Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[EdSutton]

Good post, but a question!

DHK, you have just made a marvelous post, and done it far better than I ever could, IMO. :thumbs:

However, I do have one word of caution for you.

Since you apparently believe this, if you continue to post in this manner, I suggest you will soon find yourself lumped together with such as webdog, LouMartuneac, and EdSutton, to name but three, and thereby face the wrath of the same individuals who accuse (or have falsely accused, to be more accurate) :tear: the above three of not believing in repentance, or 'Lordship' and who either do not understand or misrepresent those who do, as well as believe in "easy believism," which is no doubt in contrast to the "hard believism" which they apparently espouse.

(Never mind the little miniscule, annoying, trivial, insignificant fact that the above three have multiple posts on what they, in fact, do believe.) :type:

Do you really want to be lumped together with us 'free grace" types??

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have recently previously twice posted the above quotes by Dr. Gerstner, but they seemingly were not deemed worthy of any response, by any of the readers, including yourself, and who happens to be a participant, of the thread(s)

Weird conclusion...

I am not particularly bothered by the insults, FTR. But why is that there were no substantive responses to my queries??

Who insulted you? My guess on why no one replied...they were too long, people were not familiar with Gerstner (that's why I didn't reply, and wouldn't, until I read his work that was referenced). Your replies were substantive, and deserve a substantive reponse. Most of us are too busy making soup. Or, in my case, working a job, loving a wife, raising 5 kids, attending seminary, and preparing for vacation.

(edited to fix some typos..beware, there may be more)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

DHK, you have just made a marvelous post, and done it far better than I ever could, IMO. :thumbs:

However, I do have one word of caution for you.

Since you apparently believe this, if you continue to post in this manner, I suggest you will soon find yourself lumped together with such as webdog, LouMartuneac, and EdSutton, to name but three, and thereby face the wrath of the same individuals who accuse (or have falsely accused, to be more accurate) :tear: the above three of not believing in repentance, or 'Lordship' and who either do not understand or misrepresent those who do, as well as believe in "easy believism," which is no doubt in contrast to the "hard believism" which they apparently espouse.

(Never mind the little miniscule, annoying, trivial, insignificant fact that the above three have multiple posts on what they, in fact, do believe.) :type:

Do you really want to be lumped together with us 'free grace" types??

Ed

Methinks someone has a martyr complex.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

My comment in no way is designed to cast any aspersions about anyone's family, and the comment certainly doesn't have one earthly thing to do with Lordship salvation, by any stretch. (Incidentally, FTR, I do happen to cook in the kitchen more than does my bride (and am probably also better at it for a few more things than is she, although I don't do any of the outdoor grilling ), so I certainly see nothing wrong with any man cooking anything. And I am the one who "home cans" everything we preserve, as well, although she sometimes helps me to 'prep' the foods for canning.)

However, if one would really rather not answer the question, one excuse ("making soup") is just as good and works about as well as another, I would suppose.

I have recently previously twice posted the above quotes by Dr. Gerstner, but they seemingly were not deemed worthy of any response, by any of the readers, including yourself, and who happens to be a participant, of the thread(s)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1270051&postcount=6

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1267712&postcount=57

whereon they were posted, and in fact, one time was the very person to whom I was directly responding (although I did manage to garner a couple of insults on the thread(s), effectively one or two false allegations by association [my supposed not believing in repentance (although I am on record on the BB, with at least ten posts showing I do believe that repentance is necessary for salvation), and my supposed notbelieving in 'Lordship' (another false allegation, for I, in fact insist that the Lordship of Christ is so clearly declared as to not even be an issue) and a questioning of my integrity, by another poster, along the way.]

I am not particularly bothered by the insults, FTR. But why is that there were no substantive responses to my queries??

The questions I pose seem straightforward enough, at least IMO.

Ed

Started to peek at the threads. Lou has distanced himself from Zane Hodges. Do you as well?

 

[EdSutton]

Started to peek at the threads. Lou has distanced himself from Zane Hodges. Do you as well?

Actually, I would suggest that Prof. Zane Hodges has done any effective 'distancing', as opposed to Lou Martuneac, frankly.

I have not "distanced myself" from anyone, per se, for I have not really 'moved,' I do not think. Any movement that has taken place would have come, both to be closer in agreement, or further apart in agreement from another's movement, pace AmyG. moving closer with my stated view on repentance.

I do not agree with everything Zane Hodges says or has said, then or now. I will fully agree with Zane Hodges, John MacArthur, James P. Boyce, Lou Martuneac, and/or ReformedBaptist, as well as anyone else, when I believe they are correct, as I understand Scripture, and disagree with any and all of them when I think they happen to be incorrect. To my knowledge, I agree with no one else, completely, in every particular, yet I suggest my own views are easily discernable.

Incidentally, I am not attempting to avoid your question, in any way, although I suggest I, like Lou Martuneac, am further removed from the stated postions of Mr. Hodges, today, than I was with his positions of 20 years ago.

But like the old farmer (of which I is one) said, when his wife suggested as they were driving along, that they didn't sit as close together as they did when they were first married. The Old farmer replied, "I ain't moved."

Gotta' run, for now.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Methinks someone has a martyr complex.

Martyr complex??

Not even close.

Just want to warn others of the danger of potential "collateral damage!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[canadyjd]

.....I do not accept that ANY works, be they supposedly "meritorious" or "non-meritorious" are any "part of the definition of faith," which is very different from what should be the results of faith, which I believe everyone posting on these threads has agreed should occur, and in fact when works are falsely placed in the definition of faith, change the definition of believe/faith to "faithfulness'" instead, making 'faith' (and grace) a horse of a completely different color. (Rom. 4:1-8; 16a; 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9)

I believe I understand your position. You said in another post:

EdSutton said: (although I am on record on the BB, with at least ten posts showing I do believe that repentance is necessary for salvation),

Could you help me to understand how you view the relationship between repentance and faith and then how both are related to the appropriation of salvation?

If repentance is necessary for salvation, and faith is necessary for salvation....and repentance isn't part of faith (although both are required for salvation) doesn't that make repentance a "non-meritorious work" that must accompany faith for salvation?

If repentance must accompany faith for salvation, doesn't that tie repentance and faith together in such a manner that they cannot be separated, as far as salvation is concerned?

If repentance and faith cannot be separated in the appropriation of salvation, why can't we say repentance must always be a part of faith in salvation? (notice the opposite is not true, faith doesn't always have to be a part of repentance because repentance alone does not bring salvation)

peace to youraying:

 

[Rippon]

This infers that man has no choice. Just because God knows ahead of time who is going to be saved and who is going to reject salvation does not mean he forces their hand. Man still has the choice to receive Christ or reject Him. There is no "forced salvation" with God. "Elect" as far as I understand the Bible never applies to the unbeliever, but only describes the believer.

Here we go again.You're back to the ole' God merely got the memo routine.God only knows ahead of time who will believe in your estimation. That's a rather low view of God you have.If you don't believe that God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own -- you simply disbelieve the Bible.No Calvinist here has said that God "forces" salvation on anyone. I'm waiting for you start up on your puppet act once more.
Elect ones are elect long before they believe.Of course if you deny the biblical testimony of passages such as Ephesians 1:4;2 Thess. 2:13 and 2 Tim. 1:9 -- naturally you'd hold to your belief.

Otherwise why the Great Commission? Why evangelize? God knows the elect. They will become Christians anyway. After all they are the elect are they not? They have no choice but to be saved whether we witness or not. As far as I understand your position, it negates the very reason one must carry out the Great Commission.
[/quote]
Why do you bring up things that have been answered repeatedly?Why the G.C.? How about the fact that it's a command of the Lord;that's why.God ordains the means of salvation;not just the end result. BTW, how many Calvinists ( not non-Cals) from Church History can you name who did not believe in the Great Commission?...Your silence is deafening.



Then why did he not cause the rich young ruler to be born again?
That wasn't very loving on His part was it? Especially when the Bible testifies about God that "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
[/quote]

God is under no obligation to save anyone.The passage of 2 Peter 3:9 has no bearing on those who are reprobate.What God wills -- He accomplishes. He does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life.


Salvation is indeed a one time event. Sanctification is a life-long process.
[/quote]

There are different senses to salvation;sanctification is a part of salvation as is glorification when we are completely saved in the fullest sense of the word.

We become God's elect after we are saved. But God knew about it before we were saved.
[/quote]

I've already addressed this one before. I get a kick out of your addendum;an afterthought by you and your particular belief regarding God -- "But God knew about it before we were saved."How much credit or glory does God get with this view of yours?The Bible says He shares His glory with no one.

 

[FERRON BRIMSTONE]

Ferron:

I my post above I cited JM in context from several of his LS books where he states and reiterates the same theme. I invite you to discuss this.

MacArthur states: Do you believe this is an accurate interpretation of how the lost must be born again; be "willing to forsake everything?"


LM

Lou,
Sorry I am so late getting back, pesky job.

I do believe that you must be willing to forsake everything to be saved.
I believe you must repent to be saved.
I believe you must come by faith to be saved.
But none of these are works, they are gifts bestowed upon us when we become new creatures (regeneration).

 

[webdog]

Here we go again.You're back to the ole' God merely got the memo routine.God only knows ahead of time who will believe in your estimation. That's a rather low view of God you have.If you don't believe that God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own -- you simply disbelieve the Bible.No Calvinist here has said that God "forces" salvation on anyone. I'm waiting for you start up on your puppet act once more.
Elect ones are elect long before they believe.Of course if you deny the biblical testimony of passages such as Ephesians 1:4;2 Thess. 2:13 and 2 Tim. 1:9 -- naturally you'd hold to your belief.

Otherwise why the Great Commission? Why evangelize? God knows the elect. They will become Christians anyway. After all they are the elect are they not? They have no choice but to be saved whether we witness or not. As far as I understand your position, it negates the very reason one must carry out the Great Commission.

Why do you bring up things that have been answered repeatedly?Why the G.C.? How about the fact that it's a command of the Lord;that's why.God ordains the means of salvation;not just the end result. BTW, how many Calvinists ( not non-Cals) from Church History can you name who did not believe in the Great Commission?...Your silence is deafening.



Then why did he not cause the rich young ruler to be born again?
That wasn't very loving on His part was it? Especially when the Bible testifies about God that "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
[/quote]

God is under no obligation to save anyone.The passage of 2 Peter 3:9 has no bearing on those who are reprobate.What God wills -- He accomplishes. He does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life.


Salvation is indeed a one time event. Sanctification is a life-long process.
[/quote]

There are different senses to salvation;sanctification is a part of salvation as is glorification when we are completely saved in the fullest sense of the word.

We become God's elect after we are saved. But God knew about it before we were saved.
[/quote]

I've already addressed this one before. I get a kick out of your addendum;an afterthought by you and your particular belief regarding God -- "But God knew about it before we were saved."How much credit or glory does God get with this view of yours?The Bible says He shares His glory with no one.[/quote]
I see you took the whole wrapping quotes exercise to heart

If you can't do something so simple as that...how can you expect us to take your views on important topics serious? I have no clue who you are responding to, and who said what. Swallow your pride and do it right, for cryin' out loud!

edited to bold and underline my post since responding to this post is almost impossible!

 

[EdSutton]

I believe I understand your position. You said in another post: Could you help me to understand how you view the relationship between repentance and faith and then how both are related to the appropriation of salvation?

"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." More information on this should be able to be found here, in varied threads the posts link to:

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=455386


Gotta' hit the sack, unfortunately, for I am going to sleep at the computer.

More later, hopefully.

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Maybe we are finally getting somewhere, although I am still not certain. I wish I could say the above answer is 'clear', but unfortunately, I cannot, for it still seems to be loaded with all sorts of "wiggle room" in the explanation.

Ed

Much "wiggle room" indeed. That extended note loaded with the usual of extra-biblical presuppositions forced into or extracted from Scripture reminded me of an Indian proverb, "Much wind, Strong thunder, NO RAIN!"

In any event, the post ended with an answer that was an evasion of the crux of the question. As LS advocates always seem to do, they redirect the question to what should follow salvation, which is discipleship, and avoid the LS requirements FOR salvation.

RB’s dodge began with, “Those who are saved…” JM’s statement is not and my question to RB was not about “those who are saved.” RB reinterpreted my question to suit the answer he wanted to give instead of dealing squarey with the clear meaning of my question.

The issue is whether or not the lost must be willing to forsake everything for salvation, to become a Christian. This is the crux of the LS controversy and is the issue that RB steered clear of.

The LS debate is not over results of, it IS over requirements FOR salvation and this is what RB and many LS men will try to evade.


RB you wrote,

“Now that I have briefly defined my terms, namely what is meant by salvation and what is meant by forsaking everything, I will restate the question posed to me:…Yes. Those who have not forsaken all to follow Jesus are not the ones who possess salvation.”

JM wrote, “Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” In context, as I demonstrated from his various books which contain the statement JM is speaking of becoming a Christian, NOT what should follow becoming a Christian.

The born again disciple of Christ should be willing to forsake everything to follow Him. Lost men, however, are not born again because of their willingness to forsake everything.

So, let's try this again RB: Is salvation (the reception of eternal life) for those who are willing to forsake everything?


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

This infers that man has no choice. Just because God knows ahead of time who is going to be saved and who is going to reject salvation does not mean he forces their hand. Man still has the choice to receive Christ or reject Him. There is no "forced salvation" with God. "Elect" as far as I understand the Bible never applies to the unbeliever, but only describes the believer.
Otherwise why the Great Commission? Why evangelize? God knows the elect. They will become Christians anyway. After all they are the elect are they not? They have no choice but to be saved whether we witness or not. As far as I understand your position, it negates the very reason one must carry out the Great Commission.

"Christ who causes us to be born again??"
Then why did he not cause the rich young ruler to be born again?
That wasn't very loving on His part was it? Especially when the Bible testifies about God that "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Your view seems to have a contradiction in it. Christ causes no one or forces no one to be saved. (some Muslims do). We make that choice. That is made clear in John 3:18. If we choose Christ we are not condemned. If we don't choose Christ we are condemned already. There is a free will, a choice to be made.
What Christ wrought on the cross is the grace that was manifest to us. His salvation was provided there on the cross of Calvary. But it was provided as a free gift for all who desire it. They must make the choice to receive. Man was made in God's image and likeness, which involves having that choice, that ability to reason.

This entire description describes a Christian, as does the word "elect." It has nothing to do with the unsaved. The context is not written about the unsaved. Peter is writing to the saved. The topic is not about salvation. Salvation is indeed a one time event. Sanctification is a life-long process.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--That is a one time event. It happens only one time in a person's life.
Sanctification is a life-long process.
We become God's elect after we are saved. But God knew about it before we were saved.

If your interpretation of this verse is correct why did Peter have to write it at all. He writes it as a command. We are to be obedient children. Many of them were not; they were disobedient. Just look back at the Corinthian Church. Many of them were disobedient, even coming to celebrate the Lord's Supper when they were drunk. They also were the elect of God. God also called them to a holy calling, but they were not being holy. This is a command; but not everyone was obeying it. Peter is giving encouragement, admonition. He is not saying that they were all in this state already. If they were there would be no purpose in even writing these things.

Our obedience to the truth is simply one of the evidences of our salvation.
See what John says:
1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

There is an "easy believism" philosophy. I also have my doubts about that movement. However, to say that "the one who does not forsake everything to follow Jesus are not the ones who will inherit eternal life," is a false statement.
How old were you when you were saved? When you were saved did you give up everything? Forsake family, friends, job, give away all your money, sacrifice absolutely everything to follow Christ? I doubt it. Why are you saying that it must be so for others when you do not impose those conditions on yourself?
We grow gradually as believers in the Lord. What did Jude say:

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
--If you are already "perfect" what is there to build up?
If you are already going to forsake everything and mature enough to do, what would be left to be built up? Your position does not make much sense.
I have met some Christians that have forsaken all. But they weren't new Christians.

Again, a false statement. I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. According to your statement I am not saved because I wasn't a disciple after i was first saved. This teaching is false. It leaves no room for growth in a believer. In fact it would leave almost the entire Corinthian Church as unbelievers. :tear:

A Christian' life is a changed life. If there is no change it is doubtful that he is a Christian. That has nothing to do with discipleship.

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.
--1John 3 also explains the same thing. Those who habitually live in a lifestyle of sin are the same ones that are not born again. This has nothing to do with discipleship.

You left out a very important part of the verse. Why so?
Titus 2:12 Teaching us that,
The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men teaching us...to deny ungodliness and live soberly and righteously, etc.
Those qualities are learned gradually. They are taught. They are not automatic. It "teaches us." Teaching is a process, and sometimes takes a long time, depending on the student.

But salvation is a one time event.

False. Show me how many, including yourself, how many on this board, have forsaken all, and I really mean all, in order to follow Jesus. I doubt if you will even find one percent. Not many Christians on the BB are there?

DHK:

Excellent use of Scripture to show the shortcomings and pitfalls of LS especially its faulty under pinnings by RB.. I think Ed is right, you are abut to told you don't understand LS, you can't understand LS and you are misrepresenting LS and its supporters.

 

[DHK]

Here we go again.You're back to the ole' God merely got the memo routine.

Is that what you say? I never said that! If I did, you should use quotes. It's always a good idea, lest you falsely accuse a brother.

God only knows ahead of time who will believe in your estimation.

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.

That's a rather low view of God you have.If you don't believe that God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own -- you simply disbelieve the Bible.

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.

No Calvinist here has said that God "forces" salvation on anyone. I'm waiting for you start up on your puppet act once more.

You just stated it above. So don't deny it.
"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."

Elect ones are elect long before they believe.Of course if you deny the biblical testimony of passages such as Ephesians 1:4;2 Thess. 2:13 and 2 Tim. 1:9 -- naturally you'd hold to your belief.

I don't deny any part of the Bible; just your interpretation of it.

Why do you bring up things that have been answered repeatedly?Why the G.C.? How about the fact that it's a command of the Lord;that's why.God ordains the means of salvation;not just the end result. BTW, how many Calvinists ( not non-Cals) from Church History can you name who did not believe in the Great Commission?...Your silence is deafening.

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?

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.

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.

God is under no obligation to save anyone.The passage of 2 Peter 3:9 has no bearing on those who are reprobate.What God wills -- He accomplishes. He does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life.

I am glad that you have come to this admission.
So you will admit then, that God is under no admission to save "the elect."
You did say "anyone" didn't you? Then, that must include "the elect," correct?
That kind of shoots Calvinism in the foot doesn't it?

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.

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."

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.

There are different senses to salvation;sanctification is a part of salvation as is glorification when we are completely saved in the fullest sense of the word.

Context gives words meanings. The Bible also says that we wait for our redemption, but it is speaking of our bodies and the resurrection, not our salvation. Our salvation, per se, is a one time event. We are saved by grace through faith--a one time event.

I've already addressed this one before. I get a kick out of your addendum;an afterthought by you and your particular belief regarding God -- "But God knew about it before we were saved."How much credit or glory does God get with this view of yours?The Bible says He shares His glory with no one.

Then why are you trying to take credit for what God knows?
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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So, let's try this again RB: Is salvation (the reception of eternal life) for those who are willing to forsake everything?

I have already answered your question, but perhaps you missed it. Try not to be impatient. I have answered it by explaining my terms and defining my meaning in regards to salvation, repentance, and faith. I am going to give no other answer to you than what I have already given in regards to this question. Let your accusations fly as they may...

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What John Macarthur himself says about the Lordship debate-

Introduction to Lordship Salvation


Clarifying the Lordship debate

Thanks for these links. Good to see how JM defines and explains his teaching.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

MacArthur wrote, "The lordship controversy is a disagreement over the nature of true faith." Amazing. This is the same conclusion I came to.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

RB:

Any objective reader can note that your answer was crafted to avoid the crux of the issue, which is how the lost are born again as defined by JM. You spin into Calvinism simply to avoid dealing with how MacArthur conditions salvation (the reception of eternal life) on the lost man's willingness to forsake everything.

His statement(s), which I documented for you from three of his LS books prove he is speaking of the reception of eternal life, which you dodged for a Calvinistic reply to what should follow the reception of eternal life.

That’s OK though, most every LS writer flees the discussion of JM's statements on the LS requirements FOR salvation in preference for what should follow salvation because that is NOT (for me anyway) where the main controversy is.

Now you want to turn this thread away from LS to discuss the obvious errors with Zane Hodges’ reductionist “Crossless” gospel. Sorry, you’ll need to open a new thread if you want that discussion.

BTW, you'll need to open a separate thread on Ryrie because on the main question of how a lost man is born again he is NOT even close to the heresy of Hodges.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB:

Any objective reader can note that your answer was crafted to avoid the crux of the issue, which is how the lost are born again as defined by JM. You spin into Calvinism simply to avoid dealing with how MacArthur conditions salvation (the reception of eternal life) on the lost man's willingness to forsake everything.

His statement(s), which I documented for you from three of his LS books prove he is speaking of the reception of eternal life, which you dodged for a Calvinistic reply to what should follow the reception of eternal life.

That’s OK though, most every LS writer flees the discussion of JM's statements on the LS requirements FOR salvation in preference for what should follow salvation because that is NOT (for me anyway) where the main controversy is.

Now you want to turn this thread away from LS to discuss the obvious errors with Zane Hodges’ reductionist “Crossless” gospel. Sorry, you’ll need to open a new thread if you want that discussion.

BTW, you'll need to open a separate thread on Ryrie because on the main question of how a lost man is born again he is NOT even close to the heresy of Hodges.


LM

Thou art the man. You accuse me, falsely, of dodging your question when I specifically answered in this thread. Secondly, you dodge my questions to you in regards to the points of the no-lordship position as outlined by MacArthur. Did you even read my thread? Did you go to MacArhur's website and actually read his outline of the teaching within the no-lordship camps? Obviously not.

Now, will you recant your accusation that I have dodged your question when I have actually answered it in this very thread?