Archival Series: Lordship’s “Turn from Sin” FOR Salvation
Dear Guests of IDOTG:
There has been an on-going pattern of a certain few Lordship Salvation (LS) apologists demonstrating that they/he do not recognize or understand how Dr. MacArthur is writing and is teaching on the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. This time the mistake is on MacArthur’s view of repentance. The LS apologist wrote,
“John MacArthur never says that to be born again a person must be ‘willing to turn from sin’.”This misunderstanding and error on the teaching of John MacArthur necessitates opening this new discussion to properly highlight the issue.
The Grace to You website posts an article by Dr. MacArthur, that is touted by one LS apologist as his (MacArthur’s) definitive statement on Lordship Salvation. The article begins with a paragraph that defines how John MacArthur views a lost man must be born again. The statement is written by MacArthur and it is discussing the Gospel, the plan of salvation, the Lordship Salvation interpretation of how a lost man receives the “offer (gift) of eternal life,” how he is born again.
“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).” (An Introduction to Lordship Salvation by Dr. John MacArthur)In my Can God-Given Faith be Defective article that I posted at another discussion board I included a link to an important article on Lordship Salvation by Pastor George Zeller. Some who are sympathetic to LS post comments that reveal an on-going lack of understanding of the LS message that they seek to defend. Ironically some of these admit they have never read any of John MacArthur’s major books on LS. To help all readers understand where LS takes some of its most serious doctrinal missteps I will again link to Zeller’s article, John MacArthur’s Position on the Lordship of Christ.
In that article, by Pastor Zeller, you will read additional documentation of MacArthur’s view that repentance for salvation requires a lost man to “turn from sin.” Here is that portion.
Dr. MacArthur tends to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance, and to confuse faith with that which faith ought to produce. He confuses saving faith (which takes place in a moment of time--Rom. 13:11; Eph. 1:13) with discipleship (which is a lifelong process). As Miles Stanford has said, “Lordship salvation is not the childlike faith of John 3:16. It rightly insists upon repentance but wrongly includes a change of behavior IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Saviour, but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith.” (Miles Stanford, in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus).The writing of Lordship Salvation advocates confirm beyond any doubt that LS is a works based, man-centered message that conditions eternal life on an upfront commitment to change behavior and perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) that should be the result of a genuine conversion. Calling on a lost man to “turn from sin” FOR SALVATION is to condition salvation on behavior, not believing.
MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance “inevitably results in a change of behavior” (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, “true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose” (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.
“Is repentance a condition for receiving eternal life? Yes, if it is repentance or changing one’s mind about Jesus Christ. No, if it means to be sorry for sin or even to resolve to turn from sin, for these things will not save.” (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, p. 99.)
LM
Originally appeared August, 2008.
For additional documentation of Lordship Salvation’s “leave (stop committing) sin, and follow Jesus at any cost” to become a Christian message please read, Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what John MacArthur says in those books, and I don't agree with everything he says, but, are you telling me that a person does NOT have to be willing to turn from sin to be saved?
The quotes from Ryrie are not very convincing to me on this subject. It is his book which helped spawn the wicked "Free Grace" salvation movement.
I know you know Kent Brandenburg from "JackHammer." Here is what he posted on his personal blog.
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/08/evil-of-anti-lordship-teaching.html
The just "changing your mind about Jesus" line is silly, in my opinion. The Lord Jesus was a lot tougher on self-righteous people than that. By the way, 99.9% of all Americans are as self-righteous as the Rich Young Ruler.
Art:
ReplyDeleteThe moment you condition the reception of eternal life on the promise of changing one’s behavior you have salvation by works, which is a false, non-saving gospel. The lost are called to COME TO Christ for salvation; the saved are called to FOLLOW Him in discipleship. One you make the performance or the promise to perform the things that belong to a born again disciple of Christ to become a born again Christian you have corrupted the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3)
See, John MacArthur’s Performance Guidelines for “Lordship” Salvation for more.
I will close by directing your attention to this article,
The Rich Young Ruler
LM
Hi Art,
ReplyDeleteLou if I may I would like to ask a question of Art based on his question of you.
Art you asked Lou but, are you telling me that a person does NOT have to be willing to turn from sin to be saved?
Art, what sort of willingness are you talking about? Are you talking about a mental assent that one ought to give up sinning? Or that it would be nice to stop sinning? Or are you insinuating that one should be determined to stop sinning?
LS proponents often accuse people who hold to a Biblical free salvation of claiming a "mental assent" of faith, and not a real faith.
So Art, must one have a mental assent to the idea of "turning from sin" or must they actually intend to do so.. be determined to do so?
If your view is of something more substantial than a mental assent then what do you do with the person when next week they discover that they still have sin in their life?
How do you examine that person's "fruit" to see if they are saved or not? Maybe they weren't determined enough to be saved... maybe they should do what? Try harder? Be more determined?
Your question of Lou is well practiced, and used to good effect by many LS proponents. However, I am asking you - must a person "turn from sin" or not?
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteI am suggesting others go to your blog and read part 3 of your review of my book. I refer specifically to the section What is Biblical Repentance?
Lou
To be truly considered to have been willing to turn from one's sins, I suppose the person actually does it, actually turns from and puts away their sins, right? I mean, "easy turnism" isn't enough to save, is it? The lost man must kick out his unmarried lover before he can believe and be saved, right?
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'm being absurd to point out the absurd. Eternal life does not have the string attached of dealing with your sins before the blood of Christ does. It is truly the "free gift" of God to all those that receive it by faith. See Romans chapter 5.
Brother Kev,
ReplyDeleteIs my question as "well-practiced" as your position that "turning from sin" is a work?
Turning from sin is exactly what is necessary to trust Christ. It was mentioned in one of the comments or links that Jesus says, "Come" - He also says "take my yoke" in the same passage.
It's okay. Our churches are full of families who have not "turned" and their children can't wait to leave home to live the wicked lives they really desire.
Art:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Our churches are full of families who have not "turned" and their children can't wait to leave home to live the wicked lives they really desire."
I'll cite Dr. Ernest Pickering, who in his review of MacArthur's TGATJ wrote,
"John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel."
LM
Hello Art,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. I'm unable to answer your question, but I can state that logically a "position" cannot be practiced. A behaviour, such as questioning, can be practiced.
I see that Brother Phil understood the intent of my question. I actually quite like the phrase "Easy Turnism" and I WILL be using it in the future.
Since my question was demonstrated to be understandable, I will take your answer at face value.
Please see my comment of 9/24/2010 9:16 PM to see how I asked.
Since you simply stated Turning from sin is exactly what is necessary to trust Christ.
The plain meaning of this statement, based on our discussion and the English employed by yourself that one must stop sinning in order to trust Christ, and thereby be saved.
In this case then I wonder at your freedom to call me a Brother. I have not stopped sinning. As much as I desire to do so, I have not ever determined myself to rid all sin from my life.
Are you saved Art? Are you secure and surely going to spend eternity in fellowship with Christ?
Have you rid all sin from your life?
Of course I know your reply will be that you're not talking about sinless perfection... that to suggest such is to "misrepresent" what you're saying.
So then Art, are you a preacher of "Easy Turnism"? Do your lips pay simple service to the "lordship" of Christ or is He truly Lord?
Another possibility, and one that is all too consistent with the LS view is that you can't actually be sure you're saved until you get to Heaven. This of course would make a mockery of Paul's description of many people who he claims are saved... in his writings.
What shall you do Art, if you have not in fact "turned from your sin"?
Your emotional statement about the state of our fellowship is a sad statement about the truth of many assemblies today. However, as Lou noted, changing the Gospel won't ever fix it. The only thing that will fix it is TRUE discipleship, and biblical separation. Making it about the Gospel is a great way to start a religion... but it will do nothing to solve the problem.
Kev
As Lou noted, changing the Gospel won't ever fix the SAD state of assemblies. The only thing that will fix it is TRUE discipleship, and biblical separation. Changing the Gospel is a great way to start a religion... but it will do nothing to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteKev
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteI contend that we HAVE ALREADY changed the terms of the Gospel. If you read the sermons of Baptists from 100 years ago and beyond, there was no inkling of salvation without Christ being Lord.
I disagree with you that "turning from sin" is a work. It is no more a work than "believing" is.
The fact remains that if a rich businessman can running to the average Baptist preacher, proclaiming that he wanted to know how to get to Heaven, that preacher would deal with him a lot less severely or thoroughly than the Savior did.
If a man who owns businesses which are involved with ungodly things, and that man is not willing to give that up, I don't believe he can be saved. I base this on the conversation between our Lord and the Rich Young Ruler.
Art:
ReplyDeleteIs salvation/justification received by an upfront commit to turn from, to stop sinning, or through faith/believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation?
It is LS that has changed the Gospel, into a man-centered message and thereby corrupted the simplicity that is in Christ ( 2 Cor. 11:3).
LM
Hi Art,
ReplyDeleteI trust you'll answer my questions found in my post a short while ago at 9/30/2010 2:01 PM
However, I would like to comment on your statement to Lou.
I contend that we HAVE ALREADY changed the terms of the Gospel. If you read the sermons of Baptists from 100 years ago and beyond, there was no inkling of salvation without Christ being Lord.
I don't know about you, but I can safely speak for Lou on this, and for myself. I do not base our understanding of God, and Salvation on the preaching of any man of any denomination of any period in time. I, and as demonstrated often, Lou base our understanding of God and Salvation on the Scriptures.
The Apostle Paul quite plainly declares Salvation aside from "turning from sin" or "being submitted to Christ as the Master of your life"... and in fact does not at all mention His "Lordship" (in the fashion you use the word - mastery over one's life) at all.
I don't know about Baptist preachers from over a hundred years ago... but nearly 2,000 years ago the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel that he received directly from Jesus Christ Himself.. which is also the very same Gospel that all the Apostles preached.
You can read this Gospel word for word at 1Cor 15:1-11
You may very well notice that these people were saved through receiving this message of Christ having died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, having been buried and raised again the third day according to the Scriptures.
They did not submit themselves... nor were they zapped into becoming good enough to submit themselves... nor were they submitted by the "Sovereign Grace of God" ... they received the Gospel and Paul declares them to be saved through doing so.
It may well be true that people have changed, or "turned from" preaching a false gospel that men preached... but if that means that they have turned to preaching the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I say AMEN!
Kev
Kev
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrother Kev,
ReplyDeleteYour quote:
Since you simply stated Turning from sin is exactly what is necessary to trust Christ.
The plain meaning of this statement, based on our discussion and the English employed by yourself that one must stop sinning in order to trust Christ, and thereby be saved.
What I said many times, but always gets lost in your arguments of logic, is there is a turning from sin in the heart and mind and a volitional decision to live for Christ. You can argue the English and the way I worded it, but that is simply a tactic to confuse the issue. Your next several questions are based on YOUR definition of what I said based on YOUR pre-suppositions.
Your quote:
So then Art, are you a preacher of "Easy Turnism"? Do your lips pay simple service to the "lordship" of Christ or is He truly Lord? Another possibility, and one that is all too consistent with the LS view is that you can't actually be sure you're saved until you get to Heaven. This of course would make a mockery of Paul's description of many people who he claims are saved... in his writings.
This is very clever. I have a new master now. I desire not to sin, and WHEN I do, I am chastened and brought back into fellowship with my Lord and my Heavenly Father. You can mock my sincerity, if you like, but I do NOT believe a person CANNOT know his eternal state until he dies. I believe the book of 1 John gives us many evidences to “assure” us of our standing in Christ. There are more verses in 1 John than 1:9 & 5:13, by the way.
Your comment about my “emotional statement” is another clever, but not very brotherly approach to disdaining my argument. However, I am emotional about the number of lost people in IFB churches who were told to “pray a prayer” and “just believe” on Jesus and are on their way to Hell. I have not changed the Gospel, and I don’t agree completely with all the LS advocates, but I do not agree that the true Gospel brings forth the above kind of fruit.
Brother Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“I don't know about you, but I can safely speak for Lou on this, and for myself. I do not base our understanding of God, and Salvation on the preaching of any man of any denomination of any period in time. I, and as demonstrated often, Lou base our understanding of God and Salvation on the Scriptures.”
That is a very “spiritual”, but not altogether forthright comment. Lou keeps pointing me to links of what other men in the last several years have said about this. Your implied accusation that I do not base my understanding of God and Salvation in the Scriptures is noted. When I quote or point to someone, that isn’t important, when you do, it is. I think I have it now. My answer is still valid.
You said:
“I don't know about Baptist preachers from over a hundred years ago... but nearly 2,000 years ago the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel that he received directly from Jesus Christ Himself.. which is also the very same Gospel that all the Apostles preached.”
Peter: “Repent and be baptized…” “Repent and be converted…” “…all should come to repentance.”
John: The entire epistle of 1 John states that Christians live one way, the lost another.
Paul’s response to his commission by Christ:
Acts 26:20
(20) But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Again, you are not answering what I have stated, but keep bringing in “Sovereign Grace” and “Calvinistic” statements. I am not a Calvinist, and I do not believe a person is regenerated before he can believe. But, I do not throw out the rest of the New Testament teaching of repentance and a new life being the marks of true salvation.
Art:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "I don’t agree completely with all the LS advocates..."
I'd sincerely like to know which LS advocates and what aspect of their LS teaching that you have disagreement(s) with.
LM
Hello Art,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're engaging.
You said What I said many times, but always gets lost in your arguments of logic, is there is a turning from sin in the heart and mind and a volitional decision to live for Christ.
I'm not sure anyone could search this conversation for any of what you claim to have said many times and find it. I've searched for volition, heart, and mind using the "search function" to no avail.
The failed search aside... what you write sure sounds like Easy Turnism to me.
I wasn't trying to be clever, but to clearly understand what you're saying.
You said I have a new master now. I desire not to sin,...
I bolded "now" because what about the person who hasn't been saved? I thought you had to "turn from sin" to be saved.
So other people must "turn from sin" in order to be saved. But you can go on sinning, but "desiring" not to, and be saved?
I'm confused. Are you special? OK that was clever. I'm sorry, but come on. You seem to have a head on your shoulders, don't you see the incongruence?
In all seriousness, if the book of 1 John gives us many evidences to “assure” us of our standing in Christ. Then how "assured" do you feel when you read 1Jn 3:9? Among the other verses that condemn you using your view of the book.
Your plea was based on emotion, not Scripture. That's why it can't be helpful to the Church. However, in this last you stated something which is true.
but I do not agree that the true Gospel brings forth the above kind of fruit.
The "fruit" of the Gospel is the salvation of souls.
the fruit of discipleship is Christ-likeness in saved souls.
Turning the Gospel into discipleship merely creates religion - not true converts.
Your plea ought to be to the Church for faithfulness, purity in fellowship, true discipleship and biblical separation.
Sorry this is long.
Kev
To All:
ReplyDeleteBlogger comment feed has been acting strange lately. You need submit a comment once and it may show that it would not for some reason. I also have to check to make sure I upload all comments. Just saw one from you Art and uploaded it just now, sorry for the delay.
Lou
Art:
ReplyDeleteFWIW, there is a 14 page chapter in my book titles Salvation & Discipleship: Is There a Biblical Difference? That chapter thoroughly appeals to and teaches on this subject from Scripture. For an article at my blog on this please see, John MacArthur's Discipleship Gospel, where I think you find some challenging material from Scripture.
Lou
Art - please note that I hadn't seen your second response before I posted my last; as Lou mentioned the comment function is acting strangely.
ReplyDeleteYou said When I quote or point to someone, that isn’t important, when you do, it is. I think I have it now. My answer is still valid.
Please show me where I have validated my view by quoting anything other than Scripture. You'll find Lou quoting other people who have the same understanding but validation is always from the Scriptures themselves. You'll never find Lou disparaging for men not preaching the gospel people were preaching 100 years ago.. that is hardly important.
I don't care if I preach something different than Baptist preachers did 100+ years ago - I DO care if I preach something different than the Apostles did 2000 years ago. Your point is moot. (I don't mean that as combative as it may sound to some)
You stated Peter: “Repent and be baptized…” “Repent and be converted…” “…all should come to repentance.”
Lou Martuneac, & Kevin Lane preach the very same thing as Peter did. However, we define "repentance" the same way Peter did. Not the way LS proponents do.
You said John: The entire epistle of 1 John states that Christians live one way, the lost another.
If that is so, then how can you claim to be a Christian when you say that "when you sin you are corrected" Apparently you still live the same way the world does.
Likewise you put your theology onto the Apostle's words in Acts 26:20. Did Paul say that they should "repent, turn to God and do works befitting repentance" in order to be saved? Or did he say that he preached in these places that people should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance? The difference may be subtle to one who is used to seeing this passage in a particular way. You'll find, if you can divorce your thoughts from the theology of your understanding that this verse matches exactly what Paul preaches elsewhere.
you are not answering what I have stated
I'm sorry. I am attempting to do so. Maybe you could help me out by being clearer?
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "Is salvation/justification received by an upfront commit to turn from, to stop sinning, or through faith/believing in whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation?
The answer to that is that people are saved by "repentance toward God AND faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ."
Kev,
ReplyDeleteAs you have noted, some of my comments didn't even make it to the blog.
I am not putting any theology into the Apostle's words in Acts 26:20. What I am saying is those who do not do the works "meet for repentance" after their salvation "decision" were not truly saved.
It is absolutely silly, in my understanding, to state that a person does not have to be "willing" to turn from their life of sin to be saved.
As to divorcing thoughts from theology, you might try that yourself.
As to 1 John, I believe that you are well aware that the whole epistle speaks of lifestyles of lost and saved people. Your comments about sinning are very clever, but that is not the issue here. The issue is not individual sins committed by Christians and chastened by the Lord. The issue is people who claim to be Christians, who live sinful lifestyles, with not chastening from the Lord, and seemingly no regrets. I believe 1 John says those people are "liars" and are not saved.
By the way, how did Peter define repentance?
Art:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply and I agree with your statement, but we must define our terms. LS advocates have redefined biblical repentance to fit their LS theology.
The following two paragraphs are from George Zeller,
“Dr. MacArthur tends to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance, and to confuse faith with that which faith ought to produce. He confuses saving faith (which takes place in a moment of time--Rom. 13:11 ; Eph. 1:13 ) with discipleship (which is a lifelong process). As Miles Stanford has said, “Lordship salvation is not the childlike faith of John 3:16 . It rightly insists upon repentance but wrongly includes a change of behavior IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Saviour, but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith.” (Miles Stanford, in his review of The Gospel According to Jesus).
“MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance “inevitably results in a change of behavior” (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, “true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose” (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.”
The following is from the revised and expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel and would in brief reflect my view.
“Repentance is a change of mind where one recognizes he is a hopeless, Hell-bound sinner before a just and holy God. When he agrees with the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit that he is a sinner (John 16:7-9 ) and transfers his dependence to the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation—he has biblically repented. Biblical repentance is a change of mind that should produce the fruit of a change in direction from self and sin toward God. The fruit that should follow is distinct from repentance itself. In Acts 26:20 , Paul summarizes his ministry to King Agrippa by indicating he calls people to a change of mind where they turn to God, and once they’ve turned to God, been saved, they should do the ‘good works’ (Eph. 2:10 ) that are fitting of that change of mind and dependence on the Lord. This is distinct from Judaism which was teaching people should do works to get saved, but Paul also emphasized people should ‘have…fruit unto holiness’ (Rom. 6:22 ) once they have been saved.”
Finally, see- How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?
Art:
ReplyDeleteEarlier I posted the following to you. I'd appreciate your reply on the question below.
You wrote, "I don’t agree completely with all the LS advocates..."
I'd sincerely like to know; which LS advocates and what aspect of their LS teaching that you have disagreement(s) with?
LM
Hi Art,
ReplyDeleteYou claimed not to be putting words into the Apostle's mouth with regard to Acts 26:20 and then you say:
What I am saying is those who do not do the works "meet for repentance" after their salvation "decision" were not truly saved.
Did the Apostle say this? No. Therefore you ARE putting words in his mouth.
Isn't it amusing that Paul says the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation, but that Paul (and the rest of the NT writers) have to continually instruct Believers to do the very things that you say anyone who is "truly" saved will simply do.
What a silly thing. We don't yell at water to boil when it reaches 100c do we? Why not? Because water that is at 100c boils. If people who are "truly saved" do works fitting repentance then why is so much of the NT written to Believers telling them to stop sinning, and do good works?
You stated As to 1 John, I believe that you are well aware that the whole epistle speaks of lifestyles of lost and saved people.
You believe this in error. 1Jn does not compare the lifestyles of the saved with the lost.
Then you stated:
Your comments about sinning are very clever, but that is not the issue here. The issue is not individual sins committed by Christians and chastened by the Lord. The issue is people who claim to be Christians, who live sinful lifestyles, with not chastening from the Lord, and seemingly no regrets. I believe 1 John says those people are "liars" and are not saved.
Actually the issue is about the sin in your life. Because, as you state clearly, you believe that 1Jn is telling you who is saved and who are "liars." If you sin, and you have previously stated that you have.. then 1Jn, if it is to be understood as you say, clearly counts you as one of those "liars."
Of course you say The issue is not individual sins committed by Christians that is is about a "lifestlye." I'm sorry to tell you Dear Art, but 1Jn doesn't talk about a person's lifestyle.
It says the one born of God cannot sin.
If 1Jn is supposed to be used to tell the difference between the Saved and the Unsaved then you, Sir, fail the test. Just as I would BTW.
1Jn is about fellowship, and assurance - not evaluation.
For more about 1Jn and this "test" idea check out the resources linked from my blog here; Be Assured of Eternal Life
Kev
Art,
ReplyDeleteYou asked;
By the way, how did Peter define repentance?
metanoia: an afterthought, to reconsider based on revealed facts, a change of mind.
That's the word he used... since all Scripture is God breathed... I have to assume that Peter could have said "stop sinning" or "be willing to stop sinning" had the Spirit moved him to do so.
Kev
Lou,
ReplyDeleteAs to defining terms, you said, "Biblical repentance is a change of mind that should produce the fruit of a change in direction from self and sin toward God. The fruit that should follow is distinct from repentance itself."
On what Scriptural basis do you base the usage of the word "should" instead of "will" in your definition?
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that you can possibly know everything and be willing to do everything that John MacArthur seems to be saying in his works on "Lordship Salvation."
I disagree with the whole premise of regeneration before repentance, for example.
I do agree that repentance that does not result in a changed life is not repentance at all.
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI read your link, and I am not convinced. While 1 John was written to give assurance to true Believers, it was also written in a way to identify false converts.
I would love to see a verse-by-verse explanation of 1 John from your perspective.
I am assured that I have believed because of the promises of God, because of the indwelling Spirit, and because of the CHANGE that has occurred in my life.
Art:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer on MacArthur. You know when you take away regeneration before faith MacArthur’s LS falls.
You asked, “On what Scriptural basis do you base the usage of the word ‘should’ instead of ‘will’ in your definition?”
The many examples in Scripture such as Peter, Demas, John Mark and from the OT David first comes to mind. Let me share an e-mail I just sent to a pastor this morning. We were discussing how some can profess Christ, live for Him, but then fall far, far away. Here is what I wrote to him.
This issue is one of the most troubling we face as and with professing Christians.
My gut reaction to your young man [who fell away after years of following Christ] might be that he was never saved in the first place, but I have to confess that in reality I do not know for sure. Did he believe on and live for Christ. Your description is yes. Has something gone horribly wrong? Definitely!
IMO, he very well may have been saved, but has turned his back on Christ. Will he ever be recovered if he had been born again, maybe or go out into eternity with great loss of reward? Is he a prodigal on the verge of coming to his senses?
I don’t know for certain in many of these cases and I know of men just like yours. One young man from Marquette was as godly as they come. I took him to South Africa my last time over, he was headed for a youth ministry major at BJU. He never got there. His family spilt and he fell away. I see him on FaceBook and am appalled at what he has become. Never saved in the first place? I don’t know.
LM
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteWhat I asked was "what Scriptural basis", but what you gave me was anecdotal. The Bible always states positively that there will be.
That is probably the biggest problem I have with your argument. I also am not the person's judge, and I don't know if he is saved. However, I approach every situation like that as if the person is not saved.
The Gospel will sort it out. The problem I have is the "pronouncing" of people saved because they say they believe. If it is wrong for me to say someone is not saved, it is presumptuous of me to proclaim someone saved.
Hi Art,
ReplyDeleteYou said
I read your link, and I am not convinced. While 1 John was written to give assurance to true Believers, it was also written in a way to identify false converts.
It was written to saved people - those who believe in the Name of the Lord. 1Jn 5:13. It wasn't written to those who "claim to believe" or to those who want to know "IF they believe."
I would love to see a verse-by-verse explanation of 1 John from your perspective.
At some point in the future I intend on evaluating the "test" that so many LS preachers use from 1Jn. It's not high on my list of priorities however.
You said
I am assured that I have believed because of the promises of God, because of the indwelling Spirit, and because of the CHANGE that has occurred in my life.
Abraham was assured of God and this was accounted to him as righteousness. Gen 15:6
The person who believes is saved. This is the promise of God. He who needs further assurance other than God's faithfulness is not putting their faith in God.
However, that being said the Spirit testifies with our Spirit that we are the children, or the sons of God. Rom 8:16 that we are the children, or the sons of God. This is beyond simple salvation, this is that we are led by the Spirit - we truly are followers, disciples.
Your last however, I can find no support for in Scripture. There is no place in Scripture where the Believer is said to look at himself, or his behavior for assurance. We are told to look at Christ, and His performance for assurance.
In every single case in Scripture where assurance is in view, it is Christ's qualification for, and His actual payment for our sins that is in view.
As I noted before, pick any believer in the NT and you'll find someone who would fail the supposed test of 1Jn, if the verses selected for this test were read plainly - instead of changing things into a "desire to" or a "lifestyle of."
Kev