All LS Discussions and Debates

Just curious. How do you know what Lou Martuneac, Dr. John F. MacArthur, or Joe Blowhard would think or say??

Now for everyone reading this thread. Follow me on this one, if possible.

One cannot be a disciple of Christ, and not be saved???

Strange -

Remember that name; there will be a test!

With all respect, Scripture seems to have a different point of view, I think. Now for thetest': - 10 pts a question.

(1.) Who with a bolded name, above is/was a disciple? ____ .

(2.) Who with a bolded name is also called an Apostle? _____ .

(3.) Who betrayed Jesus? _____ .

(4.) Who mentioned in bolded above was also preacher? _____ .

(5.) Who already named and bolded above is said to be in ministry? _____ .

(6.) Who is said to be a thief? _____ .

(7.) What was the fate of the one identified as the son of Perdition? A. - He was ____ .

(8.) Were all the disciples 'clean'? Yes or no, for the answer on this one.

(9.) Was Judas saved, as to how you read Scripture? Yes or No. Incidentally, you get ten points on this one with either answer, so one has to score at least 10% on the test.

(10.) Based only on what has been stated in this post, can one be a disciple and yet be unsaved, i.e. "lost"?? Yes or no.

For a bonus 30 points - here are three extra credit questions.

(Without looking any of this up, According to the KJV)

(11.) How many of the apostles are said to repent, in Scripture? ___ .

(12.) How many individual men and/or women are said to repent in Scripture within + 5? (Hint: the answer to this part is fewer than 100.) ___ .

(13.) And within + 5, how many times is it said that God either did or did not repent?

On the honor system, what did you score on the test, after now looking it up?

Ed

 

Ed,

Your premise is incorrect. Judas was a "follower" of Jesus in an earthly sense. This is impossible today, because Jesus is not walking around.

Was Judas a "spiritual" disciple of Christ? NO, He was not...He was NOT obeying the Lord....

Joh 12:6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.


I am sorry. Was He following Christ, spiritually? Was He loving His neighbor as Himself? Was He loving the Lord with all his heart/mind? What EXACTLY was He "following" the Lord in?

Had He submitted Himself to Christ? Etc. Etc. Etc.

The answer to all of these, is no. SO in what sense was He a "follower"? Only a strictly physical way: he followed Jesus around: but He was not really obeying Him. Judas was not a spiritual disciple.

In fact, I would argue Judas as the textbook case of the Necessity of LS> Judas professed faith in Christ, but He never repented (turned from) his old lifestyle: He never submitted His will to Christ's. Without this, one cannot be saved.

 

Argue as you will, I guess. I am not the one who made any "premise", I do not believe, aside from starting with the assumption that Scripture is true. I merely quoted Scripture and asked for answers to questions, based on what was found there. The Bible several times declares Judas to be a disciple, not EdSutton. It names him, as a disciple, as one of the twelve. Scripture does not say that "Judas professed faith in Christ", that I'm aware of. In fact, I do not find anything close to these words anywhere in the text of my Bible, at all, for Judas or any other.

In fact, I would argue that he did not, were I asked. He never 'professed' the deity, that I can find. He apparently considered himself a disciple or student, for he addressed Jesus as "Master" or "Rabbi", equivalent to "Teacher". Apparently the group of disciples had no suspicions, for they had made him the treasurer. He looked every bit the part. He did all the things the other eleven apostles did (for a small commission, of course, as John found out later). What he did not do was believe in Jesus as the Son of God, or believe that "I AM".

You mentioned a couple of things I want to ask you for clarification in, unfortunately I simply do not have the time, nor will I have it before Tuesday, to get into it.

Ed.

 

If I understand you right, you do not care much for the label "no Lord" salvation. It should be noted that most including John MacArthur does not care for the phrase "Lordship salvation". But I guess thats another thread.

That being said..you said its more about those that believe in "Lordship Salvation" vs. "non-'Lordship Salvation". All Lordships have a Lord. If you believe in Lordship it is toward one person, or one God or one something as the Master...the lead. It is particular in nature. The object of Lordship is signaled out to be the one as the Lord and one to follow. This does not mean we live without sin. It means we have a goal or a mark that we want to follow. It means we have a respect for that object of lordship.

If you do not believe in Lordship there is nothing in particular to which you aim. There is no focus to the lord and a rejection of his will. You show no respect to anyone. It is lordless. In salvation this type of faith has no Lord.

Maybe I need to write a book to go into greater detail.

Now back to the OP....

What does repent mean?

 

Scripture interpreting Scripture:
Mark 1:4 - John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Acts 11:18 - When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life

Acts 11:21 - And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Nowhere does it say they had to foresake their sins.

Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Repentance leads to believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and please note, there is no mention of making a commitment to God or foresaking one's sins.

The Bible speaks of the "remission of sins", but never commands anybody to repent of sins in order to be saved:
---
Acts 8:22 - Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

The above scripture isn't talking about salvation, because Simon (who this scripture refers to), was a new believer in Christ who thought he could buy the power of the Holy Spirit, nowhere is salvation mentioned here.

Repentance to salvation is a one-time thing, but repentance from sins is ongoing. Repentance unto salvation is very different from repentance unto sins.

Biblical repentance is turning towards God, in faith, to Jesus Christ for salvation.

If Lordship Salvation is Biblical, then how do Lordships Salvationists interpret the following scripture?:

1 Corinthians 5: 5 - To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
---
The Bible clearly states - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Absolutely no mention of the foresaking of one's sins and making Jesus the Lord of one's life. John 3:16 clearly shows God's love, compassion and mercy for us.

The Bible DOES teach easy believism. God doesn't make it hard for us to believe. What Lordship Salvationists do is yoke one's faith with the life they lead as a requirement for salvation, yet 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 tells us this statement is a lie, because there is SIMPLICITY IN CHRIST. Some Lordship Salvationist state that "false converts" believe, yet aren't saved, yet Romans 4:5 calls them liars - But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Then, the Lordship Salvationist confuse the root of one's faith, with the fruit of one's faith. They tend to contradict themselves because they state that salvation is without works, yet at the same time they also teach that a person cannot be saved without making changes to their lifestyle. Can anyone else see the hypocrisy here???

John 6:29 states - THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Our only "work" is to believe in Jesus Christ. God worked in order for us to be saved, all we need to do is accept it. It's really so easy.

So, when Lordship Salvationists give their family and friends gifts, do said family and friends have to work for such gift in order to receive it? At the same token, do we have to work for our salvation? Isn't it a FREE GIFT from God?

TWO WORDS : FREE GIFT

Think about it.

 

Lumping the "no-lordship" mantra

Ed:

You will never get an honest answer or acknowledgment of the misuse of the “no-lordship” label from the LS sympathizers.

While I agree that 20 years ago LS men did not like the term “Lordship Salvation,” they have since come to embrace and use the term without apology.

In JArthur's answer to you, it is either through ignorance or purposeful choice, he dodges the crux of the controversy, which is how the lost are born again. He takes the usual line of discussing what should follow conversion. What they try to avoid is a discussion of LS conditioning salvation on a commitment to the works of discipleship because that is where LS fails the test of Scripture.

The problem is that these men, possibly unwittingly use the “no-lordship” mantra popularized by MacArthur, and apply it to any who reject the works based message of LS.

“No-lordship” is a mantra of the LS movement that these men apply with a broad brush to anyone, no matter where they are theologically on the issue. They are intellectually dishonest when they will not concede that there are men who reject Lordship Salvation and just as strongly reject the egregious reductionism of Zane Hodges. For LS sympathizers you are either LS or Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel. If they acknowledge the more balanced position in the middle they lose their target for legitimate doctrinal scrutiny.

Why do you think MacArthur has never engaged Charlie Bing’s dissertation? Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response

Bing’s dissertation strikes the right balance between the two extremes. He does not make the fatal doctrinal errors of Zane Hodges’s Crossless Gospel in his response to LS.

In my LS debates with MacArthur’s personal assistant, Dr. Bing checked in with two brief comments. Bing asked MacArthur's assistant one question, and he refused to acknowledge or answer it. Why? Because they have no answer to the biblically balanced evaluation and refutation of LS by men like Dr. Bing.

This is why you get the “no-lordship” mantra, affix it to Hodges and lump everyone else into the Hodges mold, whether they accept the errors of Hodgism or not.


LM

I also discussed Reformed Baptist's use of the "no-lordship" mantra in my Opposing Extremes on Repentance thread. For example,

 

James,

I think Goldie sums it up nicely.

I understand what you and JM are saying about the Lordship of Christ -- putting Him on the throne of your life rather than just repenting of sins for salvation.

I do not agree that they need to or will a) know what God expects them to do, b) do what some man thinks they should do, or c) be obedient in at least some areas of their lives in order that they might be saved.

These all fall under the life-long "sanctification" of the saints and will "save" them temporally from chastisement, from much sin, etc. In fact, Jesus said we would have life and we would have it more abundantly. Solomon told us that the fear of God leads to health, riches, and honor, Prov22:4. If JM would like to restate his proposition, I think this would be a better way to describe the "salvation" of the Lordship of Christ in one's life rather that to hang "eternal life" on works.

skypair

 

Point taken. IOW, you cannot be sanctified by the life of Christ if you are not first justified to the righteousness of God through the death of Christ for you. BUt if you are justified, you WILL be sanctified whether by living an abundant life or by suffering chastisement all your life (or some combination of both). I believe it is the "suffering chastisement" all one's life that JM leaves out. There is a "sin unto death."

Right. I think most objections to it are on this wise: Many people say, "if the good outweighs the bad, I'll get to heaven." That is what LS looks like when one starts weighing the particular things JM sees as proof of either salvation or lack of salvation. It's as if he could be the judge of such and put his judgment above a person's simple profession of faith.

Make no mistake -- it is the devil's job to get people lost or thinking they are lost. And who's to say that at some point JM won't revise his criteria (like AW Pink did) that you must belong to his church to be saved? or his denomination and theology?

skypair

 

What I believe some have missed is this fact;
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

If we cannot serve two masters why is it some think they can and be saved?
MB

 

What God wants is made clear isn't it? Should we all strive to be Christ like or should we go on serving two masters.

Aren't all those things mentioned above our reasonable service? I think there are to many who believe they can be saved and sin all they want to. Christ said you cannot serve two masters.
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

For some reason I don't yet believe that JM is saying this at all. However commitment is necessary in order to love and follow Christ.
Commitment is necessary for our surrender to His righteousness. Salvation is much more than just believing. Many believe but very few of those are actually saved. This below is only one of many reasons
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Submitting our will to His is giving up on sin to follow Christ and to wear His righteousness. Even the Jews Paul speaks about above believed and were not saved. The reason comes down to commitment or surrender. We do not have the humility to be saved holding some sin or object out of our submission.
We should all ask our selves this; Is Christ living out our life for us or, are we still living it our selves?
MB

 

Lou I have never heard anyone from either side use the phrase "works of discipleship"before.Did you recently mint the term;or have you used it before?

 

Utter drivel again from the keystrokes of Sp. AWP never said that people must belong to "his church"to be saved.Where do you come up with this.....?What was "his church"anyway Mr. Winged Wonder?Nor did he say one must belong to his denomination or theology to be saved.Most of the time you shred Holy Writ to little scraps with your slant ( for lack of a better word).But on this one you are factually challenged.There is no documentation to substntiate your nonsense.

The [......] continues when you speculate that John MacArthur will do what your fictional AWP did.



Try writing without offense Rippon

 

No Lord Salvation sympathizer mislead others as to what those that believe we should follow Christ as Lord away from sin really believe. If one stands up to the falsehood exposed by the no lord salvationist one will also be misquoted and labeled a name that have never held. So how no lord salvationist think this is just.

Only to keep the debate on the same page.

What you and ed and all others have done that hold to having Christ in a non-Lordship postion, is not address the OP. You have tried to change the subject or fight over a label but will not address the OP. Now in fairness I ask you..who has dodge the crux of the OP??????

I await your answer.

 

C'mon Ed.It does indeed come down to personalities.Lou has consistently trashed John MacArthur by name hundreds of times here (not to mention hundreds of times elsewhere).The other names you listed have been cited far fewer times in comparison.
_________________________________________________________


(One more personality must be mentioned, though, our own Lou Martuneac, who is considered the latest 'major' contributor to the discussion, with his book In Defense of the Gospel, by wikipedia.)
[/quote]

No! Really, Lou wrote a book?He never mentioned that!
____________________________________________________________





* - All Bible versions are not translations. Some are intentional paraphrases, such as The Message which renders "Lord" as "Master" and "Christ" as "Messiah" in many places, which would skew my 'count' if I included this version in the above. The NLT which finds has some 400 additional renderings of "Jesus", than do major translations, would be another example.
[/quote]

The Message is indeed a translation.Dr.Eugene H.Peterson used the original languages in doing The Message.Of course,for the most part his translation did not even qualify as being a paraphrase.It was a very free translation.

Pray tell what considerable difference is there between Lord and Master?Why would you consider the word Master as a parphrase?

THe NLTse has many more renderings of Jesus for a reason.Instead of using a pronoun such as "He" it gets specific with it's identification.Do you have a problem with that?That's not an ideal example of paraphrasing.

BTW,the NLTse is not,by any stretch a paraphrase.It's a translation.It uses more functional equivalence than your NKJ -- but that does not a paraphrase make.

 

Rippon:

Ed is right: Personality is NOT the issue, never has been.

The LS teaching of personalities are under scrutiny. It is because of MacArthur's popularity, folks like you get emotionaly charged when his theology comes under scrutiny. You view any questioning/criticism of his theology as a personal attack.

So, if there is any personality problem it is with men like you who take it personally when a favorite personality's doctrine comes under scrutiny.

Please keep in mind that it is the works based, man-centered teaching of Lordship Salvation, no matter who is teaching this error, that is under scrutiny, not the character of the men teaching it.


LM

 

Does metanoia appear in 1 Thess. 1:9?


LM

 

It has become blatantly easy to observe that you wish not to answer the OP. Why this is the case also should be easy to conjecture it is because you were wrong in your definition of repent from another thread and remain wrong being you have never repented..(changed). This being the case why you have been caught red handed in your misleading, it has therefore leveled a major blow to your no-Lord salvation schema.

Now would be a good time to come clear and believe the Bible that needs no word changes by you or anyone else.


the greek word "metanoia" is not in the verse you posted, but you know that don't you?

Last chance to come clean .....What does repent mean as it is found in the Bible?

 

Metanoia Misuse?

Yes, I do know that, so this is a good start! So, we agree that metanoia is not found in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, the verse I posted.

What would your reaction be if one starts talking about the Greek word metanoia, as it is used in the New Testament, and then quotes 1 Thess. 1:9 for support when it does not even contain the word metanoia?

Would that be a misuse of 1 Thess. 1:9?


LM

 

Strong's Number: 3340 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
metanoevw from (3326) and (3539)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Metanoeo 4:975,636
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
met-an-o-eh'-o Verb

Definition
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins


King James Word Usage - Total: 34
repent 34

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 5
Mark 2
Luke 9
Acts 5
2 Corinthians 1
Revelation 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 32