When Lordship Advocates Define Their Terms: It Comes Up Works!

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,
    First, I am on record rejecting the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism.” I have written extensively against the heretical “Crossless” Gospel originated by Zane Hodges and perpetuated through the Grace Evangelical Society. I am convinced that the Crossless gospel is a reductionist, non-saving message that is a radical a departure from biblical orthodoxy as far as one can go in the opposite direction of Lordship Salvation.

    Second, the extra-biblical views that faith and repentance are gifts give to man after he has been regenerated prior to and part from personal faith in Christ are in the quote, but not defined for the reader.

    Third, please note carefully the closing portion, “…no turning from sin is required FOR SALVATION.” That gives any objective reader proof-positive that LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires the lost man to “turn from sin” FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again.

    I will always agree that genuine repentance should result in a change of behavior. I have no argument with the teachers of Lordship salvation on this point. I will never agree, because the Bible does not agree that “a change of behavior is required for salvation.”

    If any LS advocate tries to shift the debate back to what should be the natural results of salvation after I have clarified this is a non-issue, you can mark it down he is trying to evade eth obvious problems with LS’s “change of behavior” view of repentance FOR salvation, which is how MacArthur clearly defines his position.
    At this point let’s examine another sample of John MacArthur’s definition of repentance.

    Note that MacArthur is arguing against an unidentified man’s position on repentance. MacArthur argues that to “change the mind” does not fully define repentance as he (JM) defines it. Make no mistake about it; MacArthur is speaking of the gospel call FOR salvation. So, what additional elements do we find in JM's definition of repentance FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again?

    MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.” In Lordship’s definition of repentance MacArthur equates the “intention to obey” God, which is intending to do good works, as co-equal with believing in Him.

    What becomes clear is that Lordship’s view of repentance as JM defines it has at least as much to do with changing behavior as it does with changing the mind. When you read more of MacArthur’s writing you find that the change of behavior takes a far more prominent role in LS’s definition of repentance unto eternal life than changing the mind and believing. A change of behavior is given the preeminent position in Lordship’s definition of repentance.

    This is a classic example of Lordship Salvation conditioning salvation on the promise to perform. The Scriptures are forced into compliance with Lordship’s change of behavior interpretation of repentance. LS’s repentance is man-centered; it is calling on the lost man’s commitment to change his behavior FOR salvation. This is works!

    Later in the sermon MacArthur writes,
    Incredibly and what helps to understand how LS becomes antithetical to Scripture, MacArthur starts by using an acceptable definition of repentance from the Greek, “afterthought or a change of mind.” Then MacArthur wants to force additional meaning into the metanoeo that is not there. This is an example of how LS advocates either force into (or extract from) the Scriptures whatever they must to support their interpretation of the Gospel. This is an abuse of Scripture!

    LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing. The Bible teaches salvation by believing in Jesus and His finished work on the cross (John 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10, 13). Nowhere in Scripture is salvation conditioned on a change of behavior, unless as MacArthur attempts to do, the Scriptures are redefined.

    LM

    Please continue to Appendix 1, 2 & 3.
     
    #1 Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  2. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Appendix 1

    In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to receive eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, “…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,” and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180). He acknowledges at one point that this is in part a “human work.” He wrote, “Nor is repentance merely a human work” (p. 178). That is, MacArthur sees repentance as a work of God and of man. According to MacArthur’s view of repentance the lost man must cooperate in salvation by making a commitment to turn from sin, to cease from sinning, to continue striving against sin our whole lives, never knowing we are saved and always hoping we are turning from enough sins. MacArthur contends that if anyone falls into sin they may have never been saved in the first place (pp. 89, 95-96, 132-133).
     
  3. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Appendix 2

    Another advocate of Lordship salvation wrote,
    The same LS advocate also wrote,
     
    #3 Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  4. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Appendix 3

    In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation, Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,
    I can agree that repentance is a change of heart that should result in a change of behavior.

    From the last portion where JM expresses disagreement with the so-called "Easy-Believism" position, it is obvious that MacArthur believes “turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.”


    LM
     
  5. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Nor is repentance merely a human work. It is, like every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God....If God is the one who grants repentance, it cannot be viewed as a human work.....Above all, repentance is not a presalvation attempt to set one's life in order...As J.I. Packer has written, 'The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims which He may make on their life.'"20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.p.178-179

    Lou Martuneac has once again proven himself to be intellectually dishonest in the way he presents what John MacArthur believes and teaches. He gave a partial quote, and then put his own spin on it, hoping to persuade "lukers" that John MacArthur believes and teaches a works-based salvation. That is not the work of a scholar. That is not the work of someone honestly trying to engage people in a debate for their position.

    Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer, or contributor to the BB.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #5 canadyjd, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  6. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    LS apologist just cannot accept facts: JM believes, “turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.”

    That is man having to commit to a human work FOR salvation. "Forsaking sin, stop rebelling, stop doing it, start obeying" as the attributes of LS's repentance.

    Try as they might to disguise and evade truth- LS is works based as defined by its most notable advocates.


    LM
     
  7. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Thanks for bringing that out. It is sad to see.
     
  8. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    From above-

    LM
     
  9. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    I know you believe this Lou. But you have failed to convince me that your interpretation of this LS position is what you think it is.
     
  10. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are only two proven facts from the many, many, many threads started by Lou Martuneac.

    The first proven fact is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to make honest and accurate statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches. There have been many comparisons between what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches, to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website. Every comparison demonstrates Lou Martuneac is not honestly and accurately stating what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

    The second proven fact is that Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer or contributor to the BB based on the first proven fact.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #10 canadyjd, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  11. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Lurkers:

    My article thoroughly documents from JM that LS conditions salvation on a lost man's willingness to turn from sin. JM is clear in that he believes turning from sin is REQUIRED FOR salvation.

    He wrote that, he defines LS, in his own terms. Turn from sin FOR salvation. MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”

    LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing.

    In TGATJ MacArthur also wrote,
    Here you have JM conditioning salvation on a kind of repentance re man must make a decision to "forsake unrigheousness" and "pursue righteousness." That is decide to forsake (stop) sin and begin to obey FOR salvation: WORKS!

    Don't let the shrill voices and mantra like complaints of LS apologists dissuade you from doing the reading and comparing what LS is as defined by its advocates to the Scriptures.

    LS apologists need to accept what JM said in his own words and the obvious implications of what he said.


    LM
     
    #11 Lou Martuneac, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  12. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Lukers:

    Please remember, there are only two proven facts from the many, many, many threads started by Lou Martuneac.

    The first proven fact is that Lou Martuneac cannot be trusted to make honest and accurate statements concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

    There have been many comparisons between what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches, to what John MacArthur actually believes and teaches in his book and on his website. You can compare what Lou Martuneac claimed MacArthur believed (post#2 of this thread), to what MacArthur actually stated in his book (post#5 in this thread). You can make the decision for yourself whether Lou Martuneac is accurately and honestly stating what John MacArthur believes.

    The second proven fact is that Lou Martuneac should not be considered a serious scholar, blogger, writer or contributor to the BB based on the first proven fact.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #12 canadyjd, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    The latest tally of threads started by Lou since 7/27/07 with L.S. in the thread title is 11. Seven other threads do not mention L.S. in the thread title,but the subject matter deals with L.S.

    What is common among the 18 threads is that Lou seeks to besmirch John MacArthur as much as possible. He reminds me of Don Quixote in Man Of La Mancha.
     
  14. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    To All:

    Read the opening comment that I opened this thread with. It contains documented proof from LS advocates that LS conditions salvation on a commitment to turn from sin.

    The LS apologist will not interact with it because it is irrefutable by virtue of how JM defines his own LS interpretation of the Gospel. Instead they must redirect attention away from the statements of MacArthur. And they want no part of dealing with the obvious statements and disturbing implications made by John MacArthur.

    Very telling that LS apologists will not face head-on, in unvarnished terms the statements made by MacArthur.

    Why do they evade this kind of teaching by MacArthur who says repentance FOR salvation is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”

    They’ll steer clear of this teaching because the reality of the implication is works FOR salvation.


    LM
     
  15. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    To all:

    Read post #2 of this thread. Take notice of what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur says in his book.

    Read post #5 of this thread and compare what MacArthur actually says in his book.

    Then decide if you can trust Lou Martuneac to give you irrefrutable proof of anything concerning what John MacArthur believes and teaches.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  16. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    This is not true. I have dealt with repentence in another thread. Please acknowledge that.
     
  17. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since canadyjd is determiend to personally dodge and redirect away from the obvious implications of JM's LS definition of repentance I will refresh with it here again.


    In an attempt to negate the works based message of Lordship Salvation Reformed Baptist (RB) shared this quote from John MacArthur,
    First, I am on record rejecting the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism.” I have written extensively against the heretical “Crossless” Gospel originated by Zane Hodges and perpetuated through the Grace Evangelical Society. I am convinced that the Crossless gospel is a reductionist, non-saving message that is a radical a departure from biblical orthodoxy as far as one can go in the opposite direction of Lordship Salvation.

    Second, the extra-biblical views that faith and repentance are gifts give to man after he has been regenerated prior to and part from personal faith in Christ are in the quote, but not defined for the reader.

    Third, please note carefully the closing portion, “…no turning from sin is required FOR SALVATION.” That gives any objective reader proof-positive that LS, as MacArthur defines it, requires the lost man to “turn from sin” FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again.

    I will always agree that genuine repentance should result in a change of behavior. I have no argument with the teachers of Lordship salvation on this point. I will never agree, because the Bible does not agree that “a change of behavior is required for salvation.”

    If any LS advocate tries to shift the debate back to what should be the natural results of salvation after I have clarified this is a non-issue, you can mark it down he is trying to evade eth obvious problems with LS’s “change of behavior” view of repentance FOR salvation, which is how MacArthur clearly defines his position.
    At this point let’s examine another sample of John MacArthur’s definition of repentance.

    Note that MacArthur is arguing against an unidentified man’s position on repentance. MacArthur argues that to “change the mind” does not fully define repentance as he (JM) defines it. Make no mistake about it; MacArthur is speaking of the gospel call FOR salvation. So, what additional elements do we find in JM's definition of repentance FOR salvation, i.e. to be born again?

    MacArthur says repentance is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.” In Lordship’s definition of repentance MacArthur equates the “intention to obey” God, which is intending to do good works, as co-equal with believing in Him.

    What becomes clear is that Lordship’s view of repentance as JM defines it has at least as much to do with changing behavior as it does with changing the mind. When you read more of MacArthur’s writing you find that the change of behavior takes a far more prominent role in LS’s definition of repentance unto eternal life than changing the mind and believing. A change of behavior is given the preeminent position in Lordship’s definition of repentance.

    This is a classic example of Lordship Salvation conditioning salvation on the promise to perform. The Scriptures are forced into compliance with Lordship’s change of behavior interpretation of repentance. LS’s repentance is man-centered; it is calling on the lost man’s commitment to change his behavior FOR salvation. This is works!

    Later in the sermon MacArthur writes,
    Incredibly and what helps to understand how LS becomes antithetical to Scripture, MacArthur starts by using an acceptable definition of repentance from the Greek, “afterthought or a change of mind.” Then MacArthur wants to force additional meaning into the metanoeo that is not there. This is an example of how LS advocates either force into (or extract from) the Scriptures whatever they must to support their interpretation of the Gospel. This is an abuse of Scripture!

    LS advocates have conditioned salvation on behavior and believing. The Bible teaches salvation by believing in Jesus and His finished work on the cross (John 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10, 13). Nowhere in Scripture is salvation conditioned on a change of behavior, unless as MacArthur attempts to do, the Scriptures are redefined.

    LM
     
  18. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did, see above. Now consider interacting on the direct statements by MacArthur in the lead of this thread.

    JM believes repentance FOR salvation is, “turning from sin...to forsake sin,” and have the “intention to obey.”


    LM
     
  19. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Here's another refresher:

    http://founders.org/library/boyce1/ch33.html
     
  20. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    To all:

    Read post #2 of this thread. Take notice of what Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur says in his book.

    Read post #5 of this thread and compare what MacArthur actually says in his book.

    You must decide if you can trust anything Lou Martuneac claims John MacArthur believes and teaches.

    peace to you:praying:
     

Share This Page

Loading...