The “Crossless” Gospel at the Crossroads

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Its funny how many times those who reject Lordship Salvation also reject Calvinism. Do these things go together in some way? Is there a common thread? I think there might be!

Those who oppose Lordship Salvation, as it is called, are opposing the right that Jesus Christ has to be Lord of His people. They are actually claiming that a person can reject Christ as Lord and still have Him as Savior. In the same vain, those who reject Calvinism are rejecting the right God has to be sovereign over all His creation including salvation.

So, what do we see here? We see mortals fighting against God's right to rule and to be totally sovereign. We see people fighting against God's right to demand obedience from those He saves.

This is a interesting common thread that I have not thought about until I ready your reply to LM. I will have to explore this idea further, maybe I am on to something...

I reject irresistable grace and I reject the notion that God never reaches out to some men and leaves them in their sin. So I would not fall into the reformed category. And if I did I would never fall into the ungodly category of a calvinist.

However I am with Mac Arthur on Lordship salvation. If you are not willing to make Him Lord then you have not recieved Him.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Tried to Contact JM

I asked if he has in fact talked with John.... he said he has not. Why do you suppose that is? John is really not that hard to get in touch with. We had him attend one of our meetings.

RB:

You need to get your facts straight!

See Post #153 for RB's question to me.

Originally Posted by reformedbeliever
...have you spoken to John McArthur? I appologize in advance if you have given John the opportunity to defend his position. It would be biblical of you to do that. Have you? Awaiting your response.

My reply to his question is in Post #176

I made repeated attempts before and after my book came out to discuss the issue with JM. The last was during my public LS debates with his personal assistant, Nathan Busenitz.

I was informed by Nathan that JM does not and will not repsond to any questions regarding his LS interpretation of the Gospel.

OK?

This was followed by RB's apology in Post #179.

(Lou,) Please accept my appology sir. Will you forgive me?

To which I replied,

“I took no offense.”

RB:

If I were to give you benefit of the doubt I’d say you forgot I did try to contact MacArthur and more than once.

Will you concede that you have misrepresented our discussion about my trying to contact MacArthur?


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Why would this be necessary? JM is a public person with much print. Why should someone who simply disagrees with his theology (without having a personal animus) have to contact JM personally about it? Lou does not even go to JM's church!

I didn't come on at this point in the thread to get involved in this debate. I don't have time for that today. I came on to defend Lou from what I felt were nasty attacks.

Now as I said elsewhere, you subtly change what I said from "good theologian" to "such a great theologian." This is not right. So in the same paragraph where you accuse Lou of misrepresenting someone you misrepresent me. See how easy it is for this to happen? I don't think you meant to misrepresent me nor did so out of a bitter spirit. So why assume Lou is deliberatly and dishonestly misrepresenting JM? That assumes you know Lou's heart and you don't.

Can you prove he deliberately misrepresented JM? If not, then why not assume Lou to be simply mistaken rather than dishonest? We do believe in "innocent until proven guilty," do we not? I certainly would not hint that Lou is an ungodly person simply for disagreeing with the theology of someone I admired. (And I've seen plenty of that kind of attacks, being in a family famous among fundamentalists.)

Jon:

I appreciate your notes and comments. Don't feel as though you need to interact with RB on my behalf any longer.

RB wrote,

"He (Lou) has been given enough information, direct quotes from JM. He has not dealt with those."

I would disagree with him on that. I have a document of nearly 300 pages that deals with direct quotes from MacArthur.

God bless you,

Lou

PS: I am reading Prayer: Asking & Receiving once again.

 

[John of Japan]

Jon:

I appreciate your notes and comments. Don't feel as though you need to interact with RB on my behalf any longer.

Okay, brother. For the record, I don't think you have misinterpreted John MacArthur. I believe the man was misinterpreted by some folk back years ago on the blood of Christ, but he is pretty clear on the LS issue, even though The Gospel According to Jesus was to me a mishmash and a poor job on the subject.

I never bought the LS position when I first heard it at BJU in 1972 from Arend Ten Pas (you no doubt know of him, since JM quotes from him). JM certainly didn't convince me.

PS: I am reading Prayer: Asking & Receiving once again.

As I should, too. Such a blessing! I think I read it five times when I was young.

God bless.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Okay, brother. For the record, I don't think you have misinterpreted John MacArthur. I believe the man was misinterpreted by some folk back years ago on the blood of Christ, but he is pretty clear on the LS issue, even though The Gospel According to Jesus was to me a mishmash and a poor job on the subject.

I never bought the LS position when I first heard it at BJU in 1972 from Arend Ten Pas (you no doubt know of him, since JM quotes from him). JM certainly didn't convince me.

As I should, too. Such a blessing! I think I read it five times when I was young.

God bless.

Hi John:

"Misrepresentation" is the mantra of the Lordship advocates. Those of us who reject JM's interpretation of the Gospel, cite his writings , which have a very clear meaning, are constantly accused of "misrepresentation" and/or Straw Man.

I have notes from two Master's Seminary professors expressing concern over JM's polarizing statements. JM as I said has never explained, edited or eliminated these.

Another early LS advocate was Walter Chantry. Dr. Custer wrote a review of Chantry's book Today's Gospel, which was the LS apologetic to JM's TGATJ. BJU's Biblical Viewpoint gave me permission to reprint Custer's review as an appendix to my book.

We'll see if ReformedBeliever responds to my showing him he misrepresented his and my discussion of contacting JM.

More later...

Thanks again for your kind remarks.


Lou

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hi John:

"Misrepresentation" is the mantra of the Lordship advocates. Those of us who reject JM's interpretation of the Gospel, cite his writings , which have a very clear meaning, are constantly accused of "misrepresentation" and/or Straw Man.

I have notes from two Master's Seminary professors expressing concern over JM's polarizing statements. JM as I said has never explained, edited or eliminated these.

Another early LS advocate was Walter Chantry. Dr. Custer wrote a review of Chantry's book Today's Gospel, which was the LS apologetic to JM's TGATJ. BJU's Biblical Viewpoint gave me permission to reprint Custer's review as an appendix to my book.

We'll see if ReformedBeliever responds to my showing him he misrepresented his and my discussion of contacting JM.

More later...

Thanks again for your kind remarks.


Lou

Lou. Has JM outright refused to talk with you? Or has he refused to debate LS salvation with you, in a public forum? Could it be that he doesn't want to take the time to defend himself against your misrepresentations? We have quoted JM's belief in monergism. How do you reconcile his monergistic belief with your assertations that he frontloads requirements for regeneration?

 

[reformedbeliever]

RB:

You need to get your facts straight!

See Post #153 for RB's question to me.


My reply to his question is in Post #176

This was followed by RB's apology in Post #179.


To which I replied,

RB:

If I were to give you benefit of the doubt I’d say you forgot I did try to contact MacArthur and more than once.

Will you concede that you have misrepresented our discussion about my trying to contact MacArthur?


LM

John is not that hard to contact. Something is not right here. What is the whole story?

 

[reformedbeliever]

FTR, John of Japan did not refer to Lou Martuneac as a "great theologian". He referred to Lou Martuneac as a "good" theologian.

There is a difference in degrees, here.

Ed

My mistake........ sorry.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I reject irresistable grace and I reject the notion that God never reaches out to some men and leaves them in their sin. So I would not fall into the reformed category. And if I did I would never fall into the ungodly category of a calvinist.

However I am with Mac Arthur on Lordship salvation. If you are not willing to make Him Lord then you have not recieved Him.

Calvinists are ungodly?

 

[webdog]

John is not that hard to contact. Something is not right here. What is the whole story?

Could it be John is hard to contact when someon wants to discuss the errors of his theology? I agree with you that something is not right. If he has been "misrepresented", you would think that he would want to make his position crystal clear on the matter, and not send his assistant to answer questions.

Maybe he's afraid his sales will go down in his books and Bibles as a result (sarcasm)

 

[reformedbeliever]

Could it be John is hard to contact when someon wants to discuss the errors of his theology? I agree with you that something is not right. If he has been "misrepresented", you would think that he would want to make his position crystal clear on the matter, and not send his assistant to answer questions.

Maybe he's afraid his sales will go down in his books and Bibles as a result (sarcasm)

Is John monergistic? We both know the answer to that.
How can he be so absolutely monergistic and then state something which is synergistic? Think about it. He is not an idiot.
Where you guys (synergists) fail, other than not being able to account for all those who never hear the gospel, is to realize that there is no chronology to the process of regeneration/faith/salvation. Time is not involved in this. Faith is given by God along with the new nature, a change from enmity with God to loving God, following through to salvation.
This is a monergistic act of God. After regeneration, the actions of men will be evident in Lordship, if they are in fact regenerate. That is all JM is stating.

 

[webdog]

Is John monergistic? We both know the answer to that.
How can he be so absolutely monergistic and then state something which is synergistic? Think about it. He is not an idiot.
Where you guys (synergists) fail, other than not being able to account for all those who never hear the gospel, is to realize that there is no chronology to the process of regeneration/faith/salvation. Time is not involved in this. Faith is given by God along with the new nature, a change from enmity with God to loving God, following through to salvation.
This is a monergistic act of God. After regeneration, the actions of men will be evident in Lordship, if they are in fact regenerate. That is all JM is stating.

First, I'm not a synergist. This has been explained ad nauseum. Calvinists aren't the only monergists on the planet. JM can very well be a monergist and still hold to LS, as LS is nothing more than hyper calvinism.

 

[reformedbeliever]

First, I'm not a synergist. This has been explained ad nauseum. Calvinists aren't the only monergists on the planet. JM can very well be a monergist and still hold to LS, as LS is nothing more than hyper calvinism.

I'm sorry web, I seriously thought you were a synergist. If it has been explained "ad nauseum" I have honestly missed it. I took a break from the BB for a while... maybe it was during that time. I'm seriously thinking of taking another.

 

[Martin]

First, I'm not a synergist. This has been explained ad nauseum. Calvinists aren't the only monergists on the planet. JM can very well be a monergist and still hold to LS, as LS is nothing more than hyper calvinism.

==That is one of those "for the books" type of remarks. Theologically and historically incorrect. If it were not so tragically wrong it would actually be funny.

 

[Martin]

Martin:

JM is not over-stating anything. His polarizing statements run like a thread throughout his major LS apologetics.

If those remarks by JM are over stating his case, why has he never explained, edited or eliminated them?

They are not over-statements, and therefore, are not misunderstood.


LM

==Since we are not talking about specific statements/comments from Dr. MacArthur I can't directly answer your question. However I would point out that MacArthur has sought to clearify some of the statements he made in the first edition of "The Gospel According To Jesus". The sequal to that book, "The Gospel According To The Apostles", is not as heavy handed as the first book was. He has sought to clearify, and correct, statements that are found in "Hard To Believe". I think if one listens to MacArthur carefully, one gets the picture. MacArthur does not believe that a person must do anything to be saved. He believes, as I do, that faith, repentance, grace, salvation, the whole package is a gift from God. Man can take no credit for any of it. If a person has that gift, they will not live in rebellion against Christ.

 

[Martin]

I reject irresistable grace and I reject the notion that God never reaches out to some men and leaves them in their sin. So I would not fall into the reformed category. And if I did I would never fall into the ungodly category of a calvinist.

However I am with Mac Arthur on Lordship salvation. If you are not willing to make Him Lord then you have not recieved Him.

==Allow me to clearify my point. I was not saying that all non-Calvinists reject Lordship Salvation, not at all. I think we can all agree that John Wesley certainly believed in Lordship Salvation and he was not a Calvinist. The point I was attempting to make was that many people who reject Lordship also reject Calvinism, and often for the same reasons.

 

[reformedbeliever]

First, I'm not a synergist. This has been explained ad nauseum. Calvinists aren't the only monergists on the planet. JM can very well be a monergist and still hold to LS, as LS is nothing more than hyper calvinism.

Why don't you enlighten me web? If this has been explained "ad nauseum" then that should be easy for you to do. I appreciate it in advance.

Synergism

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. The word synergy or synergism comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a "working together."
Regarding the doctrine of salvation, this is essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual. This is the view of salvation found in Arminianism and its theological predecessor Semi-Pelagianism. John Hendryx has stated it this way. Synergism is "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives." [1]
In other words, God has done His part, and humanity must do theirs. This is opposed to the monergistic view held by Reformed and Calvinistic groups where salvation is seen as the work of God alone.

 

[Amy.G]

That definition sounds just like what I believed before I "switched sides". :laugh:

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I reject irresistable grace and this idea that man and God work together as well. The credit for salvation begins and ends with He who has the power to give it. (John 1:12,13)

 

[reformedbeliever]

That definition sounds just like what I believed before I "switched sides". :laugh:

You heard about the arminian puppies for sale? A guy had a sign out for arminian puppies for sale. The puppies were newborn, and not weaned yet. A man stopped to look, and bought an arminian puppy since he himself was arminian. After the puppies were weaned, the man stopped to pick up his puppy, but noticed that the sign now read calvinist puppies. The man was upset and stated that he thought he had bought an arminian puppy. The other man told him that the puppies were arminian but since their eyes were now open, they became calvinist.