tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post8631088484123213121..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-13297691756671527982008-08-07T23:24:00.000-05:002008-08-07T23:24:00.000-05:00To All:This has been a good discussion. Jan, I ec...To All:<BR/><BR/>This has been a good discussion. <BR/><BR/>Jan, I echo Kev's reaction to your penetrating comment above. Please feel free to comment here as often as you like.<BR/><BR/>This seems to be a good place to close this thread. If any want to include an additional note, e-mail it to me and I will review it for posting.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to all,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-81146709015007413642008-08-07T10:10:00.000-05:002008-08-07T10:10:00.000-05:00It should be mentioned that at my blog Bridget pos...It should be mentioned that at my blog Bridget posted James 2:14-26 in defense of her position that people are not justified "apart" from works. <BR/><BR/><B>Jan</B>, you gave a very strong description of the contrast of Faith and Works. I want to thank you for this description, I intend to use it often. You got to the point of the difference, bot that it doesn't mater who's working, if it's work then it's work. AND that if Faith IS work then the Apostle Paul's writing is nonsensical. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for this. I'm not sure if you know what a stab in the heart of the Additionist's gospel you have just accomplished. Even if only us few see this description you have written here there will be bountiful fruit from it. I'm very thankful to God for His leading you hear for this discussion. You've put words to thoughts that have been plaguing my mind. <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-65219263734620938402008-08-07T09:59:00.000-05:002008-08-07T09:59:00.000-05:00Art,I'm just getting caught up here. Your post of ...Art,<BR/><BR/>I'm just getting caught up here. Your post of 8/06/2008 9:36 AM was very good.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-80623524265026369792008-08-06T21:45:00.000-05:002008-08-06T21:45:00.000-05:00Jan:You wrote, "Faith is not a work because of its...Jan:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>Faith is not a work because of its very nature. Faith can no more be a work than rest can be labor</I>. "<BR/><BR/>That was a good point and I appreciate your extended comment. Many of comments from Bridget are because of the belief that man can in no way participate in salvation. He cannot even respond to the Gospel. <BR/><BR/>Plus, if we allow for the biblical truth that man can believe (Rom. 10:9-10) that there is human freedom to choose and be saved she views that as an assault on God's sovereignty. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the notes.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-85130658891346837772008-08-06T21:37:00.000-05:002008-08-06T21:37:00.000-05:00Art:Thanks for dealing with Bridget's comments her...Art:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for dealing with Bridget's comments here. Your replies and note were very helpful.<BR/><BR/>As you noted she comes to these discussions from the presuppositions of Calvinism, including the extra-biblical view that faith is a gift.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-9031348815355483432008-08-06T20:33:00.000-05:002008-08-06T20:33:00.000-05:00Hi Bridget,I hope you had/are having a nice vacati...Hi Bridget,<BR/>I hope you had/are having a nice vacation this week. <BR/><BR/>I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on something. This is from your post to Art:<BR/><BR/><I>“And again, I agree faith and works don’t mix. That’s why I’ve tried to show that if you believe that the foundation of your faith is your own decision, then you are doing just that. You are mixing your works with faith.”</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>The only way to conclude someone is mixing faith with works if the man is the one doing the believing is to make the defining character of faith contingent upon something other than the essential nature of faith. It is not the foundation of faith that determines whether or not it is a work, nor does whether or not the man is doing it make it a work. Faith is not a work because of its very nature. Faith can no more be a work than rest can be labor. Who is responsible for faith happening does not determine whether it is a work. If that were the case, then no matter what it would really be a work because no matter what someone or Someone has to do it. The only difference would be whether it was God or the man doing it. But it would either be God working or the man working. So faith would be a work regardless. The foundation of it would not change that. On the contrary, if the foundation were the issue, that would <I>establish</I> faith as a work. There is not some kind of technicality that can cause faith to be confounded with works. It simply isn’t work by its very nature just as rest by its very nature is not labor. The differences are inherent and do not need a source outside them (i.e.- the foundation) to define them, nor can a source outside them confound the inherent definitions. Their mutual exclusivity is evident. To take any view that makes faith a work makes the teaching in Scripture that faith is not work nonsense. Paul would have no grounds to contrast faith and works if faith was really a form of work, however that came to be or whoever was doing it. Rather than keep the individual doing the working or believing the constant in Romans 4:5, he would have had to say that faith is a work and therefore God must do it. But instead he identifies the person as doing either work or believing. The person doing something is the constant. What the person is doing changes. <BR/><BR/>The underlying premise that I disagree with is that if the man does the believing, it must be a work simply because it is something being <I>done</I>. It is evident by considering rest contrasted with labor that the same person may <I>do</I> both. But that the one excludes the other is evident by the very nature of the thing being done.<BR/><BR/>JanHJanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929002821245735729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-20719544274634346522008-08-06T11:48:00.000-05:002008-08-06T11:48:00.000-05:00I'm sorry for the confusion Art. I do agree with m...I'm sorry for the confusion Art. I do agree with many things you are saying, including that faith and works do not mix. And you are right, I don't agree with your interpretation that choosing of your own free will does not add any work into the mix. Namely because Scripture teaches that sinful man does not have the ability in our blind/dead state to respond. Not because we're poor lost orphans that God won't adopt, but because we're rebellious, defiant sinners who want nothing to do with God, and everything to do with our own lustful sins. John 3:19-21 and other passages make it very clear that sinners love the darkness and hate the light. It makes it clear why it is that some do what is true and come to the light. Nothing to do with a decision we make, but with a decision God makes. That's what grace is. The unmerited, freely-given favor and love of God.<BR/><BR/>I'm going out of town this afternoon for several days. I don't know if I'll have the opportunity to respond back or not, but I'll check and see if it still going when I get back.<BR/><BR/>God bless you,<BR/>Bridgetbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-69335944125683951782008-08-06T11:13:00.000-05:002008-08-06T11:13:00.000-05:00Bridget,Your arguments and denials don't make sens...Bridget,<BR/>Your arguments and denials don't make sense. You have indeed put God at odds with Himself in trying to explain Matt. 23:37. Nor do I view faith like you do as simply "based upon" grace, but instead, grace and faith are fully compatible principles in the texts discussed. Your claim to agree with things I'm saying just isn't so. You DON'T mean what I do and you know you don't. How can you possibly not see that I am disagreeing with you about faith as one's own decision being works? It is not! We absolutely do not agree. With you, man has no choice, just goes to hell because God doesn't give him faith. No thank you! You have some novelty slants. I see that, but you are a Calvinst, plain enough, and don't agree with what I've been saying about grace and faith and works.Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-42716199664369606392008-08-06T10:27:00.000-05:002008-08-06T10:27:00.000-05:00Hi Art,I have never said that God was not consiste...Hi Art,<BR/>I have never said that God was not consistent in both planning the crucifixion and denouncing those who did the evil. I uphold both! I was simply sharing with you the truth that in one sense God did not will (desire) that those offenses be perpetrated against His Son and in another sense (for the greater good) He did. That’s all. And in the same way, God can will (desire) that all would turn to Him and be saved and in another sense (for the greater good) not. This doesn’t mean that God is rejecting those who would ever sincerely come to Him, because they “would not”.<BR/><BR/>And again, I agree faith and works don’t mix. That’s why I’ve tried to show that if you believe that the foundation of your faith is your own decision, then you are doing just that. You are mixing your works with faith.<BR/><BR/>“So too, at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But <B>if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.</B>”-Rom 11:5-6.<BR/><BR/>“And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, <B>that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God</B>.”-1 Cor 2:3bphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-82897120160860442032008-08-06T09:36:00.000-05:002008-08-06T09:36:00.000-05:00Yes, Bridget, according to your view it does appea...Yes, Bridget, according to your view it does appear that God has His fingers crossed. But I don't agree with your premise and don't think that. What I think is this - that you consider saving faith to be a gift from God, that humans themselves are unable to believe, that faith is given to select people only, and desiring support and defense for theories related to this, you are mischaracterizing God's plan for the crucifixion of Christ. While the crucifixion most certainly was ordained of God, individuals participated, not because they had to, but by choice, and were held accountable for what they did. Jesus plainly said, "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come" (Luke 17:1). So God Himself was consistent in both planning the crucifixion and denouncing those who did the evil. And if God was consistent, so much for your argument about that.<BR/><BR/>All of that is a rabbit trail. My disagreement with you centers in your claim that saving faith is a gift from God and a work. You insist that faith is a work despite Romans 4:5 - "to him that worketh not but believeth;" you claim human faith is meritorious despite Romans 3:27; and after reluctantly facing the "I would" and "you would not" of Matthew 23:37 you seek to neutralize Matthew 23:37 by casting God's secret will against His revealed will. You are impossible. It is MAN who does the believing - "with the heart MAN believeth unto righteousnes" and this is why "I would" and "you would not" matters. Faith is activity on the inside, "the heart," and is not considered by God to be working for salvation - "he that worketh not but believeth." And due to its non-meritorious character (boasting excluded by the law of faith), being unlike works, faith is compatible with the meaning of grace (Rom. 4:16, 11:6). Injecting your idea of faith as a work of God at Romans 4:5 is totally uncalled for. It is true that God works in people's lives, giving opportunies to believe, but in no way does this mean saving faith is created by God within anyone. John 6:29 does not say "this is the work of God, your belief" but rather "this is the work of God, that ye believe." Like Phil. 1:29, "given to believe" does not mean "given belief." This is why "he that believeth not shall be damned" makes sense and which could make no sense at all if God were to blame for not giving faith.<BR/><BR/>Bridget, Monday was my day off and is why I was able to respond to you repeatedly that day.Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-45122360248064774592008-08-05T22:47:00.000-05:002008-08-05T22:47:00.000-05:00Sorry Bridget:That last post by crossed the line a...Sorry Bridget:<BR/><BR/>That last post by crossed the line and I deleted it. I will not tolerate any links to material by John Piper. Why?<BR/><BR/>Piper is a self described 7 point Calvinist, which includes <B>double</B>-predestination. Piper believes the miraculous sign gifts are still in operation, such as tongues. Piper supports the Toronto Blessing. Piper has had RAP artists perform in his church (I saw the video of it). <BR/><BR/>There is more, but those are reasons enough for me to block any link to his teaching ministry.<BR/><BR/>I will attempt to e-mail your comment back to you for reposting MINUS any links or presentation of Piper’s teaching.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-47579625796300689172008-08-05T21:36:00.000-05:002008-08-05T21:36:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-64859345237797172982008-08-05T19:45:00.000-05:002008-08-05T19:45:00.000-05:00Bridget,Reading your remarks, God must have His fi...Bridget,<BR/>Reading your remarks, God must have His fingers crossed when declaring His will. Can He be believed? And withholding information He jugdes people for not having it. This glorifies Him?Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-40436106979936311422008-08-05T14:16:00.000-05:002008-08-05T14:16:00.000-05:00Brian:Thanks for the note. I appreciate your heart...Brian:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the note. I appreciate your heart for MacArthur.<BR/><BR/>You touched on one of the reasons for the development of Lordship Salvation. MacArthur is trying to answer the obvious problems with the Grace Evangelical Society’s “<I>Crossless</I>” gospel. MacArthur often targets the teachings of Zane Hodges, which are legitimate targets because they are heretical, reductionist views of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Pickering said, “<I>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</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Frankly, he has been teaching the LS view for so long I think his conscience has been seared from recognizing he has departed biblical orthodoxy. He has lost his balance and apart from a genuine working of the Holy Spirit he is going to keep teaching LS’s works based message.<BR/><BR/>The few times I have seen him on Larry King I have appreciated much of what he says on various topics. However, he is not sharing the whole picture for salvation as he teaches it in his books. That is the problem with TV sound-bytes. You have little time to speak your full mind. <BR/><BR/>His books are the definitive documents for LS and in them you find the egregious errors of making a commitment to the results of salvation (discipleship) the requirement for salvation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7395000541233467522008-08-05T13:01:00.000-05:002008-08-05T13:01:00.000-05:00In time I pray MacArthur will see these points you...In time I pray MacArthur will see these points you are making here. He is very good on those interviews with Larry King though. I know he knows the truth. He has simply been trying to compensate for the crossless advocates who have been perverting the gospel for a long time now, but we musnt put discipleship before salvation. The message must always be look and live, not pick up your crosses daily to live or to see if you really are alive or not.<BR/><BR/>Still...I know he is my brother and knows the truth. He is a faithful witness when put before unbelievers. The fruit of the Lord comes out of him in a very good way.<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-29644942539785330232008-08-04T22:57:00.000-05:002008-08-04T22:57:00.000-05:00Wait, I'm still on Matthew 23:37. You are now sayi...<B><BR/>Wait, I'm still on Matthew 23:37. You are now saying the "I WOULD" is Jesus' sincere desire that these people would turn to him. Doesn't this show that was God's choice for them, His will, and that they were the ones to blame, not God, for wrongly using their own wills?</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I would agree that this shows that it was His will that they turn to Him and be saved, and also that they were the ones to blame, not God for refusing to turn to Him. But I asked you those questions because I was trying to show that there are many instances in Scripture where God wills something in one sense that He does not in another sense. For instance:<BR/><BR/>His will was that men not break His moral law and murder His Son<BR/><BR/>His will ordained that they would<BR/><BR/>His will was that Joseph’s brothers would not mistreat him and sell him into slavery<BR/><BR/>His will ordained that they would<BR/>“So it was not you who sent me here, but God.”-Gen 45:8 (Joseph speaking to his brothers)<BR/><BR/>A judge can have compassion and “will” that a condemned man repent of his crimes and be free from the prison he deserves. But that doesn’t mean that he “wills” him to go free. For the greater good, his will of decree (that he do the time for his crime) over-rides his will that he be free.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Jesus was truly lamenting over the people of Jerusalem, but earlier in chapter 11:25, He says, “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth ,that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.”<BR/><BR/>So He is lamenting over these people, and He is also thanking God that He has hidden these things from them.<BR/><BR/>Everyone would agree God wills in one sense and not in another. It's just a matter of WHY? If you have a belief in "free will", then you'd probably say that God wills (or desires) that they turn to Him and be saved, but that He has a higher will (greater desire) that their free will remain in-tact, and for that reason He doesn't over-ride it.<BR/><BR/>My belief is that He wills ( or desires) that they turn to Him and be saved, but that He has a higher will (greater desire), that He be glorified in the full display of both His grace and His judgment.<BR/><BR/>I hope that helps Art. I know it's a lot to chew on.<BR/><BR/>Bridgetbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-73406687781303132642008-08-04T20:11:00.000-05:002008-08-04T20:11:00.000-05:00Hi Lou,Thanks so much for all you do here at your ...Hi Lou,<BR/>Thanks so much for all you do here at your blog.Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-71005088780460925982008-08-04T18:28:00.000-05:002008-08-04T18:28:00.000-05:00Jan:Thanks for he reply. Actually your opening com...Jan:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for he reply. <BR/><BR/>Actually your opening comment has more to do with Lordship Salvation than what Bridget is discussing, which is Calvinism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-43232580235137732702008-08-04T18:25:00.000-05:002008-08-04T18:25:00.000-05:00Art:Thanks for interacting with Bridget. I trust ...Art:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for interacting with Bridget. I trust she will work through the specifics you are addressing from Matt. 23:37.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-61212153396610254832008-08-04T17:40:00.000-05:002008-08-04T17:40:00.000-05:00Thank you for your warm and gracious welcome, Lou....Thank you for your warm and gracious welcome, Lou. I am indeed a new guest. :)<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your answer to my question, especially since there is clearly a more pressing issue going on here right now. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps there will be better opportunity to hear from the Lordship side on my question at a later time. (I do hope to hear the Lordship view from the Lordship adherents themselves on these quotes at some point. They may have a different take and should be allowed to defend themselves.)<BR/><BR/>JanHJanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929002821245735729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-2281364525335185722008-08-04T16:50:00.000-05:002008-08-04T16:50:00.000-05:00Bridget:"...misrepresentations continuously repeat...Bridget:<BR/><BR/>"<I>...<B>misrepresentations</B> continuously repeated even after they’ve been corrected</I>."<BR/><BR/>And there is that word I knew was soon to follow. I'll have more for you later today.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-48720970865113950132008-08-04T15:20:00.000-05:002008-08-04T15:20:00.000-05:00Bridget,Wait, I'm still on Matthew 23:37. You are...Bridget,<BR/>Wait, I'm still on Matthew 23:37. You are now saying the "I WOULD" is Jesus' sincere desire that these people would turn to him. Doesn't this show that was God's choice for them, His will, and that they were the ones to blame, not God, for wrongly using their own wills?Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-49127398597023566822008-08-04T14:21:00.000-05:002008-08-04T14:21:00.000-05:00I would say that the “I WOULD” is Jesus’ sincere d...I would say that the “I WOULD” is Jesus’ sincere desire that they would turn to Him and be saved. <BR/><BR/>Here’s two questions for you Art: <BR/><BR/>Did God sincerely desire that men would not crucify His Son?<BR/><BR/>Did He ordain that they would?bphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-1697161743659892342008-08-04T13:45:00.000-05:002008-08-04T13:45:00.000-05:00Bridget,You seem to only be considering the part o...Bridget,<BR/>You seem to only be considering the part of the sentence that says "would not." Observe please, Matthew 23:37 isn't just "you would not" but both "I would" AND "you would not." What are these two "woulds" and how do they fit with your theory?Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18410644624443825438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-81730095250364384202008-08-04T12:11:00.000-05:002008-08-04T12:11:00.000-05:00Matthew 23:37 only affirms the total unwillingness...Matthew 23:37 only affirms the total unwillingness of man to turn away from sin to Christ. It doesn’t give explanation as to why or how some DO turn to Him (But John 3:19-21 does). If you look at that passage Lou, and you think that this is not a description of you before God graciously drew you to His Son, then you are thinking wrong. A Biblical perspective would be to say, “There go I but by the grace of God”.<BR/><BR/>You may not notice the undertones of works here…the undertones of being able to boast about something you did, but they are there and very noticeable to anyone who knows that God’s grace is the foundation of everything we have, including our faith.bphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02265050268204322057noreply@blogger.com