When Lordship Advocates Define Their Terms: It Comes Up Works!

[Lou Martuneac]

In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,

“Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.”

First, I am on record rejecting the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism.” I have written extensively against the heretical “Crossless” Gospel originated by Zane Hodges and perpetuated through the Grace Evangelical Society. I am convinced that the Crossless gospel is a reductionist, non-saving message that is a radical a departure from biblical orthodoxy as far as one can go in the opposite direction of Lordship Salvation.

Second, the extra-biblical views that faith and repentance are gifts give to man after he has been regenerated prior to and part from personal faith in Christ are in the quote, but not defined for the reader.

Third, please note carefully the closing portion, “…no turning from sin is required FOR SALVATION.” That gives any objective reader proof-positive that LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires the lost man to “turn from sin” FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again.

I will always agree that genuine repentance should result in a change of behavior. I have no argument with the teachers of Lordship salvation on this point. I will never agree, because the Bible does not agree that “a change of behavior is required for salvation.”

If any LS advocate tries to shift the debate back to what should be the natural results of salvation after I have clarified this is a non-issue, you can mark it down he is trying to evade eth obvious problems with LS’s “change of behavior” view of repentance FOR salvation, which is how MacArthur clearly defines his position.
At this point let’s examine another sample of John MacArthur’s definition of repentance.

“And what you have to understand is they redefine repentance. And what they say is that repentance means to change your mind about who Jesus is, nothing more. Repentance is a change of mind about who Christ is, has nothing to do with turning from sin, has nothing to do with abandoning self-rule. It is utterly devoid of the recognition of personal guilt. It has no element of intention to obey God. It has no element of an intention or a desire for true righteousness. It's just to change your mind about who Jesus is…The gospel call of Jesus was a call to forsake sin as much as it was a summons to believe in Him. It was a call to turn from sin.” (John MacArthur: The Lordship of Christ, Part 3 of a 4 part sermon series.)

Note that MacArthur is arguing against an unidentified man’s position on repentance. MacArthur argues that to “change the mind” does not fully define repentance as he (JM) defines it. Make no mistake about it; MacArthur is speaking of the gospel call FOR salvation. So, what additional elements do we find in JM's definition of repentance FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again?

MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.” In Lordship’s definition of repentance MacArthur equates the “intention to obey” God, which is intending to do good works, as co-equal with believing in Him.

What becomes clear is that Lordship’s view of repentance as JM defines it has at least as much to do with changing behavior as it does with changing the mind. When you read more of MacArthur’s writing you find that the change of behavior takes a far more prominent role in LS’s definition of repentance unto eternal life than changing the mind and believing. A change of behavior is given the preeminent position in Lordship’s definition of repentance.

This is a classic example of Lordship Salvation conditioning salvation on the promise to perform. The Scriptures are forced into compliance with Lordship’s change of behavior interpretation of repentance. LS’s repentance is man-centered; it is calling on the lost man’s commitment to change his behavior FOR salvation. This is works!

Later in the sermon MacArthur writes,

“Now the Greek word is metanoeo and, you know, it comes from two words, meta, after and noeo, to understand, and it means an afterthought. So if you just took those words and put them together it would mean an afterthought or a change of mind. And some of these people who want to say repentance is nothing more than changing your mind about who Jesus is say, you see, that’s what meta noeo means. But listen, folks, that is something that you see often done with Greek words that’s so unfair. Not every word is necessarily the sum of its separate parts. Because meta means this and noeo means this, when you put them together it doesn't necessarily mean what those two parts mean. Often it does, often it doesn't.”

Incredibly and what helps to understand how LS becomes antithetical to Scripture, MacArthur starts by using an acceptable definition of repentance from the Greek, “afterthought or a change of mind.” Then MacArthur wants to force additional meaning into the metanoeo that is not there. This is an example of how LS advocates either force into (or extract from) the Scriptures whatever they must to support their interpretation of the Gospel. This is an abuse of Scripture!

LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing. The Bible teaches salvation by believing in Jesus and His finished work on the cross (John 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10, 13). Nowhere in Scripture is salvation conditioned on a change of behavior, unless as MacArthur attempts to do, the Scriptures are redefined.

LM

Please continue to Appendix 1, 2 & 3.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Appendix 1

In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to receive eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, “…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,” and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180). He acknowledges at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178). That is, MacArthur sees repentance as a work of God and of man. According to MacArthur’s view of repentance the lost man must cooperate in salvation by making a commitment to turn from sin, to cease from sinning, to continue striving against sin our whole lives, never knowing we are saved and always hoping we are turning from enough sins. MacArthur contends that if anyone falls into sin they may have never been saved in the first place (pp. 89, 95-96, 132-133).

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Appendix 2

Another advocate of Lordship salvation wrote,

“Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance. It includes a willingness to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ…. Lordship Salvation defines sin as rebellion or ‘lawlessness’ (which is how 1 John 3:4 defines it). To turn from (or forsake) one’s rebellion is (by definition) to begin submitting.”

“If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God).”

The same LS advocate also wrote,

“Lordship salvation sees the gospel call as a call to repent and believe. Lordship salvation sees repentance as a forsaking of sin and a turning to God. Lordship salvation sees sin as rebellion against God and God’s law (1 John 3:4), which means that a forsaking of sin includes a forsaking of one’s rebellion against God and His law. To stop rebelling, by its very definition, is to start submitting.”

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Appendix 3

In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation, Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,

“Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.”

I can agree that repentance is a change of heart that should result in a change of behavior.

From the last portion where JM expresses disagreement with the so-called "Easy-Believism" position, it is obvious that MacArthur believes “turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.”


LM

 

[canadyjd]

In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180).....He acknowledges at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178)....

"Nor is repentance merely a human work. It is, like every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God....If God is the one who grants repentance, it cannot be viewed as a human work.....Above all, repentance is not a presalvation attempt to set one's life in order...As J.I. Packer has written, 'The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may make on their life.'"20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.p.178-179

Lou Martuneac has once again proven himself to be intellectually dishonest in the way he presents what John MacArthur believes and teaches. He gave a partial quote, and then put his own spin on it, hoping to persuade "lukers" that John MacArthur believes and teaches a works-based salvation. That is not the work of a scholar. That is not the work of someone honestly trying to engage people in a debate for their position.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer, or contributor to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

LS apologist just cannot accept facts: JM believes, “turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.”

That is man having to commit to a human work FOR salvation. "Forsaking sin, stop rebelling, stop doing it, start obeying" as the attributes of LS's repentance.

Try as they might to disguise and evade truth- LS is works based as defined by its most notable advocates.


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"Nor is repentance merely a human work. It is, like every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God....If God is the one who grants repentance, it cannot be viewed as a human work.....Above all, repentance is not a presalvation attempt to set one's life in order...As J.I. Packer has written, 'The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may make on their life.'"20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.p.178-179

Lou Martuneac has once again proven himself to be intellectually dishonest in the way he presents what John MacArthur believes and teaches. He gave a partial quote, and then put his own spin on it, hoping to persuade "lukers" that John MacArthur believes and teaches a works-based salvation. That is not the work of a scholar. That is not the work of someone honestly trying to engage people in a debate for their position.

Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer, or contributor to the BB.

peace to youraying:

Thanks for bringing that out. It is sad to see.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

From above-

Third, please note carefully the closing portion, “…no turning from sin is required FOR SALVATION.” That gives any objective reader proof-positive that LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires the lost man to “turn from sin” FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again.

MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.” In Lordship’s definition of repentance MacArthur equates the “intention to obey” God, which is intending to do good works, as co-equal with believing in Him.

LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

LS apologist just cannot accept facts: JM believes, “turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.”

That is man having to commit to a human work FOR salvation. "Forsaking sin, stop rebelling, stop doing it, start obeying" as the attributes of LS's repentance.

Try as they might to disguise and evade truth- LS is works based as defined by its most notable advocates.


LM

I know you believe this Lou. But you have failed to convince me that your interpretation of this LS position is what you think it is.

 

[canadyjd]

LS apologist just cannot accept facts:

There are only two proven facts from the many, many, many threads started by Lou Martuneac.

The first proven fact is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to make honest and accurate statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches. There have been many comparisons between what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches, to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website. Every comparison demonstrates Lou Martuneac is not honestly and accurately stating what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

The second proven fact is that Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer or contributor to the BB based on the first proven fact.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear Lurkers:

My article thoroughly documents from JM that LS conditions salvation on a lost man's willingness to turn from sin. JM is clear in that he believes turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.

He wrote that, he defines LS, in his own terms. Turn from sin FOR salvation. MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”

LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing.

In TGATJ MacArthur also wrote,

"Repentance...is a redirection of the human will, purposeful decision to forsake all unrighteousness and pursue righteousness instead." p. 178).

Here you have JM conditioning salvation on a kind of repentance re man must make a decision to "forsake unrigheousness" and "pursue righteousness." That is decide to forsake (stop) sin and begin to obey FOR salvation: WORKS!

Don't let the shrill voices and mantra like complaints of LS apologists dissuade you from doing the reading and comparing what LS is as defined by its advocates to the Scriptures.

LS apologists need to accept what JM said in his own words and the obvious implications of what he said.


LM

 

[canadyjd]

Dear Lukers:

Please remember, there are only two proven facts from the many, many, many threads started by Lou Martuneac.

The first proven fact is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to make honest and accurate statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

There have been many comparisons between what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches, to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website. You can compare what Lou Martuneac claimed MacArthur believed (post#2 of this thread), to what MacArthur actually stated in his book (post#5 in this thread). You can make the decision for yourself whether Lou Martuneac is accurately and honestly stating what John MacArthur believes.

The second proven fact is that Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer or contributor to the BB based on the first proven fact.

peace to youraying:

 

[Rippon]

Dear Lukers:

Please remember, there are only two proven facts from the many, many, many threads started by Lou Martuneac.

The first proven fact is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to make honest and accurate statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

The latest tally of threads started by Lou since 7/27/07 with L.S. in the thread title is 11. Seven other threads do not mention L.S. in the thread title,but the subject matter deals with L.S.

What is common among the 18 threads is that Lou seeks to besmirch John MacArthur as much as possible. He reminds me of Don Quixote in Man Of La Mancha.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

Read the opening comment that I opened this thread with. It contains documented proof from LS advocates that LS conditions salvation on a commitment to turn from sin.

The LS apologist will not interact with it because it is irrefutable by virtue of how JM defines his own LS interpretation of the Gospel. Instead they must redirect attention away from the statements of MacArthur. And they want no part of dealing with the obvious statements and disturbing implications made by John MacArthur.

Very telling that LS apologists will not face head-on, in unvarnished terms the statements made by MacArthur.

Why do they evade this kind of teaching by MacArthur who says repentance FOR salvation is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”

They’ll steer clear of this teaching because the reality of the implication is works FOR salvation.


LM

 

[canadyjd]

To All:

Read the opening comment that I opened this thread with. It contains documented proof from LS advocates that LS conditions salvation on a commitment to turn from sin.

To all:

Read post #2 of this thread. Take notice of what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur says in his book.

Read post #5 of this thread and compare what MacArthur actually says in his book.

Then decide if you can trust Lou Martuneac to give you irrefrutable proof of anything concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

peace to youraying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

To All:

Read the opening comment that I opened this thread with. It contains documented proof from LS advocates that LS conditions salvation on a commitment to turn from sin.

The LS apologist will not interact with it because it is irrefutable by virtue of how JM defines his own LS interpretation of the Gospel. Instead they must redirect attention away from the statements of MacArthur. And they want no part of dealing with the obvious statements and disturbing implications made by John MacArthur.

Very telling that LS apologists will not face head-on, in unvarnished terms the statements made by MacArthur.

Why do they evade this kind of teaching by MacArthur who says repentance FOR salvation is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”

They’ll steer clear of this teaching because the reality of the implication is works FOR salvation.


LM

This is not true. I have dealt with repentence in another thread. Please acknowledge that.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Since canadyjd is determiend to personally dodge and redirect away from the obvious implications of JM's LS definition of repentance I will refresh with it here again.


In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,

“Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.”

First, I am on record rejecting the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism.” I have written extensively against the heretical “Crossless” Gospel originated by Zane Hodges and perpetuated through the Grace Evangelical Society. I am convinced that the Crossless gospel is a reductionist, non-saving message that is a radical a departure from biblical orthodoxy as far as one can go in the opposite direction of Lordship Salvation.

Second, the extra-biblical views that faith and repentance are gifts give to man after he has been regenerated prior to and part from personal faith in Christ are in the quote, but not defined for the reader.

Third, please note carefully the closing portion, “…no turning from sin is required FOR SALVATION.” That gives any objective reader proof-positive that LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires the lost man to “turn from sin” FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again.

I will always agree that genuine repentance should result in a change of behavior. I have no argument with the teachers of Lordship salvation on this point. I will never agree, because the Bible does not agree that “a change of behavior is required for salvation.”

If any LS advocate tries to shift the debate back to what should be the natural results of salvation after I have clarified this is a non-issue, you can mark it down he is trying to evade eth obvious problems with LS’s “change of behavior” view of repentance FOR salvation, which is how MacArthur clearly defines his position.
At this point let’s examine another sample of John MacArthur’s definition of repentance.

“And what you have to understand is they redefine repentance. And what they say is that repentance means to change your mind about who Jesus is, nothing more. Repentance is a change of mind about who Christ is, has nothing to do with turning from sin, has nothing to do with abandoning self-rule. It is utterly devoid of the recognition of personal guilt. It has no element of intention to obey God. It has no element of an intention or a desire for true righteousness. It's just to change your mind about who Jesus is…The gospel call of Jesus was a call to forsake sin as much as it was a summons to believe in Him. It was a call to turn from sin.” (John MacArthur: The Lordship of Christ, Part 3 of a 4 part sermon series.)

Note that MacArthur is arguing against an unidentified man’s position on repentance. MacArthur argues that to “change the mind” does not fully define repentance as he (JM) defines it. Make no mistake about it; MacArthur is speaking of the gospel call FOR salvation. So, what additional elements do we find in JM's definition of repentance FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again?

MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.” In Lordship’s definition of repentance MacArthur equates the “intention to obey” God, which is intending to do good works, as co-equal with believing in Him.

What becomes clear is that Lordship’s view of repentance as JM defines it has at least as much to do with changing behavior as it does with changing the mind. When you read more of MacArthur’s writing you find that the change of behavior takes a far more prominent role in LS’s definition of repentance unto eternal life than changing the mind and believing. A change of behavior is given the preeminent position in Lordship’s definition of repentance.

This is a classic example of Lordship Salvation conditioning salvation on the promise to perform. The Scriptures are forced into compliance with Lordship’s change of behavior interpretation of repentance. LS’s repentance is man-centered; it is calling on the lost man’s commitment to change his behavior FOR salvation. This is works!

Later in the sermon MacArthur writes,

“Now the Greek word is metanoeo and, you know, it comes from two words, meta, after and noeo, to understand, and it means an afterthought. So if you just took those words and put them together it would mean an afterthought or a change of mind. And some of these people who want to say repentance is nothing more than changing your mind about who Jesus is say, you see, that’s what meta noeo means. But listen, folks, that is something that you see often done with Greek words that’s so unfair. Not every word is necessarily the sum of its separate parts. Because meta means this and noeo means this, when you put them together it doesn't necessarily mean what those two parts mean. Often it does, often it doesn't.”

Incredibly and what helps to understand how LS becomes antithetical to Scripture, MacArthur starts by using an acceptable definition of repentance from the Greek, “afterthought or a change of mind.” Then MacArthur wants to force additional meaning into the metanoeo that is not there. This is an example of how LS advocates either force into (or extract from) the Scriptures whatever they must to support their interpretation of the Gospel. This is an abuse of Scripture!

LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing. The Bible teaches salvation by believing in Jesus and His finished work on the cross (John 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10, 13). Nowhere in Scripture is salvation conditioned on a change of behavior, unless as MacArthur attempts to do, the Scriptures are redefined.

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

This is not true. I have dealt with repentence in another thread. Please acknowledge that.

I did, see above. Now consider interacting on the direct statements by MacArthur in the lead of this thread.

JM believes repentance FOR salvation is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here's another refresher:

CHAPTER XXXIII
REPENTANCE.

The Scripture doctrine of Repentance is to be learned in part from the meaning of the original Greek word used to express it, and in part from its application to a matter which is within the sphere of morals.

I. There are two forms of words used in the New Testament which are translated repent and repentance.

Only one of these is used of the repentance associated with salvation from sin. This is the verb metanoeo, and the corresponding noun metanoia. The other verb is metamelomai, the noun of which does not appear in the New Testament, but occurs in the Septuagint in Hosea 11:8. The verb is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 110:4; and Jer. 20:16. It is also the word used in the New Testament in Matt. 21:29, which says of the son who had refused to obey his father's command to work in the vineyard, "afterward he repented himself and went." It likewise is found in Matt. 21:32 and 27:3, this latter being the case of Judas. Paul uses it in Rom. 11:29; and 2 Cor. 7:8, 10. It is also the word used in Heb. 7:21. In all other places, translated repent and repentance in the New Testament, the original is metanoeo or metanoia. This word means to reconsider, to perceive afterwards, and hence to change one's view, mind, or purpose, or even judgement, implying disapproval and abandonment of past opinions and purposes, and the adoption of others which are different. In all cases of inward change there is not necessarily a change of outward conduct, nor is such inward change accompanied by regret. These results would flow from the nature of that about which that change has arisen.

We arrive, therefore, at the meaning of Christian repentance partly through the meaning of these Greek words, but also partly because it is exercised about a question of morals. It is seen that it involves a change in the outward life because such change is a result of the change of inward opinions. It also includes sorrow for sin because a change of view as to the nature of sin and of holiness must be accompanied by regret and sorrow as to the past acts of sin.

The word metamelomai means to change one's care, to regret; the idea of sorrow always accompanying it.

The two words are nearly synonymous in their secondary meaning, and each is used in this secondary meaning in the New Testament. Metanoeo, however, traces the feeling of sorrow and the change of life back to an inward change of opinion and judgement as to the nature of sin and holiness, and of the relations of man and God. It is perhaps on this account that it is exclusively used for true repentance in the New Testament. This is not simply sorrow, or remorse, which may pass away, or lead in despair to other sins, or fill the soul with anxiety' but a heartfelt change in the inward soul towards God and holiness, which is lasting and effective, and which may be associated with peace and joy in believing.

II. To set forth explicitly what Christian Repentance is, it may be stated that it includes

1. An intellectual and spiritual perception of the opposition between holiness in God and sin in man. It does not look at sin as the cause of punishment but abhors it because it is vile in the sight of God and involves in heinous guilt all who are sinners.

2. It consequently includes sorrow and self-loathing, and earnest desire to escape the evil of sin. The penitent soul does not so much feel the greatness of its danger as the greatness of its sinfulness.

3. It also includes an earnest turning to God for help and deliverance from sin, seeking pardon for guilt and aid to escape its presence.

It is also accompanied by deep regret because of the sins committed in the past, and by determination with God's help to avoid sin and live in holiness hereafter. The heart heretofore against God and for sin is now against sin and for God.

From these facts it will be seen that

(1.) The seat of true repentance is in the soul. It is not of itself the mere intellectual knowledge of sin, nor the sorrow that accompanies it, nor the changed life which flows from it; but it is the soul's apprehension of its heinous character, which begets the horror and self-loathing which accompany it, and the determination to forsake sin which flows from it.

(2.) That true repentance is inconsistent with the continuance in sin because of grace abounding.

(3.) That true repentance consists of mental and spiritual emotion, and not of outward self-imposed chastisements. Even the pious life and devotion to God which follow are described not as repentance, but as fruits meet for repentance.

III. The Scriptures teach that the author of true repentance is God operating by truth upon the renewed heart.

Acts 5:31. Christ is said to have been exalted "to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins."

Acts 11:18. "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."

The means used is the preaching and other exhibition of the truth. Repentance like faith comes through the hearing of the word. By this men are exhorted to that duty, and gain the knowledge of the truths taught by God, through spiritual apprehension of which men are led to the truth.

http://founders.org/library/boyce1/ch33.html

 

[canadyjd]

Since canadyjd is determiend to personally dodge and redirect away from the obvious implications of JM's LS definition of repentance I will refresh with it here again.

To all:

Read post #2 of this thread. Take notice of what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur says in his book.

Read post #5 of this thread and compare what MacArthur actually says in his book.

You must decide if you can trust anything Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches.

peace to youraying: