LS & the RCC

yeah, the Catholics will argue that you're taking it out of context. That the Papal bull in 1302 was referring to Philip the fair and people who are already Catholics (it is not a statement to non catholics). The Papal bull was to show the king of France and others the supremacy of the church over their secular rules in regards to morality etc... So the arguement goes. A catholic is already submitted to the Pope and any authority outside the church is not. Basically how catholics understand it.

 

Actually, I found (going by memory now) that they are arguing for the historic position that there is no salvation outside the papacy against Vatican II statements. They try to reconcile the apparant contradition and maintain Rome hasn't changed.

 

Now that is a very possible thing. There are camps in the RCC one supporting a universal understanding of Unam Sanctum and those supporting Vatican II. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Let's stay on the subjects, not personalities

I agree with webdog, here.

I do not agree that this series of threads is any "personal referendum" on Dr. John F. MacArthur and/or Lou Martuneac (or anyone else, for that matter), despite several posters attempt to make it appear as such, not to mention multiple mischaracterizations of individuals and issues I have seen.

Two quick and easy examples of mischaracterizations would include the false accusations that have previously been made on the BB that webdog, Lou Martuneac and I (EdSutton), among others 'don't believe in Lordship' (despite that all three of us have posted that we in fact fully believe this doctrine) yet this 'charge' persists; that the same three (and others) 'do not believe in repentance' (which we have all specifically said we do believe in, and teach, and I have, personally, given multiple posts specifically detailing that fact) and one continuing mischaracterization of the issue at hand (and some of the individuals thereof) by referring to it with the pejorative labels of "no-Lordship" and "non-Lordship", as opposed to the accurate theological descriptive words of "non- Lordship salvation," which is a very different proposition, entirely, from "non-Lordship," by definition. Incidentally, I suspect most that use this label do actually understand this, but choose to make this subtle jab, anyway.

I do fully believe the teaching known as "Lordship Salvation" to be false teaching that morphs the blessed gospel of the grace of God, into an "another gospel" monstrosity, that mixes grace and works for salvation, and confuses salvation and discipleship into some amalgamation that is distinctively neither of the two.

[Not to mention that the teaching and proclaiming the one must or can "make Jesus Lord of your life" represents an egotism that exceeds that of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the most High." by suggesting we can "make Jesus" anything, when He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and God is the One who made Him Lord. (If anyone could 'make Jesus' to be anything, then that individual becomes God, and if that is not an 'heretical teaching', then I never saw such.)] (Bold for emphasis.)

IMO, a couple of folks, who have posted on this subject, recently, that we should or must "make Jesus Lord" might be well served to consider this previous paragraph I have just written.

Back to the 'main course':

That is in no way personally impugning any individual who believes and teaches such (Lordship Salvation). Nor, by the same token, is that any blanket personal endorsement of one who does not teach this.

As I have previously posted, I was aware of and came to hold this position about 20 years before I ever even heard of Dr. John MacArthur, and over 35 years before I ever heard of Lou Martuneac. There is certainly no axe to grind for me, and I really suspect not for most 'free-grace' adherents, but the allegation that there is such, serves as a convenient distraction to the actual issues at hand.

Ed

 

You have used "free-grace" phrase many times in the last few weeks. How do you feel about that Grace Evangelical Society? I'm sure you do not agree with all of what they say, but an over all view is what I'm asking. Would you say you agree with their view of salvation? If you do not agree their view of salvation, what part do you disagree with. If there is no part you disagree with, just say so.

 

Brother, the last time I read the Bible, it said it was still Jesus who bled and died on the cross, and rose from the grave, and the gospel was simply the good news of the eternal salvation of the sinner that His act secured.

How then can repenting and believing the gospel be the cause of their eternal salvation, if you mean eternal salvation, that is.

And I think that when Jesus said we need to forsake all, He was speaking in a way so as to emphasize our inability to meet His requirements 100%, which is "forsake all".

 

Ed, have you read "The Gospel According to Jesus"? On page 43 John MacArthur says..."We do not "make" Christ Lord; He is Lord!. MacArthur agrees with you.

 

It's still impossible when one is regenerated. It's like telling a newborn to rise up and walk.

 

And it's exactly why our salvation is 100% a work of God and why I can't get any credit for it. Soli Deo Gloria!

 

I use the phrase "'free-grace'" for the purpose of identification, only, as I have said multiple times, and the reason I place this inside a 'single' quote mark, is because the phrase itself is redundant, which I do recognize. Grace that is not free, is not grace at all, but merely a different one of the multiple theological monstrosities that are running around out there.

I have also said that I have am now, and have been an associate member of the Grace Evangelical Society for more than 15 years, for whatever that is worth. I did not seek to join (and in fact, had never even heard of them), but was given a one year full 'paid' membership by a friend about 17 years ago. 'Associate' memberships are free, and I have kept mine since. (I'm not evne sure he has done the same thing as have I, but my 'membership' serves to get me a free four-page newsletter every two months!) Personally, I love stuff that is free, like salvation.

The GES does not speak for me in any regard other than the one I just mentioned, any more than does any other 'body,' including my own home church. I also have some other long time friends who happen to be members of the GES, including a couple of them who are charter members, and none of whom I even knew were members until much later than I was, BTW.

As to the GES stated "view of salvation," here is exactly what it is stated to be.

I agree with this statement, in general, and I have no major disagreements with any of this. It is certainly limited, for this is intended as a 'thumbnail' expression of one point of a Statement of Faith; it is not intended to replace the fourteen volume Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth; the eight volume Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer; or even the three volume Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge.

Ed

 

With man, it's impossible...but with God, all things are possible. We are indwelt with the Spirit for a reason. I would hope as a regenerated person you now know what it takes to follow Christ wholeheartedly.

 

You must have a small view of God to think that you are truly loving Him with all your heart.

 

Hi Lou;
I'm not sure if you believe this or not;

An unconditional surrender is not a work but a total defeat and is the work of the one triumphant, not the man. The man ("being defeated"), has no other choice there fore is not the will of the man, but the winner. All this even though I do not know one single person who has unconditionally surrendered to God. Surrender yes but not unconditionally. Man always hold's back some favorite sin just in case even if it's only the freedom to do so. There fore there is no man with out sin. Anyone who makes the claim they have given everything up for Christ doesn't know what he is saying. I have heard preachers claim they are God's messenger. That they have completely surrendered their lives to Christ. It just isn't so. If it were there wouldn't be so many caught in some sin or another. We all confess regularly our sin to God and ask forgiveness. Not one of us can live a perfectly holy life. My proof of that is if I'm wrong show me one in life.

As far as faith being a gift. Many Calvinist make this claim. They're right! faith is a gift and scripture says so. Eph 2:8, Man isn't saved by his own faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Gal 2:16 Faith is accounted as righteousness and the only righteousness I can be judged as righteous in, is that of Jesus Christ. My own will never measure up even at it's best. Yes just like that verse says we believe to but our belief is only the hope of Salvation and not Salvation it self. Even our own belief is the total work of God Jn 6:28-29,because we are convinced by the preaching of His word. Both preacher and the Word are the works of God. Once convinced we are convicted, (again the work of God's spirit), and conviction brings repentance and confession unto Salvation. Salvation no matter what process you might believe in is always all of God. Man is simply unable to save himself.
We must believe inorder to be saved but we still have to know who and what to believe.
MB

 

Thanks,

And what others have been saying is that Lou rejects Grace Evangelical Society. So he is not in your group.

BTW...this is the full statement of faith..