Questions for the anti-Lordship Salvation people..

[TCGreek]

You missed the point that good works don't require regeneration. I don't think anybody will argue that there is nothing good from within us, but when an atheist helps a child avoid being hit by a car, the "work" most definately honors God despite the condition of the person.

I understood it within a Christian context. Missing the point happens sometimes. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

I'm not sure if that is true. I'll tread very carefully here....but I wonder if it truly honors God when a good work is done to someone elses glory other than God. Any work that an athiest might do, is done out of another motive, other than glorifying God. Is this really honoring to God? I'm not sure it is.

I'm in agreement. The unregenerate can't do good works.The wicked,who plow are not doing anything "good" in God's sight.( see Pro.21:4)It's not as bad as killing someone -- but it's still a wiked act.Why? Because they are not doing the act with the thought of pleasing God.God is not in their thoughts.Do everything to the glory of God believers are told.The unregenerate,no matter how selfless or philanthropic they may be are,in actuality doing evil deeds.We have to have a vertical view of things;not a horizontal one.

Even a selfless act such as saving a child from sure death is not a "good work" from a biblical perspective.We have to be clear on what is really good.I think that many on the BB have the world's perspective on the matter.

Look at the example of the rich young ruler. He addressed Jesus as good. Jesus asked him why he called Him good. Was it just a polite greeting as he would give to any other Rabbi?

The unregenerate are not capable of doing what God considers to be good.And that's what matters,right?It doesn't matter if the world thinks something is good.

 

[EdSutton]

I’m against Lordship salvation;
I am too, and I believe most anyone who actually bothers to read my several posts on the subject of Lordship Salvation could see this.

the term "anti-Lordship" shows prejudice. Absolutely, as I have also pointed out several times.
Those that are against Lordship salvation still believe in the Lordship of Christ. Correct! At least that is 100% true of me, and I have yet to meet an advocate of "non-Lordship Salvation" who did not accept not only that "Jesus is Lord", and God made Him thus, but would not have the temerity to intrude into that Divine sphere, and suggest that somehow, 'They were gonna' do one better, and 'they' were somehow gonna' go one better than "King of kings anad Lord of lords" and somehow "make Jesus (to be) Lord of their lives." I actually find that audacity astounding, as I have posted before, as well.

My problem with Lordship salvation is that it puts the cart before the horse.
Well said in a truism.

It doesn’t separate the results of salvation from the requirements for salvation.
Exactly.

Your questions don’t reach to the heart of this matter. True, also, at least IMO. In fact, I believe, as I previously posted in post # , that jcjordan has already "made up his mind" as to what answers he is looking to get, and which ones he will accept. If I am wrong, in this, I apologize in advance to jcjordan for arriving at this conclusion, BTW.

Rob

Deacon, I would say you have hit the nail 'dead-center' with your head, here. :laugh:

There is not one word or phrase in this post that I can find to disagree with, hence this represents a short version of exactly where I stand and what I believe, to a 100% agreement.

Incidentally, glad to have you on board the same train I've been riding for 40 years. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I never claimed anyone was "anti-lordship". I was very careful to call it "anit-lordship (sic) salvation". I've never pre-supposed that that the NLS crowd had a problem with the Lordship of Christ.

I am not Deacon, but I will reply to this, in the 'Open Forum.' I did not say "anti-Lordship" (or that you used that phrase), and you are corrrect that you did not use that term, and were actually careful to identify in the OP, those of 'that persuasion as "non-LS", with even the words "anti-Lordship salvation" only being used two times, apart from the thread title of "This is my biggest concern with the non-lordship view....", and the text words in this post I am replying to.

But let's neither re-define nor re-word, here, shall we?

My own actual words were -

but I would offer that I have also asked that posters not use the pejoratives "non-lordship" and "no-lordship," since they are misleading, at best, totally inaccurate, and a questioning of someone's salvation at worst. (post # 16)

I still agree wiht the sentiments of that quote, FTR.

That said, I also now notice these words of yours in post #7. Incidentally, since I usually respond to the posts in the order as they are written, I was writing my words in a response to post # 9, having actually missed your wording of this, the first time by.

This is my biggest concern with the non-lordship view....

In fairness, you did not identify any particular person in your quote, in post # 7, althoug you did use the wording I oppose.. (Also in fairness, I have previously described the offending, to me, phrases, as pejorative.) I may not have directly asked that they not be used, but did post my displeasure with any such pejorative usages, of any terms, in a few threads, two of which I notice you also posted in. Those specific terms have been used by several varied posters (and I assure you, it was not my intention here to single you out, especially for a single post, where I actually missed it the first time through, as I said), and I object to them. So now I will directly ask everyone that such a pejorative usage not be made, please.

And I will accept your last statement in the above quote, as your POV, and I do think you to be sincere, here, in your response. Thanks,

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

It appears some who support the NLS now want to be self created martyrs as well as trolling mulitple boards with this stuff. It is a shame the gospel must be cheapened in such a way.

May I offer that I can speak for no others, here, but I certainly do not have any 'martyr complex.' I also post on exacty one board, namely this one. And I absolutely deny any implication that the Non-Lordship salvation view "cheapens" the gospel in any sort of way.

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration of what I have written here.

Ed

 

[jcjordan]

I am not Deacon, but I will reply to this, in the 'Open Forum.' I did not say "anti-Lordship" (or that you used that phrase), and you are corrrect that you did not use that term, and were actually careful to identify in the OP, those of 'that persuasion as "non-LS", with even the words "anti-Lordship salvation" only being used two times, apart from the thread title of "This is my biggest concern with the non-lordship view....", and the text words in this post I am replying to.

But let's neither re-define nor re-word, here, shall we?

My own actual words were - I still agree wiht the sentiments of that quote, FTR.

That said, I also now notice these words of yours in post #7. Incidentally, since I usually respond to the posts in the order as they are written, I was writing my words in a response to post # 9, having actually missed your wording of this, the first time by.In fairness, you did not identify any particular person in your quote, in post # 7, althoug you did use the wording I oppose.. (Also in fairness, I have previously described the offending, to me, phrases, as pejorative.) I may not have directly asked that they not be used, but did post my displeasure with any such pejorative usages, of any terms, in a few threads, two of which I notice you also posted in. Those specific terms have been used by several varied posters (and I assure you, it was not my intention here to single you out, especially for a single post, where I actually missed it the first time through, as I said), and I object to them. So now I will directly ask everyone that such a pejorative usage not be made, please.

And I will accept your last statement in the above quote, as your POV, and I do think you to be sincere, here, in your response. Thanks,

Ed

Thanks for your reply. I do understand how that term is just wrong and anytime I've used it, I apologize for it, but I am thankful that you understand my view on this. I'll try harder not to make this mistake in the future.

 

[EdSutton]

I wasn't lowering myself, nor was it a "tactic" - I was joking hahaha???? If you can't laugh at a joke, please don't take your bad mood out on me. Rather ignore it, unless you want to make a big issue out of petty things. I find your lack of humour rather painful, and perhaps that's the reason why no-one listens to you. You seem to harp on the negatives and ignore the positives because it makes you feel good to pinpoint and magnify everyone else's "tactics". Perhaps you should write a book instead on "how to make friends and influence people".

The definition of a joke: (for those who don't know)
Something not said seriously, or not actually meant; something done in sport.

And the truth be told - If I had any of John MacArthur's books they'd go straight into the trash can, I wouldn't waste my time burning them. And that's the truth and not a joke, so try not to get too excited about it.

O! Hail! Caesar!

FTR, I have used the word "tactic" exactly two times on the BB.

I guess I missed the supposed joke;

Or maybe I merely did not find it funny, since the humor of it seemed to escape me. I also assure you that I was in no "bad mood", but I do find it a bit strange, that (a.), one who has been around for two months with 90 posts can discern my sense of humor, especially as expressed on the BB for 2 yr, 7 mos. and in 6700+ posts so readily. Were you to actually check a number of my posts, you would find several that are mostly nothing more than "posted laughs" with smilies, such as this one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1257224&postcount=3

(Incidentally, I happen to disagree with your assessment of my sense of humor, although I have been accused of having one that is somewhat warped, by several folks, including my own late mother.)

As to how many may actually "listen to me" or not, I have no idea, unless they respond directly, in one form or another. I do attempt to post on issues (and facts), and try and never make anything "personal".

You are free to your opinion, I guess, as to whether or not I "harp on negatives, and ignore the positives" although strangely, I do not recall many who have ever said that before, although I have managed to rile an occasional poster, apparently. I certainly have no objection to your choice of what you do with any book, but if you choose to toss them from your own library, I will pay the postage to get them at no cost, even though I may not agree with their premises.

I actually seem to remember offering a "welcome to the BB" to you, and agreeing, in this copy-righted print, whole-heartedly with a couple of your posts.

And I do happen to fully agree with your basic substantive position, here, where I believe you oppose the position of "Lordship Salvation", as do I.

I wonder, does that posibly rate as a "positive"??

Oh yeah, I woulda' wrote that book, but I see Mr. Dale Carnegie "has done beat me to it."

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

It wasn't that long ago that I welcomed you as a new member of the BB.

But these kinds of 'jokes' are very distasteful.Wait a minute.It's a joke,but it's not a joke at the same time. That's nonsensical.

Do you read books by any Christian author?Since John MacArthur has written rather extensively on so many biblical subjects -- I really don't understand your venom.His book Charismatic Chaos did not deal with LS for instance.Most of his material may prove to be beneficial to your spiritual growth.He is a brother in the Lord despite what Lou says.

FTR, Lou Martuneac publicly endorsed Dr. John MacArthur on a couple of subjects, including, Charismatic Chaos,

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1268634&postcount=21

and has said he fully believes that Dr. MacArthur is a brother, assuming youe equate "saved" and "brother", as do I.

It is possible to fully agree that Dr. MacArthur is a Christian, as do I, and strongly disagree with Lordship Salvation, as a false teaching, as also do I. These two things are not diametrically opposed.

Ed

 

[jcjordan]

FTR, Lou Martuneac publicly endorsed Dr. John MacArthur on a couple of subjects, including, Charismatic Chaos,

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1268634&postcount=21

and has said he fully believes that Dr. MacArthur is a brother, assuming youe equate "saved" and "brother", as do I.

It is possible to fully agree that Dr. MacArthur is a Christian, as do I, and strongly disagree with Lordship Salvation, as a false teaching, as also do I. These two things are not diametrically opposed.

Ed

Ed, how to you square this with Galatians 1:8&9? Lou has claimed that John MacArthur preaches a false gospel.

 

[EdSutton]

It is not inappropriate. LSers DID respond on this thread even though it was addressed to NLSers. None of them interacted with the serious answers that were put forth by three (I presume) NLSers. Rather they responded with pictures of John MacArthur and pictures of Bibles. Actually, I guess I should be impressed with their response. At least they didn't post pictures of JM drawn with crayons! {'laughing smilie' deleted}

I gotta' admit, while I know there is a first time for everything, this is the first time I've ever been accused of being a "LSer". Or at least I assume that, considering I was the one who posted the picture of the Bible..

But I guess I'm in good (or bad) company, in this classification, for that other "LSer" to post a picture of a Bible was actually Lou Martuneac.

So now you all know: EdSutton and Lou Martuneac are really 'secret ' advocates of "Lordship salvation." [FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

I just gotta' repeat that! [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

(I'd go for three times, but the format will not allow it to post, and I'm not sure my side can stand it, either, without dislocating something!, so I'll just add [Snort!] [Guffaw!])
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
Ed
[/FONT]

 

[Rippon]

Ed, how to you square this with Galatians 1:8&9? Lou has claimed that John MacArthur preaches a false gospel.

I was waiting for Lou to address this. No false teacher can be a brother in the Lord. Lou says John MacArthur is a false teacher and preaches another gospel among other serious charges.He calls him a heretic.That word should not lightly be tossed around.If Lou says it's not a light accusation then he must have a put a Lou-meaning to the word. Heresy is soul-damning. Now if Lou thinks JM's teachings don't qualify to that degree he should back up and explain/apologize.

I don't regard Lou as a heretic.I think his teachings are sub-biblical to anti-biblical.I think he teaches a truncated gospel. He denies all five points of Calvinism. Even most folks on his side of the ledger would not go that far. Most think they generally agree with T&P.

It's not a requirement for a true Christian to hold to all 5 points. But in denying them all one shows a level of biblical weakness that is alarming.

But back to my original point.Lou is in need of defining his words at the very least.If he regards John MacArthur as a fellow brother-in-the-Lord he should drop all his charges of false teacher,heretic etc.A brother in the Lord can not also be a heretic/false teacher.

 

[webdog]

I'm in agreement. The unregenerate can't do good works.The wicked,who plow are not doing anything "good" in God's sight.( see Pro.21:4)It's not as bad as killing someone -- but it's still a wiked act.Why? Because they are not doing the act with the thought of pleasing God.God is not in their thoughts.Do everything to the glory of God believers are told.The unregenerate,no matter how selfless or philanthropic they may be are,in actuality doing evil deeds.We have to have a vertical view of things;not a horizontal one.

Even a selfless act such as saving a child from sure death is not a "good work" from a biblical perspective.We have to be clear on what is really good.I think that many on the BB have the world's perspective on the matter.

Look at the example of the rich young ruler. He addressed Jesus as good. Jesus asked him why he called Him good. Was it just a polite greeting as he would give to any other Rabbi?

The unregenerate are not capable of doing what God considers to be good.And that's what matters,right?It doesn't matter if the world thinks something is good.

We don't know the "good" Samaritan was saved...was his act deemed "good"? You are confusing the acts of the unregenerate being good in a righteous sense.

 

[webdog]

I was waiting for Lou to address this. No false teacher can be a brother in the Lord. Lou says John MacArthur is a false teacher and preaches another gospel among other serious charges.He calls him a heretic.That word should not lightly be tossed around.If Lou says it's not a light accusation then he must have a put a Lou-meaning to the word. Heresy is soul-damning. Now if Lou thinks JM's teachings don't qualify to that degree he should back up and explain/apologize.

I don't regard Lou as a heretic.I think his teachings are sub-biblical to anti-biblical.I think he teaches a truncated gospel. He denies all five points of Calvinism. Even most folks on his side of the ledger would not go that far. Most think they generally agree with T&P.

It's not a requirement for a true Christian to hold to all 5 points. But in denying them all one shows a level of biblical weakness that is alarming.

But back to my original point.Lou is in need of defining his words at the very least.If he regards John MacArthur as a fellow brother-in-the-Lord he should drop all his charges of false teacher,heretic etc.A brother in the Lord can not also be a heretic/false teacher.

Can you supply where Lou called John Macarthur a heretic? If not, retract it.

Your comments on those who don't hold to TULIP are arrogant and condescending. Really.

In one breath you don't claim Lou to be a heretic...but then state his theology is "anti biblical". The contraditions in your posts are blinding. Since in your eyes anyone not holding to TULIP is "anti biblical", I would say you must find their teaching to be "false" in the same sense I find those who hold to TULIP's teaching is "false". That is a "false teacher", whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[EdSutton]

Can you supply where Lou called John Macarthur a heretic? If not, retract it.

Your comments on those who don't hold to TULIP are arrogant and condescending. Really.

In one breath you don't claim Lou to be a heretic...but then state his theology is "anti biblical". The contraditions in your posts are blinding. Since in your eyes anyone not holding to TULIP is "anti biblical", I would say you must find their teaching to be "false" in the same sense I find those who hold to TULIP's teaching is "false". That is a "false teacher", whether you want to admit it or not.

Come to think of it, I don't recall Lou Martuneac ever labeling Dr. John MacArthur as an heretic, either, but I could have missed it, I guess.

I'm sure that that Rippon will show us the post or posts where that did happen, considering he made that statement. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to go back and re-read hundreds of posts, in order to find it.

Ed

 

[jcjordan]

Come to think of it, I don't recall Lou Martuneac ever labeling Dr. John MacArthur as an heretic, either, but I could have missed it, I guess.

I'm sure that that Rippon will show us the post or posts where that did happen, considering he made that statement. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to go back and re-read hundreds of posts, in order to find it.

Ed

I don't know if LM has ever used the term "heresey", but he has said that it is a false or corrupted gospel. Here are a couple of examples:

This is a message that conditions eternal salvation on the lost man making a commitment to “forsake” (stop) sinning, start obeying and keep obeying over a life time. That is WORKS salvation! Lordship Salvation is a corruption of the “simplicity that is in Christ,” (2 Cor. 11:3).

Lordship Salvation is a corruption of “the simplicity that is in Christ.” Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, message that is antithetical to the biblical plan of salvation. Lordship Salvation frustrates grace

 

[EdSutton]

Speakin' of defining of words... From Rippon, with my own comments interspersed:

I was waiting for Lou to address this. No false teacher can be a brother in the Lord.
Do you have a Scripture that teaches this, or is this merely an opinion? And at what point does one teaching something that is 'false' cross that invisible "line in the sand?" Is it located at 1% Error? 2% Error? 3.6% Error? 13.3% Error? 41.4% Error? 56.4% Error? 82.8% Error? Where exactly is the line located? I am certain that I am not 100% correct in what I understand in everything I believe and teach. I seriously doubt that I am hitting at 99% or 98%, either. But I also seriously do not think that I am in error at any 82.8% rate, or even anywhere close to half that, at 41.4%, either. So just where is this cut-off line?

Lou says John MacArthur is a false teacher and preaches another gospel among other serious charges.
I'll agree that "false teacher" and "preaches another gospel" are serious charges. I do not think the Bible addresses such lightly. (Gal. 1:6-10; II Pet. 2)

He calls him a heretic.
(I do not recall this, but as I have already posted, I will await to find out where this has occurred.)

That word should not lightly be tossed around.
I agree.

If Lou says it's not a light accusation then he must have a put a Lou-meaning to the word.
Nothing like tossing in a little free ad hominem shot, right??

Heresy is soul-damning.
Whose soul?

Now if Lou thinks JM's teachings don't qualify to that degree he should back up and explain/apologize.

I don't regard Lou as a heretic.
And?

I think his teachings are sub-biblical to anti-biblical. I think he teaches a truncated gospel. He denies all five points of Calvinism. Even most folks on his side of the ledger would not go that far. Most think they generally agree with T&P.

It's not a requirement for a true Christian to hold to all 5 points. But in denying them all one shows a level of biblical weakness that is alarming.
Then I guess you would put me in this same classification, as one whose teachings are "sub-biblical to anti-biblical"; (Isn't that effectively 'heresy' or 'heretic' by definition??) as one who "teaches a truncated gospel" [Is that not "another gospel" by definition? And if so, would I not be 'accursed', since in fact (in your mind), I am preaching "another gospel"?] I deny all five points of 'Dordt-ism', as well, since calling this Calvinism, is a misnomer, considering John Calvin had been dead for over 50 years, and had nothing to do with the formulation of them. FTR, I also deny all five points of "the Remonstrants," as well, for the wordings of neither are found in Scripture, from what I have been able to find. Arminius was also dead prior to those Articles being drawn up, so that Arminian is a misnomer, as well. One may find some general or even specific Biblical principles in the exposition of the positions, based on the Scriptures themselves, but I assure all one will not find any of the phrases of "Total Depravity", "Unconditional Election", "Limited Atonement", "Irrestible Grace", or "Perseverance of the Saints", in Scripture, any more than one will find the phrases of "Limited Depravity", "Conditional election", "Unlimited Atonement", "Resistable Grace", or "Perseverance of the Saints" in Scripture.

(Uh- did I just repeat myself?? Think about that one, folks! "Perseverance" = "Perseverance"! Also consider this. There is a reason why both "systems" most energetically defend their own takes on "perseverance" and "depravity" as well, for if one 'knocks out the props' from either of these points, the whole System immediately collapses of its own weight, something that does not happen nearly so readily with the other points.)

I do accept a 'total depravity', as having to do with an unsaved man's standing and state before God, but not as articulated by Dordt-ians as "Total Inability", and expressed as such by Drs. Loraine Boettner, Herman Hoeksema, et. al, where there is a big difference, theologically, but which is often obscured in the rhetoric. "Total Inability", by definition, demands that "regeneration precedes faith", a la some who have posted on this subject, a position I do not subscribe to, by any stretch. Likewise, I accept an 'atonement' that was a once for all time event in 'paying the price' for all sins, but that is as close as I come to subscribing to any of these ten points, as the systems define and articulate them. And how (and why) does denying "five Points" of some theological system show a Biblical weakness, anyway.

And as I noted, I did not deny five points, but ten.

Does that make someone holding similar views to mine "doubly weak?" (I have offered numerous Scriptures to support every Biblical argument I have made on the subject of Lordship Salvation, I believe. I just have little interest in supporting and citing "theological points" to prop up any system, of any description.)

But back to my original point. Lou is in need of defining his words at the very least.
I really believe you mean "re-defining" of words. Either that, or giving unqualified agreement to the definitions you offer, which I am in no way inclined to do. Where Lou Martuneac, stands, just as where Rippon stands regarding this subject, especially, unlike perhaps a couple of other posters on this thread, is not especially hard to determine. And Lou Martuneac, as has Rippon, and as I, EdSutton, have, have all defined where we stand, fairly clearly, IMO. The fact that I refuse to let another define words for me, does not mean I am not defining my own words, with a case in point, being "repent", for a quick example.

If he regards John MacArthur as a fellow brother-in-the-Lord he should drop all his charges of false teacher,heretic etc. A brother in the Lord can not also be a heretic/false teacher.
Yer' repeatin' yourself!

I already addressed this last sentence, at the start of the post, by asking for a reference.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

Ed,I will repeat :No false teacher can be a brother in the Lord. Such a person is unregenerate;a reprobate.Certainly a false teacher is unsaved.

But there were also false prophets among the people,just as there will be false teachers among you.They will cecretly introduce destructive heresies,even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them --bringing swift destruction on themselves.Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.Their condemnation has long been hanging over them,and their destruction has not been sleeping.( 2 Peter 1-3)

Do you understand the import of that?If anyone calls someone a false teacher -- those things itemized above will apply. It is reprehensible that Lou would charge JM with being a false teacher.And if you try to defend Lou in this respect -- shame on you.

Being a false teacher doesn't fall into your cute little categorization of percentages.We're talking about majors here -- not things like erring in eschatology. The most God-honoring Bible teacher/preacher will not get every particular right.You very well know that's not what being a false teacher deals with.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Your Off-Course Ramblings

You went off-tract on Calvinism and Arminianism which had nothing to do with the-subject-at-hand.But I'll deal with some of that here; with no other distractions.

Sure John Calvin did not formulate the 5 propositions.But the handle of 'Calvinism' will do.He had structured the biblical system years before.Despite the wranglings of some -- the conclusions of the Synod of Dort were in harmony with John Calvin's writings.

The wordings are not found in the Scriptures?Must everything in a biblical creed/confession of faith be in KJV-speak?The Canons of Dort summarize quite cogently biblical concepts relating to the errors of the Remonstrants.The terms 'Trinity' and 'accounability of man' are also not found in the Bible;but they are scriptural nonetheless.Besides,if you take the time to go through the Canons of Dort you will note ample scriptural support as you will find in the Westminster Confession Of Faith also.

Mr. Harmenszoon died 10/19/1609.He was told to write up a defense of his particular beliefs in a report.His followers -- the Remonstrants/Arminians met together at The Hague starting on 1/14/1609.Jan Uytenbogaert was put in charge of drawing up the original 5 points which the Calvinists rejected at the Synod of Dort (1618/19).The document was signed by all of the Remonstrants by July of 1610.That's not so long after the death of Mr. Harmenszoon.I'm sure his input was considerable beforehand.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,I will repeat :No false teacher can be a brother in the Lord. Such a person is unregenerate;a reprobate.Certainly a false teacher is unsaved.

But there were also false prophets among the people,just as there will be false teachers among you.They will cecretly (sic) introduce destructive heresies,even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them --bringing swift destruction on themselves.Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.Their condemnation has long been hanging over them,and their destruction has not been sleeping.( 2 Peter 1-3)

Do you understand the import of that?If anyone calls someone a false teacher -- those things itemized above will apply. It is reprehensible that Lou would charge JM with being a false teacher.And if you try to defend Lou in this respect -- shame on you.

Being a false teacher doesn't fall into your cute little categorization of percentages.We're talking about majors here -- not things like erring in eschatology. The most God-honoring Bible teacher/preacher will not get every particular right.You very well know that's not what being a false teacher deals with.

First and foremost, I have no particular desire or intention to 'defend' anyone, particularly, for something they may or may not believe. And I did not mention eschatology, at all, FTR.

One of my own closest personal friends [who incidentally happens to be a mostly inactive junior member of the BB (five posts in two years), with the handle or Rance], is a very avid advocate of one particular idea, that I find to be at variance with Scripture, and he happens to be a huge 'fan' of one particular individual. (By and large, this individual seldom pops up in discussions on the BB, for which I personally am grateful.) If and when these ideas do show up, I will and do oppose them with vigor. It is not ever 'personal', for me.

I did ask would you likewise consider Lou Martuneac (and me, EdSutton, by implication), and now I will toss in a few others, whom I willnot name, particularly, since they also have all strongly stated an advocacy of what is known by the somewhat misleading moniker of "free grace" as holding to ideas that you consider to be false, and thus also be "false teachers"? You have stated that you believe to be "sub-biblical or anti-biblical", I believe, in post # What exactly does that mean, if I may press on here? Do those advocating such ideas that you consider "anti-biblical" meet any criteria for a "false teacher"?

"Anti-biblical" doesn't exactly equal 'orthodox' in my book, anyway, so I would ask if it still does, in yours? I was not 'trying to be cute', with any percentages, as well. But, how much 'false teaching' is too much? I do consider that to be a legitimate question.

And I am still not so sure about your opening statements, Biblically (or in accordance with what I believe to be your theological persuasion), either.
These false teachers were "denying the sovereign Lord who bought them..." [(NIV & TNIV) interesting you should choose one of these versions to cite here, considering they are the only major 'standard versions' to render the word "sovereign" in this, not to mention the rendering of some form of 'sovereign' in them (along with the NLV) almost 300 times (vs. a maximum of 8 in the other 'standard' versions), but I do digress (Ed smacks himself with a 'red herring!')]

Is not one who is 'bought by the sovereign Lord' a saved individual, according to your belief? And if so, does this not apply here, as well?

Incidentally, I do want to pursue this feller

"down the trail" for a second, closing this post, since you did bring up "unregenerate", above.

I believe, if I am not mistaken that you hold that "regeneration precedes faith". If regeneration is equal to being 'born again', why is there any need for one to believe? (webdog has already mentioned this elsewhere, as well.) Does not "regeneration" equal salvation?? (John 3:3-7; I Pet. 1:23) If not, why not? Not to mention, could there not be (according to this view) those who are saved, yet have not believed, at all? I suggest that the idea that regeneration precedes faith", flies in the face of multiple Scriptures, frankly, especially those found in Jn. 3:16-17, 36; 5:24; 6: 40, 47 & I Tim. 1:16.

Biblically, 'regeneration presupposes faith!'

Ed

 

[Rippon]

You did not address what I said Ed.