|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/11/2007 11:28:08 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
To All:
In the meantime, I want to redirect everyone back to: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?
This is a revealing and instructive look at how the Lordship interpretation of repentance corrupts, "the simpicty that is in Christ," (2 Cor. 11:3).
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/12/2007 8:14:22 AM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 1:51:23 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1982
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lmartuneac
This is a revealing and instructive look at how the Lordship interpretation of repentance corrupts, "the simpicty that is in Christ," (2 Cor. 11:3)
Enough of fault-finding with what "Lordship advocates" teach. You show us from Scripture what repentance really means, and whether or not it is a condition for salvation.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 3:38:44 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Enough of fault-finding with what “Lordship advocates” teach. You show us from Scripture what repentance really means, and whether or not it is a condition for salvation.
Ezra:
1) There is much “fault” in Lordship Salvation's misinterpretation of repentance. It is vitally important to expose this dangerous teaching and, “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:13) so that unsuspecting believers are not swept up into the same error.
2) As I have noted several times in my book and at various blog sites: Repentance is a necessary component for salvation! Repentance and Faith are essential. This is where I am in disagreement with the Grace Evangelical Society (Zane Hodges & Bob Wilkin) that has eliminated repentance entirely as a necessary condition for salvation.
In my book I devote 12 pages, in a single dedicated chapter to answer the question, “What Is Biblical Repentance?” This chapter defines repentance from the Scriptures, reveals and refutes the Lordship misinterpretation of repentance.
I am not inclined or obligated to post vast portions of my book in this blog. I will, however, provide this brief sample from the not yet released revised and expanded version of my book.
quote:
“Repentance is a change of mind about God and one’s sin. That change of mind, when it produces a change in direction from self and sin toward God, is biblical repentance. When a lost man understands that he is a sinner, and makes a definite, on-purpose decision to confess his sin, turns in repentance toward God, and in faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21) to do for him what he cannot do for himself—when he agrees with the Word of God about his condition, and transfers his dependence to the Lord for his salvation—he has biblically repented.” (In Defense of the Gospel [Revised & Expanded Version])
Biblical repentance is necessary for salvation, but NOT the erroneous Lordship interpretation of repentance that calls for an upfront promise and commitment to a change in behavior for the reception of the free gift of God. It is important to understand that in the Lordship debate the controversy for me is primarily in regard to the reception of salvation, NOT the results of a genuine conversion. Keep that in mind as we discuss these issues.
Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, works oriented interpretation of the Gospel. Some of the better known advocates for Lordship Salvation’s false teaching on the Gospel include men such as: John MacArthur, John Piper, J. I., Packer, Walter J. Chantry, John Stott, James Boice, Richard Belcher, Kenneth Gentry, Day, Clark, Crenshaw, Horton, Reisenger, Gross, Lescelius, and Alderson.
Christians from a broad cross-section of evangelical Christianity need to read with caution each of these men when they address the Gospel. They are often sound in others areas of doctrine, but on the Gospel they have departed from, “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3).
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/12/2007 4:40:49 PM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 5:32:49 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1982
Status: offline
|
Lou:
I'm glad to see that your understanding of repentance comes from Scripture. However, although I am not necessarily a "fan" of any of the men you have mentioned, I do not believe that they would be deliberately promoting false doctrine.
I believe your concern is that when the Gospel of salvation is preached, there should be no mention of the cost of discipleship, since eternal life is a free gift whereas being a disciple means paying a heavy price. However, if both truths are clearly presented, there really should not be a problem. Sinners must understand that salvation ultimately means following and serving the Lord.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 6:25:14 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 664
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
Sinners must understand that salvation ultimately means following and serving the Lord.
Exactly. Sinners should, as Christ said, "count the cost," (Luke 14:33). Being a disciple entails turning from sin, taking up one's cross, and following the Lord daily. Jesus is both Savior AND Lord. He is not a buffet at which we can pick and choose the parts we like and leave behind the rest. We cannot have him as Savior yet reject him as Lord.
We must maintain, however, that repentance is the result of salvation -- never its cause. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph 2:8-9). But as sure as night follows day, so repentance and good works will follow genuine salvation. For that is the reason we are saved (Eph 2:10).
Soli Deo Gloria!
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 8/12/2007 8:05:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 6:59:26 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
I'm glad to see that your understanding of repentance comes from Scripture. However, although I am not necessarily a "fan" of any of the men you have mentioned, I do not believe that they would be deliberately promoting false doctrine.
Ezra:
I don't believe John MacArthur (JM) woke one day and said, “I am going to teach a false gospel.” He/They gradually, incrementally fell into it.
See the link below (from my site) to the IFCA meeting when the IFCA leadership interviewed MacArthur because of their concern over some of the elements in his first book on LS, The Gospel According to Jesus (1988). In the Q&A JM relates what event(s) caused him to re-examine his position. This ultimately lead to where he is now: Lordship's man-centered message.
The result of the interview qwith JM is that the IFCA revised their docrinal statement to address: The Nature of Saving Faith. This was drafted to clarify the doctrine of faith because MacArthur’s book confused the issue and he has never retracted or revised his position.
Numerous men in the IFCA resigned over the flap with MacArthur's departure from orthodoxy on the Gospel (and the eternal sonship fiasco) and his being allowed to retain his membership in the IFCA. Others look at it from the standpoint at JM is not in agreement with the IFCA statement, but signs on to it every year. I communicate with two men who are intimately familiar with all of this.
For more, see: Insights from the IFCA Interview with John MacArthur.
Furthermore, and I do not want to open a debate on this, but JM’s (their) Calvinistic presuppositions contribute to adopting a Lordship Salvation view of the Gospel.
More to follow…
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/13/2007 8:16:16 AM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/12/2007 11:51:13 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1982
Status: offline
|
quote:
We must maintain, however, that repentance is the result of salvation -- never its cause.
Aphobos:
Please show us from Scripture that this is true. According to Acts 2:37-41; 3:19-26, it is the reverse.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/13/2007 11:08:12 AM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 525
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
Anyone that cannot prove his accusations on the thread he makes them on is without credibility, he doesnt deserve the effort to consider his arguements.
We also are not obliged to answer LM.
This sounds purely like a book selling tactic. It didnt sell so a contraversy to help his cause was started.
The IFCA this or that means nothing.
Let another article be written that said. "LMartuneac made many accusations against Lordship salvation before many readers, when he was questioned to give an answer to those allegations he dismissed them, saying "Im under no obligation to answer my detractors".
LM's press statements (posts) on his own website didnt answer his allegations against Lordship salvation or clear him from those allegations against ministers who teach biblical salvation.
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? - 8/13/2007 11:46:19 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
G/G:
All you are doing is demonstrating why I don't waste valuable time interacting with you.
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
IFCA Interviews MacArthur - 8/13/2007 11:58:36 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace
The IFCA this or that means nothing.
Folks:
If it meant nothing the IFCA leadership would not have gone to lengths to organize the interview with Dr. MacArthur and then issue a new doctrinal statement on Faith following this interview. Dr. MacArthur felt it was important enough to put himself in the hot-seat.
Members of the IFCA resigned over the flap MacArthur caused with his Lordship gospel, and his (later publicly retracted) position on the eternal sonship of Christ.
That said, I find it curious, but not unusual, that G/G wants to dismiss this important meeting and its results.
But, you can decide for yourself. Go to The IFCA Interview with John MacArthur. Read the two articles at my site. Then take the links to the transcripts from the interview. (Especially see Part 2 of the interview.)
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/14/2007 10:41:45 PM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
MacArthur: Eternal Sonship - 8/14/2007 12:20:19 AM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
For those of you who want a factual, non-emtional account of John MacArthur's "Eternal Sonship" teaching, which I referenced earlier, read from the series of articles by Brother George Zeller, under the heading:
John MacArthur's Position on the Eternal Sonship of Christ
This is an excerpt from the Introduction:
quote:
The Scripture tells us to "prove all things (test all things by the Word of God), hold fast that which is good." We want to do this in the case of John MacArthur’s teachings. Our desire has been to do this fairly and graciously, but at the same time to point out where, how and why certain positions which John MacArthur has taken are out of harmony with the Word of God. We hold no animosity towards John MacArthur, but because of the far reaching influence which he has in and among our churches, it is necessary to examine his teachings and warn believers concerning those doctrines that are not in harmony with what the Bible says.
This material was originally prepared for and presented to the National Executive Committee of the IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) along with materials of a similar nature submitted by other concerned IFCA brethren. Our concern, back then, was that John MacArthur, an IFCA member, held a position on the Sonship of Christ was in clear conflict with the IFCA Doctrinal Statement. It was an issue of doctrinal integrity.
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MacArthur: Eternal Sonship - 8/14/2007 1:12:27 AM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 664
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
Again...
Do you want to know what John MacArthur really thinks about Lordship Salvation? Go to the source. Here's a link to his website. Just type "lordship" in the search field and click 'Go'.
Those who are less-than-intellectually honest would prefer that you consult them instead. Like the Roman magisterium, who would rather tell you what the Bible says than let you actually read it for yourself, they don't want to let MacArthur speak for himself. The reason offered is that you may be deceived. That's precisely what the Catholic Church said about looking through Galileo's telescope. "Don't do it! It'll bewitch you!" I trust that the majority of readers here will see through the smokescreen.
In Him,
~Aphobos
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Honesty - 8/14/2007 10:34:21 AM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
Aphobos:
1) “less-than-intellectually honest.” If you want to begin a discussion about intellectual honesty we should start with why most folks here do not use their real and full name.
2) “MacArthur speaking for himself.” There is a section at the beginning of my book titled, “Letting Them Speak for Themselves.”
I went to lengths to quote the Lordship advocates liberally in my book so that readers could see for themselves what the LS men have to say about their position in their own words. This way, in regard to my writing on the LS issue, charges like yours above would have no weight or merit. I cite JM at least 30 times and other LS advocates at least 15+ times.
In many of the articles at my blog where I discuss the Lordship message I again quote MacArthur liberally. If you have read some of the articles you would realize and acknowledge that I do let him speak for himself. Here is a sample of articles that demonstrate I let MacArthur speak for himself.
Is Lordship Salvation an "Exchange?"
John MacArthur's Costly Salvation
John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation
3) “…may be deceived.” Indeed, some are regrettably drawn into believing the false teaching on the gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation! Most people are familiar with MacArthur and trust him. He is very solid in most doctrinal discussions; therefore, most do not read his Lordship books with discernment and caution. Even in his LS books the vast majority is again sound, but woven in is the LS message that corrupts the Gospel of grace.
One of the ways in which people are deceived is because of MacArthur’s regular use of a debate tactic called the “false dilemma.” MacArthur draws attention to what are the real and serious problems in the, so-called, “Easy-Believism” message. I address this in my book as follows
quote:
“Time and again Lordship advocates will claim they are answering the Easy-Believism gospel that is found in some circles. They will not see that many preach and teach a gospel message that balances faith and repentance.
The student of logic will spend some time studying fallacies. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs ‘when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.’ This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the mental assent or ‘easy believism’ position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ mental assent position decry all others as advocates of lordship salvation… There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation.”
That is where my book comes in. I attempt to strike a biblical balance in the debate. (BTW, the GES is mad at me too, which you would know if you have been to my blog. Having both the LS and GES camps mad at me confirms in my mind that I struck the right balance in the debate.)
I have read, sorted through and exposed the dangerous teaching that is inherent in the unbiblical LS interpretation of the Gospel being propagated by MacArthur, Chantry, Boice, Stott, Piper, etc. I did not stop there, however, because I went on to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of grace.
For another view of the Lordship Salvation controversy I highly recommend Dr. Charlie Bing. He has, for years, dealt with the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. You and others can read more by visiting Dr. Bing's site: Grace Life Ministries
In conclusion, the Bible says,
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter,” (Eccl. 12:13)
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him,” (Prov. 18:13).
If any one wants to be intellectually honest both sides of any debate need to be read, weighed and considered. I have done this for nearly 20 years in the Lordship debate, and I allowed my readers to read what the LS advocates have to say about their position both in my book and at my blog.
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/14/2007 10:40:49 PM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MacArthur: Eternal Sonship - 8/14/2007 10:42:00 AM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 525
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
There is another thread on the eternal sonship of Christ.
This thread is not it.
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MacArthur: Eternal Sonship - 8/14/2007 10:39:05 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace
There is another thread on the eternal sonship of Christ. This thread is not it.
Sorry for the distraction with MacArthur's eternal sonship flap, but it had some relevance in regard to the IFCA issue.
I'll repost some prior comments to get this back solely on the Lordship discussion.
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
IFCA & MacArthur - 8/14/2007 10:41:27 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace
The IFCA this or that means nothing.
Folks:
If it meant nothing the IFCA Executive leadership would not have gone to lengths to organize the interview with Dr. MacArthur and then issue a new doctrinal statement on Faith following this interview. Dr. MacArthur felt it was important enough to put himself in the hot-seat.
Members of the IFCA resigned over the flap MacArthur caused with his Lordship gospel, and his (later publicly retracted) position on the eternal sonship of Christ.
That said, I find it curious, but not unusual, that GandG wants to dismiss this important meeting and its results.
But, you can decide for yourself. Go to The IFCA Interview with John MacArthur. Read the two articles at my site. Then take the links to the transcripts from the interview. (Especially see Part 2 of the interview.)
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Honesty - 8/14/2007 10:43:14 PM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
Aphobos:
1) “less-than-intellectually honest.” If you want to begin a discussion about intellectual honesty we should start with why most folks here do not use their real and full name.
2) “MacArthur speaking for himself.” There is a section at the beginning of my book titled, “Letting Them Speak for Themselves.”
I went to lengths to quote the Lordship advocates liberally in my book so that readers could see for themselves what the LS men have to say about their position in their own words. This way, in regard to my writing on the LS issue, charges like yours above would have no weight or merit. I cite JM at least 30 times and other LS advocates at least 15+ times.
In many of the articles at my blog where I discuss the Lordship message I again quote MacArthur liberally. If you have read some of the articles you would realize and acknowledge that I do let him speak for himself. Here is a sample of articles that demonstrate I let MacArthur speak for himself.
Is Lordship Salvation an "Exchange?"
John MacArthur's Costly Salvation
John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation
3) “…may be deceived.” Indeed, some are regrettably drawn into believing the false teaching on the gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation! Most people are familiar with MacArthur and trust him. He is very solid in most doctrinal discussions; therefore, most do not read his Lordship books with discernment and caution. Even in his LS books the vast majority is again sound, but woven in is the LS message that corrupts the Gospel of grace.
One of the ways in which people are deceived is because of MacArthur’s regular use of a debate tactic called the “false dilemma.” MacArthur draws attention to what are the real and serious problems in the, so-called, “Easy-Believism” message. I address this in my book as follows
quote:
“Time and again Lordship advocates will claim they are answering the Easy-Believism gospel that is found in some circles. They will not see that many preach and teach a gospel message that balances faith and repentance.
The student of logic will spend some time studying fallacies. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs ‘when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.’ This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the mental assent or ‘easy believism’ position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ mental assent position decry all others as advocates of lordship salvation… There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation.”
That is where my book comes in. I attempt to strike a biblical balance in the debate. (BTW, the GES is mad at me too, which you would know if you have been to my blog. Having both the LS and GES camps mad at me confirms in my mind that I struck the right balance in the debate.)
I have read, sorted through and exposed the dangerous teaching that is inherent in the unbiblical LS interpretation of the Gospel being propagated by MacArthur, Chantry, Boice, Stott, Piper, etc. I did not stop there, however, because I went on to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of grace.
For another view of the Lordship Salvation controversy I highly recommend Dr. Charlie Bing. He has, for years, dealt with the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. You and others can read more by visiting Dr. Bing's site: Grace Life Ministries
In conclusion, the Bible says,
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter,” (Eccl. 12:13)
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him,” (Prov. 18:13).
If any one wants to be intellectually honest both sides of any debate need to be read, weighed and considered. I have done this for nearly 20 years in the Lordship debate, and I allowed my readers to read what the LS advocates have to say about their position both in my book and at my blog.
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intellectual Honesty - 8/15/2007 12:13:00 AM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 525
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
LMartuneac:
You have no credibility, I have asked you to respond to my postings, you said you were not obligated. I feel then, no obligation to take you seriously nor consider your arguements.
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intellectual Honesty - 8/15/2007 8:04:17 AM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
G/G:
Sorry to be blunt, and I am not trying to sound unkind, but I don't really care if you take my posts seriously. As I noted several times to you in this thread, I am not going to interact with you, and if you do want to take my notes seriously, that is fine with me.
If this forum has an "Ignore" feature, you might want to enable it so that you do not have to see or read my notes here.
My posts are for any who care to read alone, and/or comment on them.
LM
< Message edited by lmartuneac -- 8/15/2007 8:25:20 AM >
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
MacArthur on the Lordship of Christ - 8/15/2007 8:33:57 AM
|
|
|
lmartuneac
Posts: 54
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
|
To All:
Here is a helpful/informative article. This review of MacArthur's Lordship interpretation of the Gospel reveals and discusses the extremes in Lordship's out-of-balance theology. Please read:
John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ
LM
_____________________________
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Col. 4:6).
|
|
|
|
|
Obedience is a result of salvation - 8/15/2007 11:36:17 AM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4141
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lmartuneac
Is Lordship Salvation an "Exchange?"
This is a quote from MacArthur you reference in your article. I also have MacArthur's book and can see the quote for myself.
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (p. 140.)
Let’s be clear on what the exchange really is in salvation. Christ takes my sin, while His righteousness is imputed to me. I am unable to take any credit for this exchange. My obedience plays no part in this exchange. If my obedience plays a role in this exchange, then my theology is no different from Mormon theology which teaches that I do my part and Christ makes up the difference.
I obey, and Christ does His work for justification? Hardly. A believer believes, in faith given by God, and they are then justified apart from works solely by their faith.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Obedience is not even possible until the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Prior to that, I am a slave to sin.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
IS CHURCH YOUR IDOL?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intellectual Honesty - 8/15/2007 11:38:05 AM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4141
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lmartuneac
If this forum has an "Ignore" feature, you might want to enable it so that you do not have to see or read my notes here.
In the lower left of the posts, there is a red hand/block button.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
IS CHURCH YOUR IDOL?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lordship salvation and no other - 8/15/2007 12:35:10 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4141
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
I already pointed out to you the parables of the Kingdom (to which you gave no response) as indicative of the existence of true possessors and false professors. Hence the necessity to preach the examination of ourselves when the Gospel is preached.
When did I say there were no false professors? Typically, those parables refer to people who believe they are Christians based upon their works. Normally, they do not lack works but rather depend upon them for their assurance.
Exactly. We could preach the examination of ourselves regularly as being the source of our assurance, but many would then have false assurance. A person can work very hard at having a seemingly godly life on the outside.
ETA:
If Peter had examined his life during his time of disobedience, what should he have concluded?
A) My works do not reflect obedience to God as Lord, therefore I must have never been saved to begin with (false professor); or
B) My disobedience indicates I am a disobedient believer (possessor), and I should repent of my disobedience/sin and walk with God, knowing God is faithful to forgive.
What do we do for those who repeatedly are led to believe statement A, and are seeking salvation over and over again based on their disobedient works? There is great fault in making our obedience the grounding of our salvation or the assurance of our salvation.
< Message edited by crankius -- 8/15/2007 1:25:26 PM >
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
IS CHURCH YOUR IDOL?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Intellectual Honesty - 8/15/2007 8:46:48 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 664
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lmartuneac
Aphobos:
1) “less-than-intellectually honest.” If you want to begin a discussion about intellectual honesty we should start with why most folks here do not use their real and full name.
That has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of false impressions or advocacy of false ideas and concepts using rhetoric, logical fallicies, or insufficient or falsified evidence.
The use of pseudonyms -- especially in cyberspace -- is simply a matter of being intelligent. I work in the IT Security industry, and am keenly aware of the dangers involved with flaunting personal information (real names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.) on the Net. It is not for dishonesty, but discretion, that most of us use a pseudonym.
quote:
2) “MacArthur speaking for himself.” There is a section at the beginning of my book titled, “Letting Them Speak for Themselves.”
I went to lengths to quote the Lordship advocates liberally in my book so that readers could see for themselves what the LS men have to say about their position in their own words. This way, in regard to my writing on the LS issue, charges like yours above would have no weight or merit. I cite JM at least 30 times and other LS advocates at least 15+ times.
More advertisements or your "book". Does it ever end?
The fact is that I possess and have read both The Gospel According To Jesus and Faith Works: The Gospel According To The Apostles. I am very much aware how easy it would be to lift sections of MacArthur's work out of context and spin them to say something they were never meant to. Serious students do not go to a person's detractors to learn what that person thinks. They go straight to the source. Think about it. If someone wanted to know what you believed about a particular subject, would you direct that person to your detractors? That's just asinine.
quote:
In many of the articles at my blog where I discuss the Lordship message I again quote MacArthur liberally. If you have read some of the articles you would realize and acknowledge that I do let him speak for himself. Here is a sample of articles that demonstrate I let MacArthur speak for himself.
See above response.
quote:
3) “…may be deceived.” Indeed, some are regrettably drawn into believing the false teaching on the gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation! Most people are familiar with MacArthur and trust him. He is very solid in most doctrinal discussions; therefore, most do not read his Lordship books with discernment and caution. Even in his LS books the vast majority is again sound, but woven in is the LS message that corrupts the Gospel of grace.
I don't think you give people enough credit. Not everyone is as mentally lazy as you seem to think. The majority of folks who would be interested in this subject possess some measure of critical thinking. I certainly don't believe everything MacArthur teaches. (For example, I reject premillennial-dispenstionalism, one of his most cherished beliefs.) I don't think that I'm some genius who is the exception that proves your rule (i.e., that most people will just believe it because MacArthur sa | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
