JM is questioned about LS

Thanks for the link. I am highlighting one paragraph.

It is clear that MacArthur believes understanding all the terminology of Lordship is not necessary for salvation, since God is the one bringing the person to salvation.

The practical effect of God's intervention is that the person so moved upon will embrace the "Lordship" of Christ, even if they don't know any of the terminology.

peace to youraying:

 

The IFCA had serious concerns with MacArthur's Lordship Salvation.

See The Nature of Saving Faith

 

This has got to be one of the most convoluted answers I have heard. I will state that I agree with him here though:

emphasis mine

The rest is just .. his opinion and I disagree with it.

We are to make salvation as hard as possible so that others do not come to God who are not called?? What kind of non-sense is that!

The only reason a person would say/do such is if they felt it was necessary is so that the person presenting might have some form of comfort they didn't mess up and that person not actaully get saved. There is NO WAY for us to know that (at the outset), only they will know. He says one thing (they don't have to understand it all to be saved) and then turns around and states we best tell them it all so that if they believe we can sleep at night 'assuming' they now got saved for the right reason in the right way. It is pretty easy to take this aspect and run with it to the field of a works based salvation. I'm not declaring that is his intention but his emphasis is in declaring as much as possible theologically in the hopes of weeding out the people who are not truly the called. Apparently that did not work for those in Mat 7 who preached in His name, cast out demons in His name, etc.. What they do is not nearly as important as why they do it, and it is on this the gospel can swing them directly into His arms or away from Him.

It isn't about how much they know but will they do with what they know. That I agree with in the first part of his answer but he convolutes that truth with the rest of answer.

Jesus did not make salvation hard and see this not only in the gospels but we also know this because Paul proclaims the simiplicity of gospel should not be tampered with (paraphrase of course).

It is not our job to judge who is saved and who is not. We are to preach the good news, and disciple them. So if the gospel is not given as great as Charles Spurgeon would have given it, then the discipleship will balance that out and truth will be revealed. If the gospel is presented accurately then discipleship continues to grow their relationship with Christ. It is not about giving them it all to scare away those we don't think are called (they maybe but you weren't the one to bring in that harvest) but to present us in our sin and God in His glory while telling them He has come to set us free. Then let God, through discipleship meet out all that is not yet understood.


I have a great deal of respect for JM, but this is one of those points I disagree with him on.

 

Alan has it right, in a 'nutshell,' IMO.

The statement is convoluted.

I am shortly going to reprint something I posted two and a half years ago, in my first month on the BB in another thread, on a 'convoluted message.'

Incidentally, I don't think the topic has been "beat to death" as much as it has become centered on a particular individual, or individuals, FTR.

[Edited to add] Despite what I have been seeing on these BB threads, this issue does not have a single thing to do with Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. (who merely happens to be the best known and most widely-read, currently available author and preacher who holds this particular viewpoint) or Lou Martuneac (who merely happens to be the BB poster who has brought up things that have been said by any "LS apologist" and, hence, has contributed the most to these threads).

This issue is real and not 'imagined" and one can see this here, when the personalities are not allowed to mask and distract from the discussion;

it is in no way "personal" (despite that some want to make it seem such;

my own opinion of (and position on) the issue is and has been basically unchanged for almost 40 years.

I was well aware of the issue of "Lordship salvation" (and the positions as well as any misrepresentations of all 'sides') for some 20 years before I even heard of Dr. John MacArthur, and over 35 years before I ever heard of the Baptist Board or Lou Martuneac, or any other members of the BB (as far as I know - It is kind of hard to tell when so many people 'hide' behind an assumed "stage-name" on the BB, here!).

I do have two exceptions to knowing no one on the BB, prior to joining - Joseph M. Smith, who was my college BSU Pastor over 40 years ago, and a particular 'one-issue' Junior Member (This one ain't it!), who is my long time closest friend, joined the BB after me, has made a grand total of five posts, whose BB (and actual) name is Rance.

Ed

 

What if? the names were written in The Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world; and God does not "offer" but rather "effectively calls" His children back to the flock. He also provides the faith to believe the Gospel, Eph. 2:8-10.

Do we need to revise our outlines of soteriology? Maybe we have too much "ology".

A young child can understand.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

It is hard to tell RB when you are being snidely funny (I made that word up :smilewinkgrin: ), or if you're giving an honest answer, with the obvious exception of the "smarter than I am" comment. Though I do appreciate your tact in using either :thumbs:

I only gave my opinion based upon 'that' posting. As I said in my previous posting that I have the utmost respect for JM even if we disagree on some things.

 

There are NO works which will bring salvation. I don't want to get into the JM debate. I wish it would go away and we could discuss something else, but I don't always get my way.

Having said that, I think Jesus makes it clear in the Be-attitudes how a person is saved, or rather what the attitude of one seeking salvation will be.

The person seeking salvation:

Will have realized their spiritual poverty. They will know they are lost.
Matt 5:3

They will realize they have sinned against a Holy God and they will mourn because of it. (I see this as conviction of the Holy Spirit)
Matt 5:4

They will humble themselves before God. (Because they have realized the above.)
Matt 5:5

They will have a desire for righteousness. I think this happens before and after salvation.
Matt 5:6

The remaining verses are referring to a born again believer, IMO.

They will be merciful.
Matt 5:7

They will be pure in heart, because they are born of God.
5:8

They will be peacemakers and not trouble makers, because they follow Christ.
5:9

They will be persecuted because of Christ.
5:10-11


This is how I see it. It has nothing to do with giving up everything, but more to do with a contrite heart and a realization that our righteousness is as filthy rags. This is why the Pharisees missed salvation. In their minds, they did give up everything, but that did not secure salvation for them because they depended on their own righteosness. They did not recognize they were "poor" in spirit.
Even the disciples told Jesus they had "given up everything" and yet according to the conversation they heard Him have with the young ruler, giving up everthing wouldn't save them. So they asked Him, "who then can be saved"? Jesus replied that it is impossible for man to save himself (works don't work), but that salvation is totally of God. ("with God, nothing is impossible") Yet before God saves, there must be a broken and contrite spirit (Matt 5:3).


I think the beatitudes are a step by step process which ultimately finishes with salvation.


From my own experience, at the moment of salvation, the only thing that I even thought about giving up was my sin, and I was desparate to get rid of it. (poor in spirit) I couldn't have cared less what else I had to give up. I never ever thought about it. I realized my sin, I mourned over it, I wanted to be righteous. God heard my cries and saved me.

 

I kinda figured as much (no prob though) but I'm not the only who thought his answer was 'convoluted'. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Though I disagree with you on the Beatitudes being a step-by-step, I do agree with you here:

And here:

I have heard many testimonies of salvation and this...

..is a common theme. It is not about how much you know but about what you do with what you know.

An aside:
(I do agree you can use the Beatitudes to illistrate principles regarding salvation but not that that is contextually what Jesus was saying.)

 

Hmm. Priciples? What was Jesus saying? I think He was speaking to Jews, telling them they could not work themselves into heaven. It was/is all about the condition of the heart. I think it is more than just principles. But I may be wrong. (again, LOL)

 

I do agree, but what I was stating as "principles" was your rendering of the passages meanings.
IOW - one can see the principles of salvation illistrated from here just as one can see them in the Prodical Son. Hoever from the parable of the Prodical son one can use it to illistrate the principles of salvation, same with the Beatitudes. Though it was not written specifically to convey that meaning it can be used to illstrate in a practical or applicable way the truth of what salvation is.

But I will step aside, as I said I agreed with the main thrust of your post. :thumbs:

 

You don't have to step aside, Allan. I always welcome your comments. :thumbs:

 

If it is wrong to try to manipulate men into making professions, isn't it equally wrong-headed to try to make salvation harder than it should be? MacArthur has clearly seen the error of easy-believism, so to ensure that he does not go into the ditch that is on his left, he has driven purposefully into the ditch on the right. Preach the gospel and let God do his work! Don't try to make it hard or easy. Just preach the truth!

 

ReformedBaptist, those are MacArthur's words. So I take him at his word that he is trying to make the gospel difficult. Also, one of his books is entitled "Hard to Believe". Again, I take him at his word and I disagree.

I also disagree with his assertion about congregational government. I will try to comment on that later.

 

Biblically he is wrong in that Jesus made the gospel hard.

While he is correct in that salvation is more about God than mans ability to persuade - no question, He misses the mark completely by 'assuming' that even a simple or simplistic gospel is just as sufficient.

The only reason a person would go out of their way to make it hard (IMO) is for their own feel-good sentiment so as to make the 'assumption' that this person must be truly saved because didn't leave. That is silly.

IOW - He is espousing the presentation of the gospel that is centered around man's opinion and his judgment of a persons salvation rather than leaving that to God and centering the presentation of the gospel around sin, holiness, and the sacrifice/resurrection that set's us free.

It is in the above you find him extra-biblical.