tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post7788637357180659002..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: The Gospel of the Christ: The Dilemma of Muslim EvangelismLou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-82043312746273774722009-09-23T20:07:23.303-05:002009-09-23T20:07:23.303-05:00Jan,
Nice! I actually find "Once Saved Alwa...Jan,<br /><br />Nice! I actually find "Once Saved Always Saved" a helpful work by Kendall (not sure about his use of Romans 10)...in fact, I quote it in my new work Back to Faith (dealing with faith, works, and John Piper) www.backtofaith.com will be up soon. It is really worth the read<br /><br />When anyone changes faith into something other than faith...what a predictable mess!<br /><br />Grace,<br /><br />FRLDr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62793127327303068212009-09-23T15:42:31.495-05:002009-09-23T15:42:31.495-05:00Actually, there are many, many Lordship Salvation ...<i>Actually, there are many, many Lordship Salvation folks who do not believe in limited atonement.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the reminder, Dr. Fred. Now that you mention it, someone else had also commented here that they encountered LSers who are not TULIP and said these folks are even harder to recover than the TULIP ones. I do tend to have a hard time remembering that there is a larger band of LS adherents than Grace Community Church and the other Reformed crowd MacArthur hangs around with. I have heard there are non TULIP LSers, though I don't know who these folks are by name. I do wonder whether they have been led to their LS view by someone who was TULIP. I know my own 4 point pastor is getting increasingly LS in his gospel presentation as he is increasingly influenced by JM.<br /><br />I am aware, though, that (thankfully!) not all TULIP folks are LS. Spurgeon certainly being the prime example, as, I guess, is Ian Murray (I don't know much about him. I will read that link you posted.)<br /><br />I do notice, though, that the vast majority of the LS crowd do come from the Reformed camp, at least these days. Also, I learned from R. T. Kendall* that the practical syllogism harks back to Beza rather than Calvin. Kendall said that it was Beza who developed the doctrine of LA and Calvin didn't go into it much. He questions whether Calvin held to it at all. Calvin was a proponent of a sort of passive faith that has assurance as its essence. Beza said faith has a more active, volitional component and therefore has the fruit of faith as its essence, which became his practical syllogism, and hence LS. Kendall tied this view of faith to LA, election, and temporary faith for Beza. It seems our camp is more in agreement with Calvin on what faith is.<br /><br />I think I am due to read Kendall's book again.<br /><br />I think the Arminians tend toward LS too, don't they?<br /><br /><br />JanH<br /><br />*<i>Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649</i>. Judging by what I found when I went to see what else Kendall has written, this is probably the only book by Kendall that can be recommended.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929002821245735729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-56830619482234038072009-09-23T11:03:29.935-05:002009-09-23T11:03:29.935-05:00Sorry I didn't proof it...maybe the meaning st...Sorry I didn't proof it...maybe the meaning still leaks through!<br /><br />FRLDr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76382167439471530342009-09-23T09:12:56.943-05:002009-09-23T09:12:56.943-05:00Hello Fred:
Thanks for the helpful comments to Ja...Hello Fred:<br /><br />Thanks for the helpful comments to Jan. Glad you referenced the book by Iain Murray. I cite it in my book and link to it for my blog. <i><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Spurgeon-Vs-Hyper-Calvinism-Preaching/dp/0851516920/ref=sr_1_1/103-1818862-8568600?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181660482&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching</a></b></i>, which is a great read.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br /><br />LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-22880426240623389222009-09-23T08:04:01.407-05:002009-09-23T08:04:01.407-05:00Jan,
Just another way to think about the same con...Jan,<br /><br />Just another way to think about the same conclusion about LS and the cross.<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />"The reason LS puts the cross in second place is because of limited atonement."<br /><br />..........<br /><br />Actually, there are many, many Lordship Salvation folks who do not believe in limited atonement.<br /><br />My observation is that don't recognize that faith is belief in a message (some content / proposition(s), etc.). So, as a result, they miss out by misunderstanding faith as commitment to a person, etc. (there are many slants they have to their view of faith).<br /><br />It really isn't all Calvinism which is the problem...it is clearly Hyper-Calvinism where their contribution to the misunderstanding lies. Many other persuasion like the basic idea of LS rather than faith in the Savior and His message of the cross.<br /><br />Grace,<br /><br />Fred Lybrand<br /><br />P.S. For a good display of the various forms of Calvinism (and the inherent issues attending it) see: Spurgeon & Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.<br /><br />9/23/2009 8:02 AMDr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-16179622962665076622009-09-23T08:02:23.838-05:002009-09-23T08:02:23.838-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-64402986715362766412009-09-21T14:18:15.171-05:002009-09-21T14:18:15.171-05:00Tim:
Good to have you back, we’ve missed your ins...Tim:<br /><br />Good to have you back, we’ve missed your insightful commentary. This new comment is no disappointment.<br /><br />You wrote, “<i>While they (LS/CG) are two sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation</i>.”<br /><br />I knew this would resonate with Jan who has commented on this theme several times.<br /><br />More from me later.<br /><br /><br />LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-49925305960438833242009-09-21T14:01:33.574-05:002009-09-21T14:01:33.574-05:00Tim-
I find I have no words in response to your p...Tim-<br /><br />I find I have no words in response to your post- probably because you took all the words right out of my mouth!! Regarding LS especially, that is precisely exactly what my complaint has been all along, only you said it better (can I quote you? :))<br /><br />You have absolutely hit that nail right square on the head.<br /><br />Bravo!!<br /><br />JanH<br /><br />P.S. The reason LS puts the cross in second place is because of limited atonement.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929002821245735729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-77082596417781890542009-09-21T12:34:45.301-05:002009-09-21T12:34:45.301-05:00Hello All,
Its been some time since I've comm...Hello All,<br /><br />Its been some time since I've commented, but this article focused my attention on something that has been brewing in the back of my mind for some time as I have followed the LS/CG issue. <br /><br />While they are two sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation. Both LS and CG advocates say in their own way that a relationship with God can be established apart from the cross of Christ, apart from the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross as the only point of contact between an absolutely holy God and the spiritually dead sinner(Jn.12:24 et al). LS would put surrender and total commitment to Christ as Lord ahead of trusting His work of dying on the cross for my very own sins/sinfulness. This is a position no different from that of the crowd in the NT who "believed in Him" because they were convinced of His Lordship powers, or from that "Surrender" to His Lordship rule during His Millennial reign by those born naturally in that time. In both cases, such "surrender/commitment" is seen to be inadequate to save as soon as Satan's power is unleashed.<br /><br />CG proponents, on the other hand, deny the cross by asserting that bare belief the an undefined person called "Jesus" is enough to save apart from any accurate understanding of His person or work. No misconception, faulty belief or even a complete lack of belief concerning His substitutionary death on the cross is deemed as standing in the way of eternal life. LS and CG are probably far apart on many things, but in this subtle (in the case of LS) and blatant denial of the necessity of the cross as to first point of contact between God and the sinner, they seem to be in complete agreement.<br />In view of the prominence and centrality of the cross of Christ in the Bible as a whole and the NT in particular, it is hard to accept or believe that those who tenaciously hold to either one can be accepted as sincere in their service for the One Who died there.Tim V.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10304834685565099826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76645234530527850782009-09-21T08:55:41.877-05:002009-09-21T08:55:41.877-05:00Great argument.
Much better than the others we h...Great argument. <br /><br />Much better than the others we have used which are similar. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-32760613949998016972009-09-21T07:37:25.143-05:002009-09-21T07:37:25.143-05:00Wow.
JanHWow.<br /><br />JanHJanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929002821245735729noreply@blogger.com