LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Y'all Wanna See Lou Martuneac When He Is In Defense Mode?

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17893637&postID=6823074750748303347

Feel free to join in the fun.

Labels:

9 Comments:

Blogger mark pierson said...

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).

July 01, 2008 12:57 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

From page 250 of the latest edition of TGATJ -

"One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the Epistles comes in James 4:7-10. While James directs most of his epistle to genuine believers, it is also evident that he is concerned about those who are not genuine. He wants no one to be deceived regarding true salvation, so he calls for a real, living, saving faith that is distinct from the dead faith of chapter 2. He states his objective in 5:20. It is to see "the sinner converted from the error of his way and his soul saved from death."

So, yes I believe MacArthur's view of James 4:7-10 is a very good snap shot of what repentance looks like and that it is perfectly in line with what the Bible as a whole teaches on "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance".

July 01, 2008 12:59 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

See how the Pulpit Magazine staff tried unsuccessfully to correct Lou's deliberate mischaracterizations of MacArthur's position here...

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/10/a-few-more-thoughts-on-lordship-part-2/#comments

July 01, 2008 1:33 PM

 
Blogger jazzycat said...

Mark,
I think the differences come down to the power and source of regeneration. IMO, when you believe God is the source and cause of regeneration as Calvinists do, it will follow that it comes with life changing power. Conversely, when you believe that man makes a final free will decision and God responds by imparting regeneration, then you see man causing and God responding.

Calvinists see a faith that is a gift from God that includes affections and new desires of obedience, love, and discipleship. Non-Calvinists see a faith that is a mere human decision that makes a work out of anything other than mere belief.

Without agreement on God's power, there will not be reconciliation.

July 02, 2008 8:24 AM

 
Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 02, 2008 10:57 AM

 
Blogger Maalie said...

It's all down to interpretation, isn't it? The bible can mean anything you want it to. Who is to say any one person's interpretation is "more right" than another's?

It appears that you folk choose to adopt the interpretation of a guy who died in the fifteenth century. C'mon lads, we have come a long way in our understanding of the universe since then.

July 02, 2008 3:06 PM

 
Blogger Daniel said...

Maalie said,

It's all down to interpretation, isn't it? The bible can mean anything you want it to. Who is to say any one person's interpretation is "more right" than another's?

It appears that you folk choose to adopt the interpretation of a guy who died in the fifteenth century. C'mon lads, we have come a long way in our understanding of the universe since then.


One's hermeneutic plays a great deal into one's interpretation.

The person who comes to scripture with the mindset that these are the incoherent scribblings of a collection of bronze age babblers who may well have had a brush with the truth, but may or may not have managed in their pre-modern ignorance to record it as such - is going to (generally) have a very different "interpretation" from one who regards the writings as holy, accurate, straightforward, and literally true.

When I read the bible with the presumption that it was written by a bunch of ignorant cavemen, and that most of the "contradiction" in the text was there because these poor primitive saps simply had no clue that the earth was round, revolved around the sun, and was billions of years old - when I came to the text full of pride and arrogance, and certain that it was mostly wrong, all I ever got out of it was the echo of whatever I brought into it. If I thought a thing good and moral, and I found it in the text - I agreed with the text; but where when my world view or supposed "knowledge" came into conflict with any idea or truth that I found in scripture, I regarded scripture as wrong, in order to hold onto my own preconceived, and worldly opinion.

The truth was that when I set myself and my intellect above scripture as a judge and arbiter - as the one who could pick and choose what was good to believe, and what could be discarded as primitive superstition or cultural baggage, I was really setting myself up to use scripture to ape my own already held convictions, and if someone else didn't agree with my a priori convictions, I could argue that they didn't agree with the bible - or at least my "interpretation" of the bible.

The problem was, for me at least, that I was running against people who were basically doing exactly what I was doing. Reading the bible, and deciding what was true in it based upon their own life experience, moral comfort level, and intellect. Our disagreement was not so much over interpretation as it was over the notions that we were imposing upon scripture - that is, the notions that we brought into scripture, and were using scripture to justify.

The day I cast that mentality aside and began to believe the whole bible, that was the day that every contradiction disappeared, and the whole book became unified in its one message. That was the day that the text became comprehensive, unified, and magnificently beautiful. I marvel -to this day- at how blind I was in my arrogance and ignorance;

Which is why I can certainly sympathize with your remarkably insightful remarks.

It is certainly all comes down to interpretation for every individual who continues to exalt himself or herself against the text. Having refused to humble themselves before God's truth, they are left without the grace to understand it, and in their darkness each one grasps at the meaning of the text according to whatever light their own intellect, upbringing, and moral filter allows - and it is understandable therefore to hear those who are in darkness themselves, attempting to lead others in their own blindness.

Scripture says as much.

The bible can mean anything you want it to - right up until you believe that it is actually God's word, and that God has not allowed it to become corrupt, and that God will give you wisdom to understand it, if you really are willing to understand it.

The problem is many people are not willing - they either don't want God at all, or they certainly don't want to "liberty limiting" God of scripture. They want their sin, and they don't want a God who is going to make them feel bad for pursuing and ever sinfully permissive lifestyle. They are living for themselves, and have no room in themselves for an authority over them - much less a moral one. Scripture judges them, and they hate what it says, and they hate the God who says it.

You are mistaken therefore when you presume that these men here are choosing to adopt the interpretation of some guy from the 1500s. What is happening is that these gentlemen have made the same choice as some guy from the 1500s, they have chosen to believe the bible is true, and because they have, they draw the conclusions they do.

I think you err because you do not understand the way one's hermeneutic will influence their interpretation. If I think that the bible is true, and so and so thinks the bible is true, but they think it is okay to subjectively "spiritualize" passages, and I think that the moment you add speculation to scripture you pollute it with your own opinion, even if we both believe the bible is true, we may have different "interpretations" of a given text because I am unwilling to add my own inventiveness to the text, and someone else may not feel that this restriction has any value.

I may disagree with someone's interpretation - but that is an intramural disagreement if they are a genuine, Spirit filled believer.

The trouble with Christianity is that so many people think you become a Christian by joining a church and calling yourself a Christian - or by going to bible studies, or by praying. These things don't make anyone a Christian - they just make someone an official member of an organized religion.

Christianity is not a club or organization that we join by signing a card and paying our dues; we can certainly hang around with Christians, and call ourselves Christians, but until God's Spirit indwells us in answer to His promise that when we place our trust in Him to save us from our sin He will do so in Christ's death and resurrection, we are Christian in name only, and shall certainly pay for our sins throughout all eternity starting as soon as we die. It is therefore rather a pressing thing to learn the difference between false Christianity and the real deal, and to learn that if there is a God, and he has condemned the world for its sin, and this same God extends a standing invitation to sinners that if they turn from their sin and in faith trust in Christ they will escape His wrath - I say, it is a pressing thing to examine the offer at the very least, before it is voided by our demise.

July 02, 2008 4:35 PM

 
Blogger donsands said...

"The bible can mean anything you want it to - right up until you believe that it is actually God's word, and that God has not allowed it to become corrupt, and that God will give you wisdom to understand it, if you really are willing to understand it."

Very good words here. And your entire comment was such a blessing to read.

John, the beloved disciple of Jesus said this: "That which was from the begining, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us" 1 John 1:1-3

John is speaking here of Jesus, there can be no doubt. But do believe John?

July 05, 2008 10:01 AM

 
Blogger jazzycat said...

The following comment was censored by Lou at his blog:

Lou and others,
Please note that I have started a series on regeneration at TRUE FREE GRACE This series should answer a lot of the questions that have been posed here. Justification by faith alone by a faith that is POWERFUL because it comes from a regenerated heart. This is easily provable as this series will show.

The questions and false characterizations of Calvinism are flying fast and furious here, but if anyone wants to interact on the subject of regeneration, which is required to be saved, then I will be happy to see you there!

July 05, 2008 10:13 AM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home