RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology

RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues

Message

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 2:45:35 AM)
Ezra, Graham Cracker, Crankius, All: One suggestion I have is to keep in mind that the crux of the Lordship debate centers on what the requirements are for the reception of eternal life/salvation. It is on what Lordship teachers require of lost men to be born again that reveals the works based theology of Lordship Salvation. Ezra was right on in this point (see post #292). The LS advocates often steer toward and park on what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. IMO, the debate is not really there. I trust we all agree that genuine conversion to Christ, should result in some level of genuine results. In my on line discusssion/debate with Nathan Busenitz (MacArthur's personal assistant) I had to repeatedly encourage him to focus on the requirements for, NOT the results of salvation. Nathan finally agreed to keep the discussion on that side of the issue. Remember to focus on the requirements for, NOT results of... LM

GrahamCracker -> RE: MacArthur's "Shaky Ground" (8/21/2007 6:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra Larry: Please accept my apologies for not accepting your analysis earlier. I believe we agree more on Gospel truth than may appear on the surface. Thank you for your gracious apology.[;)]

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 6:47:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lmartuneac Ezra, Graham Cracker, Crankius, All: One suggestion I have is to keep in mind that the crux of the Lordship debate centers on what the requirements are for the reception of eternal life/salvation. It is on what Lordship teachers require of lost men to be born again that reveals the works based theology of Lordship Salvation. Ezra was right on in this point (see post #292). The LS advocates often steer toward and park on what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. IMO, the debate is not really there. I trust we all agree that genuine conversion to Christ, should result in some level of genuine results. ......Remember to focus on the requirements for, NOT results of... LM It is not only on the LS debate but other discussions on soteriology, in general, that that debate this as well. There was a short but excellent article by one of the Free Grace advocates who made this very point (however one feels about the Free Grace POV). It was entitled "Conditions and Consequences." Often, the mere mention of salvation in a verse was interpreted as meaning that all of the subsequent results of salvation were conditions of the same. However, MacArthur wholly rejects the distinction between discipleship as a condition for salvation and discipleship as a command for believers.

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 9:47:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker It is not only on the LS debate but other discussions on soteriology, in general, that that debate this as well. There was a short but excellent article by one of the Free Grace advocates who made this very point (however one feels about the Free Grace POV). It was entitled "Conditions and Consequences." Often, the mere mention of salvation in a verse was interpreted as meaning that all of the subsequent results of salvation were conditions of the same. However, MacArthur wholly rejects the distinction between discipleship as a condition for salvation and discipleship as a command for believers. GC: Please send via e-mail or post here the link to the Conditions & Consequences article. I would suggest caution with anything coming specifically from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES): Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin especially. They have totally checked out on Scripture. They believe repentance is unnecessary for conversion. Even more disturbing is their new twist on the Gospel, that has come to be known as the "Crossless" gospel. I am thinkng about opening a thread here for a discussion. At my site the Crossless gospel is being discussed and debated. A growing number of men in the Free Grace community are withdrawing their memberships from the GES over this radical departure from orthodoxy coming from Hodges and Wilkin. As for MacArthur and his view on salvation/discipleship, here is a sample of what he believes: quote: “Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship. This dichotomy, like that of the carnal/spiritual Christian, sets up two classes of Christians: believers only and true disciples. Most who hold this position discard the evangelistic intent of virtually every recorded invitation of Jesus, saying those apply to discipleship, not to salvation.” (True Faith & True Grace, Pulpit Magazine) “Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation….” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 221). There is no doubt MacArthur and LS advocates view the works of a disciple as the requirement for salvation. More specifcailly, LS demands a faith that is frontloaded with commitment and promises from a lost man to become a fully mature, disciple of Christ. Without that upfront commitment, the lost man cannot be born again. That is an example of how LS "frustrates grace" (Gal. 2:21) the unearnable, unmeried favor of God. Offers of commitment, surrender and obedience, from a lost man, in "exchange" for salvation. That is the core of Lordship Salvation! LM

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 8:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lmartuneac I would suggest caution with anything coming specifically from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES): Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin especially. They have totally checked out on Scripture. They believe repentance is unnecessary for conversion. I am not sure that is true. But they would define it differently. As for Wilkin, it would depend upon which stage of his theological evolution you are referring to. Not all of the articles say the same thing. With regard to Hodges on repentance, Ryrie says in his book that Hodges views "repentance" the flip side of faith. Ryrie himself views repentance as synonymous with faith. I typically refer to repentance in what I believe it is not. I simply say that repentance, when defined as ceasing from sin, is not a condition for salvation. I personally believe that repentance is a broadly used term in scripture and that transferring its meaning from one passage to another results in a mistake. I do not believe the "change of mind" definition is wholly adequate. For one thing, it opens up charges of "pure mental assent [without regard to a change in inner heart attitude]". The bracketed phrase is my interpretation. It doesn't define the term adequately, for one thing, because it is derived from the way some of the ancient Greek culture used it. I believe the biblical writers extended its meaning, lacking a more suitable Greek alternative for concepts in Judaism. In any event, "mental assent" is not a term acceptable to me. quote: Even more disturbing is their new twist on the Gospel, that has come to be known as the "Crossless" gospel. I am thinkng about opening a thread here for a discussion. At my site the Crossless gospel is being discussed and debated. While I have considered myself in the FreeGrace camp, I do not subscribe to the crossless Gospel. I do not attempt to defend all of the positions presented by Wilkins and Hodges. quote: A growing number of men in the Free Grace community are withdrawing their memberships from the GES over this radical departure from orthodoxy coming from Hodges and Wilkin. Please keep in mind that until the past 2-3 weeks, I did not know of many who opposed the LS views of MacArthur.

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 8:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lmartuneac Please send via e-mail or post here the link to the Conditions & Consequences article. I couldn't find your email address. I thought had it. I posted the link in your blog site.

Gloryandgrace -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 10:16:28 PM)
quote: There is no doubt MacArthur and LS advocates view the works of a disciple as the requirement for salvation. More specifcailly, LS demands a faith that is frontloaded with commitment and promises from a lost man to become a fully mature, disciple of Christ. Without that upfront commitment, the lost man cannot be born again. That is an example of how LS "frustrates grace" (Gal. 2:21) the unearnable, unmeried favor of God. Offers of commitment, surrender and obedience, from a lost man, in "exchange" for salvation. That is the core of Lordship Salvation! I see some of you have taken to LM as though he is teaching you some new bible truth. You were wrong to believe him. He is not treating the scriptures properly nor is he rightly representing the Ls position as John believes it. Nor is LM forming conclusions based on straight thinking. First off LS and John M do not hold to any unsaved man 'doing anything' that works for salvation. AS I said earlier the effectual call which is the inward working of Gods grace to regenerate or "born again" someone happens first. This makes a man response-able to the call of God and to heed the scriptures. Let our opponent say it in his own way. quote: Pastor Zeller said It is because I am saved that I surrender to His Lordship (Rom. 12:1-2). It is because I am saved that I turn from sin and begin to learn what it means to live unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). It is because I am saved that I follow Him in willing obedience (1 John 2:3-5). It is because I am saved that I agree to the terms of discipleship and begin to learn all that discipleship involves (Luke chapter 14). It is because I am saved that I submit to His authority over every area of my life (Rom. 6:13). I do these things because I am saved by the grace of God, not in order to be saved. Do not turn the results into requirements! Don’t turn the grace of God into legalism [adding unbiblical requirements to the gospel message]. Even Zeller understands the necessity of regeneration before such actions can occur in the heart of a man. But Zeller believes that a man can repent while unsaved even though he denies all other actions? Why? Because Zeller and LM admix their own ideas about salvation with some of the reformed faith and because of that books are written to refute those doctrines which are not admixed with other incompatible ideas. Simply put LM and Zeller have a mixture of doctrines, not a direct understanding of the biblical message, but a concoction of 'balance' that they feel best represents their position. If Zeller had only given God the glory for his saving grace and not mans 'decision' He would be resisting LM in his teachings. But because (as I had said earlier) LM and Zeller depend upon the will of man and his repentance to secure a salvation that is unattainable by another power in man. The question is "Where does man get this power to repent and believe" when man has no other power such as submission, turning from sin, willing obedience and so on? They attribute it to the inward ability of man. Literally they say that man has power in one sentence and has no power in another sentence. They are confused from the outset of their understandings of mans natural condition. To bad Pastor Zeller had understood the grace of God to regenerate a man independent of a mans 'permission' given to God. If only Zeller believed that God can regenerate and will regenerate a man so that he may believe and so that he may turn from sin and so that he may call upon God and so that he may willingly submit to discipleship, see how strikingly similar his preaching and mine would be! But because they are resistant to the true grace of God that shows its power independent of mans will, they must admix mans repentance and will and then say man has no power (in order to resist the reformed view and John M's view) so that their doctrine has the appearance of congruity. The end result is an unbiblical presentation of Gods grace that is seeking a dead, blind, self seeking, self loving self righteous mans permission to act. In the end the very powerlessness they attribute sinful men is exchanged for ability to repent and will good so that same man will give God permission to save. This is not a biblical show of Grace, Grace comes in while a man cannot see so that he can see. Gods grace enters so that a rebellious man will repent of rebellion. When the call to belief and discipleship come, those whom are regenerate will answer and will heed the call and act upon that seed of God planted in them. As Zeller said the 'saved will respeond'. I dont put the grace of God as the result of a mans 'asking God to save him" I place the grace of God as the cause and root of why a man asks God to save him. I understand grace as proceeding first from God and resulting in mans response. Pastor Zeller and LM want you to believe that God's grace is 'waiting' for the dead to will for a salvation even though they wont admit it in their postings and articles. John

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 10:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker With regard to Hodges on repentance, Ryrie says in his book that Hodges views "repentance" the flip side of faith. Ryrie himself views repentance as synonymous with faith. HI GC: Hodges wrote a small book Harmony with God: A Fresh Look at Repentance (2001). Here is one excerpt, "The whole problem we are discussing is due to a false premise. The false premise is this: repentance is necessary for eternal life.... No text in the New Testament...makes any direct connection between repentance and eternal life. No text does that. Not so much as one!" Here are two more: quote: “Many very fine grace people have held that the view the apostle John, at least in his Gospel, regarded repentance as a 'change of mind' that turned one from unbelief to faith in Christ. However, it is impossible to find such a doctrine of repentance anywhere in John’s writings.” (Harmony With God, p. 21) “Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’ Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be.” (Harmony With God, p. 123.) Hodges has come to the point where for him repentance is absolutely unnecessary for conversion. He views repentance as only for the believer. He has totally eliminated repentance from the conversion experience. He does not even see repentance as having to do with a "chnage of mind." That is far more radcial than where he was when the LS debate opened in 1988. You wrote, "I typically refer to repentance in what I believe it is not. I simply say that repentance, when defined as ceasing from sin, is not* a condition for salvation." The LS camp will fight you tooth and nail over that. Have you read my article on this very subject? How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?* There are many, many highly trained godly pastors and theologians who reject Lordship Salvation. Whether it comes from MacArthur or not makes little difference. MacArthur happens to be the best known, most prolific advocate for the LS position. LM

Gloryandgrace -> Gods grace preceeds mans act (8/21/2007 10:50:08 PM)
LM and Zeller hold to the premise that God will not birth a man into His kingdom unless that man calls upon God first. Simply put, God is waiting to extend grace to men. The presupposition is God will not tresspass against mans-free will. The other presupposition is God is not offering grace and mercies until man repents and believes. This semi-pelagian view is in direct opposition to the reformed (biblical) view of grace and regeneration. Any admixing of mans inability ( as Zeller and LM say Man cannot do such and such) but finally depend upon that same man to come up with repentance and belief because of the information, the data, the persuasion offered in the gospel call is purely a concoction of LM and Zeller and those who agree with them. They grant to men a 'partial' inability and therefore can cry up "dont try and preach good works to a dead man" and then cry up "that dead man must repent and believe". The real issue ends up being what proof they can offer from the scripture that man is partially unable to heed the call of God? Or what proof can they offer from the scripture that God is 'waiting' to extend grace to sinful men and not actively presently extending grace to sinful men? The answers are going to be found in the scriptures, but they must tip toe through the tulips of election, predestination, depravity of man, irresistable grace and perseverence without agreeing with any of it and yet borrowing from some of those doctrines to form their own positions. Maybe they should just have a V-8? When the presuppositions I stated earlier exist in their minds they cannot help but become insulted when God is said to save as he wills and whom he wills. They have placed man in the drivers seat and moving man from that seat moves the whole foundation of their doctrines away from mans control. That is a scary thing for them. So scary some long years of resistance to it and to anyone that insists upon it will be condemned and written against as a false teacher. The view that LM and Zeller hold is not uncommon, its so common that long long threads rangle over it. LS is not a works based anything, its a position in which the gospel call is a discipleship call. Believers are disciples and disciples are believers. "Go into all the world and make disciples"...Jesus said. The false division created between a believer that is newly saved and a disciple that is obeying the scripture is a false unbiblical division that needs torn down. They are one in the same. The call to make disciples is a call to make believers. The Evangelical message to make believers is so that we will make disciples. There is no frontloading per-se of calling people to repent and believe, submit to God and resist the devil that is not presented as a call to 'believe and obey the gospel'. The very form of repentance and faith in the evangelical message is hinging upon Gods grace given to men to respond to that call. This is why I said man is called to do what he cannot do alone, God must undertake to do what man cannot do in order for man to obey the commands of God. God never intended or expected man to live independently from Him. The just shall live by faith, a man-born faith? or a faith grace-gifted from God? If we are to live by the gift of God daily shall we not praise God for the gift that enables us to obtain that salvation which he gives us in the Lord Jesus Christ? John

crankius -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 10:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace I dont put the grace of God as the result of a mans 'asking God to save him" I place the grace of God as the cause and root of why a man asks God to save him. I understand grace as proceeding first from God and resulting in mans response. Pastor Zeller and LM want you to believe that God's grace is 'waiting' for the dead to will for a salvation even though they wont admit it in their postings and articles. John Perhaps this post will reveal my ignorance, but this is why I always thought Lordship Salvation in its extreme form is actually contrary to reformed thought. If the seed is powerful, and God's grace is irresistible, and God is sovereign all mean that there is nothing a man can do to thwart God's work-- why worry and fret so much over "false converts"? In God’s eyes, there are no “false converts” that He can’t enlighten to the truth if He chooses to. God uses a little seed here and a little water there and He gives the growth, so I couldn't understand MacArthur's stressing over all those that God hasn't been able to save yet (as if man has thwarted God’s plans). I could completely understand MacArthur taking to task those who blatantly teach a false gospel, as it is his scriptural responsibility as a Biblical teacher to correct false teaching when he sees it. But I couldn’t really understand his fervent questioning of the validity of God’s salvific work in individuals.

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/21/2007 11:34:51 PM)
Readers/Lurkers: As you read Glory/Grace’s comments do so with caution and discernment. This is not supposed to be a thread about Calvinism, but GG is increasingly weaving Calvinistic theology into his posts. He has to do this because Lordship Salvation is rooted in Calvinism. He is weaving some of the extremes of Calvinistic theology into his comments. His use of the term “effectual call,” is a sanitized label for Calvinism’s Irresistible Grace. Subtle introductions of Calvinism pave the way for LS’s “works” plan of salvation. This is the normal pattern LS men use to bring unsuspecting believers to be open-minded about LS. GG is demonstrating how they will not speak and define their position in unvarnished terms. They couch error along side orthodoxy, which makes the LS error more difficult to detect. Be aware that GG believes a lost man must first be regenerated, that is: born again before he can call on the Lord in faith and repentance. This is an extreme, extra-biblical position from the circle logic of five-point Calvinism. Brother Zeller thoroughly reproves and exposes the errors in that extra-biblical teaching GG is presenting. See *The Danger of Teaching Regeneration Precedes Faith.* GG wrote, quote: “When the call to belief and discipleship come, those whom are regenerate will answer and will heed the call and act upon that seed of God planted in them. As Zeller said the 'saved will respeond'.,(sic)” This is a classic example of Calvinism’s regeneration before faith. The lost man is regenerated, born again first, then the call to discipleship/salvation. The doctrinal misstep for GG (and LS) is that he sees no difference between salvation and discipleship. Here is another example of how GG is in error where he sees no difference between the doctrines of discpleship and salvation. GG wrote, quote: "LS is not a works based anything, its a position in which the gospel call is a discipleship call." LS is an upfront call (front-loaded faith) to the terms of discipleship in exchange for salvation. Gross error! Earlier I demonstrated from MacArthur’s own writing that this is the same extra-biblical error that MacArthur holds to. The LS advocates demand upfront commitments from a lost man for: self-denial, cross bearing and following in “exchange” for salvation. But wait, the man, in GG’s theological system, has already been regenerated, i.e. born again. So GG is seeking discipleship/salvation decisions from a man who is saved already. This is the LS theological loophole that allows them to say LS is not works oriented. The prospect is born again already. So calling on him to make a commitment to do the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mature born again child of God is being sought from a man who is (in their Calvinistic system) already a born again child of God. More to follow… LM

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/22/2007 8:37:54 PM)
quote: HI GC: Hodges wrote a small book Harmony with God: A Fresh Look at Repentance (2001). Here is one excerpt, "The whole problem we are discussing is due to a false premise. The false premise is this: repentance is necessary for eternal life.... No text in the New Testament...makes any direct connection between repentance and eternal life. No text does that. Not so much as one!" I admit that I have not read all of Hodges' writings. I cannot possibly buy and read all of the books that people quote from in order to examine context and intent for myself. Often, when they are quoted (not saying you), context is difficult to confirm or deny. That's why I put some boundaries on the things I discuss. I know that there are certain things that Hodges and Wilkin have written that I would never endorse. Typically, by quoting either of them, people will post some of the most radical notions and expect me to defend those. I generally do not comment on them. They are typically personal attacks that have nothing to do with whatever topic is being discussed. The "pure mental assent" notion of belief or "intellectual change of mind" notion of repentance is something I have never once endorsed. quote: Hodges has come to the point where for him repentance is absolutely unnecessary for conversion. He views repentance as only for the believer. He has totally eliminated repentance from the conversion experience. He does not even see repentance as having to do with a "chnage of mind." That is far more radcial than where he was when the LS debate opened in 1988. Like Wilkin, there may be an evolution in how he believes. If that is true, then what Ryrie said of him may be either misinterpreted or may have changed in the last decade. A lot of those articles are over 5 years old. quote: You wrote, "I typically refer to repentance in what I believe it is not. I simply say that repentance, when defined as ceasing from sin, is not a condition for salvation." The LS camp will fight you tooth and nail over that. Have you read my article on this very subject? How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? I read it a couple of weeks ago. However, since I have moved and bought a new house, I have not been able to keep up with this discussion like I would like to have done. Right now, I could not tell you the finer points of the article but I have read it. Anyway, I think the LS camp exceeds in claim what they can actually prove. Or at least, there is a dilemma of reason and logic that poses a problem as I see it. If we must cease from sin in order to be saved, then we have a requirement that a lost man cannot fulfill. But it requires some presuppositions (Reformed) that I am not prepared to accept at all. The typical solution posited is that something is a pre-requirement but doesn't display itself until later. It then becomes grandfathered into the pre-salvation requirements by default. That pre-requirement undermines the very simplicity that we as Evangelicals hold in common: sola fide. quote: There are many, many highly trained godly pastors and theologians who reject Lordship Salvation. Whether it comes from MacArthur or not makes little difference. MacArthur happens to be the best known, most prolific advocate for the LS position. True. But I have DTS professors attending my church who are not as fully informed on this subject as you are. I say that, not as flattery, because each man has a special area of focus. I have learned that I often have questions that they have not considered--mainly because of the nuances of the questions--not because I think I know everything.

Gloryandgrace -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/22/2007 10:01:02 PM)
John M teaches reformed theology alongside of the LS position he holds, its important to lay the foundation of why John believes the way he does. There is nothing to be ashamed of in believing in LS or in reformed theology. I at least name the foundations of my theology. All the posts of LM and his company written times 10,000 will never dampen the glorious gospel of Christ proclaimed in that systematic theology of the reformers. Crankius: John is coming against the false teachings of easy believeism that set up the foundations for false converts. Its one thing for the enemy to sow tares in the field, its another thing to plainly allow the false teachings of men to plant tares in the church of God with apathetic permission. quote: why worry and fret so much over "false converts"? In God’s eyes, there are no “false converts” that He can’t enlighten to the truth if He chooses to. What your saying is "why should God care about false teaching if God does the enlightening of the heart"? Crankius my friend, if you please allow me to speak bluntly, Your statement is the reason why I resist LM and those who teach as they do. Explanation in short. 2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2Co 4:5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. "The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ," that phrase is full of meaning and Ill try and answer you with it. The gospel of the glory of Christ is what the man of God who has seen the glory of Christ preaches. He doesnt preach what he has not seen and he doesnt proclaim what he doesnt know. The Light of God is the enlightening by God's power the mind and heart of the sinner so that he may "see" the glory of Christ and Gods power to save and deliver. This seeing is God's own direct quickening so that the sinner might comprehend the Word of God which he has received. It is the glory of Christ that is preached, the glory of Christ's life and death and resurrection in all its beauty and power. Some saw Christ as beelzebub, others as a heretic, others a miracle worker and others as the Son of God. What is the difference? It was the power of God that effected the mind and heart to believe. When we preach the gospel it is a revelation of who God is, Who Christ is and what He has accomplished and foremostly it is a 'bringing to Christ' by that message those whom God has called. To preach a false gospel is to preach something that falls short of Christ being God over all to that person. WE have failed to preach the gospel if that gospel doesnt connect them to Christ. The whole reason of Christ revealing of himself and his glory is to create a taste for and a savoring of God in Jesus Christ. But instead they become enamored with the law or position or Church authority or they find a false peace in works etc. In the end they never know Christ and are rejected by him at the last day. WE are prone to error, our flesh and minds are ever being effected away from the truth into error, if we despise a careful watch on our gospel preaching and pretend that God will simply over ride our error we will find ourselves in the same hell as those whom we blindly lead into the ditch. The undertone of the quote implies God as a usurper over men, that since he is taking what he wants why should we care about truth in the message? If this is your heart, I would turn away from such a thing and repent of it. God is both Sovereign not only in the salvation of men but in the ordering of their lives. God has commanded us to be very careful with the message and with his word. Those of us that are saved have the privledge and responsiblity to rightly divide that word, handle it and proclaim it. You know this. The whole Gospel is about us being connected to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father forever. Anything that detracts from that detracts from his glory. God cares about His glory as it is proclaimed and revealed in the gospel. This is again why LM and those whom fight against God regenerating men as God wills must in the end fight against God. They fight against him because their soteriologies include glorifying man in his decisions and in his permissions. Is God unjust to save a sinner that he choses to save and in that message to that sinner he is told to count the cost, carry a cross, forsake all that he has in order to understand the depth of belief God requires? Is God unjust to demand that men keep all the law and if and breaks one law he is guilty of all and the whole law and its punishments are now held against him? Crankius the problem doesnt lay in the fact God will save whom He wills, the problem lay in us that we have been taught by those like LM that its error for God to do as he wills with his own creation, and even more sad is if God does something that is disagreeable to their minds God is condemned and his own Word is used against him to 'reel him in'. There are so many many great preachers that will teach you exactly how and why the gospel displays the glory of Christ in regeneration of men by Gods will, if you stop listening to the dissenters and read them you will find they have a great deal of good things to say in glorifying Christ and presenting man in his proper relation to God both pre and post salvation. It might be said a thousand times on this thread regeneration from God alone and not by mans permission is false and error, but that claim is the opinion of a man whom has not proven his claim or even attempts to. In just the short post I have made, I lay my foundation of regeneration in Gods grace that he brings the "light" of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This light is simultaneously a work of the Spirit and a birthing of fruit from the Word of God that has been planted in a person. Satan resists the Word because the Spirit of God enlightens the mind to understand that Word. God doesnt just give light to anything, He brings light to the Word of God that displays and presents the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. John

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 12:07:00 AM)
Graham Cracker: You wrote. quote: "Anyway, I think the LS camp exceeds in claim what they can actually prove. Or at least, there is a dilemma of reason and logic that poses a problem as I see it. If we must cease from sin in order to be saved, then we have a requirement that a lost man cannot fulfill. But it requires some presuppositions (Reformed) that I am not prepared to accept at all." I love the simplicity and power in that brief statement. You have that part of the Lordship position pegged! The ONLY way LS can be rationalized, but not legitimized, is through Calvinistic presuppositions. They very same Calvinistic suppositions GG has been weaving into his attempts to legitimize Lordship's false gospel. In spite of GG's complaints about my linking to pertinent articles, here is one that touches on what I call the "*Impossible Decision." You also wrote, quote:* "...I have DTS professors attending my church who are not as fully informed on this subject as you are. I say that, not as flattery, because each man has a special area of focus. I have learned that I often have questions that they have not considered--mainly because of the nuances of the questions--not because I think I know everything." LS is a subject that I was drawn into on several occasions, I was asked to deal with it by various people in various venues and situations. It is an area I have studied and dealt with extensively since 1996. I was also involved to a lesser degree since 1988. As for the Profs at DTS: They have probably forgotten more than I will ever know. I just conducted a two-day workshop on LS at the *Grace Conference*. Dr. Ryrie and Lightner were there. I told them that in their company I feel like the Deputy Barney Fife of the theology club. LM

Ezra -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 2:31:06 AM)
quote: Grace comes in while a man cannot see so that he can see. Gods grace enters so that a rebellious man will repent of rebellion. If grace is indeed "irresistible" (as TULIP claims) then it must be consistently and continuously irresistible. Which means that not only is it irresistible for regeneration and justification, but it must also be so for sanctification (which is part and parcel of salvation). Yet, there is not a Reformed person who will claim that he or she is sinlessly perfect. In fact, they scoff at those who teach sinless perfection in this life. That in itself reveals the fallacy of irresistible grace. And reversing repentance and regeneration simply compounds the folly. That grace is not irresistible is proven conclusively by the response of Israel to Christ and to the Gospel. God fully intended to save Israel, and Christ shed tears of longing over Jerusalem before His crucifixion. Yet Israel (the nation) was not saved. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not". That is the most damaging evidence against so-called irresistible grace. The entire narrative of Israel and God's dealings with Israel reveals resistance to grace and rebellion against God: "But to Israel He saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom. 10:21).

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 8:03:23 AM)
When is the revision of your book coming out? I would like to read the updated section on repentance.

GrahamCracker -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 8:07:16 AM)
Folks, In the interest in maintaining the continuation of this thread, I plead with you strongly to tread lightly on the subject of Calvinism. I personally have no beef against the light treatment you are giving it so far, but the moderators may not see it as I see it. They closed down the thread earlier and referred us to another thread dedicated to that subject. Perhaps you can take that part of the discussion to email or PM's?

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 8:37:11 AM)
GC: It will be realesed in the Fall. In the meantime keep reading my article: *How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?* This will help you recognize and understand some of how LS becomes a works based theology, i.e. a "false gospel." LM

lmartuneac -> RE: The Dangers of Lordship's Reformed Theology (8/23/2007 8:42:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker In the interest in maintaining the continuation of this thread, I plead with you strongly to tread lightly on the subject of Calvinism. I personally have no beef against the light treatment you are giving it so far, but the moderators may not see it as I see it. They closed down the thread earlier and referred us to another thread dedicated to that subject. Perhaps you can take that part of the discussion to email or PM's? GC: I appreciate that, but G/G is consistently introducing Calvinism into his posts. He does it in a very subtle way, which is typical of the Calvinist/Lordship advocate. He must do it because the extra-biblical, circle logic of five point Calvinism is what paves the way for Lordship's false teaching on the Gospel. I would tell the moderators to let it stand as long as the Calvinists do not try to make Calvinism the main theme for this thread. This way I and others can expose the shaky. extra-biblical presuppositions that the LS men, like GG, use to introduce their unbiblical view of the Gospel and salvation. LM

lmartuneac -> Crossless & Lordship: Both are Wrong! (9/14/2007 11:36:49 AM)
To All: Zane Hodges is so far out-of-balance on the Gospel and repentance he has lost any right or credibility to determine or speak on what is right or wrong over the Gospel. John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel is just as far to the other end of the extreme theological pendulum swing as Hodges is on his end. quote: He (Jesus) wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self denial-to the point of willingness to die for His sake if necessary. That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. (John MacArthur, TGATJ [Revised & Expanded Edition].) quote: The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it. (Zane Hodges: How to Lead People to Christ, Pt. 2) Both are wrong and have either added to or taken away from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hodges is wrong by reduction and subtraction; MacArthur is wrong by addition. For more see: *John MacArthur's Discipleship Salvation* *Hodges: The "Christ" Under Siege* LM

CherishedbyGod -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (11/21/2007 4:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace It has been said by some that Lordship salvation is a false gospel. I believe Jesus Christ cannot be divided. Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. His Lordship accompanies His mercies and graces. Jesus Christ cannot be a partial savior, saving without being God to His disciples. Jesus will not share the glory of God with anyone else, therefore whom ever is under the Lordship of another and yet claims Christ as a Savior might well find himself "a worker of iniquity" and a person who Jesus says "I never knew you". The Word of God teaches that man is delivered by Jesus Christ from the penalty and the power of sin. Lordship salvation is a term coined only in resistance to the kind of salvation that is offered which plays down Christ's Lordship and the commands of God to flee from sin. Cross bearing Christians understand Lordship to be the only freedom from the power of sin. Salvation affixed to any other redemption that lacks Christ's position of power and authority is a concoction of modern christian compromise. What say you? Can you have salvation and not be "Lorded over" by Jesus Christ? Can you know the assurance of the forgiveness of sins and make the commandment to crucify the flesh optional? What is your slant? John I say, great post...! Some of you may be chagrined, but I am going to pull this post up again because it has been powerfully on my mind and heart the past week...

Aphobos -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (11/21/2007 9:50:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CherishedbyGod I say, great post...! Some of you may be chagrined, but I am going to pull this post up again because it has been powerfully on my mind and heart the past week... Amen! Lorship salvation is a redundancy (like saying "married spouse"). Once cannot have Christ as Savior and yet reject him as Lord. The Second Person of the Trinity is not a buffet from which we can pick and choose according to personal taste. Jesus IS Lord. Period. Those who fail to regard him as such do not truly love him. And those who do not truly love him are not saved. Let the licentious beware. In Him, ~Aphobos

Gloryandgrace -> Lordship salvation's biblical position (11/26/2007 10:22:51 AM)
"Salvation is of the Lord" It is not by him that wills or him that runs, it is not a birth of the flesh or by the will of man or by works. The salvation of God is all of grace from start to finish it is of grace. John M has properly explained that stance in his book "The gospel according to Jesus" and again with a slightly different slant in "Hard to believe". I would encourage all to read them and grow by them. John

Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation's biblical position (11/26/2007 10:33:29 AM)
http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Lordship_Salvation.pdf Have a read for yourself and see what John says. John

CherishedbyGod -> RE: Lordship salvation's biblical position (11/26/2007 12:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Lordship_Salvation.pdf Have a read for yourself and see what John says. John Thank you. I'll read as soon as I get a chance....

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI