Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed

[canadyjd]

1) The Epistle to James. You have your answer, you misinterpreted the issue.

I spend an hour or so engaging scripture in James. I look up the passages that demonstrate James is speaking to both believers and unbelievers. I show you the context of the passage you keep quoting (4:7-10) God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble. I, again, explain MacArthur's point of view concerning regeneration preceding faith to demonstrate that passage most certainly can be seen as a call to repentance and faith.

I spend all that effort to engage scripture and answer every single one of your questions and your response is......"you have misunderstood the issue".

Well, there you go. Lou Martuneac has made the proclamation that I have misunderstood the issue. No need to engage scripture (again). No need to respond to anything that has been stated in a substansive way (again). No need to explain "How?" or "Why?" I have misunderstood the issue.

Hey, I know, how about I take the time and effort to read Lou Martuneac's book? Then, I can write a review of that book so Lou Martuneac can dismiss it with, "you have misunderstood the issue".

No thank you, sir.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

1) The Epistle to James. You seem to have ignored what I posted earlier in this thread. Are you going to dodge this as well? Let’s look at it again.

“Perhaps the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...” (This appears in both versions of JM's TGATJ)

Here is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up," (James 4:7-10).

JM says this passage is directed to those who are not saved. He says this is the invitation to salvation. The passage opens with, “Submit yourselves…” very similar to JM's 6th distinctive.

So, you say, with JM, that some of James is for the unsaved. OK, let’s agree for the sake of discussion. We, therefore, have JM stating that James 4:7-10 “is the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles…”

Taking JM’s interpretation of James 4:7-10 at face value: Is he conditioning salvation on “submission, resisting the Devil, purifying one self, and humbling?”

Can you answer that question?


LM

 

[canadyjd]

You never read MacArthur, therefore, you never knew what he was teaching. You thought a few sentences from his website was all you needed to fully understand Lordship Salvation. Well, you found out that you did not understand LS as well as you first thought.

John MacArthur goes into great depth on his website concerning what he believes. Anyone who reads what he believes and teaches on his website and compares it to what you claim he believes and teaches will come to the conclusion that you that you are deliberately misstating his beliefs. It is so obvious that your accusations are laughable.

Anyone who attempts to engage you in an honest discussion of this issue will come to the conclusion that you are intellectually dishonest and are perpetuating a falsehood concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

Now, you won't read my book, even when I offer a free copy. Reading my book would show that I provided numerous biblical responses to the errors of LS, but you don't want to concede that. You prefer to perpetuate a falsehood.

When I state the obvious, Lou Martuneac, that you are perpetuating a falsehood, it is the truth.

When you make the same accusation against me, it is another falsehood and it is obvious that it doesn't apply to me.

Again, as I said before, if your published work is anything like what you post here, your book is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what John MacArthur believes and teaches. The foundation of your argument is a falsehood.

I have shown that to be true for everyone to see. You and your false accusations have been exposed. There is no denying the truth of that fact.

And yet, you continue to swim in your ocean of intellectual dishonesty, hoping against hope that if you throw enough mud, something might stick.

You are correct that we cannot move forward, and I see no value in attempting to communicate with you since you are obviously unwilling, or unable to do so.

I will, therefore, be content to expose your intellectualy dishonesty every time it rears it's ugly head.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

Rarely have I encountered fear in doctrinal discussions. Fear (cowardice), however, is the only reasonable explanation for your trying to run, dodge and hide from SkyPair's and my simple questions. You can't even bring yourself to answer a question, because you are afraid of what the answer will reveal.

You posted JM's LS distinctives, but you never read MacArthur, therefore, you never really understood what he was teaching. You thought a few sentences from his website was all you needed to fully understand Lordship Salvation. You found out you did not really understand LS, and now instead of coming to grips with that, you try to evade it.

Now, you won't read my book, even when I offer a free copy. Reading my book would show that I provided numerous biblical responses to the errors of LS, but you don't want to concede that. You prefer to perpetuate a falsehood.

Can you name any book you have read that answers LS? I have to figure you have not.

You have reduced your self to dodging questions. Is that intellectually honest? You tried to defend what you did not understand. Now, you are looking for a back door, a way out, trying to hide and hope you do not have to answer either way.

I understand your dilemma: If you answer, “Yes,” then you agree with a “commitment and unconditional surrender” for salvation message. If you say, “No,” then you have acknowledged that you defended something you now do not agree with.

Any reader can see exactly why are you afraid to give a “Yes” or “No” answer, and go on record about what MacArthur wrote in his 6th distinctive? Is this the honest way to deal with a discussion of Lordship Salvation or any doctrine?

You are going to dodge, not just my question, but SkyPair’s question as well. SkyPair asked you,

“Would you admit that JM’s idea of ‘Lordship’ (‘unconditional surrender ... submission’) is a ‘condition’ on something? He seems to say it is on ‘salvation,’ right? If you saying that God will save without the ‘condition,’ what is the condition required for?”

That is a harmless question. Are you going to claim Sky is twisting JM’s words? Why must also dodge SkyPair’s simple question to you?

John MacArthur wrote,

"Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction."

Why are you afraid to answer this question:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” (JM's words) for the reception of eternal life?

LM

 

[canadyjd]

Rarely have I encountered fear in doctrinal discussions. Fear (cowardice), however, is the only reasonable explanation for your trying to run, dodge and hide from SkyPair's and my simple questions. You can't even bring yourself to answer a question, because you are afraid of what the answer will reveal.

I answered your question in post #12 of this thread. I will repeat it here so that, once again, your falsehoods will be exposed by truth for all to see.

canadyjd: John MacArthur believes to be "born again", or regenerated, occurs prior to faith. It is an act of God's grace. Anything that follows, including the "reception of eternal life" occurs as a response to that act of Grace by Almighty God.

Consider the quote from MacArthur:

"Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6).

Are you saying that Christ will bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him? You must believe that, since you are rejecting what MacArthur has said. James 4:5-6 "Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: 'He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us'? (6) But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, 'God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

God jealously desires the "Spirit" which He "made to dwell in us". He gives "grace" to insure that outcome occurs. He humbles us (conviction of sin), and He opposes those that are "proud". They haven't been humbled. They don't have the Spirit of God working in their lives.

In MacArthur's teaching, the "faith" that involves "unconditional surrender" is also a gift of God's grace.

Since it is a gift of God's grace, and God requires unconditional surrender, God will not give the gift of faith that is deficient of unconditional surrender. Since God has regenerated someone by His Grace, and regeneration always results in a person's heart being turned toward Christ, we may conclude that those whose hearts remain set against Him are not regenerated.

Your continuing inability to accurately state John MacArthur's position simply demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty on this issue.

My question to you is, why don't you engage the passages to scripture that MacArthur uses to support his statements and explain why he is wrong?

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness could not comprehend it.

You posted JM's LS distinctives, but you never read MacArthur, therefore, you never really understood what he was teaching. You thought a few sentences from his website was all you needed to fully understand Lordship Salvation. You found out you did not really understand LS, and now instead of coming to grips with that, you try to evade it.

That is a big pile of cowpie.

Now, you won't read my book, even when I offer a free copy. Reading my book would show that I provided numerous biblical responses to the errors of LS, but you don't want to concede that. You prefer to perpetuate a falsehood.

If your published work is like what you post here, your work is full of misrepresentation, deception, and falsehood, and a very, very shallow understanding of the basics of scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

canadyjd,
Would you admit that JM's idea of "Lordship" ("unconditional surrender ... submission") is a "condition" on something? He seems to say it is on "salvation," right? If you saying that God will save without the "condition," what is the condition required for?

I explained this is my response to Lou Martuneac. Since I didn't directly say the name "skypair", Lou keeps accusing me of not answering you.

Yes, unconditional surrender/submission is a "condition" on something. MacArthur ties it to the reception of "eternal life".

I have answered your question directly. I ask you to do the same for me.

Will you acknowelge that MacArthur teaches that everything needed for Jesus Christ to bestow "eternal life" on someone is given as a gift from God, according to His grace, and by the power of Holy Spirit?

Will you acknowledge that John MacArthur teaches that salvation is completely a work of God's grace?

Will you acknowledge that John MacArthur teaches that men can do no work to earn their salvation?

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

Many words and still you are trying to dodge and evade the core question. This fear of yours is understandable.

I can appreciate how frustrated you must be. You never read John MacArthur’s books on Lordship Salvation (LS). You were, therefore, trying to defend JM’s interpretation of the Gospel without knowing fully what his position was. Then you got wrapped in a personality contest.

You are still trying the political gamesmanship to dodge a simple unambiguous question about his view of the Gospel. We see this all the time on the political talk shows. Ask a liberal democrat a question, and instead of an answer, they fire back with a question or smear tactic so they do not have to give a clear, unvarnished answer to a simple, unambiguous question. The O'Bama-Clinton side of the Democratic debate this evening was a good example.

So, let’s make this easier for you. This scenario is fair, and you should not feel that you must react with more evasion. Try to address the question.

Let’s pretend we never heard of John MacArthur. Let’s pretend neither one of ever read a book by him, which would make us even since you never read his LS books. Let’s pretend we never visited his web site. So, now you and I know nothing of a John MacArthur or anything about his personal position on any doctrine.

With that scenario in mind let’s pretend you and I met at a Baptist fellowship or Bible Conference. At lunch, men are informally discussing some doctrines. You and I never met, I asked the table, and you specifically, this question:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?

What would your answer be?


LM

PS: You wrote, “That is a big pile of cowpie.” Your reactions are showing.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

I posted the following in the John MacArthur & Dispensationalism thread.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if anyone wants to see if there is any truth to what Lou is saying, why not order the tape?
I just ordered a book by a pastor to see if I was correct or the other guy. I read the book and found out I was wrong and the other guy was correct about the pastor. Do I still like the pastor, Yes, but disagree with him on the subject that caused me to buy the book.

Bob:

Good words. The article John MacArthur & Dispensationalism: And Our Response is transcribed, but I also suggest men order the tape.

You’d be surprised how many people in the Lordship Salvation discussions have NEVER read any of the major works by the major figures in the Lordship debate. They do not like to hear this, but what many of them “like” a certain personality, and refuse to consider that the person they “like” and trust, might possibly be wrong on the Gospel.

This is what canadyjd is going through, and I have seen it numerous times in the past. He has not, and refuses to read MacArthur’s books as a study. He thinks reading a few non-descript paragraphs at a web site is all he needs to read to understand John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation (LS). IMO, jd has already seen some things that have concerned him and this is why he will not answer even the most basic question in a clear, unvarnished way.

I have always agreed that John MacArthur has made valuable contributions that all of us can be grateful for. His LS interpretation of the Gospel, however, is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3). He has a good reputation, well thought of by many, so when the LS issue arises, people who “like” him, just do not want to dig too deeply because it may reveal something they do not want to come to grips with. I commend TCGreek, he did the work and found that there are areas in JM’s interpretation of the Gospel that are of concern to him. At first he would not even consider the possibility.

In my book I note how MacArthur tells of a man who refused to read because he saw that he might have to choose sides. That is part of jd’s problem, only worse because he has chosen sides without understanding what he has chosen to side with. I had the exact same experience as MacArthur with an American missionary in South Africa. Here is the excerpt from my book,

In 1997, while serving as a missionary in South Africa, I was speaking to a fellow American missionary. This missionary did not know what the fuss between area missionaries over Lordship Salvation was all about. He was not happy that men were divided over the issue and said that he did not even know what the Lordship gospel was. I explained to him that Lordship Salvation is a serious deviation of the gospel, a serious doctrinal issue, other American missionaries were spreading it to South African national pastors, and I encouraged him to study the matter out for himself.

His closest ministerial friend in South Africa had been irrefutably identified as the leading advocate of Lordship Salvation among American born Baptist preachers in the Johannesburg area. Therefore, he decided to begin reading on the subject. This missionary began by reading John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus. After reading a very little of that book, he sent me an e-mail. He said that what he was reading was, in his opinion, a contradiction of earlier works by John MacArthur, which he had read in years past. He expressed concern about what he was reading in The Gospel According to Jesus. We met at a pastor’s fellowship a short time later, and there he told me that he stopped reading MacArthur’s book, and he was not interested in reading anything more on Lordship Salvation, pro or con.

What happened in this case was that this man had just begun to identify problems with Lordship Salvation, which, in his case, meant that he might have to confront the fact that his friend in the ministry had adopted, and was propagating a false interpretation of the gospel. Rather than coming to a conclusion and personal conviction through personal study, he opted to steer clear of the Lordship issue altogether. John MacArthur wrote about an experience similar to mine, “One very well known Christian leader told me that he had purposely avoided reading any books on the matter; he didn’t want to be forced to take sides.” (The Gospel According to the Apostles, p. 22.)

A long time ago I thought I could understand a man’s theology by doing a cursory read. I was wrong. My initial review of JM's The Gospel According to Jesus (TGATJ) in 1988 showed me some danger signs. I read some men who objected to LS. It was not until later, when I was thrust into the middle of the debate, that I did the hard work of buying and reading all of MacArthur’s major works on Lordship Salvation. (I did the same with Zane Hodges over his “Crossless” gospel) What I found was even more disturbing than what my initial read uncovered. MacArthur's unorthodox viewing of James 4:7-10 as an “invitation to salvation” is buried in one of his appendices.

I have ordered taped sermons preached by various men and transcribed them verbatim, word-for-word, so that I could study their message and give a fair analysis. After drawing some conclusions I phoned them to discuss what I heard and transcribed. I told them I wanted to be fair in my book, it was non-threatening. One would not discuss any of it, one was defensive, but gave honest answers, the third had an explosion within 30 seconds of my call: shouting and ranting. I had to politely say goodbye, and hung up. I can tell of pastors meeting to discuss this and the lead LS man in that meeting having verbal explosions, stomping around the room, and making crazy accusations against two of the men in the room.

My experience has shown a pattern among many men in the LS camp. If you question their LS interpretation of the Gospel, sincere doctrinal questions, they bristle and take offense that they are even being asked to explain what they believe. In my book I tell of a missionary saying to me that to question his pastor friend’s view of Lordship Salvation is to, “question the Lord’s anointed.”

If MacArthur was clear and orthodox on the Gospel, why do you suppose the IFCA called MacArthur for an open interview to discuss what he had written? They questioned his stand in regard to dispensationalism. They were shaken by a number of his polarizing statements in TGATJ. Two of his Master's Seminary faculty members expressed concern with TGATJ. (See IFCA Interview & Report)

Over the years a number of men have resigned from the IFCA over various doctrinal issues with JM. MacArthur’s, now recanted, views on the eternal sonship of Jesus, raised a huge flap in the IFCA. Year after year, JM signs agreement to the IFCA doctrinal statement. The problem is that he signs that statement and it is widely known that while MacArthur signs, but does not agree with portions of it.

To reiterate: men like jd do not want to dig too deep, do not want to read MacArthur’s LS books because it may force them to make a decision they do not want to make. It is bad enough for them to defend a personality and his doctrine that they do not understand, it is worse to be propagating a works based, non-saving Lordship message to unsuspecting believers and not even realize it.


LM

PS: I may create a new thread on this subject.

 

[canadyjd]

Lou Martuneac

I will answer your question directly.

Yes, John MacArthur teaches that unconditional surrender/submission is a "condition" on something. MacArthur ties it to the reception of "eternal life".

I have answered your question directly. I ask you to do the same for me.

Will you acknowelge that MacArthur teaches that everything needed for Jesus Christ to bestow "eternal life" on someone is given as a gift from God, according to His grace, and by the power of Holy Spirit?

Will you acknowledge that John MacArthur teaches that salvation is completely a work of God's grace?

Will you acknowledge that John MacArthur teaches that men can do no work to earn their salvation?

Will you acknowledge that John MacArthur basis all his teachings on his understanding and interpretation of scripture?

I answered you directly. I am waiting patiently for your direct answers to my questions.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou Martuneac

I will answer your question directly.

Yes, John MacArthur teaches that unconditional surrender/submission is a "condition" on something. MacArthur ties it to the reception of "eternal life".

I have answered your question directly. I ask you to do the same for me.

jd:

No you didn't. You answered a question, but not the question I asked. The question is:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?

You wrote, "condition on something." "Something;" What? The question is whether or not the Gospel conditions "the reception of eternal life" on “unconditional surrender…submission”

You wrote, "MacArthur ties it to the reception of 'eternal life'." I know what you are trying to accomplish. You want to steer this to what should follow the reception of eternal life. On that we would largely agree that genuine results should follow a genuine conversion.

The question on JM's 6th has to do with whether or not MacArthur requires “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life.

As I have noted before, many times I have interacted with LS men who try to steer clear of the LS requirements for salvation in preference for discussing the results of salvation. You are no different in your attempt at an answer.

My question is a closed ended question. A simple “yes” or “no” is all that is required. It is not a trap, it is a legitimate question based on the statement MacArthur made in his 6th distinctive.

So,

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?

LM

PS: I just answered your four questions. It is saved in MS Word. Once you give a clear answer, I'll post mine.

 

[canadyjd]

First thing, Lou Martuneac. I will not allow you to turn this into a debate about what I believe. That is not the question here. The question I have always had with you is whether you are accurately representing what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

To that end, I will answer your question concerning what John MacArthur teaches.

The gospel of Jesus Christ requires you to "repent and believe". Repentance is impossible for those who have not been regenerated by Holy Spirit. The faith involved in "believe" is not simple "mental assent" to certain facts. The faith that saves contains whole-hearted commitment and unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

MacArthur never uses the phrase "upfront commitment" for salvation. That is your invention. MacArthur sees salvation as a process that is completely a work of Almighty God that begins with regeneration and ends with glorification. One part of that process is the "transaction" in which a person exchanges all that he has for what Jesus Christ is giving to him (the reception of eternal life) by faith. That faith is a gift of God that will not be deficient an any way. It will always include whole-hearted commitment to Jesus Christ.

Now to your question.

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?

MacArthur doesn't use the phrase "upfront commitment". Other than that, I believe MacArthur would say "yes" to your question.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

I will not allow you to turn this into a debate about what I believe.

Alright, so another way to say you will not answer the question, but let’s proceed. What you believe has not been the question. The question was designed to allow you to agree or disagree with JM’s 6th. For days you refused to do so.

To that end, I will answer your question concerning what John MacArthur teaches. The gospel of Jesus Christ requires you to "repent and believe".

Yes, repent and believe, not Calvinism's definition though, but still no answer.

Repentance is impossible for those who have not been regenerated by Holy Spirit.

Wrong, regeneration does not precede faith or repentance, and still no answer.

The faith involved in "believe" is not simple "mental assent" to certain facts.

Agreed, but still no answer.

The faith that saves contains whole-hearted commitment and unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Salvation should result in whole-hearted commitment and unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. You are still not answering.

MacArthur never uses the phrase "upfront commitment" for salvation. That is your invention.

His LS message clearly invokes and demands a commitment made by the lost man to receive the gift of eternal life. I can drop off the word “upfront,” and still commitment is required for and before salvation is received, according to LS. “Upfront” for salvation is accurate, and still no answer.

MacArthur sees salvation as a process that is completely a work of Almighty God that begins with regeneration and ends with glorification.

Yes, I understand the 5-point Calvinistic underpinnings he draws from.

One part of that process is the "transaction" in which a person exchanges all that he has for what Jesus Christ is giving to him (the reception of eternal life) by faith.

MacArthur does use the word “exchange.” He wrote,

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom,” (TGATJ).

In the section JM is clearly referring to the salvation experience, the moment of the new birth. The word “exchange” is used twice in that section of his book. He is speaking of how to be born again. JM conditions salvation on “wholehearted commitment, a desire for him at any cost, unconditional surrender,” in “exchange for the Savior,” salvation.

The “part of that process” you have described as a “transaction,” is the reception of eternal life, that moment in time when a lost man is born again. You described that event as a “transaction,” an “exchange.” You are defining faith in terms of the lost man offering an “exchange” of personal “whole-hearted commitment” and “unconditional surrender” for what Jesus Christ will give him, i.e. salvation. The “exchange” of commitment and surrender is, as JM states, “…the sine qua non of saving faith.”

This “exchange” of man’s commitment for, as you stated, “the reception of eternal life,” is exactly the works based message, that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), which I have been saying it is. Offering commitment, surrender, obedience or anything else for salvation is to barter with the Lord for the free gift. That is works salvation, a false gospel.

You have stated what you believe the Gospel is, which is the Lordship Salvation view. Still, however, you do not answer the question.

That faith is a gift of God that will not be deficient in any way. It will always include whole-hearted commitment to Jesus Christ.

Faith is NOT a gift of God. This is another extra-biblical position from the presuppositions of 5 point Calvinism. As I have noted a number of times: Genuine conversion should result in genuine results, which is “whole-hearted commitment” to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands.

Still, no answer.

Now to your question.
Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?
MacArthur doesn't use the phrase "upfront commitment". Other than that, I believe MacArthur would say "yes" to your question.

Sorry, but MacArthur uses “commitment.” Actually he reinforces it by stating, “whole-hearted commitment.”

I’ll revise the question by removing “upfront commitment,” and replace it with your definition, “transaction in which a person exchanges.”

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require a “transaction in which a person exchanges” (now JM) “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?​

Now the question is consistent with yours and MacArthur’s position on the Gospel. The affirmative answer to that question confirms that Lordship Salvation is in fact a message that conditions the gift of eternal life on a commitment from a lost man as a “transaction” in “exchange” for eternal life. The very “Barter System” I have stated LS is.

That is works salvation!


LM

 

[canadyjd]

Alright, so another way to say you will not answer the question, but let’s proceed. What you believe has not been the question. The question was designed to allow you to agree or disagree with JM’s 6th. For days you refused to do so.

The question is not whether I agree with MacArthur. The question is whether you are accurately representing what he teaches. The fact that you do not is obvious for all to see.

Wrong, regeneration does not precede faith or repentance, and still no answer.

This is a perfect example of the problem with you, Lou Martuneac. I am stating what MacArthur believes and teaches. Your response is "wrong". I am not "wrong". I have accurately stated what MacArthur believes and teaches. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

Salvation should result in whole-hearted commitment and unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

And MacArthur views it all as a gift of God's grace.

His LS message clearly invokes and demands a commitment made by the lost man to receive the gift of eternal life.

MacArthur's "LS message" clearly and repeatedly states that the lost man is "responding" to God's grace, poured out upon him by Holy Spirit in regeneration.

MacArthur's "LS message" clearly and repeatedly states that the faith which contains "commitment" and "surrender" is, itself, a gift of God's grace.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge those facts demonstrates that your arguments are built upon misrepresentation and outright falsehood. It also demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, I understand the 5-point Calvinistic underpinnings he draws from.

If you do, you have never accurately stated it.

In the section JM is clearly referring to the salvation experience, the moment of the new birth. The word “exchange” is used twice in that section of his book. He is speaking of how to be born again.........The “part of that process” you have described as a “transaction,” is the reception of eternal life, that moment in time when a lost man is born again.

That is a deliberate falsehood. This is another reason I repeatedly point out that you are being intellectually dishonest. MacArthur's view of regeneration/being born again is that it is initiated by God, according to His grace, through the power of Holy Spirit.

MacArthur repeatedly states man does nothing to be "regenerated". MacArthur repeatedly states that God requires no prepatory work on the part of the person to earn salvation.

For someone trying to pass himself off as an expert, you would think you could at least accurately state what MacArthur believes.

The “exchange” of commitment and surrender is, as JM states, “…the sine qua non of saving faith.”

Yes he does. And MacArthur states that very faith which contains the whole-hearted commitment is a gift of God's grace. You always fail to mention that part of MacArthur's beliefs. Why? Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make it less a part of his teaching.

For you to fail to mention the whole of what MacArthur teaches on this subject demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

You have stated what you believe the Gospel is, which is the Lordship Salvation view.

I have not stated what I believe. You need to read the post a little closer. I have stated what MacArthur teaches and I have been far more accurate in doing so than you have.

Faith is NOT a gift of God. This is another extra-biblical position from the presuppositions of 5 point Calvinism.

The Apostle Paul and Almighty God disagree with you. Eph. 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." Of course, since Lou Martuneac doesn't like that particular verse of scripture, it must be "extra-biblical" and discarded; and anyone who believes it is teaching a false gospel, according to Lou Martuneac.

That is works salvation!

Only in the intellectually dishonest mind of Lou Martuneac.

You have been exposed by the light of truth. If you had any shame, you would write an open letter to John MacArthur and apologize for your repeated false accusations.

Your intellectual dishonesty can only be cured by swimming out of the ocean of falsehood and into the light of truth, Lou Martuneac. You can find it in scripture, such as the Eph. 2 passage mentioned above.

I know you have alot invested in the falsehood, Lou Martuneac. If your published material is anything like what you post here (and we must believe it is) then you've written a book and many blogs based on a falsehood and intellectual dishonesty.

Swim to the light of truth, Lou Martuneac.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Lou Martuneac said:

Faith is NOT a gift of God. This is another extra-biblical position from the presuppositions of 5 point Calvinism.

canadyjd replied:

The Apostle Paul and Almighty God disagree with you. Eph. 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God."

How can you make such an emphatic statement (all capitals "NOT") when scripture clearly says faith is a gift of God's grace? Is it that you do not know what scripture says, or do you simply ignore those parts of scripture that are inconvenient to what you want to believe?

In your misguided attempt to oppose anything you believe to have roots in "Calvinism" you have put yourself at odds with God's Word. That is a consequence of intellectual dishonesty. Eventually, you will shame yourself by what you say.

Or, I suppose you could now claim the Apostle Paul is teaching a "works-based salvation that frustrates grace" and a "non-saving message that is a false gospel". At least then you would be consistent in your intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps now you will write a book in opposition to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and claim what he teaches is an "extra-biblical presupposition of 5-point Calvinism".

You have invested alot in the falsehood, Lou Martuneac. But the reality is that it is still a falsehood, even though you have alot invested in it. The answer is not to defend the falsehood, for it has been exposed by the light of truth.

The only answer for you now,Lou Martuneac, is to repent of your false accusations against John MacArthur and embrace the truth. The more you try to defend the falsehood, the further you will swept away from the truth.

Swim out of your ocean of intellectual dishonesty, Lou Martuneac. Swim to the light of truth found in scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

Your determination to evade the defining question is remarkable. The circle-logic of five-point Calvinism is your escape mechanism, and it is sad you use it to avoid giving a clear, precise answer.

You never read MacArthur's books, you misunderstood him, so you defend what you misunderstand from the Calvinistic pre-suppositions that undergird Lordship Salvation's corruption of the Gospel of grace.

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require a “transaction in which a person exchanges” (JM's words) “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?

Now the question is consistent with yours and MacArthur’s position on the Gospel.

The affirmative answer to that question confirms that Lordship Salvation is in fact a message that conditions the gift of eternal life on a commitment from a lost man as a “transaction” in “exchange” for eternal life. The very “Barter System” I have stated LS is.

That is works salvation!


LM

 

[JustChristian]

jd:

In his 6th distinctive John MacArthur is describing what he believes is required from a lost man to be born again. With that in mind, here is the question to you:

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?​

My answer is, “No!”

Will you give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question?

I trust you are not going to dodge this question the same way you did last week; are you jd?


LM

Of course it does. But that's not easily accepted by today's "easy believerism" self styled Christians. Jesus said pick up your cross and follow me. Does that mean that the believer must unconditionally surrender his life to Him. Yes it does.

 

[canadyjd]

Lou Martuneac

I seriously doubt you've completely read any of my responses. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the same question over and over as if I had not already answered it many times.

There is really no point in continuing with you. I have accomplished what I intended. You, and your false accusations against John MacArthur, have been exposed by the light of truth.

You have been discredited. You cannot be considered a serious scholar or theologian or researcher by anyone with an objective mind. Your agenda clouds your judgement. Your exegesis of scripture is non-existent.

If you want to actually engage the text of scripture that MacArthur uses to support his position, I would probably respond. Otherwise...

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

What is event to any objective reader is that you have dodged, ducked and evaded the question on MacArthur's sixth distinctive.

You never read his books and finally found out that you did not understand what he is teaching. This is why you will not answer.


LM

 

[canadyjd]

You never read his books and finally found out that you did not understand what he is teaching. This is why you will not answer.

I understand MacArthur and I understand Lou Martuneac. I have accurately stated both positions. You cannot/will not/are not able to do so.

:wavey:

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

Having never read MacArthur's or my book(s) you sure take a pretty high personal opinion of your understanding of that which you never read. Not only have you never read MacArthur's LS books, you can't name any book you have read that answers LS?

You have, however, learned just enough to realize you did not understand LS and JM's view of it. This is why you refuse to answer the one simple, unambiguous question on his 6th distinctive.

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require a “transaction in which a person exchanges” (now JM) “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life?
​

I understand your dilemma: If you answer, “Yes,” then you agree with a “commitment and unconditional surrender” for salvation message. If you say, “No,” then you have acknowledged that you defended something you now do not agree with.

Any reader can see exactly why you refuse to give a “Yes” or “No” answer, and go on record about what MacArthur wrote in his 6th distinctive? Is this the honest way to deal with a discussion of Lordship Salvation or any doctrine?


LM