Intro to Lordship Salvation- Reviewed

Would you care to elaborate on this ? How is this filtered, on what are they filtered ?

 

With all respect to Adrian Rogers, maybe its time to stop following one man. Adrian Rogers may be wrong in some areas. In fact I'm sure he was. Maybe its time to read a book or listen to another godly man, just to check and see if things add up. Maybe...just maybe try reading the Bible on its own, with no Adrian Rogers notes.

We have Calvinist on here that never quote John Calvin, never read John Calvin. You seem to live, eat and breath Adrian Rogers. Good man, but not always right. Maybe its time SP to move on.

 

Been there -- done that! jd is NOT impressed with SCRIPTURES. And this is -- what -- maybe the 3rd time I have mentioned him? Gimme a break and answer your own mail.

skypair

 

LM,

I am sure the name calling matters little to canadyjd and others as much as no one understands why it is needed. Yet your logic and one-sided way of looking at things with no support given by you, does matter. Above you speak as if a person cannot defend a writer, nor even make a good argument about the writers book, if they have not read the writers work..IN FULL. Yet you claim to know more then others, because you, I assume you have read JM work in full. You have read it in full...right?

The logic falls on closed ears, when you, the very one that has read the work in full, and the one that claims to know more about all things around JM, cannot defend your position to the point that others believe you know what your talking about. It would seem by this shown logic by you, that a person should NOT read the work and thereby be able to successfully defend his position as has canadyjd.

Of course this cannot be the case, for it is better to read the person in order to know what you are talking about. So something does not add up here my friend.

You either have a bomb that you carry that will end this debate, or you are full of hot air. If you have such a bomb, now is the time to release it so others will once and for all stop laughing at your defense and place you in high regard as holder of the truth.

so come now...

Give us your bomb.

 

I have read each post in the thread. I feel as if canadyjd has had the Bible behind him.

My mail box is waiting on the next letter. All others have been answered.

peace..

 

First --- I'm sorry. That didn't come out like I meant it. Of course you are encouraged to respond on topic. But don't go making wild accusations about who or what I rely on when you know good and well that I rarely cite anyone on my side and ALWAYS take a jab at the doctrines of men like Sproul, Calvin, etal. :laugh:

Merry Christmas, if you are still aboard. :jesus:

skypair

 

And my post was just to point out that you quote MEN even Calvin more then most Calvinist. Therefore if anyone needs to take a jab for following the doctrines of men, it would be you.

I will back away from this now, for my point has been made. Just as you do not worship Adrian Rogers when you quote, others that do no believe as you do not worship John Calvin. We all worship the God of the Bible, but come at it from many view points.

In Christ... James

 

To me, the "few verses" you speak of that they refer to are NOT gospel presentations but are truncated versions confirming the fact of the addressees' salvations.

"[C]hosen in Christ," for instance. But what does the "in Christ" mean? In "Christ" is just "shorthand" for Acts 2:38 or 1Cor 15:1-4 -- hearing the gospel, believing, and repenting toward Christ. But in the 2 occasions where the phrase is used concerning the addressees of his epistles, it is NOT Paul's purpose to convert them. They are already believers! It is his purpose to give them information regarding sanctification -- Christian growth.

So I don't see it as "filtered" by bias so much as misappropriated out of context.

skypair

 

Again, you fail to address the actual verses of scripture mentioned. Instead, you presume to know the very mental processes ("filtered through 5-point Calvinism") that John MacArthur has used to come to his conclusion. John MacArthur didn't quote Calvin when he gave his reasons for believing regeneration precedes faith. Do you think you know John MacArthur better than he knows himself?

Why can't you address the actual verses of scripture that have been cited? Is it because you have no answer for MacArthur's interpretation other than "you're a Calvinist, therefore everybody knows you're wrong"?

I refer to Lou Martuneac as being intellectually dishonest because he will not engage the texts of scripture and instead continually makes the claim that MacArthur's position is "extra-biblical" when that statement is easily shown to be untrue.

As far as not reading MacArthur's works of LS, I have read his website which specifically addresses the issue. It doesn't take a PhD to see that what Lou claims John MacArthur believes and teaches is contrary to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches on this issue.

As my father used to say, you don't have to be an expert on dung to be able to tell if something stinks to high heaven.

Lou, your analysis of John MacArthur's position on LS stinks to high heaven.

peace to youraying:

 

canadyjd is only impressed with SCRIPTURES in context.

What I am not impressed with is skypair's interpretation of scriptures.

peace to youraying:

 

Lou,

Out of due respect, before the likes of JM, there have been godly men, possessing exceptional exegetical skills, who have argued that Regeneration precedes Faith in ordo solutis.

 

So, you read Rom 6:4-5 and its larger context as well and still cannot see that we are resurrected upon our repentance/"death" and baptism of the Spirit/"resurrection"?

What could you do in your spiritual body that you couldn't do in your natural body? If you weren't in weakness but in the power of the Spirit? What if your fruit was incorruptible like your resurrection body and not corruptible?

skypair

 

Lou,

As you said, There have been godly men on both sides of the debate, and I believe that will continue to be the norm.

 

Intellectual honesty is a wonderful thing to behold! :applause:

Instead of accusing someone like MacArthur of believing and teaching an extra-biblical doctrine, that is a false doctrine, that is a works-based doctrine that frustrates grace.....we can simply agree good, biblical agruments have been made on both sides of the issue.

Perhaps yours can be the last word on this issue.

peace to you bothraying:

 

Happy New Year skypair :1_grouphug:

peace to youraying:

 

Oh! That's not right! Taunting me now, are you? :laugh:

Happy New Year to you, too! I didn't look but are you from the part of America where you eat greens for money and beans for luck in the new year? I got a "killer" Hoppin' John (black eyed pea) recipe! Well, it's Paul Prudhomme's actually. But it makes a mess of peas/luck! C'mon over!

skypair

 

I've noticed that many times we get hung up on timing. Personally, I believe that faith and repentance happen at the same time. I don't think it's possible to have faith without the working of the Holy Spirit and I don't believe we can come to Christ without rejecting our sin directed life. I believe repentance consists of turning away from the master called sin or the world and turning towards a Christ centered life. Actually, I think that's what you're saying when you talk about repentence from self.

BTW, I've read The Gospel According to Jesus.