Ryrie On Mark 8:35
From the RYRIE STUDY BIBLE
page 1499
notes on Mark 8:35 -The verse means this: Whoever would save his life (by renouncing the gospel and thus avoiding the risk of martyrdom) will lose it (eternally, because he has not believed the gospel);but whoever is willing to lose his life (as a martyr for Christ) will save it (i.e., will prove that he is a follower of Christ and an heir ofm eternal life).
Question: Is Ryrie here teaching a works salvation?
Labels: Ryrie on Mark 8:35
posted by mark pierson at 7:26 AM
39 Comments:
Mark,
IMO the power that a person needs to lose his life for Christ comes from God. This power comes through regeneration by the Holy Spirit and by the indwelling Spirit as believers are sanctified. It is a response to grace and not a human produced work. Mark, have you read any of the posts on regeneration at True Free Grace? The people you have been arguing with deny God’s power in favor of human decision. They see a man generated decision of faith in Christ produce salvation without a new creation in Christ being wrought by the Holy Spirit.
I believe God gives grace to his children. This grace will produce attributes in believers. While I have not read MacArthur’s book, I doubt he said anything except what James said in James 2:14 where he compared genuine saving faith with a false hypocritical faith that does not save! Genuine faith produces obedience, discipleship, and works through God’s power. False faith produces nothing. James taught that and I believe MacArthur was probably teaching the same thing.
You have done a good job with these people, but I think one is trying to sell books by creating controversy as much as possible and the others have sold out to the bizarre Scripture interpretations of Zane Hodges.
July 08, 2008 9:07 AM
>IMO the power that a person needs to lose his life for Christ comes
Yes, it is all down to opinion, isn't it? You'd have thought the good Lord would have been clear enough to avoid the requirment for opinion.
As I said in the comment above, Liver & Onions has a different opinion (strongly so sometimes).
I wonder how it is decided who is right?
These are not flippant remarks: they have been troubling me and my family for many years.
July 08, 2008 9:11 AM
Make sure your being "troubled" isn't just you trying to buy more time to go on living in rebellion against your Holy Creator before Whom you must stand some day to give an account.
July 08, 2008 11:30 AM
>more time to go on living in rebellion
No, Mark you continually (wilfully?) mistake me. I am not rebelling against anyone.
I don't believe, I experience. And my experience of the scientific evidence does not stack up in favour of an almighty creator. There are more parsimonious explanations. Inter-continental swimming kangaroos? I don't think that even you believe that.
But I do think I might be a little more convinced if we weren't all hooked non interpretation that has caused so much bloodshed over the centuries. I still contend that an omnipotent God would have constructed His Book in a way that was beyond ambiguity.
But then, I haven't been elected, have I?
July 08, 2008 1:17 PM
Maalie,
We don't know yet if you have been elected. Many committed atheists have become believers due to the work of God the Holy Spirit. As of now I would say that Romans 1:22 described you pretty well:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
July 08, 2008 2:57 PM
As Matt once wrote, "...this is too irresistible"
Those who deny Dispensationalism read the same Bible I have, and it professes at least two dispensations. In the front of many Bibles it says, “HOLY BIBLE.” Then it will tell me that the books of the Bible are divided into Old & New Testaments.
For those who say, “There is no such thing as a dispensation,” the Bible clearly speaks of the dispensations. Four times the Apostle Paul speaks of the dispensations:
“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me,” (1 Cor. 9:17).
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him,” (Eph. 1:10)
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” (Eph. 3:2).
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God,” (Col. 1:25).
Those who say there no dispensations hold within their hands a Bible that professes itself to be dispensational.
Paul recognized the dispensations, seems to me you men want to over rule Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
And as you have been shown elsewhere, Dispensationalist Paul also wrote, by Inspiration in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 to born again Christians that they were “carnal.”
“I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
You men, who are Covenant/Lordship advocates, seem intent on dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture. “Carnal” Christians were invented by modern day Dispensationalists like Chafer? The Bible answered your assumptions.
It is a sad commentary, and I mean sincerely, to read how you men give your Calvinistic/Covenant presuppositions the preeminence over the Word of God.
LM
July 08, 2008 6:35 PM
Lou,
You said……….
You men, who are Covenant/Lordship advocates, seem intent on dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture. “Carnal” Christians were invented by modern day Dispensationalists like Chafer? The Bible answered your assumptions.
It is a sad commentary, and I mean sincerely, to read how you men give your Calvinistic/Covenant presuppositions the preeminence over the Word of God.
Your mistake in falsely charging Calvinism with adding works to salvation is that you fail to distinguish between justification (being saved) and sanctification (discipleship, obedience, etc.). Calvinism by definition precludes any possibility of adding works to justification. If works are added, it is no longer Calvinism. The Bible teaches quite clearly (John 3:3) that one must be born again to be saved no matter when it occurs. It also teaches that being born again changes a person drastically (2 Cor. 5:17). Further it teaches in many places that born again believers will respond to sanctification to varying degrees (Romans 8, 1 John, James 2:14-26, Eph. 2:10). These passages teach there is no such thing as a Christian remaining all carnal all the time. That is why Paul used the term babes in Christ.
I have recently posted three posts on regeneration and one on James 2:14. More will be coming on regeneration and I challenge you to find one example in my writings on Jazzycat or True Free Grace where I have advocated works having any merit whatsoever to justification (being saved). I have over 100 devotionals and meditations on my site about doctrine and AGAIN, show me one example where I even hint at human effort justification by works. Your M.O. is to repeat the same ole false charges over and over and somehow think that makes them true. I may not be right on every point, but everything I write has Scriptural support.
By the term “you men” you have accused me of lordship salvation, which you define as adding merit to justification. I think you know better and as far as I am concerned you are a liar, unless you can produce one example where I have added works to justification.
I cannot speak for Mark, but since “you men” included me and you insulted me at your blog, as well as the comment here, I have no desire to interact with you. So, just address your comments to Mark and not "you men" in the future.
Wayne
July 08, 2008 10:46 PM
"Yes, it is all down to opinion, isn't it?'
No. God is real. The cosmos was created, not self born.
And I know God is real, because I used to hate Jesus. I blasphemed His name every day. I loved getting drunk, and doing all sorts of evil things.
Then, one day, in a detention center, after I was arrested for drunk driving, I said to myself, "There's got to be a better way, but what."
The next few weeks things changed. I stopped saying Jesus Christ in a blasphemous way, and began to see the name of Jesus Christ as something to be honored.
God had, by His mercy and love, come into my life. God changed me. I began to listen to people I never listened to before.
It was an incredible experience, and the experience continues, even now.
The Bible testifies to it, and verifies that God loves me, and died for me. Galatians 2:20-21
July 08, 2008 11:09 PM
Jazzy:
1) Lordship Salvation adds a commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian in “exchange” for eternal salvation.
2) It is LS that fails to distinguish between salvation and discipleship. LS demands a commitment, to what is expected of a disciple, for the reception of eternal life. I wrote a major chapter on the fact that there is a distinction that MacArthur blurs.
3) I am on record in many places that a genuine conversion should result in genuine results one might expect of a born again Christian. I do NOT frontload faith with commitments to perform as a disciple of Christ for salvation, which is the message of LS.
4) I perused very briefly your notes on regeneration. In a general way I will say this, which is a repeat: Regeneration before faith is an extra-biblical view that is antithetical to the biblical plan of salvation. Any man who believes regeneration, i.e., being born again, precedes faith, believes in salvation occuring apart from and prior to faith in Christ. That is the order of events if you hold the extra-biblical regeneration before faith position.
5) I think we all agree works have no merit for salvation. The problem is that anyone who holds to the LS interpretation of the Gospel adds works to salvation. The Lordship advocate dismisses this by believing the lost man was born again by being regenerated before he ever made the commitment as part of his (LS’s) expression of saving faith.
6) Who “invented” the “carnal” Christian: Chafer or the Apostle Paul? Who first said there are “carnal” Christian in the church? BTW, if you think I hold the Hodges view on “carnal” Christians, you are mistaken. If you think I hold to Calvinism’s Perseverance, you are mistaken. I reject both extremes.
7) Insult? If you feel deleting a link to your blog you need to get a thicker skin. By the way, I did not delete your first comment that had link to your blog, because it was not as overt as the one I did delete. My policy is for the protection of unsuspecting readers so that they do not fall into the errors of Calvinism, regeneration before faith or Lordship Salvation.
8) Do you believe “One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”
If you can categorically reject that statement as a message of works for salvation then you reject Lordship Salvation as John MacArthur and Mark Pierson define how a man is justified.
LM
July 09, 2008 12:28 AM
Lou says,
"As Matt once wrote, "...this is too irresistible"
Those who deny Dispensationalism read the same Bible I have, and it professes at least two dispensations. In the front of many Bibles it says, “HOLY BIBLE.” Then it will tell me that the books of the Bible are divided into Old & New Testaments."
================
No LS/Calvinist would disagree with you here. Your point?
=================
"For those who say, “There is no such thing as a dispensation,” the Bible clearly speaks of the dispensations. Four times the Apostle Paul speaks of the dispensations:"
============
Again, none of your opponents would disagree that Paul uses the word "Dispensation" 4x: 1 Cor.9:17; Eph.1:10; 3:2; Col.1:25. In fact Matt is a Dispensationalist, as is MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and the Pulpit Magazine staff that so convincingly corrected you back in November, 2006. So what's your point here?
==============
“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me,” (1 Cor. 9:17).
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him,” (Eph. 1:10)
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” (Eph. 3:2).
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God,” (Col. 1:25).
Those who say there no dispensations hold within their hands a Bible that professes itself to be dispensational.
Paul recognized the dispensations, seems to me you men want to over rule Inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
===========
I repeat, Again, none of your opponents would disagree that Paul uses the word "Dispensation" 4x: 1 Cor.9:17; Eph.1:10; 3:2; Col.1:25. In fact Matt is a Dispensationalist, as is MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and the Pulpit Magazine staff that so convincingly corrected you back in November, 2006. So what's your point here?
=================
"And as you have been shown elsewhere, Dispensationalist Paul also wrote, by Inspiration in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 to born again Christians that they were “carnal.”
“I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
============
As I stated at your blog the "carnal" state is a phase all Christians go through. Yeah, compared to Christ, do we really come out of it before the grave? Who is the arbiter? What are the guide lines? How does one (an arbiter) determine who is carnal and who is not? Any way what Paul is talking about here is not a static state, else Romans 8:14,28-30 should be ripped from scripture.
===========
"You men, who are Covenant/Lordship advocates, seem intent on dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture. “Carnal” Christians were invented by modern day Dispensationalists like Chafer? The Bible answered your assumptions."
==========
See my response above.
==============
"It is a sad commentary, and I mean sincerely, to read how you men give your Calvinistic/Covenant presuppositions the preeminence over the Word of God."
==============
It is sad to see that no mater how many times LS/Calvinists explain their position you persist in misrepresenting it. It is noted in Dispensationalist John MacArthur's book that carnal Christianity is not a static state, but a phase. 1 Corintians 3:1-3 in no way presents it as a state. That is an example of you coming at this portion of scripture with presuppositions and making it say what it really does not.
MP
July 09, 2008 6:47 AM
"1 Corintians 3:1-3 in no way presents it as a state."
Amen.
Paul says later in his epistle to this church:
"Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, whoich also you have received, and wherein you stand;
By which also ye are saved, IF you keep in memory what I preached unto you, UNLESS you have believed IN VAIN." 1 Cor. 15:1-2
July 09, 2008 8:45 AM
Lou,
You said………………
”Lordship Salvation adds a commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian in “exchange” for eternal salvation.”
You define the term lordship salvation to suit you. You place me inside of your distorted definition and continue to accuse me of adding works to justification. I have challenged you to produce one bit of evidence and rather than do it, you continue to dig your hole of lies deeper and deeper.
”I perused very briefly your notes on regeneration……..”
If you want to discuss this you will have to do it at True Free Grace where I give plenty of scriptural support. Perhaps confronting the plain and literal meaning of Scripture is something you do not do.
”I think we all agree works have no merit for salvation.”
Do you want to assert that I hold to works salvation or admit that I don’t? Which is it? Make up your mind.
”The problem is that anyone who holds to the LS interpretation of the Gospel adds works to salvation.”
Do you use the term “anyone” like James uses it in James 2:14 when he distinguishes between genuine faith that results in sanctification and a claimed false dead faith. Was James a lordship apostle to assert that genuine faith has works?
”If you can categorically reject that statement as a message of works for salvation then you reject Lordship Salvation as John MacArthur and Mark Pierson define how a man is justified.”
What arrogance to put me on trial and insult Mark by demanding that I agree with your view of a Biblical passage. You miss the point here Lou. You have accused me of works justification and have no proof. Just because someone does not agree with your interpretation of a passage, does not mean they affirm works justification.
The bottom line is that you are so obsessed in accusing people, that you are like Joe McCarthy going around accusing everyone of being communists. You are doing the same thing with this issue and it is time for an Edward R. Murrow to call you own your half truths, lies, and bullying tactics.
July 09, 2008 9:28 AM
Good Lord!
This is verging on hatred! You would never believe you are all worshipping the same God!
No wonder people are flocking away from the churches in droves!
July 09, 2008 9:32 AM
"This is verging on hatred!"
No it's not. How can you judge our hearts like that.
I do hate sin though. But I love people, as Wayne and Mark do. We love Lou, and lou loves us. that doesn' mean we can't debate, and even argue.
I have had some heated arguments with my lovely wife, whom I love with all my heart. So to argue with others is understandable within the church.
The thing I have to watch out for is pride, moreso than hatred.
Hope that helps.
July 09, 2008 9:41 AM
It helps a little Donsands, thank you. I would not now use the word hatred.
But it doesn't get round my problem that one hooks the whole of one's spiritual life around an "interpretation" or "opinion".
Interpretations and opinions are obviously fiercely contested, as is religion in general.
When Jazzycat says: "In my opinion..." I am tempted to ask "what is god's opinion?". Not all opinions can be correct, so how is one to know which is the correct opinion/interpretation?
I return to my point, a truly omnipotent God who really wants all mankind to join him in heaven would not have had the bible written in such a way as to permit ambiguity.
Presumably you think that Muslims are not among the elect? Why did God, in his wisdom, create a situation where a significant proportion of humanity will be excluded from heaven, simply because of which culture they happened to be born in? What chance does a little Muslim baby born in Afghanistan have of getting to know Jesus Christ?
I don't think that is the sort of God I would want to believe in. The whole thing smacks of delusion and superstition, I'm afraid.
The bible can mean anything you want it to, by being selective in the bits you quote and the bits you ignore (e.g. bats being birds).
July 09, 2008 10:08 AM
Maalie,
Since you have had a history here of mocking, ridicule and then running away to hide when your world-view has been seriously challenged, I am not going to waste my time refuting your nonsense.
I believe Daniel would be willingly to explain some things to you, but then you once bailed out on him when he successfully refuted your folly. Go to his website if you want to seriously explore Christianity.
July 09, 2008 10:27 AM
>I am not going to waste my time refuting your nonsense.
Of course my interpretation of that is that you are beyond debate. Since you are slavishly bound to an outdated book, you are not able to actually discuss alternatives.
I withdrew from the "something out of nothing" discussion out of exasperation. You were arguing from personal incredulity, not evidence.
To say that it could only happen by means of a creator is only another way of saying "I don't know".
I made it very clear that cosmology is a young science and we may not yet know all the answers. But that does not mean there aren't any. A couple of hundred years ago we did not know about radio waves, aircraft, penicillin or computers. 60 years ago we did not understand the genetic code. We understand now the origin and development of life on earth, but not yet the origin of the universe. Maybe it was always there in a matter/time/energy continuum. I gave you plenty of links to follow up your queries, but I doubt that you bothered. You would be scared of it shaking your delusion.
I am quite happy to let you fester in your delusion of inter-continental swimming kangaroos.
July 09, 2008 11:10 AM
Hi Mark :~)
July 09, 2008 11:52 AM
Maalie,
Your hatred of God and the resulting crusade to "prove" His nonexistance is getting old. The delete key is calling out to me here. I am going to ask you to stay out of this discussion. You are clearly using it as an anti-God forum.
Mark
July 09, 2008 11:56 AM
Hi Rose. :-)
July 09, 2008 11:59 AM
Mark, I agree to your request. However I must protest at your word "hatred" (as Donsands did when I used it). Science has no love or hatred. It is simply a cold, clinical, dispassionate, indifferent review of the evidence. Science does not "care" - it merely attempts to offer the most parsimonious explanation based on the evidence.
I am going on holiday tomorrow for a couple of weeks, and I wish all of you well - honestly.
July 09, 2008 1:08 PM
Jazzy:
Your reactions are showing.
The pattern of many Lordship advocates is to do what they can to avoid being pinned down on the reality of what they believe are the requirements for the lost to be born again.
Advocates of the GES’s Crossless/Deityless gospel will not concede that the controversy is over their insistence that the lost can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing anything about the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ. (Rose has stated the heretical views of Hodges and Wilkin are, in her opinion, mere "theory" and/or an acceptable "doctrinal nuance.")
Most Lordship advocates do all they can to steer the discussion toward the results of salvation preferring to avoid discussing, in unvarnished terms apart from the extra-biblical trappings of regeneration before faith, what they insist are the requirements to be born again. In my discussions with Nathan Busenitz I had to repeatedly steer him back to discussing the LS view of how a man receives the gift of eternal life.
Unless I missed it earlier in this thread or elsewhere, it appears you refuse to give a clear, unvarnished answer to whether or not you agree with the obvious meaning of MacArthur’s view of James 4:7-10, which he states is an invitation to the reception of eternal life, then it is not possible to have an honest, transparent discussion with you.
If you have stated a firm conviction about whether or not James 4:7-10 is an invitation to eternal salvation please direct me to it so that I may document your view.
In any event, I’ll leave you with the question as to whether or not you believe MacArthur’s LS view of James 4:7-10 is the invitation to salvation, or is he mistaken?
I encourage you to offer a clear answer just as Mark did at my blog, when he agreed with MacArthur’s view.
Kind regards,
LM
July 10, 2008 3:58 AM
Lou, with all due respect, I must redirect you back to this post. There is a question for the readers there about Ryrie's note on Mark 8:35. You would not like it if I came to your blog and left comments in the meta without dealing with the post, would you?
MP
July 10, 2008 5:37 AM
You mean the way Jazzy opened thread? Regeneration before faith; promoting an off-topic series at his blog?
LM
July 10, 2008 8:07 AM
Lou,
Look who's dancing now. ;-)
July 10, 2008 8:38 AM
Lou,
In responding to your McCarthy-Martuneacism, let me say that I am not a communist, I agree with you on global warming and justification by faith alone. Why don’t you go about the business of producing anything in my writings that add works to a person being saved instead demanding I answer your questions to prove myself. Since you have accused me directly of adding works to justification, your very honesty is on the line with proving your charge.
Your McCarthy tactic is to accuse, accuse, and ask for answers to your questions but you never seem to deal with the Biblical texts that others use to refute you or prove their view. You continually call regeneration before faith extra-biblical and yet won’t deal with SCRIPTURE that makes that point clear. You refuse to interact at True Free Grace. BTW, this is a team blog that Mark and I started.
You have accused Mark of adding works to justification. While Mark and I are not in lock step on every detail, I know for a fact from reading him for over two years that he believes strongly in justification by faith alone and yet you say he is worse than MacArthur in adding works to justification. Perhaps the reason those you falsely accuse of adding works to justification steer you to the results of justification is because that is what the Bible does over and over again. To name a few check out Romans 6-8, Galatians, Ephesians, James, 1 John, 1 Peter, and Hebrews.
Mark has made the point many times that your error is separating believers and disciples into to two separate groups. Your error is most vividly displayed by Jesus in the great commission where he said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Was Jesus adding works to justification with this statement? Was he?
Would teaching them to obey all that I commanded you include Mark 8:35?
July 10, 2008 9:11 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 10, 2008 9:11 AM
"but whoever is willing to lose his life"
That is such a heart wrenching mind vexing statement.
In here is godly sorrow, turning away from sin, and to God, and crying out for forgiveness, and so much more.
This heart, that used to callous, and stone hard, is now cleaned of it's callousness, and turned to flesh.
Only God can change a heart that is as rebellious as a human's.
I think Lou's hang-up is that he doesn't see the human heart as deperately wicked, and totally immersed in the mire of sin, but thinks this evil heart has some light, some softness. Would that be correct?
July 10, 2008 10:56 AM
This November, 2006 comment by "Nate B" at "Pyromaniacs", under the "Dead Horse" post is quite telling -
Nate B. said...
Lou: I have been amazed at the numerous ways in which you and Nathan attempt to spin into a different direction or definition the very clear and precise position Dr. MacArthur articulates in his books.
Lou, we have been amazed at the numerous ways in which you have refused to accept our repeated explanations of what the lordship position actually teaches.
I do not believe the real problem here is with either Dr. MacArthur's writings or with Phil's explanations. The real problem is that you published your book before you fully (or rightly) understood the lordship position.
Now you have no choice but to keep accusing lordship of promoting something that, in reality, it does not.
12:38 PM, November 19, 2006
July 10, 2008 11:11 AM
"Now you have no choice but to keep accusing lordship of promoting something that, in reality, it does not."
That says a lot.
I remember when Harold Camping wrote his book, "1994?", which clearly, and without any uncertainty, declared the Lord Jesus' return in September of 1994.
When the Lord didn't return, I thought Harold would repent, and maybe offer everyone who bought his book their money back.
Nope.
He actually said that he was still right, and he compared himself with Jeremiah, and said if anyone mocked his book then they were probably not a Christian.
Amazing!
Pride. I know, because it happens to me. But the Lord has given me grace, and more grace, so that I was able to repent, and come to the Cross.
July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Don,
I think in your second comment back you have correctly described the Ariminian mindset.
There is real pride in thinking they chose their salvation and God responded by then regenerating them. That kinda makes God like a Doctor who waits until you get well before giving you the medicine!
However, I have yet to find one who can tell me the attribute they used to come to faith that they did not receive from God. Even under their system they cannot escapt the fact that one way or another their salvation is from God.
July 10, 2008 6:32 PM
"..the attribute they used to come to faith that they did not receive from God."
Here's what a good friend of mine said to me, when we debated this.
God does regenerate all sinners. You are then on neutral ground. There's no goodness here, just plain neutral. Now, here's the Gospel, "Do you want this good news are not?"
Some say yes and some say no. Neutral ground? I don't see that in Scripture.
But it has to be! Why? Because, if not, then God is unjust.
That's where I and my non-reformed friends end. That's the brick wall in a dead-end we come to.
And I leave it alone now. unless they want to discuss it. Or study the Scriptures together. Scriptures like Romans 9, John 6, & Ephesians 1-2.
July 10, 2008 7:50 PM
Jazzy:
Thanks for reaffirming that you intend to dodge the question about wheteher or not James 4:7-10 is an invitation to salvation, as MacArthur for Lordship Salvation emphatically claims it to be.
Why are you afraid of giving a clear unvarnished answer?
LM
July 11, 2008 12:20 AM
Well, that wraps it up here. You men have reverted to the predictable mantra escape valve of crying, "misrepresentation", using redirects, etc., to avoid the egregious errors of LS which have been documented from the writing of John MacArthur. Lordship Salvation, as defined by MacArthur, is a works based, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
Dozens of capable, highly trained Bible-believing pastors, theologians and commentators have also concluded, based on what MacArthur has put on record that LS is a false Gospel. I am in very good and a large body that knows what LS is and have shown it to be false through additions to the biblical plan of salvation.
The Calvinistic presuppositions do nothing to negate the false teaching of Lordship Salvation.
LM
July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Let's see: LS is being forced through a Chaferian dispensational grid and being found wanting. Beginning with B.B.Warfield I'd have to say that the most of the rest of christendom is cool with that.
July 11, 2008 6:13 AM
BTW, Lou, Four mentions of the word "dispensation" in scripture doth not a system make.
July 11, 2008 6:41 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 11, 2008 12:09 PM
Lou said......
Well, that wraps it up here.
We've been promised that before!
and also.......
Dozens of capable, highly trained Bible-believing pastors, theologians and commentators have also concluded, based on what MacArthur has put on record that LS is a false Gospel.
Wow! Dozens! How can tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of pastors and theologians from the reformation until the present day possibly argue against these present day dozens?
July 11, 2008 4:25 PM
"Dozens of capable, highly trained Bible-believing pastors, theologians and commentators have also concluded, based on what MacArthur has put on record that LS is a false Gospel."
===========
The conclussions of a small sect are not the things that carry weight within mainstream evangelicalism.
July 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home