Friday, August 21, 2009

Why one is, and one is not a Dispensationalist


I decided to take a rare peek in over at Sharper Iron. I found an article that really speaks to my experience with Scripture called Why I'm a Dispensationalist.

I really liked two portions of the article:

I have found that dispensationalism is not a distraction for such men, nor does it deter them from teaching “the weightier matters of the law” Mat 23:23 . Rather, it drives them to perfect their understanding in all areas of theology so that they might build upon the foundation offered by historic, orthodox Christianity with the surpassing glory of dispensational truth.What I found very strange though was how the very next article underneath it on the front page
and
Though he would be horrified at the thought (as Dr. Myron Houghton, my theology teacher, once said), Luther taught me dispensationalism in seed form in my Lutheran grade school religion classes. His emphasis on the distinction between Law and Grace is truly the basis for understanding the Bible dispensationally. It reveals the truth that God has dealt with mankind on the basis of different stewardship responsibilities at different times in history without providing different ways of salvation
I agree with these statements.


What saddened me was to find that right underneath this article was one entitled My Journey Out of Dispensationalism. I'm not saddened because the person disagrees with me, or my theology but because Sharper Iron is entertaining a diversity of doctrines. Two opposites can not be true at the same time as per the Law of Non-Contradiction. Therefore, Sharper Iron is portraying their abandonment of the pursuit of truth.

I think these are two of the more important portions of this article;

My friends have often heard me say, “The more I read my Bible the less dispensational I become.” This statement comes from someone who was spiritually nurtured in churches with dispensational theology, who graduated from a Christian university steeped in dispensational theology, who received his first graduate degree from a dispensational seminary, and who—for twelve years—preached sermons that reflected dispensational theology. For the first sixteen years of my Christian life, I rarely questioned the fundamental distinctions of dispensational theology.
and

As I continued to pastor and preach, I realized that my training in the Old Testament was weak. I decided to pursue a Master of Theology in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. My dispensational comrades in ministry assured me that Westminster would ruin my theology. I suppose many of them believe that has happened. Nevertheless, I was drawn to Westminster primarily because Bruce Waltke was teaching there. I had read books and articles by Dr. Waltke and had profited immensely from them.

While at Westminster I had the privilege of learning from Vern Poythress, Tremper Longman, and Raymond Dillard, along with Bruce Waltke. At first I listened as an antagonist, but I was soon won over by their personal graciousness and their commitment to Scripture. I began to experience discomfort as I realized that my commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis.
If this person's training in the OT was weak, then I submit that he wasn't actually very well trained in the Scriptures. His claims of being so well brought up in Dispensationalism, which appear to be emphasized to give his new convictions more credibility, are surely contradicted by his own admission. As he admits later he "realized that [his] commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis." This claim makes it clear to me that he was a dispensationalist by association. Those in his sphere were of this theology, and he sat comfortably in that sphere but never actually was dispenstationalist himself.

Dispensational Theology is a whole history, whole Scripture theology. It is a study of God's plan not only for Salvation, but for all of History including Eternity Past and Eternity Future. One may have Dispenstational leanings without being well grounded in OT Scriptures, but one can not honestly say they are truly Dispensational unless they are.

I'm sad to say that after reading these articles I see that Sharper Iron is loosening its grip on the Truth, and the fruit of that is a theology of association. Or in other words, which ever way the wind blows is just fine....

126 comments:

Aaron B. said...

Thanks for stopping by SI.
"SharperIron is loosening it's grip on the truth."
I think you misunderstand a little here what we're trying to do at SI. The idea is to offer some differing points of view on various topics to give folks food for thought.
It's not quite accurate to characterize SI as loosing it's grip on anything when we offer both sides of a question... surely what you see as the "Truth" is in one of them, as you pointed out.
In any case, we had quite an interesting discussion going for a while there.

One more thing: SI has always had a fair number of Reformed folks so, actually, all the pro-dispy stuff of late is more of a move toward balance in that direction.

-Aaron (site publisher)

Kevl said...

Hi Aaron, welcome to OMW. It's good to have you visiting.

Thanks for this clarification;

"SI has always had a fair number of Reformed folks so, actually, all the pro-dispy stuff of late is more of a move toward balance in that direction."

I used to be a member of the forums, so I know that SI is heavily populated by Reformed Calvinists.

However, you are correct to note this here because my short blog post didn't accurately represent that. I was under the impression that those who frequent the forums were more Reformed, but the writing was more Dispensational.

You made this point;

I think you misunderstand a little here what we're trying to do at SI. The idea is to offer some differing points of view on various topics to give folks food for thought.
It's not quite accurate to characterize SI as loosing it's grip on anything when we offer both sides of a question


Brother, by definition, offering "both sides" means you're intentionally offering something other than the truth. All defenders of the Faith, and critical thinkers love to quote 1 Thess 5:21, but this verse is not complete by itself.

1 Thess 5:21-22 gives us a much more complete statement.

Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Of course we are told to avoid even the appearance of evil. I don't claim to have mastered, or even to be skilled at such but it is still the standard no matter if I maintain it or not.

When we allow both sides of the issue to be preached from our pulpits we by definition allow fallacy to be taught under our authority.

We're also told clearly in Scripture that not many should seek to be teachers because teachers will be held to a high standard at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

If one can not be sure what is being taught is the clear, absolute truth then one must not allow that to be taught under his authority.

I believe Classic Dispensationalism is a more accurate systematic theology than any other I am aware of. However, I am not married to any systematic theology.

If you believed Covenant Theology is absolutely correct and you are convinced of this from the Scriptures then Brother teach it. I believe you would be wrong, and I could discuss that with you in good faith and in such a way that would Glorify God. But when you teach both sides as though they are true you allow us to look foolish before the World.

God claims He cannot lie. If this is true, then both Dispensational and Covenant theology can not be accurate. Neither may be true, but they can't both be. To teach them, or to allow them to be taught, as both being true from our pulpits allows the World to think God is confused.

If you are exploring which is true from your puplit then do so openly. Let the people being taught know that this is not a settled issue.

When I read each of the linked article the issue is portrayed as settled. Each person is preaching their point as though it is true.

Ok I'm really starting to ramble because I want you to hear what I'm saying. I'd rather you be wrong in good conscience then be half-right in bad conscience. If you're wrong, but still seeking to honor the Lord then you are correctable by God, and your Brothers. But if you forsake your conscience (that sounds stronger than I intend) and play both sides of the game then you're not correctable and you dishonour the Name of God.

I'm very sorry this is so long. I am very glad you stopped by.

Thank you for the work you are doing, may God bless you in it.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...

Hi Kev:

Enjoyed your participation ay my blog this last week. This article, Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon’s Personal Testimony Speaks Against It is still generating commentary.

If I may I am going to address Aaron, but this is meant for your consideration as well.

Aaron, you wrote, “The idea (at SI) is to offer some differing points of view on various topics to give folks food for thought…more of a move toward balance in that direction.” It is way too late for that and IMO likely viewed as a facade of moving “toward balance.”



From its inception SI has been heavily weighted toward the advancement of Calvinism/Reformed Theology, Lordship Salvation, and an increasingly passionate promotion of the stars, practices and fellowships of the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp. Stars such: as John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, et al.

Aaron, you wrote, “SI has always had a fair number of Reformed folks… .

Fair number?” The SI team (moderators and administrators) is nearly 100% Calvinistic. Less than a year ago I asked Joel Tetreau, an SI mod, if he could name one SI moderator or administrator that is NOT a Calvinist. He said there may be one who is not a Calvinist, and named that person.

In any event, SI’s obvious bias toward Calvinism, Reformed theology and its star personalities in the “conservative” evangelical camp has pretty much rendered it (SI) a home for those who are sympathetic to those doctrines and causes.

SI’s recent incursion into Dispensationalism is a bone thrown to a constituency of believers (most of) whom have long since departed the SI scene.

Those who were alienated by four years of SI’s hard lean toward Calvinism, and its stars in the evangelical camp, are not coming back to SI.


LM

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
Thanks for provinding the link to "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism". I will encourage all of your readers to read it through.

Mark

Kevl said...

Mark you wrote;

Kevin,
Thanks for provinding the link to "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism". I will encourage all of your readers to read it through.


You claim that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ to be saved, yet (and I hope I am able to say this strongly enough) you all act like jerks.

Isn't it amazing that one who has submitted to Christ would be so unlike Him?

The Lord spoke truth clearly, He was never a jerk, but you are nearly constantly.

Kev

mark pierson said...

Well, let's see -
I ask people to read the whole piece on "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism" and I'm a jerk?

At Lou's blog I ask people to read all of Spurgeon's Autobiography, as well as parts of sermon's that I provided where he described lordship-like views that he held, and I'm a jerk?

I had to go to email in order to clear up a terrible misrepresentation of Spurgeon's views because I got deleted when I tried to do so in his comments threads, and I'm a jerk?

Sorry, but it seems your positions depend entirely on misquotes and misrepresentations in order to survive. Someone has to blow the whistle on you all.

Incidently, that is an interesting word that you chose - "jerks". Ya see when I showed that thread of Lou's to one of my friends, and he saw how you acted over there, that is the exact word he used.

It goes both ways, I guess. However, NEITHER you nor Lou are banned from my blog because your comments, based in classic dispyism, don't scare me.

Kevl said...

Mark Let's test your latest then shall we?

Well, let's see -
I ask people to read the whole piece on "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism" and I'm a jerk?


Is that the thrust of your comment, that they should read the whole of this article? No, your intent was to rudely thank me for providing you with an article that you think supports your view. To stick it to me as it were. Your comment was jerky and you know it. Now you compound this by trying to portray it as something completely different. So you are not only being combative with one who if you're a Christian would be your Brother, but you are also lying to me. Possibly worse than all of that you're trying to make me look like a fool. I'm pretty sure the one you claim as Lord of your life had some pretty tough words about this kind of behavior.

At Lou's blog I ask people to read all of Spurgeon's Autobiography, as well as parts of sermon's that I provided where he described lordship-like views that he held, and I'm a jerk?

Your behavior there far from reasonable. You were making wild accusations and ranting. As has been discussed and evaluated time and again, Spurgeon's own description of his own Salvation has been fully revealed for a very long time. His own description has nothing of LS in it. That his later writings include some things that the LS proponents agree with does not change his conversion experience. This has been discussed at length. That you bring it up again here is just further jerkiness. You know you are wrong but you continue to state your case as though repeating it will give it more accuracy.

I had to go to email in order to clear up a terrible misrepresentation of Spurgeon's views because I got deleted when I tried to do so in his comments threads, and I'm a jerk?

Why did you have to go to email? Because you were being rude and jerky at Lou's blog. But why did you have to "clear up" anything. Scripture says to mark and separate. Why have you been obsessing about what Lou writes? You have no Scripture based argument against what he writes or you would share it.. instead you choose to make accusations about him.... that's being jerky, not Christ-like.

Sorry, but it seems your positions depend entirely on misquotes and misrepresentations in order to survive. Someone has to blow the whistle on you all.

Again.. jerkiness. Misquotes? How do you misquote someone when you quote their entire written conversion experience? If I have misquoted the Bible please show me where exactly. When I have written responses to any LS proponent I have gone to GREAT lengths to quote them properly. Check my continuing work on John MacArthur's book for example. Making false accusations is a great example of jerkiness.

To Be continued

Kevl said...

Incidently, that is an interesting word that you chose - "jerks". Ya see when I showed that thread of Lou's to one of my friends, and he saw how you acted over there, that is the exact word he used.

Thanks for sharing, how is this Christ-like? How is this showing that you are submitted to the Lordship of Christ?

It goes both ways, I guess. However, NEITHER you nor Lou are banned from my blog because your comments, based in classic dispyism, don't scare me.

Why would a Christian say such a thing? Your writing makes you look like an animal all puffed up trying to make yourself look big, strong and sure of yourself.

How is that the humble spirit of a submitted disciple of Christ?

Do you think that my comments are intended to "scare" you? Far be the thought! What profit is there in my scaring you?

Do you think that Lou is scared of your comments? I suppose he may be fearful of the dishonor they show the Lord, or of your continually combative attitude might spread to others and thereby reduce their fellowship with the Lord. You'll have to ask him I suppose... but what I hear from my Brother is that he simply doesn't want that behavior at his blog... no big deal really.

Seriously, no big deal... if you were to come up with some Scriptural basis for your beliefs that might be worth discussing... but your combative attitude? Come on we can experience that with anyone what makes it coming from you so special?

Mark, I trust you know that "coming up with a Scriptural basis for your beliefs" is BACKWARDS. You need to set aside your beliefs and let Scripture program your thinking.

Your behavior shows me that you don't really believe what you preach. Unfortunately, your behavior is only slightly less Christlike than most LS proponents I interact with.

The only reason why I choose to interact with you here at all is to get on the record how you do not follow what LS teaches.

Kev

mark pierson said...

Let's see -
I ask Kevin's readers to read the whole piece on "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism" and suddenly Kevin is an expert on what motivates me. Isn't that judging, Kevin? All I wanted is that your readers see the other side of the debate. That is all. You are welcome at my blog anytime.

BTW, I checked out your series on MacArthur's book some time back. What you did there was employ some classic dispensationalism hermeneutics to argue against his conclusions. In "The Gospel According To Jesus" MacArthur made it quite clear that, while teaching through the Gospel of Matthew, which served as the genesis for said book, he would not let dispensational assumptions and presuupositions guide his exegesis. THAT is how that book came to be. Kevin, please don't be a slave to classic dispensationalism. From what I hear it is slowly being displaced by Progressive Dispensationalism at the college and seminary level. I can only hope that in a generation or so that it is gone for good.

Kevl said...

Hi Mark,

You wrote

Let's see -
I ask Kevin's readers to read the whole piece on "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism" and suddenly Kevin is an expert on what motivates me.


Where did you ask "my readers" to read the whole document?

Why would you even think you would have to ask them to? I linked to the whole thing didn't I? LOL you're a riot.

Isn't that judging, Kevin? All I wanted is that your readers see the other side of the debate. That is all.

Yes my poor readers who are apparently unable to follow the link I provided for them? LOL

I'm told in Scripture to test all things, to hold on to only the good and to abstain from all evil - as I quoted to Brother Aaron above. Yes, I'm judging your actions. Most notably I'm judging them according to your own professions and you are coming up short. I take absolutely NO JOY in saying such a thing. I have no need to be "right" or "superior" my hope is in the Lord, not my ability to please Him.

You are welcome at my blog anytime.

Thank you.

BTW, I checked out your series on MacArthur's book some time back. What you did there was employ some classic dispensationalism hermeneutics to argue against his conclusions.

You mean I used the Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic. That the Bible says what it means, and means what it says. Yes I did. I read the Bible and believed it over what Mr. MacArthur wrote. I take God's Word above any man's. Something about let God be true and every man a liar comes to mind... '


In "The Gospel According To Jesus" MacArthur made it quite clear that, while teaching through the Gospel of Matthew, which served as the genesis for said book, he would not let dispensational assumptions and presuupositions guide his exegesis. THAT is how that book came to be. Kevin, please don't be a slave to classic dispensationalism.

So if someone comes up with something after reading the Bible I'm not allowed to test it against what the Bible really says? Interesting.

From what I hear it is slowly being displaced by Progressive Dispensationalism at the college and seminary level. I can only hope that in a generation or so that it is gone for good.

Yes, and how many atheists have told us that the Bible would be replaced by some higher form of thinking...

I've got an important question for you in my next comment, coming right up.

Kev

Kevl said...

Mark,

Do you think you could name a single person who, in your view, properly understands and articulates Lordship Salvation who also rejects Lordship Salvation?

If you can please post that name, and a link to his material at Lou's blog... or here if you're uncomfortable posting there.

If you can't, please tell me why.

Thanks,
Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You asked Mark, "Do you think you could name a single person who, in your view, properly understands and articulates Lordship Salvation who also rejects Lordship Salvation?

Asking him to answer the question may have cost you his participation in this thread.

We'll see.


LM

Kevl said...

That would be a shame Lou. He seems so confident.

I hope he can come up with at least one name.. there's got to be SOMEONE out there who matches that description?

Kev

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.

As far as your asking me where it was that I asked your readers to read it through, here it was...Kevin,
Thanks for provinding the link to "My Journey Out Of Dispensationalism". I will encourage all of your readers to read it through.

Mark

Also there was this laugher:
"You mean I used the Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic."

Wrong! You used the inconsistant Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic. Your system won't let you do inductive study of Galatians 3:7-29; or Ephesians 2:11-22. Your system demands an Israel/Church distinction. But, alas! Paul makes no such distinctions; and nor do the other NT writers. Prove to me an Israel/Church distinction from those two passages, can you? Can you do an inductive study of those passages and conclude an Israel/Church distinction? I know you can't. So much for your Historical Grammatical Hermeneutic. You bring so many Chaferian dispy assumptions and presuppositions to the table that most of the rest of christendom - there are many more of us who do NOT hold to classic dispensationalism's hermeneutic than those who do - can not accept your theological conclusions.

Progressive Dispensationalism = atheism? LOL!



6:09 PM

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark pierson said...

So Lou,
I can refer readers here back to the archives, the October through November, 2006 comments at both "Pulpit Magazine" And "Pyromaniacs" blog to show the world that you do not know what you are talking about when YOU address the lordship issue.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

We read Mark with this statement,

There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.”

Here you have from Mark a clear, stark example of the elitism and arrogance of those in the LS camp who believe they have arrived.

At last we have Mark, who openly displays the snobbery and arrogance that is rife in the LS camp. The high profile LS men simply will not state in stark terms what Mark has for the forum.

Mark’s answer would of course include many of the well-known, godly, balanced theologians who have over the years, based on the clear teaching of Scripture, rejected Lordship Salvation under its various labels.

If there is one common thread I find among many, NOT all, Calvinists/LS men is this air of elitism, condescension, combativeness and arrogance, which Mark has displayed openly in this thread toward you in recent days.

Again, it is NOT all Calvinist/LS men, but Mark reveals what is the mindset and reaction of many of them when you engage the doctrinal errors of Lordship Salvation.

I’ll copy and paste this at my blog and link back here.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...

BTW Kev:

Earlier in this thread when you wrote the following to Mark, you got it right.

Do you think that Lou is scared of your comments? I suppose he may be fearful of the dishonor they show the Lord, or of your continually combative attitude might spread to others and thereby reduce their fellowship with the Lord. You’ll have to ask him I suppose... but what I hear from my Brother is that he simply doesn’t want that behavior at his blog... no big deal really.

I do not allow Mark’s kind of combative behavior at my blog, no more than I did Antonio da Rosa’s.

Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I typically do not respond to combative people in public or private.

Thanks,


Lou

mark pierson said...

Lou,
Did Nate B., Matthew Waymeyer, Phil Johnson or Frank Turk or Dan Philips acknowledge that you represented LS accurately in those October/November, 2006 threads at "Pul[pit Magazine" and "Pyromaniacs" blog? They continued to set you straight, but you would have none of it.

Kevl said...

Hi Mark,

You said;

There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one. (Emphasis yours)

Lou is right to say this is arrogant. Do you even KNOW every person who rejects LS? Have you evaluated the understanding every person who rejects LS?

Are you omniscient? No.

Tell me, CLEARLY what my own misunderstanding of LS is.

Frankly, if LS is the true Gospel, and I reject it (I unashamedly DO reject it) then I am not saved.

Yet, you are posting at my own personal 4 year testimony of "seeking" God. Doesn't that violate your theology?

Are all these people who reject LS not saved???

Shouldn't you be trying to get these people (including ME) to understand LS so they can be saved instead of puffing up your chest and strutting from blog to blog?

Please do tell me what you see as my misunderstanding of LS. I'm very interested. Can you correct me?

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

I think Mark is going to take a powder on your question, which was, “Please do tell me what you see as my misunderstanding of LS. I'm very interested. Can you correct me?”

This was all we needed to read from Mark,

There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.”


Lou

mark pierson said...

Kevin,

I can't look into your heart and know your state before God. To ask me whether or not folks are saved, well, that is not mine to know.

Another thing I wish to clear up: it is only those whom I've seen and heard who come against LS that show that they have no understanding of the position, including you and Lou. You refer to my kind as "additionists" and Lou says we preach "faith plus commitment of life". Wrong on both counts. You see I observe that Mark 8:34-38 happened in front of a mixed crowd, in an evangelistic setting, many hearing here for the first time. The Lord did not tell the crowd there that He was now presenting a deeper walk. No. This was an evangelistic message.

Are you deceived in what is the gospel? Yes. It is a truncated gospel that you preach. To preach the Saviorhood of Christ apart from His Lordship is an classic dispy invention, and is wrong, unbiblical. It is what MacArthur tried to blow the whistle on. Godly men like Ryrie are mistaken to promote the non-lordship position. MacArthur wants to correct this error in the Body of Christ, but is maligned instead of listened to. And who does most of this abuse come from? Classic dispensatioanlists. Unfortunate, sad. Meanwhile, for the most part, progressive dispensationalists, covenant theologians, and new covenant theologians are at verying degrees of lordship. Only the classic dispy's fight tooth and nail against lordship.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

This was all we needed to read from Mark,

There IS NOT a single person who understands lordship salvation who also rejects it, not one.”

With a wave of his hand he brushes aside every pastor, teacher, theologian who rejects LS as incapable of understanding LS the way it is taught by its own advocates like MacArthur. Such arrogance!

I like how Dr. Ernest Pickering addressed MacArthur upon the release of the first edition of TGATJ. Pickering 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

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

I am going to share an example with you to show that Mark really does not fully understand what he is trying to articulate when he spoke on MacArthur trying to answer Dispensationalism with LS.

The following is from the transcript of the two part IFCA interview with MacArthur following the release of MacArthur’s original TGATJ. These men were concerned with a number of issues emanating from the book. Here is how the IFCA panel questioned JM on Dispensationalism and JM’s reply follows.

Q: “Alright, we'll move on to the next category of Dispensationalism. And here's first question. In view of some statements that seem to cast doubt on your position of being a dispensationalist, please clarify what your true position is. Are you mixing reform covenant views with Dispensationalism? Elaborate your views by reviewing the number and characteristics of dispensation.”

JM’s Answer: “Now we're back to the pre-exilic kings and the . . .I just want you to say...I want you to know that I am a...I am a historical dispensationalist, pre-tribulational, pre-millenialist. I believe that from the Scripture...please note, from the Scripture not the notes at the bottom of the page...emerges a dispensational hermeneutic. I believe that Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic, it is a hermeneutic. But I believe...I don't believe it's a presuppositional hermeneutic, I believe it is a hermeneutic that rises out of an understanding of the text. So I am a historic dispensationalist. I have never wavered on that. I have never moved from that position.”

Q: “What do you mean by that?”

JM Reply: “What I mean primarily by that is that you must distinguish in the way in which God rules in this world or to be a conomy by which He mediates His rule in this world at different points in time.”

Later in Mac’s reply he made this statement,

I'm just trying to understand the Word of God. But I do believe and the major dispensational issue for today is, I believe with all my heart and soul that you cannot come up with a covenant view of theology and maintain any kind of coherent hermeneutics. If you come up with covenant theology, which assumes then that the church is the new Israel and all the promised blessings to Israel are now fulfilled in the church, if you come up with that view you have violated the basic premise of biblical interpretation.”

Even in these statements one may find JM was leaving himself wiggle room. In the raw form, however, Mark is off base in his assessment for JM’s changing the terms of the Gospel to an LS version to answer Dispensationalism.

More later...


Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Mark’s most recent note to you in this thread contains a mixture of more of the same complaining and condescension as well as an attempt to do some back-peddling. IMO he is trying to extricate himself from the blunt force of his earlier statement.

I suspect his blog partners (Wayne & Matt) were highly displeased that he publicly revealed what his/their mindset is toward any who reject LS from biblical grounds by answering my open question.

IMO, it would be interesting if Wayne or Matt would like to disavow Mark’s earlier statement. Maybe tell us that Mark miss-spoke. But they aren’t going to do that because Mark articulated exactly what those men in the LS camp believe about anyone who rejects LS.

I’ll have more later…


Lou

Kevl said...

Hello Mark,

You said

I can't look into your heart and know your state before God. To ask me whether or not folks are saved, well, that is not mine to know.

If the Lordship Salvation message is The Gospel then anyone who rejects it is not saved.

You said, as both Lou and I have quoted that there is NOT ONE person who understands LS who also rejects.

I asked you to CLEARLY show me what I don't understand about the LS message because I do reject it.

You gave me a fair amount of propaganda and but offered one small point.

You refer to my kind as "additionists" and Lou says we preach "faith plus commitment of life". Wrong on both counts. You see I observe that Mark 8:34-38 happened in front of a mixed crowd, in an evangelistic setting, many hearing here for the first time. The Lord did not tell the crowd there that He was now presenting a deeper walk. No. This was an evangelistic message.


How exactly am I wrong? You offer no explanation. I'm left to ASSUME what you mean by Mark 8:34-38

It's neat how you start your quote right after the most important thing. The Christ had just started to explain the Gospel to them.Peter rebuked Him for it. Then the Lord judged Peter's actions.

The Lord asks "What will a man give for his soul?" What indeed?

Notice the training here is about desiring to "come after Me" not how to attain Eternal Life.

He's telling of discipleship for sure, in light of Peter's act in response to hearing the Gospel.

Else one must have to be killed for the sake of Christ and the Gospel to be Eternally Saved. Vs 35

Of course that would be pretty hard to explain... the Gospel is that you have to die for Christ and the Gospel. What's the Gospel again?

Proof-texting will always lead you astray. You are not denying yourself Mark, you're exercising your pride.

So how am I wrong about Lordship Salvation?

Amazing how you know that there is NOT ONE who understands LS who also rejects it but you don't seem to have any ability to say how people misunderstand it...

Kev

Kevl said...

Lou, it's clear to me that Mark is driven by "anti-dispensationalism" and not by a desire to seek the Truth.

I wonder if it's possible to help him see that.

My stake in all of this is that he's inconsistent. He preaches one thing, simply because it is against the position that he hates I think, and models something completely different.

I'm glad he admitted what others would not. I'm much more tolerant of someone who is open about what they believe and wrong than someone who tries to hide what they believe.

The fact that he can't back that statement up is funny though. I mean I've been dissecting MacArthur's flagship book on the subject almost line by line... if I don't understand LS it's either because I'm an idiot or MacArthur is incompetent.

I'm hopeful the idiot part isn't the case... and I'm doubtful that MacArthur could be seen as incompetent...

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

I appreciate the way in which you are dealing with Mark's commentary and methods in this thread.

You wrote, "Lou, it's clear to me that Mark is driven by 'anti-dispensationalism' and not by a desire to seek the Truth. I wonder if it's possible to help him see that?"

I don't know. I trust we are all teachable. The level of angst and combativeness with which Mark has always approached dispensationalism (as long as I've read him) and any rejection of LS indicates to me a seared conscience.

I'd like to read an honest reaction from him to MacArthur's answer on the dispensationalism question the IFCA panel put to him.


Lou

mark pierson said...

Lou,
There is no back-peddling. I am convinced that no one who understands LS can reject it. Evidence for this fact is my interactions with you and Kevin. My response, the one you say I back-peddled on was because Kevin asked if I knew all the anti-lordshipers in the world. I do not. So I modified my response accordingly.

To my knowledge neither Wayne nor Matt are following this discusion. So, no there was no rebuke from them here. I doubt they care much for what you think anyway.

TO REPEAT, I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS LORDSHIP WILL ALSO REJECT IT!!! My interactions with anti-lordshipers bears that out. There, now I'm on record. Quote me freely... AGAIN, I, MARK DONALD PIERSON, DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS LORDSHIP WILL ALSO REJECT IT.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

In Mark’s previous he says, “MacArthur wants to correct this error in the Body of Christ, but is maligned instead of listened to.”

Is he kidding?

1) JM “Maligned”? It is almost always taken/portrayed as a personal attack against JMac when his (JMac’s) doctrine is called into question. His doctrine, not his character is the problem.

2) “Instead of listened to?” So, with all of those who reject LS, which is it with Mark and the LS men?

No one listens to JMac?
No one understands JMac’s LS.
All of them misrepresent JMac and LS?


These mantra-like political sound-bytes are monotonous.

Did you read Rachel’s evaluation (at my blog) of what Mark is representing from the LS camp? She gave a great analogy. It was posted yesterday (8/25) at 5:08pm.


Lou

mark pierson said...

Kevin says, "It's neat how you start your quote right after the most important thing. The Christ had just started to explain the Gospel to them.Peter rebuked Him for it. Then the Lord judged Peter's actions."
=======
Ah but Kevin, it is YOU who leave out one important thing, that found in verse 34, "When He called the people to Himself, with His disciples also..." there is a changing of the scene here. Now there are people who are hearing Him for the first time... the scene has moved on from that which took place in verses 27-33. You'll note that that scene opened with verse 27 saying, "and Jesus and His disciples". So there is a scene change in between 8:33 and 8:34. It is now an evangelistic setting whereas verses 27-33 was not.
===============
"The Lord asks "What will a man give for his soul?" What indeed?

Notice the training here is about desiring to "come after Me" not how to attain Eternal Life."
=============
Again this is now an evangelistic setting, compare verses 27 and verse 34. You exegesis falls apart here. Yoy fail to acknowledge a scene change.
==============
"He's telling of discipleship for sure, in light of Peter's act in response to hearing the Gospel."
============
No, the setting for this discourse is different than that in verses 27-33.
==============
"Else one must have to be killed for the sake of Christ and the Gospel to be Eternally Saved. Vs 35"
============
No. Christ is describing true faith in Him in verse 35. True faith in Christ is a daily dying which could ultimately end in death for the gospel. Those who "desire" to save their life show that they do not have a saving faith. They are like the soil wherein the seed fell among stony ground, who fall away because of persecution and threat of death. They were not true believers.
==============
"Of course that would be pretty hard to explain... the Gospel is that you have to die for Christ and the Gospel. What's the Gospel again?"
=============
Again true faith is being described here.
===============
"Proof-texting will always lead you astray. You are not denying yourself Mark, you're exercising your pride."
==========
Thanks for the insight.
==============
"So how am I wrong about Lordship Salvation?"
================
I'm yet to see you articulate to me my position in such a way as to have me say, "yes, that is an accurate presentation of my views".

Kevl said...

Hello Mark,

I'll respond to your last comment first.

You replied to my question of how I'm wrong about the LS message with

I'm yet to see you articulate to me my position in such a way as to have me say, "yes, that is an accurate presentation of my views"


Should I guess what you believe? I've quoted Mr. MacArthur's views numerous times. Is he in error? Or do you agree with him?

Your non-answer shows that you don't know what I believe therefore you don't know if I understand LS or not. You are again caught in the same lie. Will you repent of it at some point?

You said
Ah but Kevin, it is YOU who leave out one important thing, that found in verse 34, "When He called the people to Himself, with His disciples also..." there is a changing of the scene here

Is it the "scene" or setting that determines if something is a condition for Eternal Salvation?

Is everything the Lord ever said in public the Gospel?

Silly boy. The God breathed Scriptures says

but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.

Is this a condition for Salvation?????

You might as well join the Amillennialists with their ideas that anything in the Bible can mean anything at all so long as it agrees with Amillennialism. If it doesn't agree with Amillennialism then it's just a lie from Hell..... lol

It doesn't matter if He was teaching in front of His disciples or the crowds. He was not preaching the Gospel. He had just preached the Gospel for the first time "began to teach..." and now was teaching on how His followers should be. Those who "desire to come after" Him.

Is it your view that in order to be saved that one must die for Christ's sake and the Gospel's sake? Such a view would go beyond even what LS teaches.

The problem with your interpretation is that it's driven by your theology not the Text. You have an idea, and you've found a way to allegorize it using the Lord's Words.

How you could look at such a interpretation as anything less than faith + works would be a laughable read for sure.

Kev

Kevl said...

Lou,

It is absolutely absurd how defenders of Mr. MacArthur act. Sometimes I wonder if they worship the man's words....

Like I asked at your blog, is this man, this defender of the Lordship Salvation Faith so incompetent that he can't explain Lordship Salvation effectively to people so they can understand it?

The man has authored what hundreds of books.... thousands of hours of teachings.. and he still can't express his view in such a way that a simple one like myself can understand it?

What's truly amazing is when you QUOTE the man's work and are told that it's not "in context."

The introduction to my The Gospel Delusion" instructs readers to go buy Mr. MacArthur's book. Here's what I wrote.

I believe that the earnest reader of this series needs to purchase TGATJ. I will quote from his work to show his statements but it would be impossible, and illegal, for me to present all that the man writes. I do do not fear adding to the sales of this book by suggesting you purchase it. After all I purchased it myself and believe me it is a very popular book. The few sales my suggestion will add to it will not make much difference. The lack of sales that this review could result in would not be noticed. My intent is not to deny Dr. MacArthur profit for his work, it is to protect the Brethren from it.

How much more in IN CONTEXT can you get than to tell people to read the whole book?

I'm sorry to hear that John MacArthur the triumphant herald of the Lordship Salvation saving message is completely unable to express himself in context in his flagship work. Most shocking is that this work has been revised several times.

Perhaps if he still can't express himself in context after all these tries he should pull the book from the shelves?

I mean seriously, if his work "malignes" his stance on the Scriptures then he should probably not allow it to be on the market... just a thought.

Kev

bp said...

Hi Kev,
After reading your exchange with Mark, I thought I’d make a comment or two. Hope you don’t mind. :) I don’t know Mark, and I have not read tons of his comments, but the ones I have read here, I have not seen the arrogance or “jerkiness” that you’ve described. I have seen some sarcasm, but I think we all are prone to that at times. I’ve seen it in your comments and your interactions with Lou about Mark right here. Just something to consider.

Also, as far as Mark saying that no one who truly understands LS rejects it, I’d like to add some thoughts. Would it be arrogant of Isaac Newton to say that if one rejects the law of gravity that they don’t understand it? Or would it be arrogant to suggest that someone who rejects that 2+2=4, doesn’t understand it? To “understand” LS is to see it as the truth that it is. To reject it, is to not see it as the truth that it is. But while one “might” suggest that Newton could seem arrogant or that to tell a mentally challenged person that they don’t understand the concept of 2+2=4 could possibly sound arrogant, anyone who knows (truly understands) from Scripture that truth is Spiritually discerned, and that a person cannot receive even one thing (wisdom included) unless it is given him from God, has no room for boasting. So it isn’t necessarily arrogant to say that no one can truly understand LS and reject it. People don’t “truly” understand the concept of 2+2=4 and then reject it. Why? Cuz it’s the truth.

Bridget

mark pierson said...

Kevin says,
"You said
Ah but Kevin, it is YOU who leave out one important thing, that found in verse 34, "When He called the people to Himself, with His disciples also..." there is a changing of the scene here

Is it the "scene" or setting that determines if something is a condition for Eternal Salvation?"
===========
Well now that you have found what you think to be a clever dance step around my pointing out the fact that YOU failed to acknowledge a scene change. "Condition for eternal salvation?" If you had read my comment carefully you would notice that I said this was a description of true saving faith. Note the word "desires" or "will" in the KJV. If you follow your Strong's concordance you will notice that the definition is that of being "disposed to". Again to verses 34 and 35 "desires to come after Me" and "desires to save his life". In both of these verses we see a present and on going disposition. Hense a picture of true saving faith. Consequently those who are disposed to save their lives show that saving faith is not present within them.
============
"Is everything the Lord ever said in public the Gospel?"
=============
In the case of Mark 8:34-38 we have the gospel. The disposition to follow Him reveals true saving faith.
================
"Silly boy. The God breathed Scriptures says

but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.

Is this a condition for Salvation?????"
------------
Again, not a condition but a proof of genuine faith.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

From Mark now it’s “Godly men like Ryrie…” Real back-peddling from the way Mark will typically characterize men like Ryrie who reject LS.

And another classic LS mantra falsehood is to demonize those who reject LS. Mark parrots JMac speak when he uses the long worn catch phrase, “non-lordship, or more commonly used, “no-lordship.”

Mark wrote “To preach the Saviorhood of Christ apart from His Lordship…” I know they’ll never drop this mantra, but I’ll go ahead and address it anyway for the readers. We preach Him as Savior and Lord. The difference is that LS demands a commit to obedience to His Lordship when we preach the Bible message is to believe that He is the Lord, in the sense of His Deity.

LS calls on the lost for commitment to perform works of a disciple to BECOME a Christian. The Bible has a better answer, which to call on the lost to believe He, Jesus is the Lord (Rom. 10:9-10).

I will offer this much in support of the “no-lordship.” In regard to the reductionist heresy of the GES (Hodges/Wilkin) Crossless gospel a, “no-lordship” label is an accurate label. This is because GES insists the lost man does not have to know, understand, believe in or can openly reject the Lord’s Deity and still be saved.


Lou

Kevl said...

Bridget,

Yes Newton would be arrogant to say such a thing. Does he have complete knowledge of the universe? Of people? Of physics? No.. even he didn't think so.

comparing LS with 2+2=4 is purely laughable and you know it. Can you even demonstrate LS to me? Apparently it's so hard to understand that even after years of talking with you, and reading books, and websites and watching videos..... I still can't "get it" lol

This deal of it not being understandable is because God hasn't allowed me to understand it is a pretty good one. Now you sound like a Big Bang or Evolutionary Theorist.

They make articles all the time... and when you quote them and show them what they said was wrong they say "you just don't understand" and if evidence is too widely shown to refute their theories they change the theory all together and claim that the new theory is the new absolute truth that only idiots reject......

I've read the greatest works on LS and have not seen them to be compelling.. I guess I'm just not "elect" unto LS or something....

Kev

Kevl said...

Mark,

Well now that you have found what you think to be a clever dance step around my pointing out the fact that YOU failed to acknowledge a scene change.

The "scene" change doesn't matter... I'm not even convinced it happened... but none the less the Gospel is the Gospel no matter who hears it... and that aint it.

You said In the case of Mark 8:34-38 we have the gospel. The disposition to follow Him reveals true saving faith.

"The Gospel" is Mark 8:34-38? And you sum it up by saying "The disposition to follow Him reveals true saving faith."

Interesting stuff.

So the Apostle Paul just didn't understand Lordship Salvation when he "declared" the Gospel in 1 Cor 15? Shame. I sorta expected that guy to be in Heaven...

He seems to think that the Good News is that the Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried and on the third day rose in accordance with the Scriptures.

Amazing how he and Christ could be in such stark disagreement seeing as Paul claims that he received his Gospel directly from the Christ. Maybe this is the Apostle Paul "maligning" LS?

Again, not a condition but a proof of genuine faith.

Do being "disposed to" or "really wanting" to "follow" Christ (to a like fate as His cross is what He was talking about btw.. just in case you didn't catch the whole deal with Peter.) is how a person has true saving faith.

So if I REALLY want to die for Christ and the Gospel that's how I know I have the right kind of faith?

Sounds like a condition to me... I mean the Lord spells it out... if you desire to save your life you will loose it... but if you desire to loose it for His sake you'll gain it.

I don't know how else you could spin this, if it's about Eternal Salvation then it must be that you have to desire to die as Christ did in order to be Eternally Saved.

Hey if I'm not "getting it" then can you please preach the Gospel to me from Mark 8:34-38.

I can read "The Gospel" to you directly from Scripture... I don't even have to tell you what God "really meant" or what He "meant by that" I can just read it to you....

What's really cool about the Gospel that I can read to you? Well the Apostle Paul said that it saves. He said that it even saved the people who later came to reject it.

I do understand LS. What I don't understand is how a person in their right mind thinks they can pervert what I can read for myself and think I'm not going to call him on it.

Please, if you can preach the Gospel from this passage.. If I'm wrong, then I will take back all these horible words against you. I will make a post on my front page here that I was wrong.

Double dog dare ya!

Kev

Kevl said...

For those that don't yet see what the Lord was doing with Peter and how what He is talking about in Mark 8 applies to following Christ to your own cross please read my post called The Promise of Faithfulness"

Peter truly did desire to follow Christ completely. We have few examples of a passionate love for God like we have in Peter.

Peter wanted nothing more than to serve Christ, but Peter wasn't yet the man he would be when he matured.

I love Christ. My gentle loving Saviour who died for me, and Who will not forsake me or the work He's doing in me until I come to perfection.

We truly can trust Him. We don't have to be like Peter and put our trust in our love and so be disapointed over and over... the Lord can say to the same thing to us that He said to Peter.

Which might sound like this;

Don't promise what you can't fulfill. You don't have to agape Me now. I'm going to grow you up and one day you will. Right now, that you love Me as a friend is OK. I'll take care of it, you'll see.

Kev

Kevl said...

Lou you brought up a good point about preaching the Saviourhoood of Christ "apart from" the Lordship of Christ.

In 2007 I wrote a short but I think effective article on the subject called Of All The Twisted Logic...

The LS people get upset that Christ is preached "apart from" His Lordship but they don't mind that all His other names, titles and attributes are not brought out.

This article has a long list of these.

Kev

bp said...

Is it arrogant to say that Jesus is the only way to God? Many people think so kev. And you may say that it says plainly in John 14:6 that Jesus is the only way, but there are people in the so-called Church that re-interpret John 14:6 in light of other passages to mean what they say it means, and say that it doesn’t mean what we say it does. They are blind to it.

And once we become Christians, we do not have all wisdom. There are on-going things that God reveals to us through the Holy Spirit, as I’m sure you can attest to. But when God reveals it to you, as you study the Scriptures, it isn’t arrogant of you to stand your ground and say that it is true. And it isn’t arrogant of you to say that a person who is looking at Scripture wrongly, and saying that John 14:6 means something else….it isn’t arrogant to say that they don’t truly understand the truth, and therefore, they are misinterpreting it. I don’t think that the 2+2 analogy is so far off. If I know that it equals 4, and someone who is mentally challenged doesn’t understand it (or even a geometry problem perhaps), it isn’t arrogant to say they don’t understand.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read something you’ve said or someone else on your blog has said and I just feel like, “they are just soooo far off from what LS teaches. I think you're misinterpreting Scripture, so you're misinterpreting LS. It's frustrating. It’s like you put all of LS through the strainer of your theology and you see it in a way that is so twisted. In a way that we don’t even look at it.

That’s what you think we’re doing, right? Or do you think that we understand the FG position and we see it in Scripture as plain as day but we just don’t like it so we deny it? I’m hoping you think that we just don’t truly understand the Scriptures and FG in light of the Scriptures. I certainly don’t think you deny LS because you see it plainly but refuse to believe it. I think you deny it because you don’t understand it. And this is evidenced plainly by the comments you make with your friends on your blog kev.

Surely you wouldn’t deny that God reveals truth to us through the Holy Spirit. That all truth is spiritually discerned? I mean, real faith-producing truth, not head knowledge. I mean, how many times did Christ need to explain things to His own disciples because they just weren’t getting it? Over and over and over. We are all mentally challenged. I’d actually say it’s pretty arrogant to think that God doesn’t have to reveal something to you in order for you to figure it out.

I’m not hear to debate LS for the 100th time. But I hope you’ll prayerfully consider the things I’ve said and not make a joke out of it.

“Then He spoke to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures… -Luke 24:44-45.

Bridget

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You wrote, "Lou you brought up a good point about preaching the Saviourhoood of Christ "apart from" the Lordship of Christ."

Thanks. As I noted it is JMac speak and they use it with their own erroneous LS presuppositions attached to it.


Lou

mark pierson said...

Kevin,

The fact that there was an audience change between Mark 8:27 and 8:34 is glaring. Just be honest and admit that you did not cover this in your exegesis. Note that the audience in Mark 8:27-33 was just His disciples. Then in verse 34 "the people" were called to Him along with the disciples. There is no evidence before us here that these people were there to hear Him speak of those things mentioned in verse 31, none. Remember, inductive study demands that you deal only with what is before you in that portion of scripture being considered.

Incidently, though I agree that verse 31 contains the truths of the gospel, as seen in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, in this context however Christ is not so much working with Peter here as He is preparing the twelve for what they are about to see take place in the near future. Again, there is no evidence from this portion of scripture that "the people" mentioned in verse 34 were there to hear Him say these things, those things spoken of in verse 31.

So we see a contrast in exegetical styles here: Your exegesis of Mark 8:34-38 is system driven - your system DEMANDS that the call to salvation and the call to disciplship are separate and distinct - while mine is inductive - I consider what is actually before us here in Mark 8. In conclusion then there is simply NO evidence in Mark 8 that the call to salvation and the call to discipleship are separate and distinct. Also verse 36 makes it quite clear that eternal salvation is at stake here. So "whoever desires" to come after Him are the ones with authentic saving faith; while those who desire to save their lives are without it.

mark pierson said...

Lou,
How was your book received on the "Pyromaniacs" blog and "Pulpit Magazine" back in October/November, 2006? Please be honest here.

The fact is if your opponent in a debate is not satisfied that you can accurately present his view back to him then what you are actually doing is debating a straw man. That is what both you and Kevin have done throughout this very thread as well.

mark pierson said...

And Kevin,
I gotta admit that your description of amillers made me smile. You're such a scholar. Now I know that I can come to you whenever I want to know what people of other schools of thought actually think and believe.

mark pierson said...

Bridget,
Nice to meet you. Thanks for commenting here.

Mark

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Dr. Charlie Bing’s dissertation, which MacArthur is familiar with, thoroughly refutes Lordship Salvation at every level. This is why JMac and his followers, like Mark, avoid Bing and his dissertation in preference for the obvious ripe targets of Zane Hodges’s reductionist heresy.

Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response contains a discussion of Mark 8. The section on Mark 8 and its parallels in Matt. 16 and Luke 9 is on pp. 131-140.

Here are a few thoughts on Bing’s discussion of Mark 8 for your consideration.

1) The cross that is mentioned in the passage is clearly not Christ’s cross, but our own. So what they’re really saying is that the work done by Christ on His cross PLUS our cross = salvation. That screams WORKS!

2) The parallel in Matt. 16:27 makes it very clear that the issue in the saving of one’s life is receiving a “reward” based on one’s “works.”

3) Thus in this context, the saving of the “life” is referring to one’s post-regeneration life not being wasted but having eternal significance in terms of eschatological reward and position of service for Christ in eternity.

4) One point that is often missed with this passage is that, not only in Mark 8, but also in Matt. 16 and Luke 9, the Lord’s instruction on carrying our cross is and not denying Him is immediately preceded in context by Peter’s confession of faith and subsequent denial that Jesus should go to Jerusalem and die, followed by Christ’s famous “Get thee behind Me Satan” statement. This means that the Lord was looking prospectively to the disciples’ future denial of Him when the Shepherd was struck and the 11 were scattered at Calvary. In other words, they DID deny Him and were ashamed of Him . . . for a while. It is possible for genuine believers to deny Him and not take up their crosses.

5) Luke 9:23 adds in some texts the word “daily” to the admonition to carry our cross. Does this mean that in order to get to heaven we must do something every day? Even many perseverance advocates wouldn’t go that far.

6) The Luke 14 parallel talks about “counting the cost” --the exact opposite of “free” salvation (Rom. 3:24; Rev. 22:17).

7) In Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23, Christ prefaces His comments by saying “if anyone desires to come AFTER (opiso) Me. . .” Eternal life, justification, forgiveness, salvation, etc. is never predicated in any other passage of Scripture in “coming after” Christ but in “coming to” Christ, ie, by faith (Matt. 11:28; John 6:35, 37). In Luke 14:26, there are two conditions/descriptions stated, “coming to” Christ (all who are born again) and following “after” Christ (for obedient discipleship).

8) Mark 8 and the other parallel passages all talk about the possibility of being ashamed before Christ at His coming. This is a distinct possibility for genuine but carnal and sleeping believers! (1 John 2:28; 1 Thess. 5:4-10; Rom 13:11-14).


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Just to clear some unfinished business-

Interesting that Mark dodged my comment proving to him that JMac, when he interviewed with the IFCA panel, stated he was a dispensationalist. Kind of threw a monkey wrench into Mark’s assertion that JMac was trying answer dispensationalism.

Mark will need to retool that sound-byte; won’t he?


Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

I post these things like Bing’s work on Mark 8, in your thread to provide materials for your guests, the lurkers primarily. Men like Mark are never going to stop their mantra like whining of “misrepresentation.” The raw emotion, elitism, combativeness and arrogance that permeates the attitudes of these LS/JMac followers is hardly what I envision coming from men who profess Jesus to be Lord of their lives and living in submission to Him.

Lordship Salvation is a man centered, non-saving, works based message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

LS is not just unbiblical it is anti-biblical. They arrive at their conclusions by forcing into or extracting from the Scriptures whatever they must to bolster their promise to perform evangelistic message, which flows from their Calvinistic presuppositions, such as the extra-biblical regeneration precedes faith.


Lou

mark pierson said...

Lou,
I didn't try to dodge anything. That MacArthur was determined not to let dispensationalism drive his exegesis of the Gospel of Matthew, which went on to serve as the genesis for "The Gospel According To Jesus", was all I was trying to consider. The fact that he is mature enough in his exegesis to not let a system be what drives him is commendable.

Now onto your (Bing's) thoughts...

mark pierson said...

In his citation of Matthew 16:24-28 we still have that pesky thing - for your system, anyway - where He speaks in verse 26 of losing his soul. Again it is obviously speaking about eternal destiny here.

Also, with this passage do you wish to wipe out the fact that Mark 8:34 says that He gathered other people to Him at this point? So we can put the two passages together and still He is speaking to a mixed multitude, many hearing Him who are NOT saved, and are being challenged to "deny himself". Again those who "desire" to come after Him exhibit genuine saving faith.

In Matthew 11:28-30 we have ONE train of thought that begins with "come to Me", and is continued through "take My yoke upon you and learn from Me". Your system demands a division in the Lord's thought here between "come" and "take My yoke upon you". A natural reading of that passage reveals a one and the same transaction going on here. The burden of proof that Christ envisioned some coming to Him and NOT TAKING hIS YOKE UPON HIM is on your shoulders. It is not evident in the text.

mark pierson said...

And where did I mention Zane Hodges?

Also, Lou, could you please share with us how your book was received at "Pyromaniacs" blog and "Pulpit Magazine" back in October/November of 2006?

Kevl said...

Hello Bridget,

You asked Is it arrogant to say that Jesus is the only way to God?

The answer is of course “no.” Why? Because unlike Newton, God DOES have complete knowledge of the universe.

Many people think so kev.

Great. What does that have to do with me? Or are you just trying to get the emotions going because that’s how this comment is going to play out - just more accusation with no Scripture? I might add that you think the "only way" is through your devotion to Him, not Him Himself.

They are blind to it.

Well that conclusion surely does agree with your premise. However, that’s not the test of a conclusion. Scripture stands against it. They are not blind to it, they simply refuse to hold that truth in righteousness. Rom 1.

But when God reveals it to you, as you study the Scriptures, it isn’t arrogant of you to stand your ground and say that it is true.

Nice Straw-Man there. I never said it was arrogant to say something is true. I say things are true all the time – I try very hard to be sure that they are true not just something I believe though. It’s arrogant to say that no one both understands what you believe to be true and rejects it.

I don’t think that the 2+2 analogy is so far off.

Demonstrate LS Theology to me. I can demonstrate 2 + 2 to you. How many asterisks are there at the end of this sentence? ** OK I’ll add two more. How many asterisks are there at the end of this sentence? **** Please demonstrate LS Theology to me in like manner otherwise recant.

I think you're misinterpreting Scripture, so you're misinterpreting LS.

Well Bridget, YOU and your understanding is not the Standard. Scripture is the Standard. I’m told to test all things, hold on to the good and reject the evil. How is it that you preach the “true” Gospel but in the years we have known each other you have never ever been able to offer anything from Scripture that says one must submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved? Is the “true” Gospel that the Lord commanded His saved ones to “preach” to all the World so cryptic that it can neither be seen nor understood???? Interesting stuff. How exactly to do you “preach” something that CANNOT be understood by your audience?

PART 2 of this comment coming right up.

Kevl said...

PART 2 to Bridget

Or do you think that we understand the FG position and we see it in Scripture as plain as day but we just don’t like it so we deny it?

I think you can not see what the Scriptures say because you have been so well taught in Proof-Texting and creative interpretation. You’ve been very well trained in your THEOLOGY first and the Scriptures you are taught are always done so in light of your THEOLOGY. I have studied the same studies I know. The difference is (I assume) that I was familiar with the Bible before I sat under those teachers. I had no idea about FG or LS or any other system of theology.. I just read and believed…

You reject anything that comes in the FG package outright. Not testing by Scripture – for what Scripture have you offered??? You test it against your theology, and your understanding of your theology. Well Bridget your theology and understanding is LS. You’re absolutely right that I can not argue FG to you using your theology.

But I can argue nothing else using Scripture.

I think you deny it because you don’t understand it.

What do you suggest I do in order that I understand LS? I’ve read all the best LS teachers. I’ve listened to the best LS teachings. I’ve searched the Scriptures day and night to see if these things be true. Should I close my Bible and open Desiring God?

But I hope you’ll prayerfully consider the things I’ve said and not make a joke out of it.

Bridget the things you bring up are a joke. You make a mockery of Christianity. Really. If you don’t agree with me you just don’t understand??? Try that when you’re witnessing sometime… Paul never once said that those who disagreed with him just didn’t understand. He never hesitated to say they were feeding their own desires. Peter likewise said that those who preach false doctrine are “gainsayers.”

I don’t reject LS because I don’t understand it. I reject LS because I understand the Gospel well enough that LS is not possibly true.

Kev

Kevl said...

Mark,

After reading your insults I could not discern any preaching of the Gospel from Mark 8:34-38.

Could you please preach your LS Saving Message from those verses?

And the change in venu doesn't matter.. the Gospel is the Gospel no matter who your audience is... I think I've been clear enough on that.

If you can't preach the Gospel from that portion of the Text that you labled as the Gospel then please just admit it.

While you're at it can you show me where Scripture says one MUST submit to the Lordship of Christ to be saved?

Kev

Kevl said...

Lou,

It should be interesting to see if Mark ever manages to explain LS in such a way that a child could understand it.

I mean since it's so convincing that once you understand it you cannot reject it... I'd love to hear this message!!

Kev

mark pierson said...

"Mark,After reading your insults I could not discern any preaching of the Gospel from Mark 8:34-38. Could you please preach your LS Saving Message from those verses?"
=============================
Yes I can. Mark 8:34-38 serves as my definition of saving faith - a faith that desires to follow after Christ. After introducing the sinner to the fact that Christ is their only hope of salvation I'll then speak to them and show them that it is only through faith alone in Christ alone that they can be saved. Mark 8:34-38 is crucial in that it is there that we see what saving faith in Christ looks like. Mark 8:34-38 also serves as an essence of the Great Comission, wherein we are to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that Christ has commanded. After all, when we consider Romans 6 don't we see there what water baptism represents? It represents our old man as having been crucified, and us going on to walk in newness of life. It represents what had taken place at the moment we received Christ. Our allegiance has changed, from being slaves of sin, and from that moment on we are now slaves of righteousnes/slaves of God.

Kevin, if you dare walk away from the newly saved person WITHOUT introducing them to disciplship then you have disobeyed Christ. The lordship presentation is the only biblical presentation.
==============================
"And the change in venu doesn't matter.. the Gospel is the Gospel no matter who your audience is... "
===============
Nonsequitur, Kevin? Why would I disagree with that ?!?
==============================
I think I've been clear enough on that. If you can't preach the Gospel from that portion of the Text that you labled as the Gospel then please just admit it. While you're at it can you show me where Scripture says one MUST submit to the Lordship of Christ to be saved? Kev"
========================
That very portion of scripture defines authentic saving faith. Anybody who wishes to be saved yet refuses to submit to this definition of saving faith CANNOT be saved. Christ is Master or He is NOT Savior.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You wrote, "It should be interesting to see if Mark ever manages to explain LS in such a way that a child could understand it."

Get ready for Mark to cry "misrepresntation" again.

Here is a quote from a well known LS preacher. I am saving this for a full article at my blog later this year, but your note to me caused me to share the quite with you now.

Now let me say this and I don’t want you to panic when I say it. Saving faith is an ADULT ISSUE. Saving faith is an ADULT EXPERIENCE. Salvation is an ADULT EXPERIENCE. Am I saying that a child cannot be saved? I’m saying that salvation is a conscious turning from sin to follow Jesus Christ with an understanding of something of the sinfulness of sin, its consequences and something of who Jesus Christ is, what He has provided and that I’m committing my life to Him. At what point can a child understand that?...I tell parents that salvation is an adult decision....There is no illustration in Scripture of childhood salvation. There is none. People want to throw the Philippian jailer and his household; well that’s talking about his servants so there is no reference there about his children. So there is no such thing as a childhood conversion.”


Lou

Kevl said...

Hello Mark,

Of my request for you to preach the Gospel from Mark 8:34-38 you replied with;

Yes I can.

Alrighty!!! Let's see if I can understand it!

You stared out with Mark 8:34-38 serves as my definition of saving faith - a faith that desires to follow after Christ.

That's cool thinking on your part, but where exactly does this passage define this as saving faith?

After introducing the sinner to the fact that Christ is their only hope of salvation

What verse is that again? Are you still in Mark 8:34-38?

I'll then speak to them and show them that it is only through faith alone in Christ alone that they can be saved.

Wow you know the Lord doesn't talk about faith alone, in Christ alone in those verses according to how you have previously defined them.

Of course, if you include the whole chapter then you get to understand the question "What will a man offer for his soul?" BUT this is YOUR teaching.. I'm sorry.

Mark 8:34-38 is crucial in that it is there that we see what saving faith in Christ looks like.

Again, cool concept... but where does the Scripture say that this is saving faith?

Mark 8:34-38 also serves as an essence of the Great Comission, wherein we are to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that Christ has commanded.

Interesting thoughts and all.. but are you still trying to preach the Gospel here or are you arguing some other perceived point now??? I guess LS really IS hard to understand...

After all, when we consider Romans 6 don't we see there what water baptism represents? It represents our old man as having been crucified, and us going on to walk in newness of life. It represents what had taken place at the moment we received Christ. Our allegiance has changed, from being slaves of sin, and from that moment on we are now slaves of righteousnes/slaves of God.

again interesting thoughts.. but you're not preaching the Gospel from Mark 8:34-38 here are you???

I guess you CAN'T preach the Gospel from those verses... frankly because they are not the Gospel.

Kev

Kevl said...

Mark you said

Kevin, if you dare walk away from the newly saved person WITHOUT introducing them to disciplship then you have disobeyed Christ. The lordship presentation is the only biblical presentation.

And you accuse me of maligning people?? You RUDE little man, when have I ever said a Christian should be left without discipleship. Frankly, you've been getting a lot of PROGRAMING but no effective discipleship.

You quoted me and said

"And the change in venu doesn't matter.. the Gospel is the Gospel no matter who your audience is... "
===============
Nonsequitur, Kevin? Why would I disagree with that ?!?


How is my reply not relevant? OH and while you're trying to seem smart, that's TWO words not one. You've been harping on this change of venue as though it was important in nearly every post.. yes I have to remind you of this and I'm the one who's confused.....

That very portion of scripture defines authentic saving faith. Anybody who wishes to be saved yet refuses to submit to this definition of saving faith CANNOT be saved. Christ is Master or He is NOT Savior.

You know it sure looks like I understand LS. Because that's exactly what I say that you guys say....

That's a very "powerful" statement Mark and it's impressive and I'm sure it preaches like nobody's business!

Paul has a word for that preaching - These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

It sure seems holy!! But it is completely devoid of faith and the Spirit.

Your "Good News" doesn't tell a person that Christ is trustworthy, you tell a person that He's serviceworthy. You preach salvation by service! Or in the more common term - SALVATION BY WORKS.

Kev

bp said...

You asked Is it arrogant to say that Jesus is the only way to God?

The answer is of course “no.” Why? Because unlike Newton, God DOES have complete knowledge of the universe.


Newton doesn’t have complete knowledge of the universe, but then neither do you have complete knowledge of interpreting the Scriptures, do you? And many would say that your interpretation of John 14:6 is not God’s Word, but merely your interpretation of God’s Word. Yet, do you think it would be arrogant of yourself to tell people who reject your interpretation of John 14:6 (because they interpret it differently in light of other Scripture) that they reject Jesus as the only way because they don’t understand the true interpretation of Scripture?

Bridget the things you bring up are a joke. You make a mockery of Christianity. Really. If you don’t agree with me you just don’t understand??? Try that when you’re witnessing sometime… Paul never once said that those who disagreed with him just didn’t understand. He never hesitated to say they were feeding their own desires.

He said both. Paul says in 2 Cor 4:4 says that 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. Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees “blind guides”. Blindness denotes not seeing, not understanding, not perceiving. He said that "they hear but never understand", and "they see but never perceive" (Matt 13:14). Scripture teaches both spiritual blindness and suppression of truth and accountability.

Scripture does not teach that man can merely choose to “see”. In fact, 2 Cor 4 goes on to say, “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.” It is God who reveals truth to unbelievers and draws them (just as I said below from John 3:19-21). “But anyone who does what is “true” comes to the light that it may be clearly seen his deeds were carried out in God.

Here’s the difference between our mindsets when we evangelize kev: I evangelize to people knowing that they’re blind to the truth unless God graciously opens their eyes to see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. I realize it's a blindness seeded in rebellion, yet blindness nonetheless. But I have much hope and expectation, that God might do a work in this person's heart through the means of preaching the gospel, which is how He works. You, on the other hand, seem to hope in the power of the gospel only if the person hearing makes the decision to believe. My hope is in God’s powerful decision through the spoken gospel. Your hope is in man’s decision through the spoken gospel. I don’t need to tell a person that they don’t understand the truth of the gospel when I share it with them. Because my hope is that God will perhaps perform a miracle right before my very eyes, or in the future, and then they will understand and come, so that it may be clearly seen that God was at work. To His glory.

cont..

bp said...

It’s arrogant to say that no one both understands what you believe to be true and rejects it.

It’s not arrogant kev. If one genuinely understands truth, they do not reject it. Again, I truly understand 2+2 is 4. And I therefore cannot reject it. But you’re assuming that LS is not true and that’s why you say this.

Demonstrate LS Theology to me. I can demonstrate 2 + 2 to you. How many asterisks are there at the end of this sentence? ** OK I’ll add two more. How many asterisks are there at the end of this sentence? **** Please demonstrate LS Theology to me in like manner otherwise recant.

Kev, I’ve demonstrated it ad-nauseum, as has Mark. You’ve read JM books, and many others I’m sure. And yes we have used Scripture. But you throw out every passage as proof-texting and you continue to misrepresent the LS position by putting it through your Scriptural interpretation grid.

I might add that you think the "only way" is through your devotion to Him, not Him Himself.

This is what I’m talking about. You say that I think the only way is through my devotion to Him, and yet I’ve told you a hundred times that this isn’t the case. Again, you interpret LS through your misunderstanding of Scripture and come up with all kinds of things we “think” and “believe”.

I don’t reject LS because I don’t understand it. I reject LS because I understand the Gospel well enough that LS is not possibly true.

I maintain that you reject the proper interpretation of Scripture because you do not understand it. In other words, you’re not seeing it. And therefore you reject LS. Your hope is that one like myself would let go of my theology so that my natural intelligence (and throw in a little aid of the Holy Spirit for good measure) would point me to the FG interpretation. My hope has always been that as Scripture is presented and discussed, God would graciously open your eyes to see the truth of what is says. And to that end I continue to pray.

Bridget

Kevl said...

Readers, Lurkers, Everyone,

In my short time in ministry I've found that most people who criticize you for what you're doing have no idea how to do what you're doing.

The congregant who beats up on his Pastor seldom has any idea what a Pastor does...

Here we see an example of Mark complaining about my Gospel presentation. He's VERY adept at arguing against people. I have only once witnessed a post (of any kind) of his that was not argument against some person.

He is able to bring complaint against me.. but he is not able to preach the Gospel himself.

This is a TERRIBLE thing. The very first thing a Believer ought to be able to do is preach the Gospel.

This is why we read how people are supposed to be built up in the faith before they serve in the faith.

Mark is an abrasive young man, but I'm confident that if the Spirit dwells in him that the Spirit is more than able to change the man.

I'm OFFICIALLY asking my readers to forgive Mark's behaviour. He's been taught to act this way. His teachers act this way, and he's confusing this with "defending the faith."

I mock him because of his absurd pride. If there was some other way to have him see his pride for what it is I would do that... if any Godly Christian reading this has wisdom for how to help Mark I'd gladly listen.

Thanks all!
Kev

Kevl said...

Bridget,

Kev, I’ve demonstrated it ad-nauseum, as has Mark.

Then stop. You're obviously not able to actually articulate what you hold so firmly to.

You have never even once given me reason to believe LS, neither by testimony nor by Scripture.

It’s not arrogant kev. If one genuinely understands truth, they do not reject it. Again, I truly understand 2+2 is 4. And I therefore cannot reject it. But you’re assuming that LS is not true and that’s why you say this.

Bridget do you understand that believing something doesn't make it true? I'm not ASSUMING LS isn't true the Scriptures speak against it.

This is what I’m talking about. You say that I think the only way is through my devotion to Him, and yet I’ve told you a hundred times that this isn’t the case. Again, you interpret LS through your misunderstanding of Scripture and come up with all kinds of things we “think” and “believe”.

So when Mark says that true saving faith is a faith that submits to the Lordship of Christ that doesn't mean devotion???

I'm not sure how trust can desire something anyway.. but whatever... I'm sick of playing word games with you.

You say someone has to submit to the Lordship of Christ (in some undefined fashion) or they cannot be saved.

Well that's NOT what Scripture says, therefore it's NOT true.

You can rant about it all you like.. you can make up stories about how God would be offended at a person being able to believe.. you can make long emotional pleas and whatever else you want...

at the end of the day the Scriptures do not require or even ask a person to submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved.

Kev

Kevl said...

Bridget, Mark,

Here's a thought for you.

Did Christ say "it is finished" on the Cross? Did that mean that the debt for the offenses had been paid? (you can just say yes ok because I can read the Greek too..)

What more has to be added to a finished payment?

Is it Christ's blood + my devotion?

Or can I trust that Christ's blood is enough?

Oh.. I misunderstand you.. you don't mean Christ + anything.. yes I've heard it all before.

If I can't simply TRUST that Christ paid the price for me then it's WORKS.

You discredit the pure sacrifice that was "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURES" of Christ when you say that it requires something other than TRUST - which is what faith/believe means.

Kev

Kevl said...

Bridget near the end of yet another scenario argument from you you said this

Your hope is in man’s decision through the spoken gospel.

Actually no. My hope is that the power of God to salvation IS the Gospel.

I trust that it is not my cleverness, because like the adder that stops its own ears and refuses to listen to clever words the person I'm witnessing to can't be convinced by my words. But if I preach the Gospel the Spirit will confirm it. If the man trusts what he hears he WILL be saved.

It trust that the Lord will save ALL who call on Him, not just those who "desire to die for him."

I preach a God Who cannot lie. When I preach that God died for our sins I don't have to wonder if God really died for this persons sins. I simply believe the Scriptures that He did, and I preach to the person as though God were pleading through me with him to be reconciled.

I know the Gospel saves any who trusts.

Kev

mark pierson said...

Lou says,

"Here is a quote from a well known LS preacher. I am saving this for a full article at my blog later this year, but your note to me caused me to share the quite with you now.

“Now let me say this and I don’t want you to panic when I say it. Saving faith is an ADULT ISSUE. Saving faith is an ADULT EXPERIENCE. Salvation is an ADULT EXPERIENCE. Am I saying that a child cannot be saved? I’m saying that salvation is a conscious turning from sin to follow Jesus Christ with an understanding of something of the sinfulness of sin, its consequences and something of who Jesus Christ is, what He has provided and that I’m committing my life to Him. At what point can a child understand that?...I tell parents that salvation is an adult decision....There is no illustration in Scripture of childhood salvation. There is none. People want to throw the Philippian jailer and his household; well that’s talking about his servants so there is no reference there about his children. So there is no such thing as a childhood conversion.”


Lou
================
John MacArthur, September 25, 1990. Yes, I have come to fully embrace what he said there.

Mark D. Pierson

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
The reason I went on and on about Mark 8:34-38 was to destroy your argument here,
"Hello Mark,

You said

I can't look into your heart and know your state before God. To ask me whether or not folks are saved, well, that is not mine to know.

If the Lordship Salvation message is The Gospel then anyone who rejects it is not saved.

You said, as both Lou and I have quoted that there is NOT ONE person who understands LS who also rejects.

I asked you to CLEARLY show me what I don't understand about the LS message because I do reject it.

You gave me a fair amount of propaganda and but offered one small point.

You refer to my kind as "additionists" and Lou says we preach "faith plus commitment of life". Wrong on both counts. You see I observe that Mark 8:34-38 happened in front of a mixed crowd, in an evangelistic setting, many hearing here for the first time. The Lord did not tell the crowd there that He was now presenting a deeper walk. No. This was an evangelistic message.


How exactly am I wrong? You offer no explanation. I'm left to ASSUME what you mean by Mark 8:34-38

It's neat how you start your quote right after the most important thing. The Christ had just started to explain the Gospel to them.Peter rebuked Him for it. Then the Lord judged Peter's actions.

The Lord asks "What will a man give for his soul?" What indeed?

Notice the training here is about desiring to "come after Me" not how to attain Eternal Life.

He's telling of discipleship for sure, in light of Peter's act in response to hearing the Gospel.

Else one must have to be killed for the sake of Christ and the Gospel to be Eternally Saved. Vs 35

Of course that would be pretty hard to explain... the Gospel is that you have to die for Christ and the Gospel. What's the Gospel again?

Proof-texting will always lead you astray. You are not denying yourself Mark, you're exercising your pride.

So how am I wrong about Lordship Salvation?

Amazing how you know that there is NOT ONE who understands LS who also rejects it but you don't seem to have any ability to say how people misunderstand it...

Kev

12:21 PM"
=========
So rather than Kevin admitting that I destroyed his argument, an argument that exegetes Mark 8:34-38 systematically, as opposed to my exegesis which was inductive, he instead redirects and backs out by claiming that I do nothing there but preach salvation by works. Cleaver but tiersome refrain.

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
Just because you are reviewing MacArthur's book doesn't mean that you understand his position. Based on your arguments against Bridgett and myself I'd have to say that you are totally blinded by your system and are UNABLE to understand it. Poor soul.

For the record, JESUS CHRIST IS MY ONLY HOPE OF SALVATION! I do not depend on any kind of commitment to Him for my salvation. I am saved through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone.

mark pierson said...

BTW, Kevin,
If you had paid attention to my responses to Lou you would have noted that I said that what Jesus was doing in Mark 8:31 was more about His warning them about what they were about to see take place in the near future, and was not much Him teaching them about the Gospel, as you tried to explain in your 12:21 comment to me. So I would look to Mark 8:31 and then follow with a look at 1 Cor. 15:1-4 to back up the content of saving faith. Please try to keep what I say in context. Yes, I would refer back to Mark 8:31 in order to set the stage for a look at Mark 8:34-38.

mark pierson said...

Also kevy,
Please take your STRONG'S CONCORDANCE and see how "will", seen in Mark 8:34 is used throughout the NT and you'll see why I look at Mark 8:34 as the definition of saving faith.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevl said...

Hello Mark,

You said
The reason I went on and on about Mark 8:34-38 was to destroy your argument here,


I was criticizing you for going on and on about your so called change of scene, not about that section.

It's easy to argue against a made up point but that is a logical fallacy known as a Straw-Man Argument.

Nothing you said, let along your "change of scene" bit, "destoyed" my argument... but boy I sure was scared there for a moment.. haha (just a reminder of your comments from yesterday or the day before about being "scared")

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

This just keeps getting better, so to speak. We are archiving examples of the most extreme and raw forms of anti-biblical beliefs imaginable from our Calvinistic brethren.

Seriously though, it is tragic that men who are saved can actually fall so far from a balanced view of the Scriptures that we read the alarming levels Mark has been reduced to. It’s a real shame.

Reading what Mark believes, will agree to and his combative (in-your-face) elitism makes me all the more determined to what I can to protect others from the gross errors and egregious results of Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ that have the kind of devastating effects being exhibited here by Mark.


Lou

Kevl said...

Mark you said

Please try to keep what I say in context.

You first.

You told me that Mark 8:34-38 was the Gospel... now you can't preach the Gospel from it.. let alone display that it is the Gospel.. so you will have to write in context first before I can "take what [you] say in context."

Kev

Kevl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevl said...

Dearest Marky,

You said


Also kevy,
Please take your STRONG'S CONCORDANCE and see how "will", seen in Mark 8:34 is used throughout the NT and you'll see why I look at Mark 8:34 as the definition of saving faith.


Actually I just did that and I still can't see why you think that "willing" now (formerly you said "desiring"... this LS theology changes so quickly.. no wonder it's so hard to understand.. please be patient with me. I'll try to keep up as best I can.) is the definition (formerly the essence of) saving faith.

Have you bothered to check what the words "believe" and "faith" mean??

In Genesis 15 we read that the Lord tells Abram not to be afraid, then the Lord shows Abram how He's going to bless him.

What does verse 6 say? OH!! That Abram believed God and this was accounted as righteousness.

It didn't say that Abram wanted to serve God, or that Abram wanted to die for God and God's Good News. No. Abram was afraid, God told him not to fear and showed him why, and Abram BELIEVED.

If you check your Strong's you'll see that Abram fell secured because he trusted God.

Did God change His view on how He is willing to account righteousness???

Kev

Kevl said...

Jan is going to post some links to LS articles in the context of this discussion with my permission.

They will not be "promoted" any promotion of LS material by others will be deleted.

Kev

bp said...

Bridget do you understand that believing something doesn't make it true?.

Yes I do kev, I thought that was clear when I said that a person can believe 2+2 doesn’t equal 4 but that just means they don’t really understand the concept. I certainly never implied that I believe LS is true therefore it’s true.

Kev, when LS adherers across the board continue to say that you are “misunderstanding” or “misrepresenting” their position, consider the possibility that you are. When you read Scripture, you see a FG position. When we read Scripture, we see a LS position. When you interpret LS through your FG glasses, you are not seeing it as we see it, and so you say that we “think this” or “believe that” when we actually don’t. I’m attempting to point this out.

So when Mark says that true saving faith is a faith that submits to the Lordship of Christ that doesn't mean devotion???

Yeah it means devotion. But who ever said that we trust in our devotion to save us besides you guys? Again, you interpret it all wrong.

You say someone has to submit to the Lordship of Christ (in some undefined fashion) or they cannot be saved.

Saying that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ or they cannot be saved is not the same as saying that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved. Do you see the difference? I’ve tried to explain that before.

You can rant about it all you like.. you can make up stories about how God would be offended at a person being able to believe.. you can make long emotional pleas and whatever else you want...

You’re misinterpreting my position again. I’ve never said that God would be offended at a person being able to believe. Ever. I’ve said Scripture teaches that man is blind and rebellious toward God, unwilling to come and trust Christ unless God graciously draws him and reveals the truth. And since the FG position says no he’s not. And that he is quite able to choose God on his own (with a little help from the Holy Spirit of course), he is not giving whole credit where whole credit is due for the fact that he’s on his way to heaven instead of hell), this takes away from God receiving full glory, which I believe God would find offensive.

bp said...

Did Christ say "it is finished" on the Cross? Did that mean that the debt for the offenses had been paid? .(you can just say yes ok because I can read the Greek too..)

Yes. For the offenses of those who would trust Him. If the offenses of everyone in the world were truly paid, there would be no offenses to charge anyone with at the judgment.

Is it Christ's blood + my devotion?
Or can I trust that Christ's blood is enough?


Christ’s blood + my devotion does not save. Christ’s blood saves, but I cannot be saved without devotion. I know we’ve been here, done that. But you yourself have said repeatedly that a person who is saved will go on to obedience, however imperfect. IF this is true, that a person who has trusted in Christ WILL go on to learn obedience through the sanctifying work of God, then you simply cannot say that one can be saved apart from obedience. You can say that one cannot be saved BY obedience, but not that they can be saved apart from obedience. But again, that’s looking at the whole “are, are being, will be saved” again. But consider the fact that whenever I have asked you if a person can trust in Jesus, skip sanctification, and go onto be saved you refuse to answer.

Bridget near the end of yet another scenario argument from you you said this

Your hope is in man’s decision through the spoken gospel.

Actually no. My hope is that the power of God to salvation IS the Gospel.

I trust that it is not my cleverness, because like the adder that stops its own ears and refuses to listen to clever words the person I'm witnessing to can't be convinced by my words. But if I preach the Gospel the Spirit will confirm it. If the man trusts what he hears he WILL be saved.


Kev, your hope for “what” is that the power of God to salvation IS the Gospel? Your hope that people will be saved? How can you say that when the power of the Gospel saving anyone is totally contingent upon the person trusting what he hears? You say that the Gospel is the power unto salvation and that is what your hope is in. but then you say that if you preach it, the Spirit will confirm it to people, so obviously your hope is not only in the gospel preached, but also in the Holy Spirit confirming it, right?

Yet, according to your position, all of that fails to produce power unto salvation unless the person exercises their will to trust. Sounds like there's more power to be saved in a person's decision than in the gospel there.

Luke said...

All I am gonna say is that any College/Seminary without a final authority will ALWAYS educate someone out of their belief. The final authority becomes the MEN and the SEMINARY rather than the written word of God. As for which version, well, my username on youtube is KJBOnly - I am sure you can figure it out ;)

I mean, it is a pretty terrible state for Christianity where you have to go to College to be taught that the Bible is wrong, God doesn't mean what he says, and that salvation is the hardest thing in the world.

Jan said...

This comment is especially for any lurkers or anyone researching this issue out there. I thought someone might find it helpful to be able to hear the difference between the Lordship Salvation gospel presentation and the Free Grace or, more traditionally Dispensational gospel presentation as given in real life. The following links are to two sermons of each variety. (The LS sermons are posted for research purposes only and do not reflect the position of Kev or myself.)

LS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czvhvgAXX8

Dispensational gospel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1JW6BkLHWY

http://www.salembible.org/audio/salvation_audio/11-13-05_am.mp3

JanH

Jan said...

"Also kevy,"

"Dearest Marky,"


Kevy??

Marky??

JanH

(Please don't....)

Kevl said...

Bridget I only have time for this one thought before I head to work.

All, you may be interested.

Kev, when LS adherers across the board continue to say that you are “misunderstanding” or “misrepresenting” their position, consider the possibility that you are.

IF LS advocates didn't say that there is NOT ONE person who understands LS who also rejects it THEN if they all said I didn't understand I might put some credence in their words.

And talking about "misrepresenting" have I not considered that I have misunderstanding? Have I not engaged in conversation with you (for example) for years on this subject?

Have I not studied every passage of Scripture when the rare event happens and a LS person dares to share what they believe from Scripture?????

I've been completely open, no matter what you'd like to think. I actually wondered if Mr. MacArthur would convince me with is book.

You may LIKE TO THINK that I don't understand.. or that I won't consider that I'm wrong... all of that makes you feel good I'm sure, but the truth is I have examined EXACTLY what LS advocates say and have found that it is NOT biblical.

Maybe you should take your own advice and start thinking that you're wrong...

Kev

Kevl said...

OK one more.. I'm sorry Bridget I don't mean to be abusive but this is beyond funny. I read the first part of this part of your reply and said - does she forget every single conversation we've ever had?????? And then when I got to the end I had to laugh.. seriously funny stuff.


You’re misinterpreting my position again. I’ve never said that God would be offended at a person being able to believe. Ever. I’ve said Scripture teaches that man is blind and rebellious toward God, unwilling to come and trust Christ unless God graciously draws him and reveals the truth. And since the FG position says no he’s not. And that he is quite able to choose God on his own (with a little help from the Holy Spirit of course), he is not giving whole credit where whole credit is due for the fact that he’s on his way to heaven instead of hell), this takes away from God receiving full glory, which I believe God would find offensive.


Yes I'm misrepresenting you.... I'm very sorry...

God wouldn't be offended because a person could believe... He'd be offended because if a person could believe that would take away His glory and that is what would be offended.

This is the level of misrepresentation you accuse me of. It is the same word games that you play all the time.

The thing is that you are much more crafty than Mark. You're much more adept at playing games than he is.

The problem is neither of you seem to care what Scripture really says. Is this all just a game to you?

Kev

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
You say,
"Actually I just did that and I still can't see why you think that "willing" now (formerly you said "desiring"... this LS theology changes so quickly."
===============
Actually "will" is the KJV word and "Desires" is the NKJV word. If you check my earlier comments to you I noted those differences.
=================
." no wonder it's so hard to understand.. please be patient with me. I'll try to keep up as best I can.) is the definition (formerly the essence of) saving faith."
=================
The reason I say it is the essence of saving faith is because it shows us what authentic saving faith looks like. If one does not come to Christ in self denying faith, as seen here in Mark 8:34, he can not be saved.
=============
"Have you bothered to check what the words "believe" and "faith" mean??"
==============
Believe - pisteuo - to entrust,commit, put trust with.

Faith - pistis - reliance upon Christ for salvation; assurance.

There; but isn't the definition of faith what this whole debate is about? Authentic saving faith, as seen in the Bible, is an obedient faith. Can it really be said that one who does not "desire" or "will" to be obedient is actually saved? Are they not exhibiting unredeamed, unregenerate fallen nature, nature in rebellion against God?
================
"In Genesis 15 we read that the Lord tells Abram not to be afraid, then the Lord shows Abram how He's going to bless him.

What does verse 6 say? OH!! That Abram believed God and this was accounted as righteousness."
=============
Am I supposed to have a problem here?
====================
"It didn't say that Abram wanted to serve God, or that Abram wanted to die for God and God's Good News. No. Abram was afraid, God told him not to fear and showed him why, and Abram BELIEVED."
========================
And we see that very faith by which Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6 tested in Genesis 22:1-19. Now the world knows from that chapter that a justifying faith is also an obedient faith.
================
"If you check your Strong's you'll see that Abram fell secured because he trusted God."
====================
How does this refute my position? Lordship would have NO problem here.
===============
"Did God change His view on how He is willing to account righteousness???"
===============
Nowhere does lordship say that He did.

Mark

mark pierson said...

"Please try to keep what I say in context.

You first.

You told me that Mark 8:34-38 was the Gospel... now you can't preach the Gospel from it.. let alone display that it is the Gospel.. so you will have to write in context first before I can "take what [you] say in context."
===============
I was quite clear in that I said that Mark 8:34-38 served as my definition of saving faith. Without this portion of scripture there is no saving faith. You can put forth the content of saving faith found in Mark 8:31 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4, but then you must show the sinner what saving faith looks like in order to "close the deal". Having the sinner simply give mental assent to the facts of the gospel is not leading him into a saving relationship with Christ. His faith must be a self denying faith, like that exhibited by Abraham in Genesis 22; like that pictured in our water baptism as seen in Romans 6:4-11.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

So, we have Mark, who is rabid in his rejection of dispensationalism, well beyond the norm IMO. He is Covenant Theology (CT) driven and we know he agrees with JMac that salvation is an adult decision.

I wonder if we might get an admission he is a *Preterist? The natural next step for what Mark is acknowledging in his system is Preterism. I have seen this natural progression to Preterism before.

And how about this: I know two men who believe Mark’s CT and also believe in infant regeneration. That is that an infant can be regenerated, years before they even hear the Gospel. Last year I spoke to two CT men that believe in infant regeneration. I wonder if Mark also agrees with and/or would support that as well.

In other conversations I had with CT men, they shy away from saying either Preterism or Infant Regeneration is wrong because they know men in the CT camp eventually go to either or both of those knowing that is the natural progression.

Based on what he is revealing in this thread and other conversations I think Mark is at least sympathetic to Preterism and Infant Regeneration.

I would not be surprised if he admits that he adheres to either one or both. but I think he does, but just my guess.


Lou

*Preterism: An eschatological viewpoint that places many or all eschatological events in the past, especially during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (R C Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, p 228)

mark pierson said...

"I was criticizing you for going on and on about your so called change of scene, not about that section."
=============
You were using that whole section of scripture as taking place in one setting. I showed you that you were wrong in doing so. I showed there was an audience change that took place in between Mark 8:27 and 8:34. You treated it as though it was all one teaching session when it was not. More people were called over in verse 34. There is no evidence from that portion of scripture that those persons heard Him tell His disciples what lay ahead as seen in verse 31. The people that He called to Himself made the audience a mixed crowd, many hearing him say these things in Mark 8:34-38 for the very first time. Did He preface this portion of scripture by saying, "I'm going to teach deeper life things here? No. Hence this is the gospel since HE is the Gospel. True faith Follows after Christ.
================
"It's easy to argue against a made up point but that is a logical fallacy known as a Straw-Man Argument."
========
No straw man. See above.
================
"Nothing you said, let along your "change of scene" bit, "destoyed" my argument..."
===============
Ah, but it did. Check again your first response to my use of Mark 8:34-38 and see how you did not acknowledge a change of audience. That change was a major miss on your part. Remember the Gospel is a Person, not a set of facts. To follow The Person is to believe in Him. Hence Mark 8:34-38 is the gospel in that you are only there really believing.

Mark

mark pierson said...

Lou,
I AM A BAPTIST!!! A CREDO-BAPTIST!!! I REJECT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION...ALWAYS DID, ALWAYS WILL!!! I REJECT INFANT BAPTISM!!! I HOLD TO BELIEVER'S BAPTISM!!!

I am leaning towards amill, but am not commited yet.

mark pierson said...

Lou,
BTW, I hold to what is called New Covenant Theology as articulated by John G. Reisinger

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Obviously Mark’s emotions and combativeness have flared again.

He did not read my previous comment carefully. If he will go back he will see I was not taking about baptismal regeneration. I was referencing infant regeneration, which flows from Calvinism’s extra-biblical regeneration before and apart from faith, which Mark believes in spite of the fact that just like LS nowhere in Scripture is this taught.

I’d like for Mark to be able to openly reject the extremism of infant regeneration, but I suspect he is already in support of this teaching.

He also wrote, “I am leaning towards amill, but am not committed yet.” Well, Preterism is just around the corner. These are things that find their first roots in Calvinism, but then CT greases the skids to these ultra-extremes. Sad!


Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Mark:

Only for the sake of lurkers I will acknowledge you this one time.

I ceased from addressing you first person because of your recent e-mails and rejected comments at my blog. Several of these were personal in nature, some of which carried personal threats.

Once you learn to consistently control your emotions in the spirit of Christ your Lord and communicate in civil/gracious tones I may engage you. Unless and until then I do not have to and will not communicate with you. I do not have to interact with any man, including you, who reacts with raw emotion and personal ad hominem no more than I would from Antonio da Rosa when he behaves that way. That is all.

You might memorize and reflect on Colossians 4:6 before you communicate in this or any blog discussion. That passage appears at the head of my blog and helps me immensely.


LM

mark pierson said...

Lou,
I see in the case of John the baptist an infant that was regenerated BEFORE he was even born.

My emotions flaring up?

Throughout this thread you have sought to read my inner thoughts. I have not spoken with Matt Weymeyer for about a year. To the best of my memory I have not even mentioned this thread to Wayne or anybody else. I'm here alone, thank you. I have NOT back-peddled on any of my thoughts shared here. I believe Ryrie to be a godly man whom I admire despite my disagreement with his stand against lordship. I've been as straight-forward as I can be in this thread; yet I'm accused of playing games, back-peddling, being a jerk, changing definitions, etc. So it is you and Kevin who must examine how I have been treated here, and how Bridget has been treated here.

And by the way, I do not appologise for any of those emails I sent you. In fact, please feel free to produce them here, and then we'll compare them with how you conducted yourself these past 2 years in the blogosphere. We'll then see that my emails to you were actually my taking a page out your own "book" in blogosphere conduct. We'll ask the GES folks to compare the similarities. So please don't get all self righteous here, Lou.

mark pierson said...

You mention me by name in one of your posts at your blog, but then do not let any of my comments through so I can defend my position. That is equal to back-biting, Lou. You are wrong to do such things.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

From his original edition of TGATJ, MacArthur writes,

Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.”

The first and obvious error is that faith is the issue for the reception of eternal salvation not surrender, not submission. You (Kev) have thoroughly noted this.

Second, MacArthur speaks of paying “the ultimate price for salvation,” i.e. paying the price to become a Christian. Does the Bible call on the lost to, “pay the ultimate price for salvation?” Is receiving the gift of eternal life conditioned on an “exchange” of “obedience” and “full surrender?”

Dr. MacArthur’s saving faith not only implies, it demands the “exchange” of a commitment to life long obedience and submission to the Lord, to receive His free gift of salvation. At salvation there only has to be surrender to what the Holy Spirit is convincing and convicting of at the moment. Future issues of discipleship may not even be on one’s mind.

Lordship Salvation, according to John MacArthur’s definition of saving faith, is a barter system. See- Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?

In the opinion of many LS, as MacArthur defines it, is the first cousin of Romanism.


LM

mark pierson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mark pierson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevl said...

I gave Jan permission to link to LS material because it was asked for AND it was presented in the proper light.

This blog will not be used to promote false doctrine.

Anyone who posts links to LS propaganda will find their posts deleted.

Kev

Kevl said...

I think we've explored insults enough here.

This thread was supposed to be about an exploration of presenting Truth...

All please check out the new post I made called Lordship Salvation Presentation With Q&A

I hope Mark or Bridget will choose to witness to me in this thread.

Remember that denying the Lord before men can lead to the Lord denying you before the Father.

Kev

Luke said...

Sounds to me like Mark can't think for himself. Typical Calvinist comments

- "If you would only read what this guy has to say about it, you would understand".

He is only leaning toward Amill because he hasn't found a book that will convince him yet.

I bet his favourite number is 1689.

Like I said above - Mark has no final authority from God. It's all about men. Honestly, I am a King James Bible Believer, but if you want to hold up an NIV and say "This is my final authority, whatever it says goes", I would have more respect than someone who is swayed by books that men publish every few months.

bp said...

Kev,
I am willing to do this, time permitting (school starts on Mon, so it's back to work, plus I have a weekend job). But am I permitted to at least comment on your last post?

Saying that God would be offended at a person “being able to believe” is quite different than saying He would be offended that a person who can’t believe says that they can believe and so claims partial responsibility and takes away full credit from God for what happened to him. You imply in the former that the act of “being able to believe” is what God would be offended at. I’m saying that the fact that he was blind and dead in sin and couldn’t exercise faith, yet says that he wasn’t and that he can, instead of internally and externally giving all credit and glory to God is what I believe God would be offended at.

I truly am not playing word games kev. I am not trying to be “crafty”. The nuances that I’m pointing out are for the purpose of showing you the real life misunderstandings and misinterpretations of LS you have. I point them out to you, but you side-sweep them away and imply this is a game to me.

I have gone through Scripture with you before Kev. We went through the whole book of 1 John. I'm not sure how can you say that I’ve never debated LS with Scripture, and that neither has Mark, as he’s doing so right now? Does JM not use Scripture to show LS is there either?

My aim here has not been to rehash all the ways in which you’re missing LS in Scripture (though I'm willing to try that again), but to try to show you the intricacies of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of LS. Because until you can actually see that what you think we are saying isn’t really what we’re saying, and what you think LS is really isn’t’ what it is, I don’t think you will ever see LS in Scripture.

And kev, as far as I’m aware, I don’t recall ever accusing you of being “crafty” or of “game playing”. I don’t pretend to be able to see your heart and motives. I assume that your motives are pure and that you just aren’t seeing Scripture (and therefore LS ) in truth. You seem to assume that I see Scripture in (your) truth, but my motives are impure and I just want to play games. I wish you wouldn't do that. Because if that's your true opinion of me then there is no point in me being here.

Kevl said...

Bridget you said

The nuances that I’m pointing out are for the purpose of showing you the real life misunderstandings and misinterpretations of LS you have.

Nuances? You're bludgeoning the Scriptures.

You've never pointed out a misunderstanding.. you've made accusations.

NOW you're saying that God would find it offensive that the person who is blind says he can see.. or was blind says that he could see.... what will it be tomorrow?

You come up with these things about "credit" when the Scriptures don't offer any concern about such things... and "credits" people with having faith on MANY MANY accounts....

You're not pointing out my misunderstandings you're pointing out your own.

Bridget you said this, and this gives me opportunity to express this to you.

You seem to assume that I see Scripture in (your) truth, but my motives are impure and I just want to play games.

I don't think you see the Truth of Scripture at all, let alone are denying it with impure motives.

I think you sit in John Piper's church and are swept up in what you have been taught. Everyone around you believes his LS Gospel, and you do too...

I think it would be next to impossible for you to open up the Scriptures and read them without his system of theology influencing you.

I'm very sorry for that, but I'm convinced it's true.

Mark is going to go through the Gospel according to LS Theology with me. I'm going to ask him to explain every point. As he does I'm going to respond with what I understand he's saying.

Whatever misunderstandings I have about LS should be cleared up through this.

Kev

bp said...

You’ve never pointed out a misunderstanding..you’ve made accusations

Just one example:
You said Paul never said anyone didn’t understand/or was blind to the gospel message, but only that they refuse to accept it. I pointed to Scripture showing Paul and Jesus taught both.You ignored it.

I did read the other thread, and I’m glad to see your and Mark’s willingness to go through the gospel presentation in this manner, but judging by the bulk of questions/answers all at once, it seems as though it will be going in a hundred diff directions. But I’ll follow along, time permitting. Would it be ok for me to point out misunderstandings that I might see along the way (with Scripture of course?) Example:

Luke said that “discipleship is not the plan of salvation, but rather the path AFTER salvation. A misunderstanding he seems to have about Scripture, (and therefore LS):

He seems to believe Scripture teaches that salvation is only past-tense for believers, therefore, all acts of obedience/discipleship happen after “salvation”. But Scripture teaches that salvation is past/present and future (Eph 2:8-9; 1 Cor 1:18; Heb 1:14). Hence the misunderstanding when we say a person cannot be saved apart from obed/discipleship.

Anyway, I don’t know if this type of interjection will just confuse and jumble up the thread. Let me know.

Luke said...

When I speak of salvation in general terms, I speak of the moment one is saved.

Salvation is instantaneous. The moment we trust Christ, we are made positionally righteous.

Then we are saved from our sins and this is a life long process (sanctification)

Then we are saved from our flesh and this world
(glorification).

Salvation includes all of these things (all spiritual blessings Eph 1:3) but salvation in general terms is just believing on Christ.

This is your (LS) problem. You think you are so smart and everything is defined by your technical terms. I'm just a layman. You've read, what.. two comments by me so far? Don't jump to conclusions miss.

Kevl said...

Bridget

Just one example:
You said Paul never said anyone didn’t understand/or was blind to the gospel message, but only that they refuse to accept it. I pointed to Scripture showing Paul and Jesus taught both.You ignored it.


2 Cor 4:4 sounds convincing when it's presented by a LS advocate in accordance with the LS teaching.

However, if one does more than simply proof-text they will see that Paul is talking about light, glory and a veil.

This is about Moses' glowing face that was veiled. Not so that Israel would not understand what Moses was saying but because they could not handle the Glory of God, (and Moses' shame for the light was fading from him).

furthermore the people being written about are those who have disbelieved these are people who have already rejected the Gospel.

G571
ἄπιστος
apistos
ap'-is-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G4103; (actively) disbelieving, that is, without Christian faith (specifically a heathen); (passively) untrustworthy (person), or incredible (thing): - that believeth not, faithless, incredible thing, infidel, unbeliever (-ing).

Your words about Jesus' words are just as wrong.

This is not me misunderstanding you this is me disagreeing with you based on what Scripture says.

Believe it or not there is a huge difference.

About the thread with Mark, I want Mark to witness to me. It is NOT a debate.

I hope Luke won't post there again until Mark and I are done.

Like wise if you post clarifications that could confuse things.

Kev

bp said...

Luke, when you’re talking about salvation in terms of justification then you need to specify that. You said, “discipleship is not the plan of salvation, but the path after salavation.” But discipleship IS part of God’s plan of salvation, as you said, “on-going salvation from sin”. And the fact that we will (in the future) be saved is also part of God’s plan of salvation (glorification). To use the term “salvation” in the way you do is a big reason why there are misunderstandings on your part about LS. If you were to simply say that discipleship is not part of justification, then there would be no argument. But we cannot agree that it is not part of salvation because Scripture says otherwise. I don't think I'm so smart. I am just trying to show you the root of many misunderstandings.

bp said...

Kev, Paul says that 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. I read elsewhere (John 3) that they also "hate the light and refuse to come to it lest their evil deeds be exposed", but I don’t read anywhere that it says they are blinded because they “can’t handle” the glory of God.

Whether the blindness is satan inflicted or self inflicted, or a result of the fall (I believe Scripture teaches all three), the point is: They’re blind! And verse 6 says that it is GOD Himself who has shone in our hearts to give us light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. He obviously didn’t do this with everyone, or they wouldn’t be blind anymore. They would also see the light.

And yes, they are people who have disbelieved. They disbelieve because their minds are blind to the truth – to the light. As a side note: Christians can be blind in many areas as well. Remember my quote above from Luke 24:44-45? ”Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.”

Kevl said...

Bridget you have the order of events backwards...

The god of this world blinds the minds of those who disbelieve.

NOT the god of this world has blinded the minds of everyone so they can't believe.

Your POSITION is the section way, but Scripture is the first.

Yes unlike the people who have not believed God does shine in our hearts.

But you have the order mixed up here too.. this is post salvation again, not pre.

Why did Moses veil his face? If the people could handle it then why did he cover up the Glory of God?


Kev

Jan said...

Kev: Not so that Israel would not understand what Moses was saying but because they could not handle the Glory of God, (and Moses' shame for the light was fading from him).

Bridget: I don’t read anywhere that it says they are blinded because they “can’t handle” the glory of God.

Here are the pertinent texts:

1 Cor 3:7-16:
“But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech- unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”

Ex 34:29-35:
“Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses' hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. The Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned to him; and Moses talked with them. Afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he gave them as commandments all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. But whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would take the veil off until he came out; and he would come out and speak to the children of Israel whatever he had been commanded. And whenever the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses; face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him.”

JanH

Kevl said...

Jan,

Thank you for this! I've run out of steam today and you really came through!

I'm too tired to properly dig through all of this again tonight but I'm pretty sure that 2 Cor 3:16 pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin for what Bridget was postulating.

Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

Bridget was saying that when the veil is taken away one turns to the Lord... but Scripture says just the opposite to what she says.

Thank you.

Kev

Jan said...

Bridget was saying that when the veil is taken away one turns to the Lord... but Scripture says just the opposite to what she says.

Thank you.

Kev



Ah well. You know. It is what it is. :)

JanH

bp said...

The god of this world blinds the minds of those who disbelieve.

NOT the god of this world has blinded the minds of everyone so they can't believe.


It sounds like you’re trying to make a distinction between “unbelievers” and “unbelievers who refuse to believe”. Like, in one group there are the unbelievers who never heard the gospel, and they’re going to hear the gospel once and believe it, and satan doesn’t blind their eyes, and in another group there are the unbelievers who hear the gospel once or twice or a hundred times, and continue refusing to believe it, and those are the ones satan blinds. This text makes no such distinction.

Vs 4 says satan has blinded the minds of “unbelievers” (esv), or those “who do not believe” (NKJ). You once didn’t believe, right? So you were once in that category, and satan was blinding you. And it goes on to say why… to keep you from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. And so yes, he does do it so that unbelievers can’t see the truth and believe. It’s pretty clear he hates that.

Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

Bridget was saying that when the veil is taken away one turns to the Lord... but Scripture says just the opposite to what she says.


The veil (Moses' veil and the veil in the temple) is representative of our separation from God because of sin. The lifting of the veil signifies the removal of that separation. And so obviously it is only through turning to the Lord that the veil (our separation) is lifted. When God shines in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, we look to this light, this Jesus, and turn to Him in faith, whereby the veil is lifted.

Kevl said...

Mose's veil didn't mark the people's separation from God.... it covered the Glory of God on him.

The same as the veil on the Temple, it didn't "mark" the separation, it protected people from looking in!

Now the veil is torn, because we can "boldly enter in" through the Blood of Christ.

Not by being made good enough to go in.. and not because people are no longer separated from God but those who by faith in the shed blood of Christ may enter in by His righteousness.

Sinners are STILL separated from God until they come to faith in Christ. If your view was correct then the veil would still be required... or everyone would have to be saved...


Kev

David Wyatt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wyatt said...

Sorry for the typos. I said, Amen bro. Kev. Every day I live, the more thankful for the blood & grace of Christ I become. God is so good to sinners like me. God bless.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You wrote, "Sinners are STILL separated from God until they come to faith in Christ. If your view was correct then the veil would still be required... or everyone would have to be saved..."

Well said, I appreciate that.


Lou

bp said...

Mose's veil didn't mark the people's separation from God.... it covered the Glory of God on him.

The same as the veil on the Temple, it didn't "mark" the separation, it protected people from looking in!


Yes, the veil hid the glory of God from man so he would not be consumed by it. But man’s separation from God (because of sin) is the reason he would be consumed by His glory. The fact that a veil was needed alluded to that separation.

Not by being made good enough to go in..

Where did I say that you needed to be made “good enough” to go in? Unless you see God’s total act of grace in shining the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ into rebellious hearts and un-seeing eyes as “being made good enough”.

If anything, the fact that Scripture says we’re blinded by satan and hate the light and will not come to it because of our sin, and yet you say, “nope. I can too come!” shows that you don’t realize how not good enough you really are.

Sinners are STILL separated from God until they come to faith in Christ. If your view was correct then the veil would still be required or everyone would be saved.

No, because for unbelievers, the veil remains unlifted over their hearts (2 Cor 3:14). The rent veil does nothing for sinners unless they enter in by way of Jesus.

I was hoping you’d also respond to my remarks about you making a disctinction in 2 Cor 4 between “unbelievers” and “unbelievers who refuse to believe.” And since Luke didn’t respond to my last post to him, if someone could address my remarks it would really help, since this is probably THE biggest point of misunderstanding about LS by the FG camp. Thanks.

Kevl said...

You don't see a difference between unbelief and disbelief? Between those who doubt and those who reject?

Search the Scriptures - Lord help my unbelief is a pleasing cry... disbelief is not.

Check out how we are instructed in Jude 23-24

22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Have compassion on those who doubt, but others save with fear.

Interesting how it doesn't tell us to give up on the ones who God obviously didn't unblind.... or lift the veil.. or whatever it is that you say today God does to sinners so they can't resist salvation...

Kev

bp said...

You don't see a difference between unbelief and disbelief? Between those who doubt and those who reject?

If you mean, do I see deeper levels of unbelief (as per Jude 22-23), then yes, because a person who hears the gospel repeatedly and doesn’t respond grows more hardened), but 2 Cor 4:4 says that Satan has blinded the minds of “unbelievers” to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel. It mentions no certain “class” of unbelievers who are blinded by Satan, just unbelievers. And whether one has a doubting non-faith in Jesus or a deep-seated rejection of Jesus, they’re still an “unbeliever.” You’re adding to the text, kev.

Search the Scriptures - Lord help my unbelief is a pleasing cry... disbelief is not.

You left out the first part of the verse, I believe, help my unbelief. That is a cry of faith. Even as believers, none of us have a perfect faith that doesn't waver. But by his own confession, this man did “believe”, (though it may have been the faith of a mustard seed), unlike 2 Cor 4:4 which is very plainly speaking of unbelievers.

Have compassion on those who doubt, but others save with fear.

Interesting how it doesn't tell us to give up on the ones who God obviously didn't unblind.... or lift the veil.. or whatever it is that you say today God does to sinners so they can't resist salvation...


When did I ever say that we should give up on the ones who God obviously didn’t unblind? Just because someone is blinded at present doesn’t mean that God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness” won’t perhaps shine in their heart to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. So why would I want to give up on anyone? With man it’s impossible, but with God all things are possible!

Anonymous said...

Mark Chapter 8 being referred to in the LS and No LS debate....

Why is it that most people only read scripture as "How do I get to heaven?"

The historical context of what's happening right there in Mark Chapter 8 and in the time of Christ should be looked at. Those that would proclaim him Messiah and that God's kingdom was superior to the ruling establishment would be hung on a cross.

If those people wanted to further the message of Christ, they must be prepared to "carry their cross". When you were crucified, you had to carry your own cross.

So, in this time in history, to proclaim Christ as the Messiah - one should know the risk - as Christ is telling them... they may be crucified for it.

Now.... Does Christ telling them of the dangers and they might have to carry their own cross automatically translate to our time as:

In addition to BELIEVING the gospel, Christ tells me that if I want to come after Him I must carry my cross as Lordship Salvation.

Let's not read nearly every bit of scripture as how do I go to heaven. Sometimes the words and what is being said in that time in history has nothing to do with my being saved.

Let's also keep in mind the disciples at that time just proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. Their idea of a Messiah was someone who would lead them out of oppression. They were looking for someone to rally the people and overthrow the rulers. To defeat them. The disciples were still clueless that he had to die on the cross. He's teaching them step by step what is happening and what is about to happen.

Christ's death and resurrection is just as much about proving this point, as well as God's faithful promise to Abraham being finalized. And, yes it is about our salvation too.

Through the Spirit, we CAN overcome the 'world'. I don't have the Spirit unless I BELIEVE the gospel. Once I BELIEVE the gospel I can tap into the Spirit and take that yoke. It's a better yoke to take if I so choose. If not, the Spirit will draw me near.

kc