"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

Beg to differ, Willis. :laugh: When we come to Christ, we are in the midst of a life of sins. Maybe they're not as profound as the one you mention but if you are going to say that a person has to "clean up he own mess kit" before he can be saved, there ain't no one saved but Christ Himself.

What the new believer really wants to get ahold of (and I did myself) is God's power over sin -- salvation from sin for eternity beginning here and now! But you know what that power is? It's the indwelling Spirit -- it's the change of heart and attitude toward everything in one's life. And you can't get it until you receive Christ.

I think if you reconsider the situation, you probably agree with what I am saying. What you posit is no different than suggesting that God won't "preserve" the believer and so even believers may be condemned contrary to Rom 8:34-39.

skypair

 

I'd like to posit a comparison for you consideration...

Relative to Christ, are we to be a) "brides" or b) hired help?

I ask this question because some seem to have the idea that so long as they do the work that they were "hired" for, they're "good to go." All's well in the household. But if they didn't, it is clear that they were never hired in the first place, right?

But what does the model of the "bride," the one illustrated for us in scripture, say? It says that if we desire Him, trust Him, and commit ourselves* to Him, it matters little what happens between now and the wedding. The Holy Spirit is your "wedding ring" and you don't get it/Him until you say "I will marry You, Jesus." IOW, He doesn't give it/Him to the cleaning lady and then ask her to marry Him.

And we have the parables of the one lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son to tell us that God will come looking for us if we fall -- no, when we fall. There just is no model showing the saved being subservient to a bunch of "church people's" rules (like LS) of what saves them or not.

*(which is why it is not repentance from sin so much as turning to Him that marks our salvation/betrothal)

skypair

 

We only need to come to God just as we are and let Him clean us up. We aren't capable of doing it. Since He demands absolutely perfection in order to enter heaven, only He can make us that way. If we were capable of reaching sinless perfection by ourselves, then we wouldn't need a Saviour.

Jesus said in Matt. 9:13: "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The problem is there are NO righteous. "There is none righteous, no, not one." Rom. 3:13. Also, "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isa. 64:6

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This is a hoot. You of all people Lou. You give half quotes, misrepresenting MacArthur's words, mislead, question Calvinist that show your error, question MacArthur's motives....the list goes on.

You have done nothing but bash MacArthur. When others show your wrong, you only start a new thread.

:BangHead:

 

I have no idea what Bob will say, but I will address this..

FROM...
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/LSMAC.HTM

This sounds a lot like Lou. Only part of the quotes and then bunched together with outs, to make MacArthur say what Lou wants.

Ryrie is the one that this link addresses. It seems like that many like to misquote MacArthur. Why? What is the point?

anyway...here is some more from that site

Again...please read the whole link...
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/LSMAC.HTM

 

The problem with the non-Lordship view is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. The view that Lou and others like him goes something like this:

All men have sinned, because of Adam's sin.
Because of sin, we are separated from God.
Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins.
We are to repent, and believe the Gospel.
Repentance just means that you have to change your mind about what you believe.

What is failed to be acknowledged is that unbelief itself is a sin. Jesus Christ didn't come to give us an alternative belief system. He didn't come to give us a ticket outta hell. He came to save us from our sins. Unbelief is a sin, just like any other sin, and it separates us from God just like any other sin. Furthermore, Non-Lordshippers seem to simply breeze by the fact that Jesus came to save us from our sins. They have to overlook or sidestep that in order to push their non-lordship view.

Logically, if non-lordshippers want to honestly hold to their view, they should change all their tracts and witnessing programs to be more like this.

All men are cursed with unbelief because Adam didn't believe( )
Because of unbelief and only unbelief, we are separated from God.
Because of unbelief, Jesus had to die. It wasn't because of your lying, stealing, adultery, rebellion against God, or anything else that Jesus came. He came to save you from unbelief.
We need to change our mind about what gets us to heaven, and believe in Jesus.

 

Glad to see another newbie join the fray. :laugh:

Let's break it down bit-by-bit, shall we?

No, all men have sinned, period. And then their SOUL died but their SPIRIT -- their intellect, emotions and will -- remain "alive" and intact (they aren't "brain dead").

Yes, this is the very definition of "spiritual death," Ezek 18:20. The soul/conscience no longer cares what God's will is.

He not only came to save us from our sins -- He DID save everyone from their sins insofar as their SPIRITS are concerned. The one thing He didn't die for is if we take a stubborn, self-willed orientation of unbelief in our SOULS.

Here's the idea --- everything that we choose to be a "verity," a truth, conditions our lives toward what you might call a "world/God/truth view." The way you think in your spirit is "dictated" by that world/God/truth view.

Your soul is the "throne" of your "god," that is. When a thought occurs to you, you immediately submit it to what you accepted as your "world/God/truth view." Your spirit, basically, "objectively" accepts any and all input from the flesh (eyes, ears, etc.). There is one time when what we hear seems to "ring MORE true" and that is when we "hear" the gospel. Intellectually, we may be "almost persuaded" like Herod. But one more step is required for salvation -- changing the orientation of our SOUL, our "world/God/truth view." It means throwing out the old and ushering in the new as a "life commitment."

Jesus died for ALL sins. The fact that you die in your sins and yet are resurrected bodily to Him (Rev 20:12) is testimony to that truth. What else could make it possible for you to appear before God again?

We need to "change our souls," Ironwill. We need to surrender the "throne" of our lives -- the "world/God/truth view, indeed, our "book of life" -- over the Christ.

skypair

 

I need to clarify nothing. I've stated it was MacArthur I heard speaking on grace.

I seem to remember you were a Dr. Lou Martuneac when you first registered with BB. If I am mistaken, then I apologize.

At least you were on this board when I made those "accusations" and questioned your heart and motives. In your case Dr. MacArthur is not around to delend himself or his positions yet you kept quoting him and criticizing what you said he said (which we do not even know if correctly taken in context).

What doctrinal debate ? With whom ? As far as I know, none of those you have "debated" with are admitted proponents of Lordship salvation. There is no doctrinal debate going on here.
I am defending the integrity of Dr. MacArthur, just as I would defend yours, if he were to come into this board and uninvitedly start attacking your position, without you around to defend yourself.

Considering how you like to post links to what you have written in most of your crticisms against others, beginning with the GES and its proponents and now Dr. MacArthur I cannot but conclude that what this is really about is personality, not doctrine or principle, it's "my works against their works", or "my theses against their theses".

 

A: Newbie?

B: What makes unbelief so particularly heinous a sin that Christ didn't die for that one, and where do you garner support for this from Scripture?

 

As a non lordship advocate...you are clueless to what "non lorshippers" believe.

 

1. Apparently you choose to overlook the vitriol and hatred towards Lou.

2. Without FAITH IN CHRIST there can be no salvation. The Law and guilt lead up to that, and repentance is part of faith in Christ...but what you deemed "pretty basic to most of us" is anything but. We are saved by grace through faith...not by law and guilt.

3. If you believe Lou endorses a "Gospel-lite", I would say you endorse another gospel altogether with the information you have supplied in this post.

 

Not at all. Non-lordshippers believe that unbelief is all that needs to be repented of...or at least the non-lordshippers like Lou, Jack Schaap, Jack Hyles, and others. They misunderstand the fact that sin is what separates us, sin is what Christ saves us from, and sin is what must be repented of.

 

Is there a place where one can read the particular views of non-lordship advocates?

 

Gospel-lite.... the gospel without a Lord.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=7278723

 

Well said. Well documented. Well done.:thumbs:

peace to youraying:

 

Some people have too much time on their hands. :laugh: funny though...but seriously, is there a statement of faith, creed, or something out there outlining this no-lordship position? I thought Grace Evangelical Society was it, but Lou who seems to be a no-lordship advocate says no. So where is this no-lordship group?

 

Is there a detailed outline somewhere of what non lordship advocates do believe? Perhaps a statement of faith or creed on the subject?

 

That was good! :thumbs:

 

FTR, not that anyone is actually listening, mind you,

all the so-called 'free-grace' types on these threads, including (but not necessarily limited to) Lou Martuneac, skypair, webdog, and EdSutton have said that they all believe in "the Lordship of Christ", and I would suggest that not to believe this is false doctrine.

Jesus is Lord.

This is not even remotely debatable!

This is part and parcel of his position in the Godhead, nature, essence, and character. One could not even have the ability to "make Him Lord' if they desired (never mind that even this suggetion reaches the height of egotism), for God beat you to it, long ago. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. In fact, that is one of the names/titles of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as is the Mighty God, Savior, or Immanuel.

That said, there is a great deal of difference between what is defined as "Lordship salvation" with its incipient 'requirements', and/or 'conditions', contrasted to and that of 'following' and submitting to the Lordship of Christ as a disciple, after receiving salvation as a free gift, without conditions, which I believe each of these I named has also agreed to, fully.

It is nothing more than a 'pejorative slam' to make such 'cracks' as "Gospel-lite" and "easy believism" which do little to shed any light, but certainly 'turn up the heat', consistent with what I previously posted on this thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1267155&postcount=27

FTR, if it is "easy believism" to present that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and was buried to prove it, then rose again according to the Scriptures and was seen to prove this, and that one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved, and that by grace through faith, and not of ourselves, but it is the free gift of God, and it is not of works lest any should boast, then I plead guilty to supporting 'easy believism'.

And, if what I am supporting is "easy believism", what exactly is the opposite - "difficult believism"?

Exactly how is that Biblically defined, pray tell?

Ed