LS & the RCC

[Thinkingstuff]

A discussion of the canon should be done on its own thread.

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."

Unam Sanctam AD 1302
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

yeah, the Catholics will argue that you're taking it out of context. That the Papal bull in 1302 was referring to Philip the fair and people who are already Catholics (it is not a statement to non catholics). The Papal bull was to show the king of France and others the supremacy of the church over their secular rules in regards to morality etc... So the arguement goes. A catholic is already submitted to the Pope and any authority outside the church is not. Basically how catholics understand it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

yeah, the Catholics will argue that you're taking it out of context. That the Papal bull in 1302 was referring to Philip the fair and people who are already Catholics (it is not a statement to non catholics). The Papal bull was to show the king of France and others the supremacy of the church over their secular rules in regards to morality etc... So the arguement goes. A catholic is already submitted to the Pope and any authority outside the church is not. Basically how catholics understand it.

Actually, I found (going by memory now) that they are arguing for the historic position that there is no salvation outside the papacy against Vatican II statements. They try to reconcile the apparant contradition and maintain Rome hasn't changed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, I found (going by memory now) that they are arguing for the historic position that there is no salvation outside the papacy against Vatican II statements. They try to reconcile the apparant contradition and maintain Rome hasn't changed.

Now that is a very possible thing. There are camps in the RCC one supporting a universal understanding of Unam Sanctum and those supporting Vatican II. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[EdSutton]

Let's stay on the subjects, not personalities

Me thinks LM has an axe to grind in regads to LS??

Yep...for some reason he thinks this is very important to post multiple threads about.

Ya think??

We should all have an axe to grind concerning false doctrine.

I agree with webdog, here.

I do not agree that this series of threads is any "personal referendum" on Dr. John F. MacArthur and/or Lou Martuneac (or anyone else, for that matter), despite several posters attempt to make it appear as such, not to mention multiple mischaracterizations of individuals and issues I have seen.

Two quick and easy examples of mischaracterizations would include the false accusations that have previously been made on the BB that webdog, Lou Martuneac and I (EdSutton), among others 'don't believe in Lordship' (despite that all three of us have posted that we in fact fully believe this doctrine) yet this 'charge' persists; that the same three (and others) 'do not believe in repentance' (which we have all specifically said we do believe in, and teach, and I have, personally, given multiple posts specifically detailing that fact) and one continuing mischaracterization of the issue at hand (and some of the individuals thereof) by referring to it with the pejorative labels of "no-Lordship" and "non-Lordship", as opposed to the accurate theological descriptive words of "non- Lordship salvation," which is a very different proposition, entirely, from "non-Lordship," by definition. Incidentally, I suspect most that use this label do actually understand this, but choose to make this subtle jab, anyway.

I do fully believe the teaching known as "Lordship Salvation" to be false teaching that morphs the blessed gospel of the grace of God, into an "another gospel" monstrosity, that mixes grace and works for salvation, and confuses salvation and discipleship into some amalgamation that is distinctively neither of the two.

[Not to mention that the teaching and proclaiming the one must or can "make Jesus Lord of your life" represents an egotism that exceeds that of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the most High." by suggesting we can "make Jesus" anything, when He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and God is the One who made Him Lord. (If anyone could 'make Jesus' to be anything, then that individual becomes God, and if that is not an 'heretical teaching', then I never saw such.)] (Bold for emphasis.)

IMO, a couple of folks, who have posted on this subject, recently, that we should or must "make Jesus Lord" might be well served to consider this previous paragraph I have just written.

Back to the 'main course':

That is in no way personally impugning any individual who believes and teaches such (Lordship Salvation). Nor, by the same token, is that any blanket personal endorsement of one who does not teach this.

As I have previously posted, I was aware of and came to hold this position about 20 years before I ever even heard of Dr. John MacArthur, and over 35 years before I ever heard of Lou Martuneac. There is certainly no axe to grind for me, and I really suspect not for most 'free-grace' adherents, but the allegation that there is such, serves as a convenient distraction to the actual issues at hand.

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

There is certainly no axe to grind for me, and I really suspect not for most 'free-grace' adherents, but the allegation that there is such, serves as a convenient distraction to the actual issues at hand.

Ed

You have used "free-grace" phrase many times in the last few weeks. How do you feel about that Grace Evangelical Society? I'm sure you do not agree with all of what they say, but an over all view is what I'm asking. Would you say you agree with their view of salvation? If you do not agree their view of salvation, what part do you disagree with. If there is no part you disagree with, just say so.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I believe and testify that unless a person repent and believe the Gospel, they cannot be saved. And I testiy that unless a person forsake all to follow Jesus they cannot be His disciple, in agreement with Holy Scripture.

Brother, the last time I read the Bible, it said it was still Jesus who bled and died on the cross, and rose from the grave, and the gospel was simply the good news of the eternal salvation of the sinner that His act secured.

How then can repenting and believing the gospel be the cause of their eternal salvation, if you mean eternal salvation, that is.

And I think that when Jesus said we need to forsake all, He was speaking in a way so as to emphasize our inability to meet His requirements 100%, which is "forsake all".

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I agree with webdog, here.

I do not agree that this series of threads is any "personal referendum" on Dr. John F. MacArthur and/or Lou Martuneac (or anyone else, for that matter), despite several posters attempt to make it appear as such, not to mention multiple mischaracterizations of individuals and issues I have seen.

Two quick and easy examples of mischaracterizations would include the false accusations that have previously been made on the BB that webdog, Lou Martuneac and I (EdSutton), among others 'don't believe in Lordship' (despite that all three of us have posted that we in fact fully believe this doctrine) yet this 'charge' persists; that the same three (and others) 'do not believe in repentance' (which we have all specifically said we do believe in, and teach, and I have, personally, given multiple posts specifically detailing that fact) and one continuing mischaracterization of the issue at hand (and some of the individuals thereof) by referring to it with the pejorative labels of "no-Lordship" and "non-Lordship", as opposed to the accurate theological descriptive words of "non- Lordship salvation," which is a very different proposition, entirely, from "non-Lordship," by definition. Incidentally, I suspect most that use this label do actually understand this, but choose to make this subtle jab, anyway.

I do fully believe the teaching known as "Lordship Salvation" to be false teaching that morphs the blessed gospel of the grace of God, into an "another gospel" monstrosity, that mixes grace and works for salvation, and confuses salvation and discipleship into some amalgamation that is distinctively neither of the two.

[Not to mention that the teaching and proclaiming the one must or can "make Jesus Lord of your life" represents an egotism that exceeds that of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the most High." by suggesting we can "make Jesus" anything, when He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and God is the One who made Him Lord. (If anyone could 'make Jesus' to be anything, then that individual becomes God, and if that is not an 'heretical teaching', then I never saw such.)] (Bold for emphasis.)

IMO, a couple of folks, who have posted on this subject, recently, that we should or must "make Jesus Lord" might be well served to consider this previous paragraph I have just written.

Back to the 'main course':

That is in no way personally impugning any individual who believes and teaches such (Lordship Salvation). Nor, by the same token, is that any blanket personal endorsement of one who does not teach this.

As I have previously posted, I was aware of and came to hold this position about 20 years before I ever even heard of Dr. John MacArthur, and over 35 years before I ever heard of Lou Martuneac. There is certainly no axe to grind for me, and I really suspect not for most 'free-grace' adherents, but the allegation that there is such, serves as a convenient distraction to the actual issues at hand.

Ed

Ed:

Thanks for sharing those thoughts.


LM

 

[jcjordan]

[Not to mention that the teaching and proclaiming the one must or can "make Jesus Lord of your life" represents an egotism that exceeds that of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the most High." by suggesting we can "make Jesus" anything, when He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and God is the One who made Him Lord. (If anyone could 'make Jesus' to be anything, then that individual becomes God, and if [/B] that is not an 'heretical teaching', then I never saw such.)] (Bold for emphasis.)

IMO, a couple of folks, who have posted on this subject, recently, that we should or must "make Jesus Lord" might be well served to consider this previous paragraph I have just written.
Ed

Ed, have you read "The Gospel According to Jesus"? On page 43 John MacArthur says..."We do not "make" Christ Lord; He is Lord!. MacArthur agrees with you.

 

[Aaron]

Hard demands?!?!?! Try IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS!!! An unregenerated person can't even understand, lest meet such demands!!

It's still impossible when one is regenerated. It's like telling a newborn to rise up and walk.

 

[jcjordan]

It's still impossible when one is regenerated. It's like telling a newborn to rise up and walk.

And it's exactly why our salvation is 100% a work of God and why I can't get any credit for it. Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[EdSutton]

You have used "free-grace" phrase many times in the last few weeks. How do you feel about that Grace Evangelical Society? I'm sure you do not agree with all of what they say, but an over all view is what I'm asking. Would you say you agree with their view of salvation? If you do not agree their view of salvation, what part do you disagree with. If there is no part you disagree with, just say so.

I use the phrase "'free-grace'" for the purpose of identification, only, as I have said multiple times, and the reason I place this inside a 'single' quote mark, is because the phrase itself is redundant, which I do recognize. Grace that is not free, is not grace at all, but merely a different one of the multiple theological monstrosities that are running around out there.

I have also said that I have am now, and have been an associate member of the Grace Evangelical Society for more than 15 years, for whatever that is worth. I did not seek to join (and in fact, had never even heard of them), but was given a one year full 'paid' membership by a friend about 17 years ago. 'Associate' memberships are free, and I have kept mine since. (I'm not evne sure he has done the same thing as have I, but my 'membership' serves to get me a free four-page newsletter every two months!) Personally, I love stuff that is free, like salvation.

The GES does not speak for me in any regard other than the one I just mentioned, any more than does any other 'body,' including my own home church. I also have some other long time friends who happen to be members of the GES, including a couple of them who are charter members, and none of whom I even knew were members until much later than I was, BTW.

As to the GES stated "view of salvation," here is exactly what it is stated to be.

Salvation

The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).

Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14 ; 5:24 ; 6:47 ; 11:26 ; 1 Tim 1:16 ).

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift. (Eph 2:8,9; John 4:10; Rev 22:17). (Affirmations of Belief, Grace Evangelical Society)

I agree with this statement, in general, and I have no major disagreements with any of this. It is certainly limited, for this is intended as a 'thumbnail' expression of one point of a Statement of Faith; it is not intended to replace the fourteen volume Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth; the eight volume Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer; or even the three volume Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge.

Ed

 

[webdog]

It's still impossible when one is regenerated. It's like telling a newborn to rise up and walk.

With man, it's impossible...but with God, all things are possible. We are indwelt with the Spirit for a reason. I would hope as a regenerated person you now know what it takes to follow Christ wholeheartedly.

 

[Aaron]

You must have a small view of God to think that you are truly loving Him with all your heart.

 

[MB]

Hi Lou;
I'm not sure if you believe this or not;

When one gets faith wrong and makes it a work or quality of the soul, they then must have faith as a gift of God. In order for that to happen they then need regeneration to precede faith. With that then they load all sorts of expectations upon the soul desiring to come to Christ. This is probably why MacArthur indicates one cannot be saved without “unconditional surrender…full exchange of self for the Saviour.” His subsequent books do not clarify or moderate these kinds of statements but only reinforce them.

An unconditional surrender is not a work but a total defeat and is the work of the one triumphant, not the man. The man ("being defeated"), has no other choice there fore is not the will of the man, but the winner. All this even though I do not know one single person who has unconditionally surrendered to God. Surrender yes but not unconditionally. Man always hold's back some favorite sin just in case even if it's only the freedom to do so. There fore there is no man with out sin. Anyone who makes the claim they have given everything up for Christ doesn't know what he is saying. I have heard preachers claim they are God's messenger. That they have completely surrendered their lives to Christ. It just isn't so. If it were there wouldn't be so many caught in some sin or another. We all confess regularly our sin to God and ask forgiveness. Not one of us can live a perfectly holy life. My proof of that is if I'm wrong show me one in life.

As far as faith being a gift. Many Calvinist make this claim. They're right! faith is a gift and scripture says so. Eph 2:8, Man isn't saved by his own faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Gal 2:16 Faith is accounted as righteousness and the only righteousness I can be judged as righteous in, is that of Jesus Christ. My own will never measure up even at it's best. Yes just like that verse says we believe to but our belief is only the hope of Salvation and not Salvation it self. Even our own belief is the total work of God Jn 6:28-29,because we are convinced by the preaching of His word. Both preacher and the Word are the works of God. Once convinced we are convicted, (again the work of God's spirit), and conviction brings repentance and confession unto Salvation. Salvation no matter what process you might believe in is always all of God. Man is simply unable to save himself.
We must believe inorder to be saved but we still have to know who and what to believe.
MB

 

[Jarthur001]

I have also said that I have am now, and have been an associate member of the Grace Evangelical Society for more than 15 years, for whatever that is worth.
[/SIZE]

Thanks,

And what others have been saying is that Lou rejects Grace Evangelical Society. So he is not in your group.

BTW...this is the full statement of faith..

AFFIRMATION OF BELIEF

Salvation

The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead. Repentance, rightly defined as a change of mind, is an integral part of this saving faith. No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism, or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered as a part of, faith as a condition for receiving eternal salvation. This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift.

Assurance

The assurance of eternal salvation is based only on the promises God makes in His Word that everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ alone possesses eternal life. Good works, which can and should follow regeneration, are not necessary to a firm assurance of eternal life even though they may have a secondary, confirmatory value.

Discipleship (Growing in Christ)

The ultimate goal of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer's life is to produce spiritual maturity reflected in consistent Christlike behavior and attitudes. Therefore, obedience to the Word of God, while not necessary for obtaining eternal salvation from hell, is the essential responsibility of each Christian. However, the Bible does not teach that this obedience will be manifested in all believers or to the same degree in all believers. If a believer does not yield to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his experience, failure will result, evidenced by sinful acts or even prolonged disobedience.

Motivation

The believer is assured of salvation from hell, and is eternally secure, since that salvation is based solely upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the receiving or keeping of that salvation cannot be an impetus for godly living. The Scripture, however, does present several motivations for obedience in the Christian life:

1. A powerful motivation for living the Christian life is gratitude to God for saving us by His grace.

2. Believers should also be motivated by the knowledge that their heavenly Father both blesses obedience and disciplines disobedience in His children.

3. Finally, every Christian must stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to determine his destiny in heaven or hell, but to assess the quality of his Christian life on earth. Anticipating either reward or loss of reward at the Judgment Seat should also motivate believers to perseverance and to faithfulness to God's revealed will.