The Gospel According to Jesus

[evangelist6589]

Okay James here is the thread. On this thread we will discuss the Gospel According to Jesus where Mac teaches Lordship Salvation. I have a copy of the 1991 edition and what I will be using. But perhaps you have the 1988 version or the 2008 version, whatever you have please mention as due to page numbers. Please stay ON TOPIC as this thread is on the BOOK only. WinMan I kindly ask you to stay out unless you have a copy of the book. I know this won't be easy for you, but as Mac said in the intro of the book I am reading called Faith Works, most that have criticized him have failed to look at his actual arguments in the book. James let me know when you have your book pulled out and what version of it you have.

 

[Yeshua1]

Okay James here is the thread. On this thread we will discuss the Gospel According to Jesus where Mac teaches Lordship Salvation. I have a copy of the 1991 edition and what I will be using. But perhaps you have the 1988 version or the 2008 version, whatever you have please mention as due to page numbers. Please stay ON TOPIC as this thread is on the BOOK only. WinMan I kindly ask you to stay out unless you have a copy of the book. I know this won't be easy for you, but as Mac said in the intro of the book I am reading called Faith Works, most that have criticized him have failed to look at his actual arguments in the book. James let me know when you have your book pulled out and what version of it you have.

How would you define "Lordship Salvation?"

 

[evangelist6589]

How would you define "Lordship Salvation?"

Do you have the gospel according to Jesus, Faith Works, or Hard to Believe? If so tell me what one and what edition and I will point you to various pages. This thread is a walk through of the arguments in favor of LS and I will use much scripture but we HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you have the gospel according to Jesus, Faith Works, or Hard to Believe? If so tell me what one and what edition and I will point you to various pages. This thread is a walk through of the arguments in favor of LS and I will use much scripture but we HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

I do not have a copy of the Gosepl according to jesus, but have read it, first edition!

 

[evangelist6589]

[ QUOTE=Yeshua1;2119590]I do not have a copy of the Gosepl according to jesus, but have read it, first edition![/QUOTE]


Get a copy used or go to a bookstore and let's chat it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Do you have the gospel according to Jesus, Faith Works, or Hard to Believe? If so tell me what one and what edition and I will point you to various pages. This thread is a walk through of the arguments in favor of LS and I will use much scripture but we HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

So in other words, you only want posts that support LS.

That's supposed to be a "discussion"?

 

[Revmitchell]

So in other words, you only want posts that support LS.

That's supposed to be a "discussion"?

I did not read that in his post. What I read is that he wants a discussion based on the book and what is directly in it rather than opinions based on what you see others say about it.

 

[evangelist6589]

I did not read that in his post. What I read is that he wants a discussion based on the book and what is directly in it rather than opinions based on what you see others say about it.

Its a book that very christian needs in their library. But if they can't handle it (as its an academic read) then get Hard to Believe which is an easier read.

 

[Revmitchell]

Its a book that very christian needs in their library. But if they can't handle it (as its an academic read) then get Hard to Believe which is an easier read.

I own it. It is a very easy read. Whether or not it should be in everyone's library, academic or otherwise, is questionable.

 

[Yeshua1]

Its a book that very christian needs in their library. But if they can't handle it (as its an academic read) then get Hard to Believe which is an easier read.

How would you define lordship salvation/easy believism then?

NOT what Dr Mac says, but how do you define it?

 

[SolaSaint]

I have the 2008 edition and I also have Hard to Believe, so I'm ready for the discussion. Sounds interesting, I hope we get several interested. I would say wait on James.

 

[evangelist6589]

I have the 2008 edition and I also have Hard to Believe, so I'm ready for the discussion. Sounds interesting, I hope we get several interested. I would say wait on James.

Good idea. I have the 2nd edition. Lets wait for James to show up, and in the meantime ignore the posts not related to the topic at hand from people whom have not read the book.

 

[JamesL]

I have the 1988 edition

 

[JamesL]

I'm not really sure it's the best place to start a discussion about the book, but the two prefaces seem to keep nagging at me, particularly one phrase - mental assent.

On page ix, (Packer's preface), I read:

God has joined faith and repentance as the two facets of response to the Savior and make it clear that turning to Christ means turning from sin and letting ungodliness go (paragraph 1, sentence 3)

Simple assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith, and less that saving, and to elicit only assent of this kind would be to secure only false converts (par 2, sen 6)

So what is in question is the nature of faith (par 1, sen 8) - I would agree with this statement, by the way. This should be a question as to the nature of faith.


Then on page xi (Boice's preface), I read:

Did I say weakness? It is more. It is a tragic error. It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent, and then assures them of their eternal security when they may very well not be born again. (par 4, sen 1-2)


What I see in both of these prefaces is that both of these men equate faith with mental assent to some facts, or "the barest intellectual assent"

Here is Packer again:

"faith and repentance as the two facets of response"

Then he goes on to define (or describe) what these two facets are:

"Simple assent to the gospel, transforming commitment"


And now Boice again:

"It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent"


Neither of these men define or describe faith as full assurance, personal conviction, trust, expectant hope.

By their insistence that a removal of commitment leaves only a "simple assent" or "barest assent", they are, in essence, saying that faith = intellectual assent.

So they have posited a view that assent to facts is not enough, but that this assent to facts must be coupled with a commitment to follow. We can therefore conclude that their idea of "saving faith" would be the following two components:

facts + following

 

[evangelist6589]

I have the 1988 edition

Thanks James for your reply. I will reply to your post when I get home to my Mac and get the book on my bookshelf. This discussion may be problematic with all the different versions of the book as they all will have various page numbers but we will try. If not we can always try Hard to Believe or Faith Works which have only one version. Thanks brother for your participation.

 

[JamesL]

No problem, John.

I have no idea what kind of revisions have been made, it could be something as simple as an updated cover.

We can try it as it is, and switch to a different title if need be. I have nit read the others, but I'm sure the arguments are similar

 

[evangelist6589]

No problem, John.



I have no idea what kind of revisions have been made, it could be something as simple as an updated cover.



We can try it as it is, and switch to a different title if need be. I have nit read the others, but I'm sure the arguments are similar

Mac adds and takes away chapters in the revisions so we will try this and see how it goes. I know in his Glory of Heaven book I have both editions and that's what he did. However I like the first edition better as he has some sermons by puritans which are taken away in the second edition.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not really sure it's the best place to start a discussion about the book, but the two prefaces seem to keep nagging at me, particularly one phrase - mental assent.

On page ix, (Packer's preface), I read:

God has joined faith and repentance as the two facets of response to the Savior and make it clear that turning to Christ means turning from sin and letting ungodliness go (paragraph 1, sentence 3)

Simple assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ, is by biblical standards less than faith, and less that saving, and to elicit only assent of this kind would be to secure only false converts (par 2, sen 6)

So what is in question is the nature of faith (par 1, sen 8) - I would agree with this statement, by the way. This should be a question as to the nature of faith.


Then on page xi (Boice's preface), I read:

Did I say weakness? It is more. It is a tragic error. It is the idea - where did it come from? - that one can be a Christian without being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent, and then assures them of their eternal security when they may very well not be born again. (par 4, sen 1-2)


What I see in both of these prefaces is that both of these men equate faith with mental assent to some facts, or "the barest intellectual assent"

Here is Packer again:

"faith and repentance as the two facets of response"

Then he goes on to define (or describe) what these two facets are:

"Simple assent to the gospel, transforming commitment"


And now Boice again:

"It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ's having died for sinners, requires only of sinners that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent"


Neither of these men define or describe faith as full assurance, personal conviction, trust, expectant hope.

By their insistence that a removal of commitment leaves only a "simple assent" or "barest assent", they are, in essence, saying that faith = intellectual assent.

So they have posited a view that assent to facts is not enough, but that this assent to facts must be coupled with a commitment to follow. We can therefore conclude that their idea of "saving faith" would be the following two components:

facts + following

Isn't it still by grace alone, thru faith alone, that a sinner gets saved?

ALl that God requires them to get justified is that, THEN we start the obedience, a life long process?

 

[Revmitchell]

Isn't it still by grace alone, thru faith alone, that a sinner gets saved?

ALl that God requires them to get justified is that, THEN we start the obedience, a life long process?

How can one preach the cross and the very reason Christ went to the cross and not deal with sin? Do you not preach the cross? Do believe the preaching of the cross is necessary in evangelism?

 

[Yeshua1]

How can one preach the cross and the very reason Christ went to the cross and not deal with sin? Do you not preach the cross? Do believe the preaching of the cross is necessary in evangelism?

it is the message of God towards the lost and saved alike!

point is that a sinner can do NOTHING to receive the grace of God that saves them apart from receiving jesus thru faith, believing on Him they have heard about!

Does God require them to have sins dealt with before the Cross, or else get cleansed by his blood?