Sixth Lordship Distinctive- Reviewed

[canadyjd]

Lou Martuneac

Have a nice life:wavey:

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

I truly understand your fear of and refusal to deal with the question. Your determination to evade the defining question is remarkable.

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 never understood in the first place.

It is too bad that you have had to evade and dodge one simple, unambiguous question.


LM

 

[J.D.]

Lou Martuneac: jd nails it here when he says that JM nevers used the words "upfront committment". "That was your invention." He has exposed your error, so why don't you just take your licking and move on instead of trying to smear his reputation as with John MacArther's?

 

[Rippon]

Lou Martuneac: jd nails it here when he says that JM nevers used the words "upfront committment". "That was your invention." He has exposed your error, so why don't you just take your licking and move on instead of trying to smear his reputation as with John MacArther's?

Ditto to what J.D. and jd have said . Lou , you have issues that need attending to . Go out and get a real heretic in your sights and nail him for all he's worth . Don't waste your breath trying desperately to paint John MacArthur as heterodox . You should wish to be half as biblical as Pastor MacArthur .

 

[skypair]

JD and jd,

I believe that JM is making the same appeal the Catholics do. They believe they are "elect" through infant baptism and that all their life they are making God "Lord." Even early Reformers didn't give up this notion that "original sin" was taken care of in infant baptism and that there was no other "work" that would later save. Therefore, "Lordship" becomes the Reformer's sacerdotalism as the sacraments are to Catholics and as the sacrifices were to Judaism.

You would agree, wouldn't you, that there is nothing one can do to be "elect"/saved, right? And if you keep repenting of your sins and believing on Christ's "Lordship," you are "elect"/saved?

You appear to see the "James connection" ("faith without works is dead") in the life of the "elect" as we do among those we call "saved." However, you refuse to make that connection when it comes to the reception of salvation itself. Why is the "work" of belief not the "sinner's prayer" or some such "confession" that results in salvation??

skypair

 

[JustChristian]

The Calvinistic presuppositions are not the real issue in this thread. It has to be engaged because it is interjected in mantra like fashion.

The real issue is what John MacArthur wrote in that statement. He is describing what he believes is required from a lost man to be born again.

With that in mind, here is a question for all to answer:

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

My answer is, “No!”

I trust the Lordship Salvation advocates are willing to give a clear, unvarnished answer to this simple unambiguous question.


LM

Does the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST require repentence and being born again for salvation. OF COURSE. And this is NOT repentance that is given by God with no responsibility on man's part.

 

[canadyjd]

I believe that JM is making the same appeal the Catholics do. They believe they are "elect" through infant baptism and that all their life they are making God "Lord." Even early Reformers didn't give up this notion that "original sin" was taken care of in infant baptism and that there was no other "work" that would later save. Therefore, "Lordship" becomes the Reformer's sacerdotalism as the sacraments are to Catholics and as the sacrifices were to Judaism.

I can honestly say that I do not believe I will ever understand how you come to your conclusions. What you have said makes no sense to me.

Why is the "work" of belief not the "sinner's prayer" or some such "confession" that results in salvation??

Because that is not how it is presented in scripture, skypair.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I truly understand your fear of and refusal to deal with the question. Your determination to evade the defining question is remarkable.

It is too bad that you have had to evade and dodge one simple, unambiguous question.

Lou Martuneac:

You stated in the very first post of this thread the following:

Lou Martuneac: Remember, when you read JM’s #6 he is writing on what he believes are the necessary conditions for the reception of eternal life, to be born again.

You have acknowledged (and disagree) that John MacArthur believes being "born again" occurs prior to salvation, and is a gift of God.

My question to you, then, is when you made the previous quote, where you:
a) deliberately lying
b) ignorantly lying
c) being intellectually dishonest
d) both a and b.

I had, at first, believed you to be ignorantly lying. However, since the truth has been plainly explained to you on numerous occasions and you still perpetuate the falsehood, I must now conclude you were deliberately lying, thereby exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

The title of your next book should be, "How to smear a good man's character without engaging scripture"

It is, apparantly, the only thing you are good at.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

No matter how much you complain, distort and try to distract attention, you have been unwilling and afraid to answer the question on MacArthur's 6th distinctive.

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

The plain meaning of what is there caught you by surprise and this is why you won't deal with it without retreating to the extra-biblical regeneration before faith.

I understand your problem, you never read any of JM's books on LS, and you never read any books that take the opposing view. So you did not know or understand what you were dealing with, and wound up defending a personality.


LM

 

[HankD]

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

No, and my explanation is prefaced by this statement: IMO, "unconditional surrender...submission" is the old Methodist doctrine of "sinless perfection" (sometimes called being "wholly sanctified") in disguise.

Suppose someone makes (or believes he has made) this so called "unconditional surrender".

Then a few days later he/she sins, even a "small" sin (e.g. goes over the speed limit). Then an argument can be made that this individual has not made an unconditional surrender" because the Scripture says to Christians:

2 Peter 2

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.​

and...​

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.​

So, If we go 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone we have resisted "the ordinance of God" and have not submitted ourselves to the the ordinance of God "for the Lord's sake".​

Well, one may say, 1 infraction doesn't prove anything. Well then, how many infractions does it take?​

Or take this Scripture for instance:​

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Who has lived up to this?
Does anything less than unceasing prayer prove that an "unconditional surrender" has NOT been made?​

HankD​

 

[canadyjd]

No matter how much you complain, distort and try to distract attention, you have been unwilling and afraid to answer the question on MacArthur's 6th distinctive.

The plain meaning of what is there caught you by surprise and this is why you won't deal with it without retreating to the extra-biblical regeneration before faith.

I understand your problem, you never read any of JM's books on LS, and you never read any books that take the opposing view. So you did not know or understand what you were dealing with, and wound up defending a personality.

You have been exposed. Your false statements have been exposed. You are deliberately perpetuating a falsehood against John MacArthur. You are unable to engage scripture on the matter and, instead, choose the only thing you know. You attempt to smear with intellectually dishonest statements.

You have written a book and numerous blogs based on a falsehood. You do not have the moral courage to admit your error, you simply perpetuate the falsehood.

You cannot be considered a serious scholar or thelogian by anyone with an objective mind. Your agenda has clearly clouded your judgement. Your exegesis of scripture is non-existent.

You are swimming in an ocean of intellectual dishonesty, and swimming further from the truth with every passing second. You live in a sea of your own deception. Your arrogance has blinded you to the truth and pulled you into a ditch.

I have demonstrated a better grasp of what John MacArthur believes and teaches than you have.

I have more accurately expressed what John MacArthur believes and teaches than you have.

Good day to you, Lou Martuneac

 

[Lou Martuneac]

jd:

The more you complain the more loudly it shows you refuse to address the issue with JM's sixth distinctive.

We know you don't want to answer because you never read or understood LS in the first place.


LM

 

[webdog]

No, and my explanation is prefaced by this statement: IMO, "unconditional surrender...submission" is the old Methodist doctrine of "sinless perfection" (sometimes called being "wholly sanctified") in disguise.

Suppose someone makes (or believes he has made) this so called "unconditional surrender".

Then a few days later he/she sins, even a "small" sin (e.g. goes over the speed limit). Then an argument can be made that this individual has not made an unconditional surrender" because the Scripture says to Christians:

2 Peter 2

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.​

and...​

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.​

So, If we go 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone we have resisted "the ordinance of God" and have not submitted ourselves to the the ordinance of God "for the Lord's sake".​

Well, one may say, 1 infraction doesn't prove anything. Well then, how many infractions does it take?​

Or take this Scripture for instance:​

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Who has lived up to this?
Does anything less than unceasing prayer prove that an "unconditional surrender" has NOT been made?​

HankD​

Good post :thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

jd:

The more you complain the more loudly it shows you refuse to address the issue with JM's sixth distinctive.

We know you don't want to answer because you never read or understood LS in the first place.

I have demonstrated, again and again, a far better understanding of John MacArthur's positions than you have. You have done the only thing you know how to do; you attack personally without any proof of anything you say.

I have demonstrated your false statements by direct comparison of what you claim MacArthur believes and teaches to what he actually believes and teaches; and I have provided to anyone who wants to see for themselves a link to John MacArthur's actual words. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2439
You provide links to your blogs so they can see more falsehood.

I have demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty on many occasions and have explained from scripture and from John MacArthur's own words WHY your statements are intellectually dishonest.

You continue to make the same baseless allegations, offering neither proof nor analysis of scripture as a foundation for your allegation. You continue to refuse to engage scripture on the issue.

John MacArthur uses scripture to support everything he believes.

You offer your opinion as if it were scripture.

Whatever scripture verses MacArthur uses to support his position are dismissed, and the same old charge of "that's an extra-biblical belief" is made; without offering any analysis of the scripture mentioned.

You have written a book and numerous blogs based on a demonstrated falsehood. You should be ashamed, but cannot muster the moral courage to admit you are not only wrong, but have been deliberately misleading.

You, therefore, desperately try to change the subject to me and what I believe, rather than on the real question of whether you are accurately representing what John MacArthur believes; I have demonstrated to everyone that you do not.

You have been exposed by the truth.

You are withering in the direct light of truth.

You are sinking in the quicksand of your own deception and falsehood.

Your only hope is to admit your deliberate false statements, write a letter of apology to John MacArthur, and have your book of falsehoods removed from circulation.

I have said all to you, Lou Martuneac, that I intend to.

 

[webdog]

Can we quit attacking posters and attack the positions? This is becoming a broken record...

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Can we quit attacking posters and attack the positions? This is becoming a broken record...

Web:

jd had to turn this into a personal attack against me. Because he never read JM's books on LS he came to realize later the fact that he did not really understand LS.

That is why he refused to answer the one simple question about JM's 6th distinctive. He had answered it would have been plain to all: 1) He misunderstood LS, or 2) He would have had to agree with the works-based, message of LS that frustrates grace.

So, instead of giving an honest answer to the question, he opted to launch personal attacks to draw attention away from his misunderstanding of LS.

It has been just that simple.

Anyway, I am willing to leave it at that.

Here are links to articles that address Lordship Salvation. These are for those who may be unfamiliar with Lordship's misinterpretation and corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

John MacArthur's Costly Salvation

The Relationship Between God's Grace & Lordship Legalism

Is This an "Invitation to Salvation?"

How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?


Lou

 

[JustChristian]

Dr. John MacArthur wrote a series that outlines his interpretation of the Gospel that is known as Lordship Salvation. His sixth distinctive is as follows,

Reviewed:

What one must understand as they read the above by JM is that he is speaking about salvation, the Gospel message that leads to and results in eternal life. So, when you read MacArthur's statement above he is stating what he believes are the necessary requirements that must be met for the reception of eternal life.

One must also remember that JM and LS men blend and confuse the separate doctrines of salvation and discipleship. He wrote, “Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation…” This is consistent with his writing in TGATJ,


MacArthur believes a commitment to discipleship expected of a born again believer is the (sine qua non= indispensable condition) requirement for salvation. For LS men the lost must make, as JM writes a, “whole-hearted commitment” to self-denial, cross bearing and following to receive the gift of eternal life.

One must also remember that any responsible Bible teacher would reject the so-called “easy-believism” such as is found in the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin “Crossless gospel.” The answer, however, is not found in LS’s changing the terms of the Gospel to include up front surrender and commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a genuine born again believer.

An objective read of JM’s sixth distinctive demonstrates that JM's LS message is that salvation is contingent upon “unconditional surrender” in “exchange” for the reception of “eternal life.”

Remember, when you read JM’s #6 he is writing on what he believes are the necessary conditions for the reception of eternal life, to be born again.

Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ require an upfront commitment of “unconditional surrender…submission” for the reception of eternal life? Must saving faith be frontloaded with a promise to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands?

In his books on Lordship Salvation MacArthur uses the words “grace” and “faith,” but they are redefined though Calvinistic pre-suppositions and made to conform to the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. An objective read of JM’s distinctive above is one example of how we can conclude that Lordship Salvation is a works-based, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” (Galatans 2:21).​

LM

MacArthur is right on the money. You are not saved if you don't accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

 

[webdog]

MacArthur is right on the money. You are not saved if you don't accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

...and......

 

[JustChristian]

...and......

Fill in the blanks.

 

[webdog]

That's the problem with LS. There is no blanks to fill in.