"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

have you had breakfast, Dr. Martuneauc ?
I will be having mine in a few minutes. Hopefully, as I smell it from where I do my computer work and play, my wife is preparing some bacon, waffles, and coffee.
Is your breakfast Roasted MacArthur topped with buttered Lordship Salvation and washed down with Martuneac's Hot Brew ?
I hope you and those who share your breakfast with you enjoy it.
Don't choke on it now. Be careful.

 

PREACH IT!!

oh wait...I feel I'm a responsible Bible-believing Christian that understands. Lets not forgot about the fact that the gospel is much more then just salvation. It is a way of life.

Col 1:5-6
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:


Addressing Peter...a believer

Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

God bless you Lou and I'm praying for you.

 

Funny, but probably true.

 

Now you went and quoted scripture to support your views....just like John MacArthur. That proves with irrefrutable evidence....... oh, you know what will be said.

peace to youraying:

 

I love that contratemps!! Wow!! I was contrasting "conversion" with "conformity" but that really nails it! "Behaving" should come from conversion BUT often an "hypocrite" or two will slip in and think that they are saved because the "behave!"

And Lou, I have even heard Reform preachers say that salvation is a lifetime endeavor (in so many words). NO! Sanctification is a lifetime endeavor --- salvation is a once in a lifetime DECISION that includes 1) justification of the SOUL (which was formerly "dead") immediately and eternally, 2) sanctification of the spirit (our thinking, our emotions, and our wills) progressively, and 3) glorification (bodily) eventually!

I fear our Calvinist brethren, like the "spies" looking into the "Promised land" are bringing a bad report. "Oh, the grapes are so huge they must be carried by 2 men BUT, oh! we cannot choose God, even though He had promised it, may not affirm our decisions/obedience!"

Keep the "heat" up, Lou. You may not have many friends here but you have the right message.

skypair

 

Is this sermon series online somewhere? This sounds like an AWESOME sermon. Preach on brother MacArthur!

 

I was scarcely aware of this controversy until I saw it on these boards. I pretty much avoided it, but when Lou kept going on and on about it, I decided to take a peek. So, I had a few minutes tonight to look into the subject briefly. My reaction?

I had no idea how long and how significant this subject actually is. I found this article, written by Dr. MacArthur, in which he reflects on the controversy. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2263

I am not sure when this article was written, but it was written 15 years after he wrote The Gospel According to Jesus. He refers to the views that oppose what is called "lordship salvation" as the non-lordship position. The areas of doctrine this subject and controvery entail are the doctrines of grace, sanctification, justification by faith alone, the sovereignty of God, et. In fact, MacArthur claims that "Almost no aspect of soteriology is left untainted by the errors of no-lordship doctrine."

I found it interesting that the "no-lorship gospel's" leading advocates, according to MacArthur, can be traced to Dallas Theological Seminary. MacArthur writes, "In fact, Dr. James M. Boice, who wrote powerfully in defense of "lordship salvation" long before I entered the fray, referred to their view as "the Dallas Doctrine.""

MacArthur traces this teaching to Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of the seminary, whom MacArthur believes that in their zeal of a dispensational soteriology ended up embracing a kind of antinomianism. MacArthur also wrote, "Apparently, no-lordship doctrine no longer dominates Dallas Seminary the way it once did, but controversy over the issue is by no means dead." Apparantly, from this article, one of the leading proponents now of the no-lordship view is Grace Evangelical Society.

Well, after reading MacArthur's article I realized two things. 1) I already embrace what has been called Lordship Salvation. Whatever they call it, it is the biblical Gospel. 2) This is an important issue. If MacArthur's claim is correct, that this subject touches almost every facet of soteriology, then it cannot be ignored.

I agree with MacArthur's final statement: " If you are the least bit undecided about where you stand in the lordship debate, you need to study the issue carefully and come to solid biblical conclusions about it."

 

"For by grace you have been saved through forsaking..."

I dunno'.

Somehow, for me, this just doesn't seem to have the same ring to it, as some more familiar words.

No matter how loudly these words are spoken, somehow.

What Ever Happened to the word "BELIEVE"? (Book title by the late Donald H. Bunge)

Ed

 

FTR, I do not hold to any so-called "crossless gospel", either, but I do think that sometimes we may attempt to try to teach a course in "Systematic Theology" in the process of presenting the gospel.

The Biblical writers and speakers did not necessarily follow any 'sixteen-point' "set formula" of the words they used in every instance, when speaking in Scripture. Some times they perhaps assumed this; some times they merely did not speak to the atonement; some times they answered from another perspective, as in the case of Philip, starting from where the hearer already was. We might learn from this, IMO.

Personally, I believe that one of the great shortfallings of 'Christians' is the attempt to get someone "lost-er", if I may coin that word, to where we want to start them from our own easy defined 'starting point' and position, Biblically speaking.

Incidentally, I suspect that the 'Baptist' emphasis to want to mention sin, is a 'double first cousin' of this thinking - "You got to get 'em lost, before you can 'get 'em saved!" How much more "lost-er" is it possible to get a lost person? He or she is already lost and without Christ and without hope. John, when speaking to those at Aenon, (Jo. 3: 23-36); Jesus, when speaking to the the Jews assembled in Capernaum (Jo. 6:41-51) Paul when speaking to the Phillipian jailer (Ac. 16), and Stephen when speaking to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) never even mention sin, in any of these cases, nor do they use the same words, either. Yet I certainly would say they all presented what is necessary for one to receive eternal life, wouldn't you?

Ed

 

One simply cannot make "faith" and "believe" become "forsake" and "behave" without having "another gospel".

Ed

 

Here is a scenario I will throw at you all and respond accordingly. Let's say you are married(still a sinner, mind you) and you are having "fun" with someone other than your spouse. God comes to you and "convicts" you of your evil deeds. Now, will God save you if you keep on having "fun" with this one who is not your spouse? Or, would you have to quit this, fall down on your knees and ask God to save you? I choose the latter. God saves us FROM our sins, not while WE ARE IN THEM. In Luke 16, the Prodigal Son had to come out of the "Hog Lot" and make his way to Father's house.

I don't agree with a lot of what MacArthur preaches, but on this subject, he is "spot on" in my book. CHRISTianity isn't just giving your hand to a preacher and telling him to baptize you, but a WHOLESELL change in one's life by the Blood of Christ. One can't be saved until the Holy Ghost begins to tug at your heart. Like where it says to work while it is day, fo when night time comes, no man can work. Day represents the Holy Ghost bidding you to come unto the Father, night represents when He isn't.

Willis

 

Forsake sin for salvation

Lou: Just a simple question here. Isn't that exactly what Jesus is saying in Luke 9 and Luke 18?

Brutus

 

Pardon me, but the gospel is not God's redemptive plan for the lost. God's redemptive plan was for His Son to come and redeem here in time those for whom redemption and eternal salvation was authored. And Jesus, as the song goes "did all things well". He redeemed those for whom He shed His blood, without exception, without fail, without losing anyone save the son of perdition.

The gospel, is the good news of this finished salvation, as you correctly stated before contradicting your own correct statement by not putting things in perspective, to be broadcast by mouth by men limited in their ability to be everywhere all the time. The Scriptures you call the "great commission" tells those Christ charged with preaching this gospel to (1) teach and (2) baptize, and that those who believe (obey the instruction of the gospel as taught) will be saved, and by this I take it He means gospel salvation, unless you want to teach that the work of salvation that Jesus did at the cross cannot stand alone on its merits.

That is what you say Dr. MacArthur is saying. I cannot speak for others here. But I've heard Dr. MacArthur speak on grace for as many times as I care to recall for the last 10 years, and have always heard him say that grace alone saved the sinner. And I've heard him speak so many times on discipleship and obedience to know that he believes these things are proof of one's sonship. Like most of Christianity, Dr. MacArthur likes to see proof. And in fairness to you, I am sure you desire the same.

But why not go straight to the source, Dr. Martuneac ? Suppose you tell us how you are going to deal with Jesus' words regarding behavior ?

Luke 6:46 - "46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

No. The lost are born again by operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of any influence, participation, or contribution from the sinner. And then they believe, because they are quickened spirits or souls, born again from above, raised from the dead together with Jesus, whatever phrase you want to use.

Ephesians 2:4-5 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)."

I do not think this is a commitment being required as much as instructions on how to live in the kingdom, if one wants to truly be a disciple, or learner of Christ. After all, didn't the Lord Himself say:

"And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? "

Luke 14:27-28.

Like I said above, Dr. MacArthur has always been known to solidly stand on grace, and grace alone. In almost every Christian bookstore I see some of his books. He has been a much read author, and has done much work in the kingdom of God in accordance to how he sees he has been called to do.
I am Primitive Baptist and differ widely in some areas of soteriology with Dr. MacArthur but I have known him and heard him to preach Christ and Him crucified, and I can attest that here is a man who loves his Savior.
Now comes you, Dr. Martuneac, whom no one here in BB have ever heard of as much as we have heard of Dr. MacArthur, with your accusations against a man for whose integrity many on this board might be willing to vouch for.
You say that your intention is to protect the "simplicity that is in Christ". Well, that is your declaration.
Not being God, we do not see your heart.
But what we can plainly see is that you are besmirching the integrity of a brother-in-Christ, something which is clearly against the plain teachings of the Bible.
If you have anything against Dr. MacArthur, then seek him out personally, with witnesses, and then you can publish your book on how you challenged Dr. MacArthur, in front of witnesses, and he backed down.
Looking at how you are dealing with your issues with Dr. MacArthur, I do not think I will ever want to be under your pastorate.
Because you have no idea at all on how to maintain the integrity of your brethren, while at the same time challenging what you perceive to be their wrong doctrines or ideas.
You would most likely put me to shame before the entire congregation, even after confronting me in private, instead of treating me with love and letting me go with my reputation and integrity intact.
Jesus treated even Judas much better than you are treating a brother for whom Christ shed His blood.