Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

[webdog]

It could be said of me, but it wouldn't be true as it is with Lou Martuneac.

I have not presented myself as an expert on John MacArthur and LS.

Even so, I can clearly see that what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches is easily demonstrated to be untrue by a simple comparison to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website.

Anyone without an agenda can easily see it as well.

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur and yet he cannot (will not?) accurately state the context of a quote from MacArthur's book which he often uses to smear John MacArthur with allegations of teaching a "non-saving", "works based" message that "frustrates grace".

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur but has given two contradictory statements concerning when MacArthur believes regeneration (being born again) occurs.

Lou Martuneac has presented himself as an expert on John MacArthur but will not acknoweldge that MacArthur on dozens of occasions in his book specifically states or alludes to his belief that salvation is completely a work of God, and is not based on any works of man.

Lou Martuneac has not let that fact stop him from a continuous smear of John MacArthur by comparing him to heretics and accusing him of teaching a non-saving message.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, or contributor to the BB.

Your selective self-righteous indignation doesn't change that.

peace to youraying:

Canadyjd has presented himself as an expert on Lou Martuneac and John Macarthur's work, and it is apparent and quite clear he is an expert on neither's work.

"Canady should not be considered a serious scholar, writer, blogger, comic book writer, journalist, director, actor, coach, sports columnist, talk show host, manager, news anchor, translator, mime or contributor on Lou Martuneac, John Macarthur, Rachel Ray, Tom Cruise or the BB"

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Contradiction & Lack of Discernment

To All:

Because of their emotionalism and lack of fair discussion practices I try not to name or directly reference the LS/MacArthur apologists. However, canadyjd just posted another ill-advised comment that needs to be drawn attention to. I would rather not have to embarrass him again, but he needs to be shown and others warned of how far askew of the true nature of the Lordship controversy he is looking in from.

His (canadyjd’s) history shows that for months he was trying to defend LS as MacArthur defines it, but admitted he had never read any of MacArthur's books. All the while he kept instructing BB readers to go to the Grace to You site and read MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation for the truth of what MacArthur believes.

Here is an example of what must have been the dozens of repostings by canadyjd of this referral and link to MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation.

I would urge all who desire to know what John MacArthur believes concerning Lordship Salvation to visit his website at:
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439

(See comment #2 under my article, Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed, which ironically is based on MacArthur’s Introduction to Lordship Salvation.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=46390

Today, he posts this amazing statement,

“When Lou Martuneac claims that this quote from MacArthur is ‘his definitive statement on Lordship Salvation begins with a paragraph that defines how MacArthur views a lost man must be born again.’ he is putting his intellectually dishonesty on display for all to see.”

Canadyjd spent months directing BB readers to that very on line article by MacArthur. Dozens of times he linked to and referenced that article as the source of what MacArthur really believes about LS. Now that I have referenced a paragraph from the same article he endorsed and demonstrated from that paragraph one of the egregious errors of LS canadyjd back peddles on his dozens of previous endorsements of MacArthur’s Introduction to LS.

This is what happens when a man who does not read or fails to read with discernment and therefore, does not understand what he is trying to defend.

Canadyjd, you should prayerfully consider bowing out of these discussions until such time you come to understand LS and exactly what MacArthur is teaching through his various apologetics on Lordship Salvation. If that time ever comes you might at least be able to deal with the teaching instead of the personality issues that dominate your comments and enflames your passions.

IMO, the tone and nature of your repetitive comments do not reflect the heart of a man who is living a Spirit-filled life at this particular time.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

Dozens of times he linked to and referenced that article as the source of what MacArthur really believes about LS. Now that I have referenced a paragraph from the same article he endorsed and demonstrated from that paragraph one of the egregious errors of LS canadyjd back peddles on his dozens of previous endorsements of MacArthur’s Introduction to LS.


LM

#1 No back peddling that I see. All I see is the LS people continually posting scripture to back up there position, and nothing but hot air from the other side. Are you incapable of presenting a systematic defense of your beliefs from scripture?

#2 Your "referenced paragraphs", are continually truncated sections of quotes, that you chop up and arrange how you wish to suit your purposes. You continually omit sections by Macarthur saying salvation is completely by faith, saying that everything we receive is a gift from God, and not by our own doing, etc. You seem to have a personal axe to grind with MacArthur, and so you deliberately malign and distort what he is saying.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

Lordship apologists continue with various mantra like comments that are disingenuous and IMO meant to distract attention away from the documented doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation (LS). Furthermore, their extra-biblical presuppositions that flow from the circle logic of five-point Calvinism cloud and confuse what otherwise would be a balanced view of the Gospel.

The post I opened this thread with demonstrates from a published work of John MacArthur that LS is a man-centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

As for full disclosure of how Lordship Salvation as defined by Dr. John MacArthur is a departure from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ I have several sources that thoroughly address this.

My book, In Defense of the Gospel (296 pages). The Revised & Expanded Edition will be published later this year.

My blog, with over three dozen articles dedicated to a thorough discussion of Lordship Salvation. The most recent, Is Lordship Salvation a "Barter" System?

Any objective readers of my book and blog note that I have quoted LS advocates liberally so that their views are portrayed accurately.

The problem for LS apologists is that the exposure of the obvious and unscriptural ramifications of LS make them very uncomfortable especially since some of them do not read and/or understand what they are trying to defend in the first place.

I will continue to let LS advocates speak for themselves and provide the Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Kind regards,


LM

 

[Havensdad]

To All:

Lordship apologists continue with various mantra like comments that are disingenuous and IMO meant to distract attention away from the documented doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation (LS). Furthermore, their extra-biblical presuppositions that flow from the circle logic of five-point Calvinism cloud and confuse what otherwise would be a balanced view of the Gospel.

The post I opened this thread with demonstrates from a published work of John MacArthur that LS is a man-centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

As for full disclosure of how Lordship Salvation as defined by Dr. John MacArthur is a departure from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ I have several sources that thoroughly address this.

My book, In Defense of the Gospel (296 pages). The Revised & Expanded Edition will be published later this year.

My blog, with over three dozen articles dedicated to a thorough discussion of Lordship Salvation. The most recent, Is Lordship Salvation a "Barter" System?

Any objective readers of my book and blog note that I have quoted LS advocates liberally so that their views are portrayed accurately.

The problem for LS apologists is that the exposure of the obvious and unscriptural ramifications of LS make them very uncomfortable especially since some of them do not read and/or understand what they are trying to defend in the first place.

I will continue to let LS advocates speak for themselves and provide the Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

Kind regards,


LM

To All:

I will continue to spam this board over and over again, with an advertisement for my book, which is put in such a form as to appear to be a response. I have no biblical data to back up what I am saying whatsoever, all I want to do is rant about how much I don't like Macarthur. Again, PLEASE buy my book. I am trying to cover publishing costs, and no one wants to read it.


Are there not RULES against this sort of blatant advertising/spamming?

 

[Jarthur001]

To All:

I will continue to spam this board over and over again, with an advertisement for my book, which is put in such a form as to appear to be a response. I have no biblical data to back up what I am saying whatsoever, all I want to do is rant about how much I don't like Macarthur. Again, PLEASE buy my book. I am trying to cover publishing costs, and no one wants to read it.

And there you have it.

 

[webdog]

To All:

I will continue to spam this board over and over again, with an advertisement for my book, which is put in such a form as to appear to be a response. I have no biblical data to back up what I am saying whatsoever, all I want to do is rant about how much I don't like Macarthur. Again, PLEASE buy my book. I am trying to cover publishing costs, and no one wants to read it.


Are there not RULES against this sort of blatant advertising/spamming?

I see you are still "lightening the mood"?

There are rules against lying and personal attacks, that's for sure.

 

[Havensdad]

I see you are still "lightening the mood"?

There are rules against lying and personal attacks, that's for sure.

If thats true, why was not this "Lou" individual censored three days ago? All he has done is lie and personally attack people. And you do your cause no good by siding with someone like that.

Why don't you distance yourself from him, and simply post scripture defending your position?

 

[webdog]

If thats true, why was not this "Lou" individual censored three days ago? All he has done is lie and personally attack people. And you do your cause no good by siding with someone like that.

Why don't you distance yourself from him, and simply post scripture defending your position?

Personal attacks by LM? Where? I see him attacking a position (as we all should do when it is not truth) but not individuals, unlike those who constantly attack LM's motives and heart.

 

[Havensdad]

Personal attacks by LM? Where? I see him attacking a position (as we all should do when it is not truth) but not individuals, unlike those who constantly attack LM's motives and heart.

Perhaps you need to borrow my dictionary.

Lou has called L.S. people:

disingenuous: deliberately deceptive, misleading or contriving (a liar)

This, among others...

Also, it has been pointed out in several instances that Lou has deliberately cut quotes in half, and put others together, so that it actually says the OPPOSITE of what the author is actually stating. This itself, is "disingenuous"

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Personal attacks by LM? Where? I see him attacking a position (as we all should do when it is not truth) but not individuals, unlike those who constantly attack LM's motives and heart.

Hello Webdog:

I appreciate your desire to expose what is going on, but for any objective readers it is quite evident. LS fails the test of Scripture, the published works of LS advocates clearly identify LS as a works based message that frustrates grace.

Their reactions are due to the devastating effects from the exposure of Lordship's faith, plus a commitment to works message. The reactions will not discourage or deter me from putting up a biblical defense against the theology and spread of Lordship Salvation.

I will continue alerting a wide cross section of evangelical Christianity to the egregious doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation.

Kind regards,


Lou

 

[Havensdad]

Hello Webdog:

I appreciate your desire to expose what is going on, but for any objective readers it is quite evident. LS fails the test of Scripture, the published works of LS advocates clearly identify LS as a works based message that frustrates grace.

Their reactions are due to the devastating effects from the exposure of Lordship's faith, plus a commitment to works message. The reactions will not discourage or deter me from putting up a biblical defense against the theology and spread of Lordship Salvation.

I will continue alerting a wide cross section of evangelical Christianity to the egregious doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation.

Kind regards,


Lou

Actually everyone here can see that the positions you are attacking, are self invented contrivances, not something MacArthur teaches. They can also see that all you are doing is smearing a man of God, in a shameless attempt to sell your book.

 

[webdog]

Actually everyone here can see that the positions you are attacking, are self invented contrivances, not something MacArthur teaches. They can also see that all you are doing is smearing a man of God, in a shameless attempt to sell your book.

Let's see...that is at least the third time you have alluded to his book as driving his motivations. The first couple of time you claimed it was to "lighten things up". It is apparent that Havensdad was being quite dishonest in this claim earlier today, and he intends to call out LM's character, motivation and walk rather than address the position.

Is trolling not a violation of the BB anymore?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

ReStart to Focus on the Documentation

In a few moment I am going to repost the opening comment that initiated this thread. It begins with an extended quote by Lordship Salvation's best known advocate. Objectve readers can weigh out the teaching of LS as articulated by Dr. MacArthur. Then you might want to comment on Dr. Hixson's review of MacArthur's comment. It will likely always be the case that anyone who disagress with LS is misrepreseting the LS advocates.

LM

 

[J.D.]

Many years ago, Curtis Hutson, Jerry Falwell (actually Ed Hindson), and an evangelist who's name escapes me at the moment, well they all got in a big row over the LS/EB issue. They obsessed over it until I was sick of reading about it in their papers, and then they eventually expanded it into personal attacks, publishing what each other was driving, how much salary they were making, etc. I finally got so fed up with it that I just up and cancelled my subscription for all of their magazines, even the one I side with doctrinally (LS), and I haven't received them since (although I did receive the Sword for a while after Hutson died). I'm not saying the issue is not important, for indeed I believe that easy believism is false doctrine that borders on rank heresy, but why can't some people just state their case and move on to something else? Well, my theory is that Lou can't afford to admit to the errors in his book, because if he were successfully discredited, he could lose his investment in it. So he has to hold his ground. When he is clearly shown that he has misrepresented the words of John MacArthur, instead of saying "oops, let me revise that", he just repeats the same misrepresentations over and over, apparently using the Clinton Method - if you're caught in a lie, just repeat it over and over until the uninformed masses assume that it's true.

I think there's something wrong with someone that is so obsessed with a single issue (LS) or person (John MacArthur) as Lou Martuneac is.

If John MacAurthur were an EB'er, I would say this about him: John MacArthur is one of the great pastor/teachers of our day, and a preacher with the spine to stand up and declare Christ to the world, whether it's in his home Church or on national television in the face of unbelievers, liberals, and catholics.

And as Porky says, b-b-b-b-b-b-b, that's all folks!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

ReStart to the Discussion

Restart to follow, but: Single Issue?

Any visit to my blog will currently show 45 articles on the Crossless Gospel compared to 38 on Lordship Salvation. And dozens more on various related doctrinal discussions.

Nevertheless, Lordship Salvation corrupts the Gospel by addition and it must be biblically resisted to help unsuspecting believers avoid falling into the trap of this works based, non-saving message.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Following is another example of Lordship Salvation as expressed by Dr. John MacArthur, but this time from outside his major apologetics, such as The Gospel According to Jesus.

“The saving faith in Jesus Christ that the New Testament teaches is much more than a simple affirmation of certain truths about Him…. Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, and it has certain indispensable elements that the New Testament clearly teaches. Saving faith in Jesus Christ involves the exercise of the will. Paul told the Roman believers, ‘Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed’ (Rom. 6:17). Salvation begins (from the human standpoint) with a person’s willful obedience in turning from sin to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Saving faith also involves the emotions, because, as in the verse just mentioned above, it must come from the heart as well as from the mind.” (Romans, pp. 204-5, bold added)

Dr. MacArthur is stating what he believes are necessary requirements to be born again. The use of phrases such as, “salvation begins…” confirms this. His Lordship message to the lost is that for salvation they must make an up-front commitment of absolute “submission” to live in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the free gift of God on a commitment to performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

In his new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong Dr. J. B. Hixson (Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance) addressed the above quote by MacArthur. Hixson’s response is found under a chapter titled, The Performance Gospel, pp. 304-5.

“MacArthur’s citation of Romans 6:17 in support of the notion that willful surrender and obedience must accompany saving faith is unconvincing. To be ‘obedient from the heart’ is simply another way of expressing what it means to believe. The ‘form of teaching’ to which Paul referred was the very teaching he had been putting forth, namely that righteousness comes by faith rather than keeping the Mosaic Law. The verse cited says nothing about obedience vis-à-vis turning from sin and submitting to the Lordship of Christ. Furthermore, the suggestion that saving faith involves emotions, based on Paul’s reference to heart is a strained appeal to the alleged distinction between the heart and the mind that is common among proponents of a performance gospel.”

There are numerous examples, such as the one here from John MacArthur, that remove any doubt that Lordship Salvation is a man centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).


LM

 

[J.D.]

In a few moment I am going to repost the opening comment that initiated this thread. It begins with an extended quote by Lordship Salvation's best known advocate. Objectve readers can weigh out the teaching of LS as articulated by Dr. MacArthur. Then you might want to comment on Dr. Hixson's review of MacArthur's comment. It will likely always be the case that anyone who disagress with LS is misrepreseting the LS advocates.

LM

No, please! Don't start this over again. Moderators, do us a favor and lock this thread!!! :BangHead:

 

[Marcia]

start a new thread on it and maybe you will understand what I am saying. You folks do not rightly divide the word and end up accusing others who try to do so of error, blasphemy, or heresy.
Jesus Christ is IN FACT Savior and Redeemer.
Your telling people they need to do or possess something in their part makes him a Savior-not-yet.
I'll be happy to discuss this.
I tried to start a new thead on it a few weeks back but no one seemed to pick up on it.

If I recall correctly from the past, you hold to universalism, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I might have you mixed up with someone else on the BB, but I don't think so.

 

[webdog]

No, please! Don't start this over again. Moderators, do us a favor and lock this thread!!! :BangHead:

Why not just do as you did with your magazines...cancel the BB subscription.