AF 130-31). Salvation does not necessarily even place the sinner in a right relationship of harmonious fellowship with God (AF 145-60).

8. If people are sure they believe, their faith must be genuine (AF 31). All who claim Christ by faith as Savior--even those involved in serious or prolonged sin--should be assured that they belong to God come what may (AF 32, 93-95). It is dangerous and destructive to question the salvation of professing Christians (AF 18-19, 91-99). The New Testament writers never questioned the reality of their readers' faith (AF 98).

9. It is possible to experience a moment of faith that guarantees heaven for eternity (AF 107), then to turn away permanently and live a life that is utterly barren of any spiritual fruit (AF 118-19). Genuine believers might even cease to name the name of Christ or confess Christianity (AF 111).

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2438

I take offense by the use of "no lordship advocates". It's pretty lame, RB.

Second, what Ryrie believes is one thing, but he does not speak for all who disagree with lordship salvation ("non lordship salvation"). Being a calvinist, I believe he has his own confusion on this issue, and his list doesn't add up.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I take offense by the use of "no lordship advocates". It's pretty lame, RB.

Second, what Ryrie believes is one thing, but he does not speak for all who disagree with lordship salvation ("non lordship salvation"). Being a calvinist, I believe he has his own confusion on this issue, and his list doesn't add up.

What should he call it then? I needs a label brutha! :laugh:

I took a bit of an offense of being called an LS Apologist! hahaha...sometimes one has to laugh these things off.

So if Ryrie does not speak for all the "who-disagree-with-lordship-salvation" folks, where is it that one can learn about what "they" do believe?

 

[webdog]

What should he call it then? I needs a label brutha! :laugh:

I took a bit of an offense of being called an LS Apologist! hahaha...sometimes one has to laugh these things off.

So if Ryrie does not speak for all the "who-disagree-with-lordship-salvation" folks, where is it that one can learn about what "they" do believe?

1. As "non calvinist", I put in quotations "non lordship salvation".

2. Arent' you an LS apologist?

3. From each person

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. As "non calvinist", I put in quotations "non lordship salvation".

2. Arent' you an LS apologist?

3. From each person

1. Ok.
2. According Lou I am. :laugh:
3. such is one of the problems with non-confessional Christianity.

 

[canadyjd]

"Soitenly!"

????

I characterize "repent" as effectively, the 'flip-side' of "believe" where the subject is one's eternal salvation, although both "repent" and/or "believe" do not necessarily have to be talking about salvation, at all. Hence I often speak of "believe/repent" or some variation of the same. Same with the noun forms of "faith/repentance."

"Repent" is not the same thing as "faith", yet both are required for salvation. You are saying "Faith" alone isn't enough? The faith must be accompanied by repentance, since repentance is required for salvation. How can that be reconciled with our belief that salvation is by Grace through faith?

Perhaps "repent" and "believe" are so closely related they shouldn't be viewed as completely separate things, but two closely related things forever linked in salvation? If "repent" is the flipside of "believe", then "repent" can be viewed as a necessary part of faith, can it not?

Therefore, "repent" is forever linked together with faith in salvation?

If the above statement is true, why is it heretical to say that "lordship" is also an element of either faith or repentance? Perhaps "lordship" is so closely related to faith and/or repentance, it is forever linked together with them in salvation.

Since repentance means a change of mind (specifically in regards to Jesus Christ), why can't that "change of mind" include a recognition that Jesus Christ has the authority to make demands of our lives, whether the person knows such terms as "lordship" or not?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

"Soitenly!"

Oh, I get it. Three Stooges.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

To All:

I documented (author and source) what proves Lordship Salvation conditions eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to forsake everything.

I want you to notice that this carefully documented and the meaning of the citations is clear. I encourage all readers to read these citations objectively without any preconceived notions or feelings toward or about who the writer is. Just read objectively and as you read ask yourself: Is this how the lost are born again?

In Matthew 19:16-22 when the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works. In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes, That citation is from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. It is a revision of what John MacArthur wrote in the original edition, which was: From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote: From the quotes from three of MacArthur’s LS books you can see that he is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Again, I encourage all readers to carefully and objectively consider how John MacArthur defines the way he believes the lost must be born again. Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?

The obvious implication of LS by JM is forsaking everything FOR salvation.


LM


PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons. It's all consistent- salvation is conditioned on the lost man's commitment to and performance the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian. Faith is front-loaded with commitment to works. I suggest all to read this by Zeller http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm

The rich young ruler came to Jesus seeking eternal life. He went away sorrowful because he did not obtain it. Do we agree so far? What happened in between?
Christ told him:

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Maybe I'm missing something but there is an obvious causal relationship between the ruler's unwillingness to give away his money to the poor and his not being saved.

MacArthur didn't say this. JESUS CHRIST said this. Tell me how your statements don't attempt to directly refute what Jesus said very clearly and directly in this passage of scripture.

 

[FERRON BRIMSTONE]

To All:

I documented (author and source) what proves Lordship Salvation conditions eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to forsake everything.

I want you to notice that this carefully documented and the meaning of the citations is clear. I encourage all readers to read these citations objectively without any preconceived notions or feelings toward or about who the writer is. Just read objectively and as you read ask yourself: Is this how the lost are born again?

In Matthew 19:16-22 when the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works. In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes, That citation is from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. It is a revision of what John MacArthur wrote in the original edition, which was: From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote: From the quotes from three of MacArthur’s LS books you can see that he is speaking of how he believes a lost man is born again. In Hard to Believe MacArthur is detailing what he considers the “requirement(s) for eternal life,” how to be born again.

Using the rich young ruler to illustrate his Lordship gospel FOR salvation, MacArthur says the requirement FOR eternal life is a willingness to, “forsake all, submit to the Lord,” give it all up if He asks.

IMO, there is no doubt and NO misunderstanding that this is a message that calls on the lost for an upfront commitment to perform the kinds of behavior expected of a born again Christian.

The results of salvation must never be the requirement FOR salvation. Lordship Salvation, however, IS a promise of performance for the promise of eternal life message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Again, I encourage all readers to carefully and objectively consider how John MacArthur defines the way he believes the lost must be born again. Is salvation conditioned on a commitment, a “willingness to forsake everything?” Or is salvation by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work?

The obvious implication of LS by JM is forsaking everything FOR salvation.


LM


PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons. It's all consistent- salvation is conditioned on the lost man's commitment to and performance the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian. Faith is front-loaded with commitment to works. I suggest all to read this by Zeller http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Or does it matter since both originated with God and you can't have one without the other?

I believe Macarthurs point is that you are not saved if you have not accepted Christ as Lord, He wrote his books on Lordship to combat easy believism. He was not arguing which came first.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

He wrote his books on Lordship to combat easy believism.

Ferron:

In trying to answer the obvious heresy of EB- MacArthur and all LS advocates bounced all the way over into an equally heretical interpretation of the Gospel.

Dr. Ernest Pickering reviewed MacArthur's original TGATJ. He wrote,

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.

 

[EdSutton]

Oh, I get it. Three Stooges.

peace to youraying:

Exactly. The late Jerome Horwitz, better known as Jerry ('Curly') Howard.

Ed

 

[BrotherJames]

How does LS deal with this verse?

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Salvation is obtained through faith by grace alone, then the good works come. You don't do works (giving up sins, getting baptized) to go to heaven, but because you are going to heaven.

Hence:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

If any man BE IN CHRIST ie saved. It's not hard.

 

[EdSutton]

Lou,

Falsely accusing your brother in Christ, namely me, is no light matter. I urge you to reconsider.

I get no great thrill out of defending another (and only do it, as a rule, when one cannot defend themselves so I guess you may now find me defending skypair, StandingfirminChrist, Linda64 and a couple of others if the situation demands it due to false accusations, none of whom was I hoping to have any need to defend), but "methinks" a partial defense is in order, considering I see several on this subject that want to defend some person or persons. So here goes:

Uh, I am wondering how Lou Martuneac made a false accusation, here? Let me think about it for a second or two- Okay! Now I get it. Let's see. Lou Martuneac, who along with me (EdSutton) in your (ReformedBaptist) opinion you suspect to be one with a "martyr complex," said this, above, in a postscript:

PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons.

I would say that is a bit of an overstatement by Lou Martuneac, for in fact you did claim to have read some things, if not much. By your own admission, you "read about half of his book called Hard to Believe" but it had been a long time.

You admitted you remembered little of it, except that you found that "it is an excellent refutation of 'easy-believism'." (My inside quotes) (Of course, "easy-believism" is certainly in no way a pejorative term, now is it?)

You also admitted you "have not read MacArhur's (sic) book on the Gospel." (Did you know there is more than one?)

In fact, you admitted you "just asked my wife if we have the book by MacArhur (sic)." (Even I will admit, it is fairly difficult to read a book one do not possess.) , again.

When Lou Martuneac cited a quotation of Dr. John F. MacArthur from "The Call to Repentance," you responded by saying, "I don't have his book.", among other things, regarding the quote. Nor does anyone "have his book", here, since the quote is from a taped (and transcribed) Sermon, which Lou Martuneac had said, in the first place.

I almost really did forget, before posting this, that you read the "Primer," however.

You wrote, "I took a bit of an offense of being called a LS Apologist." (Then why did you add it to your tag line, if it was offensive?)

When webdog wrote, "I take offense by the use of "no lordship advocates.", you replied with, "What should he call it then? I needs a label brutha.", and apparently thought this usage to be humorous. I had already previously posted my own displeasure with the pejoratives "no-lordship," "no-Lord, and "lordless," and suggested that one use the accurate descriptive term of "non-Lordship salvation." Apparently that non pejorative description is not satisfactory for some, on the threads.

And as to "needs a label brutha"? Despite this attempt at what I consider some sort of lame humor,' by what you offered, I was under the impression you already had a label of your own choosing, namely ReformedBaptist.

Now, I am going :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

[canadyjd]

Exactly. The late Jerome Horwitz, better known as Jerry ('Curly') Howard.

Thanks for the imformation. Could you address the rest of what I asked you?

I characterize "repent" as effectively, the 'flip-side' of "believe" where the subject is one's eternal salvation, although both "repent" and/or "believe" do not necessarily have to be talking about salvation, at all. Hence I often speak of "believe/repent" or some variation of the same. Same with the noun forms of "faith/repentance."

"Repent" is not the same thing as "faith", yet both are required for salvation. You are saying "Faith" alone isn't enough? The faith must be accompanied by repentance, since repentance is required for salvation. How can that be reconciled with our belief that salvation is by Grace through faith?

Perhaps "repent" and "believe" are so closely related they shouldn't be viewed as completely separate things, but two closely related things forever linked in salvation? If "repent" is the flipside of "believe", then "repent" can be viewed as a necessary part of faith, can it not?

Therefore, "repent" is forever linked together with faith in salvation?

If the above statement is true, why is it heretical to say that "lordship" is also an element of either faith or repentance? Perhaps "lordship" is so closely related to faith and/or repentance, it is forever linked together with them in salvation.

Since repentance means a change of mind (specifically in regards to Jesus Christ), why can't that "change of mind" include a recognition that Jesus Christ has the authority to make demands of our lives, whether the person knows such terms as "lordship" or not?

peace to youraying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I get no great thrill out of defending another (and only do it, as a rule, when one cannot defend themselves so I guess you may now find me defending skypair, StandingfirminChrist, Linda64 and a couple of others if the situation demands it due to false accusations, none of whom was I hoping to have any need to defend), but "methinks" a partial defense is in order, considering I see several on this subject that want to defend some person or persons. So here goes:

Uh, I am wondering how Lou Martuneac made a false accusation, here? Let me think about it for a second or two- Okay! Now I get it. Let's see. Lou Martuneac, who along with me (EdSutton) in your (ReformedBaptist) opinion you suspect to be one with a "martyr complex," said this, above, in a postscript:I would say that is a bit of an overstatement by Lou Martuneac, for in fact you did claim to have read some things, if not much. By your own admission, you "read about half of his book called Hard to Believe" but it had been a long time.

You admitted you remembered little of it, except that you found that "it is an excellent refutation of 'easy-believism'." (My inside quotes) (Of course, "easy-believism" is certainly in no way a pejorative term, now is it?)

You also admitted you "have not read MacArhur's (sic) book on the Gospel." (Did you know there is more than one?)

In fact, you admitted you "just asked my wife if we have the book by MacArhur (sic)." (Even I will admit, it is fairly difficult to read a book one do not possess.) , again.

When Lou Martuneac cited a quotation of Dr. John F. MacArthur from "The Call to Repentance," you responded by saying, "I don't have his book.", among other things, regarding the quote. Nor does anyone "have his book", here, since the quote is from a taped (and transcribed) Sermon, which Lou Martuneac had said, in the first place.

I almost really did forget, before posting this, that you read the "Primer," however.

You wrote, "I took a bit of an offense of being called a LS Apologist." (Then why did you add it to your tag line, if it was offensive?)

When webdog wrote, "I take offense by the use of "no lordship advocates.", you replied with, "What should he call it then? I needs a label brutha.", and apparently thought this usage to be humorous. I had already previously posted my own displeasure with the pejoratives "no-lordship," "no-Lord, and "lordless," and suggested that one use the accurate descriptive term of "non-Lordship salvation." Apparently that non pejorative description is not satisfactory for some, on the threads.

And as to "needs a label brutha"? Despite this attempt at what I consider some sort of lame humor,' by what you offered, I was under the impression you already had a label of your own choosing, namely ReformedBaptist.

Now, I am going :sleeping_2:

Ed

Methinks you were tired when you wrote that. Not even sure what most of it means...

But if there is needed clarification why I believed I was falsely accused it is because I was accused of dodging a question when I didn't. Pretty simple.

But I won't argue whether my humor is lame or not. :laugh:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Hi Ed:

I have been away and thanks for these notes earlier.

You wrote,

I would say that is a bit of an overstatement by Lou Martuneac, for in fact you did claim to have read some things, if not much. By your own admission, you "read about half of his book called Hard to Believe" but it had been a long time.

You admitted you remembered little of it, except that you found that "it is an excellent refutation of 'easy-believism'." (My inside quotes) (Of course, "easy-believism" is certainly in no way a pejorative term, now is it?)

You also admitted you "have not read MacArhur's (sic) book on the Gospel." (Did you know there is more than one?)

Ed:

You were referring to this comment by me to Reformed Baptist (RB),

“PS: RB, considering you have NEVER read JM's LS books...and yes I have read virtually everything by JM on LS, even obscure sermons.”

I’ll grant my remark may have been an overstatement, considering RB may have read a little of Hard to Believe one of MacArthur’s major LS books. I wonder if he recalls this by MacArthur in Hard to Believe,

“And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.”

Just another examples of how JM creates “requirements FOR (salvation) eternal life” that the Bible does not.

RB seeks to defend the teaching of LS by MacArthur before he has ever read any one of the five books by MacArthur in its entirety.

RB: If you can, please name each of John MacArthur’s major publications on LS and which of these you have read in its entirety?

Thanks,


LM

 

[DHK]

Thanks for the imformation. Could you address the rest of what I asked you?

I'm not Ed, but I don't think he'll mind if I answer this post.

"Repent" is not the same thing as "faith", yet both are required for salvation.

That is true. We are save by faith alone. Yet at the same time we must have repentance toward God.

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
--As was mentioned both (faith and repentance) are flip sides of the same coin.

You are saying "Faith" alone isn't enough? The faith must be accompanied by repentance, since repentance is required for salvation. How can that be reconciled with our belief that salvation is by Grace through faith?

Faith and true repentance are inextricably bound together. When one puts their faith in the Lord, he, at the same time, will have repented. Biblical faith is an action word. It in and of itself demands repentance. But the repentance, like the faith, is toward God.

Perhaps "repent" and "believe" are so closely related they shouldn't be viewed as completely separate things, but two closely related things forever linked in salvation? If "repent" is the flipside of "believe", then "repent" can be viewed as a necessary part of faith, can it not?

Absolutely.

Therefore, "repent" is forever linked together with faith in salvation?

I agree.

If the above statement is true, why is it heretical to say that "lordship" is also an element of either faith or repentance? Perhaps "lordship" is so closely related to faith and/or repentance, it is forever linked together with them in salvation.

Lordship has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with discipleship. Lordship, making Christ the Lord of your life is a series of works. Those who believe in it would, of a necessity, believe in a works salvation. Let me demonstrate:
"For whosover shall not forsake all that he hath cannot be my disciple." That is Lordship Salvation. But it is also a work. One has to work at forsaking all. Salvation is no longer free. It now is of works. Forsaking all is hard to DO!

Neither faith nor repentance are considered works by the Bible.

Since repentance means a change of mind (specifically in regards to Jesus Christ), why can't that "change of mind" include a recognition that Jesus Christ has the authority to make demands of our lives, whether the person knows such terms as "lordship" or not?

peace to youraying:

Repentance does indeed mean a change of mind.
It is a change of mind with respect to my attitude toward God.
Once my attitude to God was rebellious. I was on the road to sin and of the world.
The I repented; I had a change of mind with respect to God and His authority. My life took a 180 degree turn. Now I no longer live for the world, but rather live for the Lord. My attitude has been changed with respect to God. It is no longer in rebellion to God but rather in an attitude of obedience to God.

There is a recognition that God is Lord. That is true. But recognition and reality are two different things. Believers need to grow in grace. A new believer hasn't forsaken all to follow Jesus. He needs to learn. Our church has a ministry with those that have addictions: alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc. When a person gets saved do they immediately get cured of all their addictions? Those who believe in Lordship Salvation would be compelled to say yes. Those who work in an Addictions Program know better.
Christ can be your Saviour without being Lord of every part of your life. Sanctification is a life long process.
Salvation is a one time event.

 

[TCGreek]

Hi Ed:

I have been away and thanks for these notes earlier.

You wrote,
Ed:

You were referring to this comment by me to Reformed Baptist (RB),
I’ll grant my remark may have been an overstatement, considering RB may have read a little of Hard to Believe one of MacArthur’s major LS books. I wonder if he recalls this by MacArthur in Hard to Believe,
Just another examples of how JM creates “requirements FOR (salvation) eternal life” that the Bible does not.

RB seeks to defend the teaching of LS by MacArthur before he has ever read any one of the five books by MacArthur in its entirety.

RB: If you can, please name each of John MacArthur’s major publications on LS and which of these you have read in its entirety?

Thanks,


LM

The five books, Are you referring to the Revised and Expanded editions ('93 & '08), the original TGATJ, Faith Works, and Hard to Believe? Just checking...