The bad theology on this board

[reformed_baptist]

I never said denying LS was a serious error. I said its simply bad theology.

No you also threw in the phase 'unbiblical' those statements along with the way you singled out this point to post on and the implication of inconsistency (possibly even hypocrisy) in your brethren as demonstrated by what they read compared to what they practice all leads me to deduce that you think it a serious error.

If you don't think it a serious error then sorry for my mistake, but how exactly would you class this error bearing in mind everything else that you have written on this subject on many internet forums over the years? I seem to remember at one time it was an issue serious enough to stop you becoming a member of your church (some irony in that ).

Oh and bye the way I am a member at a baptist church that accepts LS.

That's nice!

Now are you going to address the meat of my post which is where the challenge lays or would you prefer to ignore it?

Let me remind you of what i said in case you have forgotten or somehow missed it - I wrote:

"Furthermore what do you hope achieve? If you are so convinced of the position and the serious errors of your brothers and sisters in Christ where is your heartfelt reasoning and passionate pleas from scripture for biblical understanding, where is your 'letter to the Galatians'?"

 

[reformed_baptist]

Yep. Jesus is already Lord. You can't make Him anything. Or keep Him from making you anything.

Lordship Salvation is works salvation in disguise based on a terrible failure to understand Romans 10.

The genuinely regenerate person will have a Family likeness to his Heavenly Father. But that is not of us. That is of God. "Lordship Salvation" is the modern version of Pharisaism. Salvation is all of God, none of me.

With all due respect brother you grossly misrepresent Lordship Salvation here - but then the name itself is a misnomer - the advocate of this position simply believes the bible teaches that salvation involves more then mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, but also a repentance through faith, and a surrender to Christ's authority over ones life. Without such things there is no genuine salvation.

To suggest that in LS equates to salvation by works is conflate the distinctions being made justification and sanctification - we are saved by faith, but the faith that saves will be evidenced by repentance and submission. The point is simply the person who does not wish to live for Christ is not trusting in Christ as their savior.

Furthermore to suggest that is it solely based on Rom 10 is a gross oversimplification - it is based on Gen 1:1-Rev 22:11 read in a consistent fashion and makes absolute sense when combined with every other truth as advocated in reformed theology - of course if one is reading the bible according a dispensational, pelagian or semi-pelagain worldview then LS will struggle to gain a foothold because it is doesn't fit with those presuppositions (here MacAuthur is blessedly inconsistent) - but herein lies the issue - because of our presuppositions both sides talk straight past each other! To you what I am saying, no matter how i say it sounds like 'salvation by works' and to me what you are saying might sound equally as erroneous - this is because we are unable yo listen to the other side without interpreting their case through our lens of understanding.

 

[Iconoclast]

With all due respect brother you grossly misrepresent Lordship Salvation here - but then the name itself is a misnomer - the advocate of this position simply believes the bible teaches that salvation involves more then mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, but also a repentance through faith, and a surrender to Christ's authority over ones life. Without such things there is no genuine salvation.

To suggest that in LS equates to salvation by works is conflate the distinctions being made justification and sanctification - we are saved by faith, but the faith that saves will be evidenced by repentance and submission. The point is simply the person who does not wish to live for Christ is not trusting in Christ as their savior.

Furthermore to suggest that is it solely based on Rom 10 is a gross oversimplification - it is based on Gen 1:1-Rev 22:11 read in a consistent fashion and makes absolute sense when combined with every other truth as advocated in reformed theology - of course if one is reading the bible according a dispensational, pelagian or semi-pelagain worldview then LS will struggle to gain a foothold because it is doesn't fit with those presuppositions (here MacAuthur is blessedly inconsistent) - but herein lies the issue - because of our presuppositions both sides talk straight past each other! To you what I am saying, no matter how i say it sounds like 'salvation by works' and to me what you are saying might sound equally as erroneous - this is because we are unable yo listen to the other side without interpreting their case through our lens of understanding.

You are right on target here. Antinomian... tendencies that we often hear over am radio filters into people's minds.If the case is carefully presented there would be less reaction against the truth.

 

[HankD]

Oh well, we ALL have our version of the TRUTH

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

With all due respect brother you grossly misrepresent Lordship Salvation here - but then the name itself is a misnomer -

No, I have addressed the result of so-called "Lordship Salvation" where all too many proponents seem to end up. At the intersection of "my self-righteousness makes me better than you" and "anyone who does not live exactly like me is lost."

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep. Jesus is already Lord. You can't make Him anything. Or keep Him from making you anything.

Lordship Salvation is works salvation in disguise based on a terrible failure to understand Romans 10.

The genuinely regenerate person will have a Family likeness to his Heavenly Father. But that is not of us. That is of God. "Lordship Salvation" is the modern version of Pharisaism. Salvation is all of God, none of me.

How much of our life would have to be fully submiited in order to be saved?

 

[evangelist6589]

No, I have addressed the result of so-called "Lordship Salvation" where all too many proponents seem to end up. At the intersection of "my self-righteousness makes me better than you" and "anyone who does not live exactly like me is lost."

Wrong wrong. People are at different stages in their walk with Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

With all due respect brother you grossly misrepresent Lordship Salvation here - but then the name itself is a misnomer - the advocate of this position simply believes the bible teaches that salvation involves more then mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, but also a repentance through faith, and a surrender to Christ's authority over ones life. Without such things there is no genuine salvation.

To suggest that in LS equates to salvation by works is conflate the distinctions being made justification and sanctification - we are saved by faith, but the faith that saves will be evidenced by repentance and submission. The point is simply the person who does not wish to live for Christ is not trusting in Christ as their savior.

Furthermore to suggest that is it solely based on Rom 10 is a gross oversimplification - it is based on Gen 1:1-Rev 22:11 read in a consistent fashion and makes absolute sense when combined with every other truth as advocated in reformed theology - of course if one is reading the bible according a dispensational, pelagian or semi-pelagain worldview then LS will struggle to gain a foothold because it is doesn't fit with those presuppositions (here MacAuthur is blessedly inconsistent) - but herein lies the issue - because of our presuppositions both sides talk straight past each other! To you what I am saying, no matter how i say it sounds like 'salvation by works' and to me what you are saying might sound equally as erroneous - this is because we are unable yo listen to the other side without interpreting their case through our lens of understanding.

The main problem though is that those advocating for this doctrine write about it in a way that does seem at least to be saying that unless Jesus is in full vontrol over all aspects of our life now, we must wonder if really were even saved! No room for times of sin issues, with doubts, with acting as once again babes in Christ!

 

[percho]

How much of our life would have to be fully submiited in order to be saved?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

One can't submit enough, IMHO.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


It is for sure the one who is Lord, is the one who will save.

 

[padredurand]

Help me understand this LS doctrine. If Jesus says something we need to follow it with heart, mind and soul?

So, if he says, " that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32) but you find it difficult or impossible to follow you can just ignore it and still advocate LS.

Or if God declares,""For I hate divorce," (Malachi 2:16) but it is burdensome you can ignore it and declare non-LS advocates as having flawed or "bad theology".

I must have missed that day in school. Thanks for clearing things up.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The genuinely regenerate person will have a Family likeness to his Heavenly Father.

That is exactly right. And if there is no likeness, what then? 'But why do you call Me "Lord, Lord," and not do the things which I say?' (Luke 6:46).

But that is not of us. That is of God.

So it's God's fault and not mine if I'm an unrepentant sinner? 'But for that very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue............etc.' (2 Peter 1:5-7). Whose job is it to add virtue to my faith? God's or mine?

"Lordship Salvation" is the modern version of Pharisaism. Salvation is all of God, none of me.

Salvation is certainly all of God. But if the heart is not changed; if a man still clings to his darling sins and idols, what reason does he have to suppose that God has saved him?

 

[JonC]

I had Mac's book on my wish list, then read the Amazon preview and realized it was the same ole Mac. ... hard nosed, in-your-face, no compromise, 'I'm right, your wrong".

I understand the basic point he makes in each of his books on the topic and get there without the strong emphasis on the doctrine of works.

His mean-hearted, dogmatic presentations are a real turn-off to me.

Rob

The problem I have with MacArthur is not his hard nosed, in-your-face, no compromise way with what he believes. I actually like that about him (even on those occasions where I'd disagree with his conclusions). The problem I have with MacArthur is that, for all he has done and the great ways God has used him, he is very dishonest when dealing with views that are not his own. Even when I agree with MacArthur I find that he treats the positions of others as characterizations that suits his needs, vilifying the other view or interpretation rather than viewing all sides as honestly as possible. This is to his credit as I believe he is capable of much better, and to his failing as it is at best carelessness on his part. So I do not believe I will ever purchase another MacArthur book. But I do listen to his sermons.

 

[evangelist6589]

The problem I have with MacArthur is not his hard nosed, in-your-face, no compromise way with what he believes. I actually like that about him (even on those occasions where I'd disagree with his conclusions. The problem I have with MacArthur is that, for all he has done and the great ways God has used him, he is very dishonest when dealing with views that are not his own. Even when I agree with MacArthur I find that he treats the positions of others as characterizations that suits his needs, vilifying the other view or interpretation rather than viewing all sides as honestly as possible. This is to his credit as I believe he is capable of much better, and to his failing as it is at best carelessness on his part. So I do not believe I will ever purchase another MacArthur book. But I do listen to his sermons.

I disagree with you!

 

[JonC]

I disagree with you!

I disagree with you disagreeing with me.

 

[TCassidy]

So it's God's fault and not mine if I'm an unrepentant sinner?

So you made yourself righteous? It was not the work of God?

 

[reformed_baptist]

No, I have addressed the result of so-called "Lordship Salvation" where all too many proponents seem to end up. At the intersection of "my self-righteousness makes me better than you" and "anyone who does not live exactly like me is lost."

Ah, so we judge a doctrine by those who go to the extreme - so should I lump all those who reject the teaching in the camp of those who think they live just as they like and sin freely - is that fair?

 

[evangelist6589]

Help me understand this LS doctrine. If Jesus says something we need to follow it with heart, mind and soul?

So, if he says, " that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32) but you find it difficult or impossible to follow you can just ignore it and still advocate LS.

Or if God declares,""For I hate divorce," (Malachi 2:16) but it is burdensome you can ignore it and declare non-LS advocates as having flawed or "bad theology".

I must have missed that day in school. Thanks for clearing things up.

You do not know all the details of the divorce.

 

[HankD]

You do not know all the details of the divorce.

Well evan, you make a claim of "bad theology" then the recipients call you out on it.
It's to be expected.

HankD

 

[Don]

You do not know all the details of the divorce.

So now you're implying that there was sexual immorality by either you or her, or both? Because in the passage that was provided, that you're dismissing with "you don't know all the details," that was the only 'loophole' given.

 

[evangelist6589]

So now you're implying that there was sexual immorality by either you or her, or both? Because in the passage that was provided, that you're dismissing with "you don't know all the details," that was the only 'loophole' given.

No there was not. My mistake. I should have let the separation default to a divorce which it would have after 6 months or so in Colorado.