All LS Discussions and Debates

I will not retract what I said for two reasons:
1. I provided you a statement that had a needless add-on which seemed to be an attack. Your only response was "That's not good enough." Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. Personal attacks are subjective. I viewed it as one, and you didn't.

2. As others have pointed out to you, you have "spammed" this board with anti-LS material, and in doing so have referred to MacArthur so many times it is impossible to count.
I went through many of your posts and I concede that you were respectful in your treatment and quotations of JM.
But is it needful to keep quoting him to get across your point? The fact that he is quoted ad nauseum comes across as a vendetta against him, whether or not your references are polite. It is "JM says this; JM says that; JM wrote this; JM believes this and it is heresy, etc." That is the attack.

Is it not possible to discuss a doctrine without discussing a person and his works? I believe it is.
In another forum we do it all the time.
We can discuss the trinity without constantly attacking Oneness Pentecostal, or the J.W.'s or others that don't believe in it. The doctrine (as does any) stands or falls) on Scripture alone, not whether or not cults or others believe in it or disbelieve in it.

I quoted a statement of yours where I think you went overboard. Now you are in the position of falsely accusing me. I think you should drop this subject, and not get needlessly overworked about it.

You have read my statement. Your respnse was "That's not good enough." I disagree. It was good enough.
Now drop the subject, and move on. Take my suggestion and tell why you think LS adcovates are wrong without naming lists of LS advocates including JM.

 

The OT Judaic covenantal system has nothing to do with NT Biblical Christianity.
Furthermore, I don't believe I have ever heard of a seven year old being kicked out of their family--not in Judaism nor even in Islam, where in many nations it is against the law for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.

 

Sky,

This is the point I was trying to make yesterday when I accidently messed up your OP. I still am so sorry for that please forgive me. If you have more text that you would like to PM to me I will gladly cut and paste it back into you OP for you.

Anyway, I can not agree with the opening statement you made as it currently stands. To do so would mean that we would have to remove the books of Mark, Luke, Acts, all of Paul's epistles, James, and Jude (as well as Hebrews because there is debate over the authorship) from the canon. Paul considered his teaching and authority to be equal with that of the 12 Apostles. However, he never claimed to be one of the 12 Apostles.

 

It's not. I can be a Baptist, AND be a Calvinist. Does that mean all Baptists are Calvinists? Of course not.

The point is, Heath Goodman believes in Lordship Salvation, AND adds some stuff to it. It is not fair to paint all of us with the same brush. There are basic tenets of LS, which I have expressed over the last couple of months, from two different websites,that do not go as far as Mr. Goodman.

You know, some of you might be saying "Havensdad sure is angry, and snide". Yes I am.

I took a little break from Baptist board. When I come back, what is the first thing I see? Lou M. with posts up saying LS "heretics", "false gospel"etc.

Does he say "SOME LS advocates, take things too far, and preach a false gospel of works". No he does not. He makes a blanket statement, that ALL of us do.

This was quite a slap in the face, especially when I preach EXACTLY the same thing that Paul preached in Acts. What really set me off, was Him cutting a quote from John Macarthur in half, intentionally, where it seemed he was promoting works salvation, when the second half of the sentence (which He cut off)explicitly denied it.

I asked Lou about it. He ignored me. I asked again. He ignored me. I began getting irritated> He posted the same quote again, AGAIN cutting off the second half of the sentence to change what Macarthur was saying. I asked Him why He was ignoring me.

After seeing blanket statements about LS from Lou, for the upteenth fiftieth time, and having Lou call me (as a believer in the basics of LS) a part of a "cult" I snapped.

I apologize to everyone here for my attitude, especially to Ed, who I have been directing much of my more heated comments at: I am not angry at you, nor webdog nor anyone else, OTHER than Lou, who I feel is being intentionally divisive, and refusing to address people who bring up contrary viewpoints, evidence, etc.

 

We have already had multiple threads on the LS debate. They have been merged into one thread. Likewise, this one is going to merged into that thread. Please do not keep starting new threads on the same basic topic (regardless of whether you are either pro or con).

Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator

 

FTR, Havensdad is here responding to a quote offered by webdog. Obviously, I'm not webdog, but will reply, anyway, to part of this.

(My emphasis above. - Ed)

Once again, I will ask the exact same thing I asked as my first paragraph in post # 175, when I was responding to this post, post # 157, by Havensdad, where he says these 2 specific things, among others, in that post. (My emphases - Ed)

Once again, with 'a little feeling', this time - "Out of curiosity, who died so that "Grace to You" and Havensdad are left in charge of defining "Lordship Salvation"? Oh wait. It must have been the late Dr. John H. Gerstner, whom I have quoted on this subject, on the BB, who passed on in 1996." To my knowledge, not even Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. has ever made any such ridiculous claim, that he and/or "Grace to You" get to define this teaching.

Not every advocate of "Lordship Salvation" would agree with your take, here. And I assure you, this teaching (and the controversy about it), was firmly ensconced, and being debated, even if not identified by the current name,long before Dr. John. F MacArthur, Jr. was even born.

I suggest you are calling the late Dr. John H. Gerstner a liar, by this, contrasting his own words, most of which which I am posting now for at least the fourth time on this board, on this subject.

Using some of your words: Where is this "base set of doctrine" that is "Lordship Salvation" found?

Was there an election that I missed hearing about, where "Grace to You", and Havensdad were chosen to set the "defining points of LS, by those of (you) who are the proponents of it."?

Who decided on the delegates? (That's "Messengers" for those of us who happen to be So. Baptist. )
I am aware of no 'denomination' or association known as "'Lordship Salvation' Association of Baptist Churches". ( I'm assuming you are claiming to be Baptist, or you wouldn't be posting in this forum, by now.)

I'm not angry over this (although I was and always am by the deliberate slur of "cheap grace" which seems to pop up somehow from time to time, and is invariably directed at the adherents of "free grace", every time it gets posted), but respectfully suggest that, your opinion notwithstanding, I do fully understand what is being said, and the complete essence of the entire controversy, and have for some 39+ years.

That is before you were in grade school in first grade, if I recall correctly.

And for all that time, I have consistently opposed the main teachings of "Lordship Salvation", namely that one must "repent of (their) sin(s)" and "that one must make/have Christ as 'Lord of (one's) life' to be saved" (to sum up and cram this into a nutshell) for a decade before I ever heard of Dr. Charles Stanley, some 20 years before I ever even heard of Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. John H. Gerstner, or the G.E.S. was even in existence, and more than 35 years before I ever heard of the Baptist Board, Dr. Bob, the FGA, or Lou Martuneac, as well, most of the which, I have posted on more than one occasion.

Ed

 

LS is the "contrary" doctrine

To All:

Havensdad is fully aware that because of his vitriol, unchristian like combativeness, calling into question my motives (Mt. 7:1-2) and character along with his blatant falsehoods suggesting I have attacked the character and person of MacArthur (a falsehood DHK is helping to perpetuate) and misrepresentations of my citing the teaching of various LS advocates- I informed him that I was following the biblical commands to withdraw from him.

Furthermore, I find HD not just a disobedient brother in Christ, but an advocate and teacher of a false gospel, namely Lordship Salvation. He needs to accept that I am going to obey the Scriptural mandates that restrain me from interacting with him directly until such time he repents of his vitriolic behavior. Once that happens I can begin to instruct, admonish and help recover him from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

Mixed Message

This is from Havedad’s doctrinal statement his StraightWalk site,

But in this BB forum HD writes a different interpretation,

Mixed message?

Is HD’s Gospel,

Or is it,

HD has a dilemma, he is perpetuating two different views of how he defines the Gospel. It appears HD either believes salvation is through faith- or through faith, plus turning from sin and forsaking the old ways, i.e. stop sinning.

IMO, the statement at his site is sound and biblical, the latter is the works based message of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

#1 You forgot one person> the Apostle Paul...

"We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them."

Paul preached that men should turn from there sin, to God for salvation. If Macarthur preaches a false gospel, so did Paul.

Also, by saying "a false, Non-saving message", you are stating categorically that I am not your brother in Christ at all.

How dare you condemn me for preaching a message straight out of the Bible! (word for word, in fact). You are not God, Lou, though you try to make yourself so...

ALSO> you are either mentally challenged, or deliberately lying. Calling people "heretics", "cultish", and making sweeping accusations about people, is demeaning them. So it is YOU Lou, that started the "Vitriol".

Try pulling the Log out of your own eye, Lou.

 

So, Pauls statement in Acts 14 is not "sound and Biblical"?

 

This seems to be a sticking point, that some people just cannot understand. I can forsake sin (stop actively pursuing it), but still sin. "Forsaking sin" is a changing of mind, not "stopping sinning". It is something that is completely inside> it has to do with our focus.

As Paul makes so abundantly clear, we are speaking of directions> God is at one side, the world and sin is at the other. If we place our faith and trust in Christ, we "forsake" sin, the same way you forsake, say, your pet. You take your focus off of them, and place it somewhere else.

If I am feeding and watering my dog everyday, and I "forsake" him, by going to Cancun with my wife, that does not mean I have done ANYTHING "actively" to my dog. It is simply a consequence of my focus being on my wife.

 

As for HD's LS interpretation of the Gospel, it mirrors that of the most recognized teachers of it, which is irrefutably works based and man centered. LS is a message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

HD needs to accept the fact that there is a large body men across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity that reject the Lordship Salvation message because it is a faith, plus commitment to works message. LS is a corruption of and assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

I will do all I can to alert believers about this “contrary doctrine” and identify its teachers so that they may be avoided.

Lordship Salvation is a “contrary” doctrine that has introduced “divisions and offences” into local churches and the body of Christ.

LS is a departure from the Gospel of Grace. It is an over-reaction to the obvious errors of the so-called “Easy-Believism.” Nevertheless, it is never right to change the terms of the Gospel, which was how Lordship Salvation was created.

Men like MacArthur, Piper, Chantry, Goodman along with any man, including Havensdad, who perpetuates Lordship Salvation have adopted a false, non-saving message. God help any lost man who has been told forsaking sin and the intent to start obeying is going to save him.

LS conditions salvation on a commitment to and performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ. This is NOT the Gospel!

Lord, willing, not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

Is copying a post, deleting it, and then REPOSTING IT at the bottom not against some kind of rules? I may be wrong, and I apologize if I am, but if you look at my post above, I quoted this SAME POST, with a response, earlier!!

 

(The bolding is mine).
And it is a false accusation, as I have already explained to you.

You attack without even realizing it. You cannot see the forest for the trees.
Stand back a bit and look at what you are posting.
Take a look at this:

In essence you have called MacArthur, Piper, Chantry, Goodman and even Havensdad all heretics--those promoting a false, non saving message.

This is an attack. You have named people. You have told them that they are heretics spreading a false message that cannot save, and yet many of these men have ministries which are large and have reached out to hundreds if not thousands, bringing them to Christ. Something is wrong.
Your attacks are personal. They name the person; how can they be anything else but personal??

You need to take a deep breathe and stop.
Debate the doctrine not the person.
If you persist, I will simply close the thread completely

 

I'm not Lou Martuneac, but I'll attempt to give you a short answer. (FTR, realize there is a very good chance I will be told that I do not have a clue what I am talking about, by some, from both perspectives, afterwards.)

Practically, there is no difference, none, as to the 'end point' of these two 'theologies'!

Doctrinally, this may of may not be correct, for some "Lordship Slavation (sic) adherents" will and do approach the 'end point of this 'faith', from one direction, and some from another, while close to 100%, if not entirely 100% in the Holiness movement approach it from a single perspective.

I have an analogy, I use in this.

Liken this analogy to our earth, with the End Point at the International Date Line (the 180th Meridian) with the Starting Point of Greenwich Observatory, London, England, located on the Prime or Zero meridian. The latitude of the End point is the same as that of the Starting point, for this analogy. It really makes no difference, whether one travels East exactly 180* or West exactly 180*, one still winds up at the Date Line.

That analogy aptly fits the "Holiness" vs.? "Lordship Salvation" theologies. In the so-called "Holiness" theology, virtually all take an "Arminian" approach. (There may be a very few exceptions to this, but I have yet to encounter any.)

In the so-called "Lordship Salvation" theology, probably a bit over half take a "Calvinism" approach, with the remainder taking an "Arminian" approach.

Both "systems" teach that "good works" are both necessary, in some manner, and an assured result of one's "perseverance". (As well as 'reserving' the right to 'judge' in order to determine if ones 'actions" meet up to this unspoken and undefined standard, hence being able to determine the status of whether someone is "actually, truthfull, really and truly, genuinely (add any other 'qualifiers' you think appropriate, here) saved."

If this "perseverance" or 'behavior" does not measure up, then for the Calvinist, one never really ever "had it", in the first place, does not have it now, and hence is actually a "lost" individual. 'They' will be generally said to be a 'false professor", but regardless, the end result is that 'they' don't "have it", meaning eternal salvation.

This is effectively identical to the 'Arminian' position, in its end result, with one exception. The Arminian believes that there are two possibilities, with the first being a 'false professor' as above, but with another possibility, namely that one miay well have genuinely '"had it'" at one time, but subsequently "lost it", with the result that they don't "have it" now, anymore than those from a "Calvinist" persuasion. Again, regardless 'they' don't "have it" now, meaning again, eternal salvation.

How is this different? In one scenario, you don't "have it;" in the other scenario, you don't "have it."

AS I have said before, Same difference!

Ed

 

OK, I think we all know what "once delivered to the saints" means. That is the point I was making. The church decided long ago which writings were canon -- the rest is hearsay.

skypair

 

Thanks. That was how I was seeing it. But I'm not fully versed in either theology so wasn't sure.

 

I know right where you are coming from, bro.

The purpose of repentance toward God in conversion is the be declared to have the eternal, judicial righteousness of God in Christ, period! Spiritually, understanding nothing more than that (per 1Cor 2:1-6, 14), we can do nothing more than that!

skypair

 

So are you saying that the entire point of salvation is basically to have God say "You're good to go." and have the legal basis for it? I contend that salvation is much more than that. That is only the first and pre-emintant part of it. Works don't save but I believe they are an essential part of salvation. I view salvation as a package rather than one item. We get to do works we are not forced to them. We get to have them count in our relationship with God. We get to particpate in Gods redemtion for others like the angles who proclaimed the word of God. We get to be resurected and enjoy an eternity with God and our brother and sisters. God offers salvation and is able to do that by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We believe and then salvation comes into effect with all that is associated with it. Why else would Paul say work out your salvation with fear and trembeling? He further says you believe Good! So do the demons and they tremble. The theif on the cross believed and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Legally and in reality he was right with God! He is now in eternity with our Lord. However, he missed out on the privilage and grace we have to live rightly before God in this wicked age. The privilage to suffer for our faith in him. To particpate with our words and deeds proclaiming the goodness of God to those around us. Paul counted it all joy to suffer. Why? Partly so he could relate to Christ and be more like him and Partly to be an example of Salvation to others.