Performance Guidelines for "Lordship" Salvation

The above highlighted is an impossibility for an unregenerated person to comprehend. Someone without faith in Christ cannot, will not understand what it takes to "love Him and serve Him". That is what discipleship is...for a regenerated person (which does NOT precede faith in Christ).

 

According to the entire quote, the man was regenerated.

 

This is from JDL's post # 60, quoting JMac:

I couldn't agree more and this is the key to understanding Dr. Ketchum's misunderstanding of vocational election (see Lance Ketchum's threads on election). I really wanted to bring this argument into those threads but I didn't have time back then to develope it.

Dr. Gill actually agrees that election is unto vocation, but Gill, like MacArthur, does not separate salvation from discipleship or vocation. Vocation, discipleship, and sanctification are all aspects of one call to salvation. They cannot be treated as separate, unconnected phases of the Christian experience.

 

That is truly your opinion. Many disagree and point to numerous passages in support. I believe there was a thread here once that discussed many of them.

So, we can disagee. What happens next? Some folks start accusing other Christians of heresy. Some folks start accusing other Christians of teaching a "works based salvation" that is clearly contrary to what is really being taught.

That is my point all along. Some folks are being intellectually dishonest in the way they are presenting the beliefs of others. Those people cannot be trusted to accurately and truthfully engage these issues. Those people cannot be considered serious scholars, author's, bloggers, or contributors to the BB.

peace to youraying:

 

...according to the entire quote, the understanding of that was needed to be regenerated, an impossibilty to understand for someone NOT regenerated...
The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

 

First, that is Scripture, not my opinion. The Bible says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ AND be saved. That's as plain as day.
"If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense"
Second, LM is a good contributor to the BB, blogs, et al. Just because you don't agree with the man, doesn't give you the right for that kind of ad hominem. Since I disagree with you, would you appreciate those underhanded remarks made against you? I doubt it. Fact is, Macarthur holds to pre faith regeneration, and LS snowballs from that point. Starting with a faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion.

 

I was just wondering which books of the Bible are specifically addressed to unbelievers?

 

I'm just trying to point out that it's a common, yet weak, argument to say that because a passage is addressed to "brethren", it therefore does not apply to the lost. The fact is, all of scripture is addressed "brethren" in one form or another (to the saints, to the twelve tribes, to the church, etc.), yet the Gospel of salvation is contained within the pages of those books that are addressed to the brethren. Every verse with which we witness to the lost was addressed to the brethren.

But I'm not going to try to defend JMac's application of a particular scripture to this or that type of person. I think the problem here is that you are picking out pieces of a puzzle and reconstructing them to look like the picture you want to paint of JMac.

 

I am a new convert, but imo the gospel message of salvation should be preached to ALL men, not just "sinners."

 

Webdog, I am trying to follow your line of thought. Do you mean that a sinner must be regenerated first, then confess Christ as Lord?

 

In his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus" MacArthur is very clear. At least 23 times in the 1st 150 pages, MacArthur either specifically states that salvation is completely a work of God that cannot be earned by human works, or he alludes to the work of Holy Spirit in the salvation process. He gives numerous passages of scripture to support his position.

peace to youraying:

 

I Cor. 12:3 "....and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit".

Surely Paul is not saying that people cannot mouth the words "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself says that many will call Him "Lord" that will not enter the Kingdom.

Paul must be saying that no one can come to saving faith except by the power of Holy Spirit.

John 3:7-8 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (8)The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

If you hold that regeneration and being "born again" are interchangable terms, then this passage certainly supports pre-faith regeneration. Here, Jesus says that the will of God, Holy Spirit, is the determining factor in whether someone will be born again, or not. People cannot predict it, or even understand it fully. (they "do not know where it comes from and where it is going)

Also notice the "whosoever" of John 3:16 has already been qualified by the will of Holy Spirit in causing someone to be "born again".

I Peter 1:3 "...who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope..."

What was the reason we were born again? It was because of the great mercy of Almighty God.

I Peter 1:20-21 "For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (21) who, through Him, are believers in God."

Matt. 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Again, "all things" must include the salvation of men. All means all, right? Especially since the context supports it. To know God (or rather to be known by God) is to have salvation. Notice the will of Jesus Christ in determining who knows God the Father.

And there are others.

peace to youraying:

 

Confess...no. Commit? Yes.

 

To all:

As Lou Martuneac continues his smear of John MacArthur, I would like to take a minute to point out something.

Early in this thread, I asked Lou about a quote from MacArthur's book which he frequently uses. This was his response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadyjd
Would you please show us from MacArthur's book exactly what that person is RESPONDING to?

Lou Martuneac responded to my question with:

Lou Martuneac claimed the person MacArthur was speaking of was responding to the gospel.

What I then demonstrated was that Lou Martuneac did not (would not?could not?) accurately state the context of this quote. You can see the full explanation on post #

Lou Martuneac has not yet responded to the fact that he could not?would not? accurately state the context of the quote.

We now have irrefrutable evidence that Lou Martuneac is either ignorant of the contents of MacArthur's book or Lou Martuneac is intellectually dishonest in the way he presents MacArthur's views.

What is more amazing is than the fact Lou Martuneac doesn't even attempt to answer the obvious error he has made in one of his central arguments, he has to audacity to simply move on to the next, out of context, smear of John MacArthur.

I am certain everyone without an agenda to push can make a decision as to whether Lou Martuneac is a credible source of information about John MacArthur.

peace to youraying:

 

canady...LM is not smearing John Macarthur. He is smearing his teaching of Lordship Salvation. Would you please stop with the smearing of Lou Martuneac if you want to be taken seriously?

People who live in glass houses...