LS/Calvinism: Two Errors, One Departure

[TCGreek]

Dear BB Readers:

Please note the dogged determination of LS apologists to evade dealing with MacArthur’s statement the lost must be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation. The redirects to Calvinism, attempts to make the debate out to be a personality clash continue, and that is a shame. Why won't they deal squarely with what LS is, as defined by JM?

A “Gospel with no Lord?” That is a Gospel that I am personally unfamiliar with.


LM

Lou,

I'm a calvinist. I don't think that is a secret on BB.

We've agreed on James 4.

I also agree that the other statement in question misleads and appears overly zealous.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

I'm a calvinist. I don't think that is a secret on BB.

We've agreed on James 4.

I also agree that the other statement in question misleads and appears overly zealous.

TC:

I appreciate your stand on James 4. Please clarify which "other statement" you refer to. I want to be certain about which you mean so that we can discuss it. I'll get back to it later.

Thanks,


Lou

 

[Jarthur001]

Dear BB Readers:

Please note the dogged determination of LS apologists to evade dealing with MacArthur’s statement the lost must be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation. The redirects to Calvinism, attempts to make the debate out to be a personality clash continue, and that is a shame. Why won't they deal squarely with what LS is, as defined by JM?

A “Gospel with no Lord?” That is a Gospel that I am personally unfamiliar with.


LM

Please note, the No Lord gospel (NLG) apologist will not admit they have mislead over and over.

Please note again the very words of MacArthur and also note that the NLG apologist will not admit this even is in the book.

MacArthur says...

"Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God's sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation. Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved. . . . Real salvation cannot and will not fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer" (p. xiii.)

Why mislead Lou?

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

I appreciate your stand on James 4. Please clarify which "other statement" you refer to. I want to be certain about which you mean so that we can discuss it. I'll get back to it later.

Thanks,


Lou

I believe I'm referring to this: "“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

I've learned quite a lot from Dr. MacArthur, but I believe he can overstate things at times.

PS

I'm not a blind calvinist.

 

[Amy.G]

Please note, the No Lord gospel (NLG) apologist will not admit they have mislead over and over.

Please note again the very words of MacArthur and also note that the NLG apologist will not admit this even is in the book.



Why mislead Lou?

James, regardless of what issues you and Lou M. disagree on, when you say he is a "no Lord apologist", you are in essence saying that he is not saved, for how can he be with "no Lord"?

You are a better debater than that. You don't have to stoop that low.

 

[Jarthur001]

James, regardless of what issues you and Lou M. disagree on, when you say he is a "no Lord apologist", you are in essence saying that he is not saved, for how can he be with "no Lord"?

You are a better debater than that. You don't have to stoop that low.

Lou's own views are this...

One needs not to take Christ as Lord to be saved. With no Lord it is Lordless.


Thus...No Lord gospel. It sounds harsh...does it not? But that is what he is saying.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I believe I'm referring to this: "“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

I've learned quite a lot from Dr. MacArthur, but I believe he can overstate things at times.

PS

I'm not a blind calvinist.

TC:

Thanks, that is all I am looking for- an honest discussion. I have may friends in the Reformed camp in my circles and they, like you, have deep concerns with JM's LS statements.

The problem with these "overstatements" is that they have never been edited or eliminated by him. Furthermore, those statements have been reiterated and reinforced over the last 20 years since the original TGATJ.

This is why, IMO, these are not "overstatements," they define what he truly believes are the conditions for the reception of eternal life.

As for Calvinism- that debate is not going to be settled this side of Heaven. I have for decades worked in happy cooperation with Reformed brethren for the cause of Christ and global missions.

Kind regards,


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Dear BB Readers:

Please note the dogged determination of LS apologists to evade dealing with MacArthur’s statement the lost must be willing to forsake everything FOR salvation. The redirects to Calvinism, attempts to make the debate out to be a personality clash continue, and that is a shame. Why won't they deal squarely with what LS is, as defined by JM?

A “Gospel with no Lord?” That is a Gospel that I am personally unfamiliar with.


LM

There is nothing to note Lou. In fact, I am ordering the book because I suspect your motives to be right. You have been so pre-occupied with John MacArthur that, in my eyes, you have lost all credibility on the subject. But I am going to read his book.

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

Thanks, that is all I am looking for- an honest discussion. I have may friends in the Reformed camp in my circles and they, like you, have deep concerns with JM's LS statements.

The problem with these "overstatements" is that they have never been edited or eliminated by him. Furthermore, those statements have been reiterated and reinforced over the last 20 years since the original TGATJ.

This is why, IMO, these are not "overstatements," they define what he truly believes are the conditions for the reception of eternal life.

As for Calvinism- that debate is not going to be settled this side of Heaven. I have for decades worked in happy cooperation with Reformed brethren for the cause of Christ and global missions.

Kind regards,


LM

The bottom line: Dr. MacArthur is a mere mortal and therefore capable of erring.

Glad to know that you have many friends in the Reformed camp with whom you have worked.

Yes, the calvinism debate is not going to be settled this side of Heaven.

It's also good to know that I'm not the only Calvinist who thinks Dr. MacArthur overstates things at times.

Now, if these are no mere overstatements but actual beliefs of his, then I surely cannot embrace them.

 

[Amy.G]

Lou's own views are this...

One needs not to take Christ as Lord to be saved. With no Lord it is Lordless.


Thus...No Lord gospel. It sounds harsh...does it not? But that is what he is saying.

Yes, it certainly is harsh. And I don't think that Lou has no Lord. What he is saying is that JM teaches a works based salvation. You can disagree 'til the Lord returns, but you don't get to question his salvation.

That's all I'm saying. I'll let it go now. I probably shouldn't have butted in.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes, it certainly is harsh. And I don't think that Lou has no Lord. What he is saying is that JM teaches a works based salvation. You can disagree 'til the Lord returns, but you don't get to question his salvation.

That's all I'm saying. I'll let it go now. I probably shouldn't have butted in.

Amy,

No problem as to butting in...it is open to the public.

If you take away LORD...you are saying I take away salvation. Is that right?

I guess you made my point.

I'm not questioning anyone salvation. I named his doctrine. The LS debate is over this...

Does one need to take Christ as Lord? LS people say yes. Non-LS people say no, because this means works. Now LS people say it is not works...and around they go.

If you have no Lord...which is what non-LS claim they are fighting for, it is fair to say it is the lordless gospel. I'm only saying what they want.


I knew I hit on a sore point when I 1st posted it.....but there is no other way to say it.

Salvation with the Lord....

Salvation that is Lordless.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,

No problem as to butting in...it is open to the public.

If you take away LORD...you are saying I take away salvation. Is that right?

I guess you made my point.

I'm not questioning anyone salvation. I named his doctrine. The LS debate is over this...

Does one need to take Christ as Lord? LS people say yes. Non-LS people say no, because this means works. Now LS people say it is not works...and around they go.

If you have no Lord...which is what non-LS claim they are fighting for, it is fair to say it is the lordless gospel. I'm only saying what they want.


I knew I hit on a sore point when I 1st posted it.....but there is no other way to say it.

Salvation with the Lord....

Salvation that is Lordless.

OK. Just so you'll know, I have a LORD! He is my everything!

I don't really know what to think about this whole debate. When I was saved, all I knew was that I needed God desparately and I cried out to Him and He saved me. When Jesus said to come to Him as a child, that is what I did. And I have been His child ever since.

 

[EdSutton]

Lou's own views are this...

One needs not to take Christ as Lord to be saved. With no Lord it is Lordless.


Thus...No Lord gospel. It sounds harsh...does it not? But that is what he is saying.

I do not recall Lou Martuneac saying this, although I am not claiming perfect memory, by any stretch, you do understand. In fact, I believe I recall where he said in one place, that believing that Jesus is Lord, in referring to the Deity of Christ, is in fact necessary for salvation.

Lord? - That is an indivisible part of who Jesus is. Any Jesus who is not the Lord Jesus is a caricature, and not Biblical.

And I know that Lou Martuneac has quoted Acts 16:31 as to what is necessary to salvation, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Lou M. has stated, as have I, that one does not 'make Jesus Lord of your life', and I have in fact, suggested that it is about as egotistical statement as one could make, rivaling, if not even exceeding, the statement of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the Most High!" to suggest that anyone could actually make the one who is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and whom God made both Lord and Christ to "take" or "make" to be anything. (If I were in a less generous and conciliatory mood than I am this evening, I would suggest that it is approaching blasphemy to even suggest this is possible.)

Yet that is exactly what those are actually saying, who insist that one must "make Jesus Lord".

One "believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and shall be saved", which the Bible states clearly in Acts 16:31. But nowhere that I'm aware of does the Bible ever say that one could "make him Lord" or that one "takes Christ" as anything, where the subject is salvation. (This person's or that person's 'theology', may be another question, entirely.)

FTR, I just looked this up on Bible Gateway in both the NKJV and the KJV. The phrases of "take Christ" (0 times), "take Jesus" (1 time), or "take him" (10 times, including one Messianic prophecy) in relation to Jesus, are never found in any context of salvation, and in fact, 7 out of the 11 refer to the Jews attempting to or actually 'taking' Jesus to 'put him to death'. (I would add here that the words 'believe' and 'faith' are used over 150 times regarding salvation, however.)

The only time anything remotely close to the phrase "make Jesus Lord" occurs, that I saw, is in Ac. 2:36.

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Ac. 2:36 - NKJV)

Personally, I think that God did a good enough job, in this.

I am not going to presume I can improve on His work, unlike some folks!

Ed

 

[pinoybaptist]

Jarth,

Lou has talked about this, really against this, so much...that I just asked my wife if we have the book by MacArhur. If not, I am buying it..today. lol

Funny you should say that, RB. I was just thinking how Lou Martuneac is actually probably driving JMac's sales up. You know.
Huh ? Did Mac say that ? Oh, no, no, no. I've been listening to him for sometime and I never heard him say that....but then, I've read little of his books....uhhhhmmmmm...(heads for the door, gets in the car, drives to the local bookstore....screeeeccchhhh!!! golly gee, forgot the ISBN Number, heads back, gets ISBN number from internet..out the door...to Borders or local bookstore)....

 

[webdog]

Lou's own views are this...

One needs not to take Christ as Lord to be saved. With no Lord it is Lordless.


Thus...No Lord gospel. It sounds harsh...does it not? But that is what he is saying.

Have you taken Christ as Messiah? Did you make a full commitment to what that entails prior to coming to Him? I've never heard you state He is your Messiah...do you believe in a No Messiah Gospel?

 

[Jarthur001]

Have you taken Christ as Messiah? Did you make a full commitment to what that entails prior to coming to Him? I've never heard you state He is your Messiah...do you believe in a No Messiah Gospel?

Web,

You mean to tell me after 3-4 years you have never seen me sign my name like this....

"In Christ...James"

?


You're reaching bud.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Web,

You mean to tell me after 3-4 years you have never seen me sign my name like this....

"In Christ...James"

?


Your reaching bud.

Is there no end to this insanity?

 

[Rippon]

Have you taken Christ as Messiah?

Messiah=Christ. There is no difference in meaning.They both mean the same thing --The Annointed One.

Elect=Chosen. The same thing applies. Both words mean the same thing.

Rudimentary stuff.

 

[EdSutton]

There is no difference in meaning.They both mean the same thing --The Annointed One.
...

Rudimentary stuff.

Uh- how did we get ffrom Calvinism and Lordship Salvation into politics, here??

The Annointed One - "Oba...!!" :laugh:

Ed

 

[webdog]

Web,

You mean to tell me after 3-4 years you have never seen me sign my name like this....

"In Christ...James"

?


You're reaching bud.

Exactly. Just showing you how ridiculous your No Lord Gospel claim really is.