The bad theology on this board

[Judith]

At best it is utter foolishness to think one can be saved and not receive Jesus as Lord. If Jesus is not our Lord then it means we remain in rebellion and sin and no one can be saved without repentance. There is not a single passage that deals with salvation that does not require the person to receive Jesus as Lord. There is no such thing biblically to accept Jesus as Savior and getting saved.

 

[Darrell C]

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 would recommend Expository Preaching.

Great book.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Obviously there are those here who still insist on debating a topic they do not understand. Anyone that confuses MacArthur's position concerning Lordship Salvation with works-based effort has not only forgotten the threads here in the past that have dealt with this, but have purposely ignored what MacArthur has taught concerning Lordship Salvation.

Come on, people...


God bless.

 

[JonShaff]

While I agree on the Biblical Reality and principles of Christ being Lord (He Is Lord over all), to what level of obedience do we say is "healthy enough to merit salvation?"--MEANING--healthy enough to get ONE'S approval, "Yep, he's saved."?

Once again, let us not blur the line between justification and sanctification.

 

[JonC]

I would recommend Expository Preaching.

Great book.


God bless.

I do like a couple of his books (pastorial), but I do not trust his treatment of other people's view.

 

[Darrell C]

I do like a couple of his books (pastorial), but I do not trust his treatment of other people's view.

Few people like it when people disagree with their views or Theology.

"Trusting," on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. The question I would ask you is...what is it you "don't trust," and why speak about that if you do not plan to verify if it is trustworthy or not?

We had a thread on this not too terribly long ago, and the ones slandering MacArthur never once provided quotes that verified a works-based Theology on MacArthur's part.

The fact is...you're just not going to find works-based Theology in MacArthur's teaching. He is one of the staunchest defenders of Sola Fide there is.Has been for years.

So this is not an issue where we either "trust" or distrust," we prove or disprove.

So anyone here willing to prove and disprove?


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Few people like it when people disagree with their views or Theology.

"Trusting," on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame. The question I would ask you is...what is it you "don't trust," and why speak about that if you do not plan to verify if it is trustworthy or not?

We had a thread on this not too terribly long ago, and the ones slandering MacArthur never once provided quotes that verified a works-based Theology on MacArthur's part.

The fact is...you're just not going to find works-based Theology in MacArthur's teaching. He is one of the staunchest defenders of Sola Fide there is.Has been for years.

So this is not an issue where we either "trust" or distrust," we prove or disprove.

So anyone here willing to prove and disprove?


God bless.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree with MacArthur in most of his positions (to include his "LS" stance). But even where I hold the same view, I see him using characterisation and strawman arguments against the "other side".

 

[Darrell C]

While I agree on the Biblical Reality and principles of Christ being Lord (He Is Lord over all), to what level of obedience do we say is "healthy enough to merit salvation?"--MEANING--healthy enough to get ONE'S approval, "Yep, he's saved."?

Once again, let us not blur the line between justification and sanctification.

Salvation is not a result of meritorious work achieved by men, but is the result of the Ministry of God in the hearts of men and women.

Now, we have to distinguish between the differing Ages in which justification and sanctification have distinctly different meanings and intents.

For example, anyone who denies that Abraham was justified by works has this...


James 2:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


So, do we say that this is the justification that is the result of faith in Christ?

It would be a mistake to do so:


Romans 3:20-26
King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


James is speaking of what was the very condition of the Old Testament...a temporal condition that cannot be confused with the Eternal. Abraham was indeed justified by works, but, that does not mean Abraham was justified by and through Christ.

We know he was not:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


When animals were offered up on behalf of the sin of men then, there was a temporal and temporary remission of sins, and physical sanctification. So when we consider justification and sanctification, we have to distinguish between the provision which was endlessly repeated, and the coming of Christ, who once for all has sanctified us through His Blood/Death.

And that...on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 10:10-14
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Now, we go back to Lordship Salvation, and distinguish between our responsibilities as Christians and...

...how we actually become Christians.

Two entirely different issues, and only the former having to do with Lordship Salvation.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree with MacArthur in most of his positions (to include his "LS" stance). But even where I hold the same view, I see him using characterisation and strawman arguments against the "other side".

So give me some examples.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I think you may have misunderstood me.

Thought I would go back and just clarify on this point: I don't think it is a matter of misunderstanding your position, I have addressed the issue of not "trusting" MacArthur concerning his characterization, the greater point being that this, much like the slander presented by others concerning him and his position on Lordship Salvation, leaves an impression on the public. And sad to say, friendship often wins over truth, meaning, if one member likes another, and "trusts" what they say, when something is said they take it for granted that truth has been presented.

And quite often it has not.

So if we are going to discuss Lordship Salvation, and MacArthur, or anyone else for that matter, then you, as a Moderator, are held to a higher standard than the members here, because it is up to you, my friend, to make sure that truth is what prevails, rather than opinion. And when opinion is tainted with bias, and leads to slander, oftentimes the result is that certain members are defrauded in regards to teachers and resources that can help them, and it is just my opinion that a few hours on GTY.ORG can help a number of people here understand better some of the Doctrines they discuss.

There are things MacArthur teaches that I disagree with, however, he is one of the best teachers in the public eye right now, and has been for years. So it is ironic to see such a staunch defender of Sola Fide accused of works-based theology, when the problem is not a matter of how people are saved, it is a problem of how they live after they are saved.


God bless.

 

[JonShaff]

Salvation is not a result of meritorious work achieved by men, but is the result of the Ministry of God in the hearts of men and women.

Now, we have to distinguish between the differing Ages in which justification and sanctification have distinctly different meanings and intents.

For example, anyone who denies that Abraham was justified by works has this...


James 2:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


So, do we say that this is the justification that is the result of faith in Christ?

It would be a mistake to do so:


Romans 3:20-26
King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


James is speaking of what was the very condition of the Old Testament...a temporal condition that cannot be confused with the Eternal. Abraham was indeed justified by works, but, that does not mean Abraham was justified by and through Christ.

We know he was not:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


When animals were offered up on behalf of the sin of men then, there was a temporal and temporary remission of sins, and physical sanctification. So when we consider justification and sanctification, we have to distinguish between the provision which was endlessly repeated, and the coming of Christ, who once for all has sanctified us through His Blood/Death.

And that...on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 10:10-14
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Now, we go back to Lordship Salvation, and distinguish between our responsibilities as Christians and...

...how we actually become Christians.

Two entirely different issues, and only the former having to do with Lordship Salvation.


God bless.

Either you misunderstood my post or you didn't fully read it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Because if Lordship salvation were true (the way it is proposed by its adherence) it would leave salvation impossible as it brings in a hint of legalism under the guise of "obedience to Christ in totality as necessary for salvation (and let's be honest, total obedience sounds good and born again believers want that, but we fall short in total obedience)
Hope this makes sense

What LS person ever said this?

 

[Revmitchell]

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."

Who are these people?

 

[Revmitchell]

While I agree on the Biblical Reality and principles of Christ being Lord (He Is Lord over all), to what level of obedience do we say is "healthy enough to merit salvation?"--MEANING--healthy enough to get ONE'S approval, "Yep, he's saved."?

Once again, let us not blur the line between justification and sanctification.

And here is a clear statement that show a complete lack of understanding of the LS position.

 

[JonC]

So give me some examples.


God bless.

I first realized MacArthur’s preference of indoctrination to his view rather than dealing honestly with the opposing position when he tackled Unlimited Atonement. Of the free-will view of “Unlimited Atonement”, MacArthur declares that the view “if taken to its logical conclusion, has hell full of people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Therefore the lake of fire is filled with those damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing their punishment under God’s wrath.” (MacArthur, 2 Peter and Jude Commentary, 70-73).

I would argue that the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement. The problem, of course, is that no one who holds the view of Unlimited Atonement (except perhaps for universal salvation people) hold it as MacArthur pretends they do. There is a difference in the defining (Unlimited Atonement, for them, does not mean actual atonement applied to individuals...I'd argue that their view of "unlimited atonement" is neither unlimited nor atonement…and sometimes it is not even in the context of penal substitution). So, while I agree with MacArthur’s position on the scope of the Atonement, I find his characterizations of the opposing view nauseating. It is carelessness to the point of dishonesty, which is not a Christian characteristic.

Another example can be found in his commentary on 2 John, where he provides a false choice to defend “whole world” as meaning “the elect”. There are comments that came out of his “Charismatic Chaos” speeches that are just as questionable. In all three cases, John MacArthur takes the opposing view and places it within his own context (and his own definitions) to argue against it.

Again, please don’t get me wrong. I do believe he is a talented preacher, and I regularly learn from his sermons. But he is a horrible theologian.

 

[JonC]

then you, as a Moderator, are held to a higher standard than the members here, because it is up to you, my friend, to make sure that truth is what prevails, rather than opinion.

I need to clarify something here, Darrell.

As a moderator my job is not to make sure truth prevails. My job - my ONLY job - is to do my best to make sure people engage each other within the context of the rules and standards of conduct prescribed by the BB...NOT to make sure "truth is what prevails, rather than opinion".

I suggest that your appreciation of MacArthur's God given pastoral talents and his wonderful Kingdom work has biased you against seeing his failures when he exceeds those pastoral gifts. He is a fantastic preacher, pastor, and teacher. He is wonderful at presenting and teaching his view and why he believes it. He is not so good at presenting the views of others.

 

[padredurand]

You do not know all the details of the divorce.

Read the verses I provided. Was one of you unfaithful? If the answer is no then you have rejected the clear teaching of Jesus Christ. You can try to rationalize all you want but in there is no justification for a divorce in the absence of infidelity. You were quick to pull the "bad theology" trigger because others don't ascribe to what you believe to be sound doctrine.

Belief without action is nothing more than nattering. Either you submit to the Lordship of the One who makes two people into one flesh or you do not.

Do you reject this teaching?

Ephesians 5:28-29 NAS77

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,​

or this?

Colossians 3:19 NAS77

19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them.​

You can either receive the Word and work it out in practice (good doctrine) or you can find it too difficult and ignore it ( bad doctrine) but you cannot accept it as God's Holy Word and reject it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Read the verses I provided. Was one of you unfaithful? If the answer is no then you have rejected the clear teaching of Jesus Christ. You can try to rationalize all you want but in there is no justification for a divorce in the absence of infidelity. You were quick to pull the "bad theology" trigger because others don't ascribe to what you believe to be sound doctrine.

Belief without action is nothing more than nattering. Either you submit to the Lordship of the One who makes two people into one flesh or you do not.

Do you reject this teaching?

Ephesians 5:28-29 NAS77

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,​

or this?

Colossians 3:19 NAS77

19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them.​

You can either receive the Word and work it out in practice (good doctrine) or you can find it too difficult and ignore it ( bad doctrine) but you cannot accept it as God's Holy Word and reject it.

I should have never gotten you people involved in my marital issues. Its clearly an issue only for in person contacts.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

"Why do Irishmen answer one question with another?" "Who told you that?"

You seem to be promoting a "Let go and let God" approach to sanctification. Nothing could be further from the truth.
'Therefore put to death your members that are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness..... But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice etc. (Colossians 3:5-17). We are to do these things, not wait for God to do them for us. It is true that we can only do them in the power of the Spirit, but nonetheless, we must do them, and if we do not, it is a sure sign that the Holy Spirit is not dwelling within us and we have not been saved. I am not talking about sinless perfection (1 John 1:8-10), but I am talking about a sincere and principled desire for holiness. "If you love Me, keep My commandments.'[/QUOTE]

 

[padredurand]

I should have never gotten you people involved in my marital issues. Its clearly an issue only for in person contacts.

You can't un-ring a bell. You were openly dismissive of an essential doctrine; one that stands as an example of our relationship with Jesus Christ. You've tried to justify your actions a hundred different ways at the cost of contrition, remorse, grief and repentance. You expect us to jump on your support bandwagon in that area while you readily accuse many on this board as holding to bad doctrine. Why do many have bad doctrine in your esteem? Because we fail to share your enthusiasm for your pet doctrine of the day.

If you don't want to discuss these issues why do you start so many threads?