I'm sorry to be so dense, but I don't know what that means.

Perhaps a definition of 'righteousness' is in order.



Ditto with "Self-justification". What is it? I may do it and don't even know!



What else are you suggesting we repent of other than sins?

Here is something from Desiring God and John Piper on the Gospel vs. Moralism from the 2006 Desiring God ConferenceTim Keller on the Gospel:The gospel is: you are more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe yet you can be more accepted and loved than you ever dared hope at the same time because Jesus Christ lived and died in your place. . . .“True faith saith not: ‘What have I done? . . . What do I deserve?’ But it saith: ‘what hath Christ done? What doth he deserve?’ . . . Therefore he that apprehendeth Christ by faith . . . may be bold to glory that he is righteous. How? Even by that precious jewel, Christ Jesus, which he possesseth by faith.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians)

EXACTLY. Yes. I believe this.

Really enjoyed that reply

You did? Well did you notice she said......

True faith saith not: ‘What have I done? . . . What do I deserve?’ But it saith: ‘what hath Christ done? What doth he deserve?’ . . . Therefore he that apprehendeth Christ by faith . . . may be bold to glory that he is righteous. How? Even by that precious jewel, Christ Jesus, which he possesseth by faith.”

I've been saying the same thing repeatedly. It's ok to say one is righteous....but not of oneself.....I am found righteous not because of what I've done, but all because of what he's done for me. But if I dare say it around here Baker, you call me a Pharisee or *gasp* the hate monger ........Phelps. Now ......you said this:

Jesus is telling us to be perfect AS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN is perfect. Until I am convinced otherwise, I am going to assume Jesus is talking about God. That isn't the description of a God that turns his back on people in their time of tragedy because He's been slighted, nor is it the character of a being that would order the slaughter of innocent children because their parents worship other Gods.

Well then you've chosen to NOT believe in the whole counsel of God, picking and choosing what you wish to believe. Ok, so how do you know Matthew 5 represents the true God and not some of the OT scripture that you choose not to believe? What are you going on here? Also, if you believe what Jesus said in Matthew 5 why don't you believe the other things that Jesus said when he quoted the OT?

As I said, He's talking about our attitude. We are to love our enemy? How do we do that? It's not the warm fuzzies he's talking but to love by doing (Good Samaritan is the example). This whole section as I said is all about being willing to suffer for another....even our enemy if it's applicable. Also we are to be salt and light and what does salt and light do? But this in no way says God is not going to bring judgment to our enemies. Do you see that here? He just doesn't want us to take vengeance in our own hands because there's a better way. Love them to Christ if they are willing to come. Our lives are the only Jesus they may ever see or the only bible they may ever read.

How do we become perfect Baker? I agree that we need to be perfect as the father is perfect. Agree. But the only way we can be perfect....is CHRIST IN US and the only way we can do that is to LEAVE the world behind by turning in the opposite direction. For those who don't they will be the ones God doesn't hear. Paul said this:

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope in glory: Whom we preach warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Col 1:27-18

We can only be perfect one way. That is by him as Ignat said. John MacArthur says the same thing. He says nothing different. He would agree with the statement by Ignat as well. John Piper is excellent and I know MacArthur's quoted him before.

As far as preaching love and not God's justice, there are preachers that preach both. There was a huge revival maybe even the largest ever when John Edwards preached his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" message. Thousands came to Christ and the message was more fire and brimstone than love. Some respond to that and some respond to "God is Love" messages. Right now Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) have a successful ministry preaching that mankind is very sick and need of a cure. They say we are so busy preaching the cure it's falling on deaf ears because people don't realize they have a sin sickness. Nobody cares about a cancer cure until they find out they have cancer. It's the same with the spiritual. So the preachers of today are preaching heavy on grace and very light (if at all) on law and are not getting through.

"Hell's Best Kept Secret" by Ray Comfort is probably one of the best I've ever heard........and it definitely makes one think. You can hear it here:

Link

But Christians also repent of their righteousness. To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification I'm sorry to be so dense, but I don't know what that means. Perhaps a definition of 'righteousness' is in order.To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification

I don't get this either. "Christians" are declared righteous at the moment they believe.....(Romans 4:3)

To be righteous is to be right with God. How and why would we want to "repent" of that? Doesn't make sense.

Now if they are talking "self righteousness then that is a sin....period and stems from pride. We are to repent for that so maybe that's what's meant here?

The OT perception of God was a creator that spared those that towed the line and discounted the lives and suffering of those who didn't. The Old Testament God is not this God. Period.

The OT perception of God is NOT diff than the NT perception of God.

You say I'm being brainwashed? Well then why do I get the feeling you're following the doctrine of Marcion? Maybe you're being influenced by him? He pointed out this same thing as you do and then set about to remove from the NT any influences from the Jewish Creator God because the Creator God was evil. He ended up getting rid of most of the gospels btw in his version of scripture.

The reality is there is NO diff between the images of God presented in the OT and NT. The NT writers saw a similar continuity between the OT God and the God they experienced thru Jesus.

There is Love in the OT
There is Judgment in the NT
The main diff is a diff between judgment within history and judgment at the end of history.

There is love in the OT. God does NOT present himself first and foremost as a God of Judgment but a God of Love. He said this way back in Exodus 34:6-7:

And as he passed in front of Moses proclaiming, "The LORD the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger abounding in LOVE and faithfulness, maintaining Love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

This is God presenting himself to Moses. Notice how he first states his compassion, forgiveness, faithfulness etc. He then notes this is not to be taken advantage of. Those who do not respond to his love will not escape. He is loving but is not an indulgent parent. He as a perfect God will bring justice.

Both Testaments reveal a God of love who is also a God of justice. He offers his love and forgiveness urging us to repent and escape the terrible and eternal judgments at the end of history. Jesus came as the lamb the first time and will come as the Lion of Judah the next.

Do a word count on judge or judgment sometime in the NT. In the NIV it comes up with 108 verses. Guess who speaks of this more than any other? Jesus. Yes, the same Jesus who spoke the wonderful words of Matthew 5 that you quoted yourself.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

So if you don't believe God is going to turn his back on anyone.....then who exactly is the one that's going to hell Baker?

Here is an explanation of "repenting of our righteousness." This is basically looking at the sin underneath all of our sins. Why do we do the things that are good? Why should we live a good moral life? The Pharisees did. Then why did Jesus blast them and tell the people that "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt 9;13)


The gospel is: “I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey.” Religion is: “Iobey, therefore I am accepted.” So the gospel differs from both religion and irreligion.

• You can seek to be your own “lord and savior” by breaking the law of God. But you can also do so by keeping the law in order to earn your Salvation or trying to earn favor with God…blessings… a good life etc.

• Disbelief in the gospel of grace, of course, keeps the unconverted from God. But a lack of deep belief in the gospel is also the main cause of spiritual deadness, fear, and pride in Christians, because our hearts continue to act on the basis of “I obey, therefore I am accepted.”

Our failure to forgive others is not simply a lack of obedience, but afailure to believe we are saved by grace, too.

Our lying in order to cover up a mistake is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to find our acceptance in God rather than in
human approval.

• So we do not “get saved” by believing the gospel and then “grow” by trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. Believing the gospel is not only the way to meet God, but also the way to grow into him.

It is important to consider how the gospel affects and transforms the very act of repentance. In religion, the purpose of repentance is basically to keep God happy so he will continue to bless you and answer your prayers. This means that “religious repentance” is selfish, self-righteous, and bitter all the way to the bottom.

Religious repentance is selfish. In religion we are sorry for sin mainly because of its consequences to us. It will bring us punishment and we want to avoid that. So we repent.

• The gospel tells us that sin can’t ultimately bring us into condemnation (Rom 8:1). Its heinousness is therefore what it does to God; it displeases and dishonors him.

• Thus in religion, repentance is self-centered; the gospel makes it Godcentered. In religion, we are mainly sorry for the consequences of sin, but in the gospel we are sorry for the sin itself.

Religious repentance is self-righteous. The repentance easily becomes a form of atoning for the sin. Religious repentance often becomes a form of self-flagellation in which we convince God (and ourselves) that we are so truly miserable and regretful that we deserve to be forgiven.

• In the gospel, however, we know that Jesus suffered and was miserable for our sin. We do not make ourselves suffer in order to merit forgiveness. We simply receive the forgiveness earned by Christ.

• 1 John 1:8 says that God forgives us because he is “just.” This is a remarkable statement. It would be unjust of God now to ever deny us forgiveness, because Jesus earned our acceptance!

• In religion, we are earning our forgiveness with our repentance, but in the gospel we are just receiving it.

Religious repentance is bitter all the way down. In religion, our only hope is to live a good enough life for God to bless us. Therefore every instance of sin and repentance is traumatic, unnatural and horribly threatening.

• Only under great duress does a religious person admit they have sinned because their only hope is their moral goodness.

• But in the gospel, the knowledge of our acceptance in Christ makes it easier to admit we are flawed because we know we won’t be cast off if we confess the true depths of our sinfulness.

Our hope is in Christ’s righteousness, not our own, so it is not so traumatic to admit our weaknesses and lapses.

Here are two quotes to chew on as well. The first from Martin Luther on righteousness and one from Richard Lovelace.

There is a righteousness which Paul calls “the righteousness of faith.” God
imputes it to us apart from our works — in other words, it is passive
righteousness… So then, have we nothing to do to obtain this righteousness?
No, nothing at all! For this righteousness comes by doing nothing, hearing
nothing, knowing nothing, but rather in knowing and believing this only — that
Christ has gone to the right hand of the Father, not to become our judge, but to
become for us our wisdom, our righteousness, our holiness, our salvation! Now
God sees no sin in us, for in this heavenly righteousness sin has no place. So
now we may certainly think, “Although I still sin, I don’t despair, because Christ
lives, who is both my righteousness and my eternal life.” In that righteousness
I have no sin, no fear, no guilty conscience, no fear of death. I am indeed a
sinner in this life of mine and in my own righteousness, but I have another life,
another righteousness above this life, which is in Christ, the Son of God.
Christians never completely understand [this] themselves, and thus do not take
advantage of it when they are troubled and tempted. So we have to constantly
teach it, repeat it, and work it out in practice. Anyone who does not understand
this righteousness or cherish it in the heart and conscience will continually be
buffeted by fears and depression. Nothing gives peace like this passive
righteousness. The troubled conscience has no cure for its desperation and
feeling of unworthiness unless it takes hold of the forgiveness of sins by grace,
offered free of charge in Jesus Christ, which is this passive or Christian
righteousness… Once you are in Christ, the Law is the greatest guide for your
life, but until you have Christian righteousness, all the law can do is to show
you how sinful and condemned you are. But if we first receive Christian
righteousness, then we can use the law, not for our salvation, but for his honor
and glory, and to lovingly show our gratitude.
– Martin Luther


Only a fraction of the present body of professing Christians are solidly
appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives… Many… have a
theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day-to-day existence they
rely on their sanctification for their justification… drawing their assurance of
acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion,
their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious,
willful disobedience.

Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing
stand upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ: you are accepted, looking outward in faith and
claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for
acceptance, relaxing in that quality of trust which will produce increasing
sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude… Much that we have
interpreted as a defect of sanctification in church people is really an outgrowth
of their loss of bearing with respect to justification. Christians who are no
longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart from their present
spiritual achievements, are subconsciously radically insecure persons… Their
insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce, defensive assertion of their own
righteousness, and defensive criticism of others. They come naturally to hate
other cultural styles and other races, the "sinners" in society in order to bolster their
own security anddischarge their suppressed anger.
– Richard Lovelace

So if we are justified and sanctified and made righteous by Christ and we believe in Him for our righteous standing...How can God Abandon America?

Is Macarthur saying that all we need to do as a nation is stop doing all these "bad things" then God will be happy and bless us again?

Here is the real issue with the whole sermon on "Has God Abandoned America?" It is driving us to be self-righteous and earn favor from God. This line of thought is driving us to be moralists and depend on our deeds to please God.

Moralists and religious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through religion, “religious” pride. (”I am more moral and spiritual than other people, so God owes me to listen to my prayers and take me to heaven. God cannot let just anything happen to me–he owes me a happy life. I’ve earned it!”).

But Christians are those who have adopted a whole new system of approach to God. They may have had both religious phases and irreligious phases in their lives. But they have come to see that their entire reason for both their irreligion and their religion was essentially the same and essentially wrong!

Christians come to see that both their sins and their best deeds have all really been ways of avoiding Jesus as savior (self-righteousness) They come to see that Christianity is not fundamentally an invitation to get more religious. A Christian comes to say: “though I have often failed to obey the moral law, the deeper problem was why I was trying to obey it! Even my efforts to obey it has been just a way of seeking to be my own savior. In that mindset, even if I obey or ask for forgiveness, I am really resisting the gospel and setting myself up as Savior.” To “get the gospel” is turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus’ record for a relationship with God.

Jonathan Edwards points out that “true virtue” is only possible for those who have experienced the grace of the gospel. Any person who is trying to earn their salvation does “the right thing” in order to get into heaven, or in order to better their self-esteem (etc.). In other words, the ultimate motive is self-interest.

But persons who know they are totally accepted already do “the right thing” out of sheer delight in righteousness for its own sake. Only in the gospel do you obey God for God’s sake, and not for what God will give you. Only in the gospel do you love people for their sake (not yours), do good for its own sake (not yours), and obey God for his sake (not yours). Only the gospel makes “doing the right thing” a joy and delight, not a burden or a means to an end.

What is Macarthur calling people to do? God is abandoning us because we are not following the rules?

BAKERSTREET POSTS:


KFC asks, Also, if you believe what Jesus said in Matthew 5 why don't you believe the other things that Jesus said when he quoted the OT?


This is a good question and understanding the meaning behind St.Matthew 5:17-19 helps to answer it.

In this passage, Jesus is stressing the perennial value of the OT. It is the Word of God and becasue it has divine authority it deserves total respect. The Old Law enjoined precepts of a moral, legal and liturgical type. The OLd Law promulagated through Moses and explained by the prophets was God's gift to His people and a kind of anticipation of the definitive Law wich the Christ or Messiah would lay down. The legal and liturgical precepts of the Old Law were laid down by God for a specific stage in salvation history; that is up to the First Coming of Christ and Christians are not obliged to observe them. Its moral precepts still hold good in the NT becasue they are for the most part specific divine positive promulatations of the Natural Law.

Here, our Lord gives those moral precepts even greater weight and meaning. So, Jesus was not only given to men as a Redeemer in whom they are to trust, but also as a Lawgiver whom they are to obey.

BAKERSTREET POSTS:

The people in the time of Jesus when He gave is Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes were confused over this thing. Christianity especially the groups which derived from Judasim had to face the question of the relationship between what Jesus had proclaimed and demanded and the Old Law given to the Fathers. "The law and prophets" which was clearly from God and represented His Will had been handed on to each generation with binding force. And it is Jesus who is to abolish it, who had professed of Himself that He was prepared to 'fulfill all Justice" 3:15.

The confusion wasn't over the perception of the God of the OT and and Jesus of the NT per se, rather over the perception of His perfecting or completing the precepts of the Old Law into the new Justice, if you will. The "law and the prophets" are GOd's revelation, but they are not yet definitive. His Will is revealed there, but not in its purest form.

St.Matt. 5:17-43, Our Lord begins with the law of Moses and pursues the theme of His new Law, His new Justice, further. V. 21-26 gives us an example of the way that Christ brought the law of Moses to its fulfillment by explaining the deeper meaning of the commandments of that law.

The OT is a shadow of the salvation of what is to come in the NT, in their fulfillment through Jesus Christ. We can no longer go back behind this fulfillment which CHrist Jesus has brought about.

v. 18, if we read the OT we can only do it in light of Jesus Christ's revelation. What we must take away from this is that God has spoken not only in the law and through the prophets, but also "through His Son" Heb. 1:1.

V. 20 sums it all up. "For I say to you, unless your justice far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." So it seems that something absolutely new is meant by this "justice" and it's not a question of a difference of degree, but of kind.

IGNAT LOYOLA POSTS:


LULAPILGRIM POSTS:


The notion of righteousness or justice can be found in St.Matt. 1:19; 3:15 in Romans 1:17, 18-32; 3: 21-24. A righteous person is one who sincerely strives to do the will of God which is found in His commandments. “Righteousness” in the language of Scripture is the same as what we now call “ holiness”. 1St.Jn 2:29; 3:7-10; Apoc. 22:11; Gen. 15:6 and Deut. 9:4.

As relating to the Beatitudes, righteousness goes to our trying to be ‘perfect’ as God is perfect. Our Lord is not asking us to simply have a vague desire for righteousness, but we should hunger and thirst for it that is, we should love and strive earnestly to seek what make us righteous in God’s eyes. Practically speaking, a person who genuinely wants to attain holiness should strive to keep the commandments, believe and love God for His sake, develop an intimate relationship with God in prayer, and make a valiant effort in one’s duties of state of life, meeting, as best one can, all social, professional and family responsibilities.

IGNAT LOYOLA POSTS:

It seems to me this ‘religious pride’ that you speak of is the same as that of the scribes and the Pharisees in St. Matt. 5:20. “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” They had distorted the spirit of the Law, putting emphasis on its externals. For them, external fulfillment of the precepts of the Law was a guarantee of a person’s salvation. It’s saying, if I fulfill this, then I am righteous, I am holy and God is duty bound to save me.

For someone with this approach to sanctification, it is really not God who saves. Man saves himself through external works of the Law. Christ, in effect is saying here that the notion of salvation developed by the scribes and the Pharisees must be rejected.

In other words, justification and sanctification, is a grace from God and man’s role is one of cooperating with that grace by being faithful to it. Jesus gives the same teaching even in a clearer way in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. It was also the origin of one of St.Paul’s battles with the “Judaisers”.

KFC POSTS:

KFC, maybe I'm missing something I don't understand what do you mean by saying the main difference is a difference between judgment within history and at the end of history?

We agree that Sacred Scripture is divine Revelation from the Author, the Holy Spirit. That it's God's communication to us about Himself, the universe, people and their relation to Him, and with each other, and about their final destination, their salvation. That both the Old and the New Testaments are needed together, intertwined, for one supports the other. That God spoke to the Hebrews in many ways, and by many means.

That Doctrines had to be thought out, lived out, even pieced together over centuries as God prepared Israel for the Messiah, until finally the Apostles were instructed by the Messiah Himself. Pope Gregory 1 the Great said, "With the progress of the times, the knowledge of the spiritual fathers increased, for, in the science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the prophets more than Moses, and the Apostles more than the prophets. With Christ and the Apostles, general Revelation ended.


Christ was the fulfillment of the Law of the Old Testament St.Matt 5:17 and the ultimate Teacher and Lawgiver of humanity. The Apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, perfectly intact, the faith given to them by the Master. "Thou hast learned from many who can witness to it the doctrine which I hand down, give it unto the keeping of men thou canst trust, men who will know how to teach it to others besides themselves 2 Tim 2:2. "It is for thee to hold fast to the doctrine handed on to thee, the charge committed to thee" 2Tim3:14.

As you have been saying all along, there is no contradiction or conflict between the OT and the NT. (and here I would add, that as long as one considers Christ, Himself, as Divine). In the Old Testament, we hear from God. In the New Testament, God comes as the Holy Spirit, and Christ. They are one and the same, the Blessed Trinity. Jesus answered a question, "I came to fulfill the Law".

We hear all the time that God of the OT was one way, e.g. angry and strict, while Christ Jesus was mild and spoke of love, love, love in the New Testament. When,in fact, Christ in the NT calls us to the same rigors of obedience as did God in the OT...and His Justice is consistently meted out in the same way as well.

To Ignat:

The gospel is: “I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey.” Religion is: “Iobey, therefore I am accepted.” So the gospel differs from both religion and irreligion.

Absolutely agree here. We obey out of love. It's love that motivates us not fear. Like a child wishes to please his earthly parents so too do we desire to please God.

Our failure to forgive others is not simply a lack of obedience, but afailure to believe we are saved by grace, too.

I can see how it can be both or either or. Most iikely it may have to do with the maturity of the Christian.

In religion, we are mainly sorry for the consequences of sin, but in the gospel we are sorry for the sin itself.

Yes, as children of God, what saddens God should sadden us as well. That's what is meant by mouring over sin. God mourns over sin. It breaks his heart.

1 John 1:8 says that God forgives us because he is “just.” This is a remarkable statement. It would be unjust of God now to ever deny us forgiveness, because Jesus earned our acceptance!

Yes, he is just, but the whole conversation here on this blog is God forgiving everybody regardless. It's being said here that God will not turn his back on everyone even those that only cry out to him because their circumstances are now too painful to bear. They don't neccessarily want him but want their tribulation to cease. When you read 1 John 1:8-9 it's very clear that there is a condition attached....it says "if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We must get to that place first. When we do, he's more than willing to wipe the slate clean forever. He is a just God and his justice has to be delivered in a righteous manner.

To confess means to say the same thing that God says about sin. Forgiveness and fellowship within the family of God is restored when we confess.

Is Macarthur saying that all we need to do as a nation is stop doing all these "bad things" then God will be happy and bless us again?

What is Macarthur calling people to do? God is abandoning us because we are not following the rules?

No, MacArthur is saying we as a nation need to turn back to God. Look at the scripture verses MacArthur uses. In Psalm 81 it says when we turn back to God as a Nation even his enemies will submit themselves to his authority. He makes a very good case using Israel as an example. He's not looking at the "works" he's looking at our rejection. The works are just evidence where our heart lies. God did indeed turn his back on Israel many times, he said he was done with them. Why? Because they did what was right in their own eyes. Israel was called an unfaithful wife. She went after other gods rejecting the one true God time and time again. God is portrayed as the faithful husband waiting for his wife to come back to him.

Here is the real issue with the whole sermon on "Has God Abandoned America?" It is driving us to be self-righteous and earn favor from God. This line of thought is driving us to be moralists and depend on our deeds to please God.

I don't think so at all. Yes, some may draw that conclusion but MacArthur's heart is for us to get right with God and everything else will fall into place. He's not speaking about us cleaning up our act outside of calling on God. . He's calling us to go to God for cleansing first. When God cleans us up, then we will clean up our act in order to please the God who forgave us. We realize at that point that he gave his life for us. It's out of gratefulness and love we do what we do for him.

To Lula:

KFC, maybe I'm missing something I don't understand what do you mean by saying the main difference is a difference between judgment within history and at the end of history?

In the OT judgment normally happened within history. When Israel sinned they were not told they would go to hell like the NT but instead they would be punished by the Midianites or the Assyrians, etc. There were many judgments in the OT. In Judges the Canaanites, Moabites, Midianites, Ammonites and Philistines are all used to punish Israel. Later on we see the Assyrians and Babylonians carry Israel and Judah away into captivity. First they were being judged by the use of smaller local groups of people then after judged by the use of great empires. In each case the judgment happens within history.

What the people of the OT hoped for was to die at a ripe old age with a good name seeing their children and grandchildren born to carry on their name. The judgments in the OT are those which speak to such hopes warning of whole families being wiped out or of people dying when they were still young. Check into the ancient belief system in the Day of Atonement for instance. In that festival it was hoped that they would not be judged unworthy to live yet another year.

.

That has nothing to do with why I compare you to Phelps. That's why it is useless to debate it with you because you simply refuse to accept what I am saying. I am comparing you to Phelps because you say basically the same things, that because of what my and your neighbors do that God will purposely allow harm to the nation as a whole.

MacArthur says it plainly in this sermon. 9/11 was a manifestation of the Wrath of God. You can deny he said it, but it is there in the transcript, and it is there in the podcast. Falwell said it, Robertson says it, MacArthur says it, and you said it, though roudaboutly, here.

There is no way that I would withold my hand from helping my daughter in a moment of tragedy because of what someone did in another house, or another city, or another state. You believe that God has turned his back on the NATION because of moralisms that most people have no control over whatsoever. If you believe that Katrina, or 9/11, or even a car accident is the hand of God smiting or witholding aid from an unbeliever, then you are no better than Phelps, period.

You may not shout it at funerals, and you may not lord it over people, but that just means the belief is hidden under a bushel. In the end, you see some tragedy and hardship and lay the blame for it on other people's sinfulness. That'd disgusting, and I refuse to not call it that when I see it. You are making God into something less than we are, and for that, I have little respect for you.

KFC,

You said the below...

I don't think so at all. Yes, some may draw that conclusion but MacArthur's heart is for us to get right with God and everything else will fall into place. He's not speaking about us cleaning up our act outside of calling on God. . He's calling us to go to God for cleansing first. When God cleans us up, then we will clean up our act in order to please the God who forgave us. We realize at that point that he gave his life for us. It's out of gratefulness and love we do what we do for him.

But I think you are assuming that in the message. Macarthur never calls anyone to put on the righteouness of Christ in the sermon. If you were a non-Christian listening or a legalistic one listening...what would you think you should do to get God to not abandon America?

Paul's moral calls always, always are included with the Gospel presentation. This is Romans. Romans does not end at chap. 1. It is just the same with Israel. God saves them from Egypt, takes them into the desert then gives them the 10 commandments. God does not give them the 10 commandments in Egypt and say, "If you follow these then I will save you."

Listen to the message and see if Macarthur calls anyone to go to Jesus for their righteousness. If he does not, then we are left to create some form of our own self-righteousness to save our nation.

Here is the eternal loop your logic is stuck in, KFC.

1. MacArthur says we have turned our backs on God by accepting homosexuality, looking at a lot of porn, yadda yadda, and God's "wrath" is abandoning the nation to its sin.
2. We will remain in our abandoned state until we turn back to God, the byproduct being our children dying from hurricanes, volcanoes, and terrorism.
3. BUT, we are filthy, evil creatures devoid of personal righteousness that can't reject sin without God's help.
4. ...and God is in "laughing at our calamity" mode until we repent and turn back toward God (see step 3).

From there it is just 3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4, over and over and over, all the while people are flying airplanes into buildings, people are killed by hurricanes and volcanoes, and we're supposedly to blame.

That's why MacArthur is barely more palatable than Phelps. He says we can't overcome sin on our own, and then expects us to in an abandoned state. Phelps claims we can't overcome sin on our own, and leaves us abandoned by God. He may be disgusting, but at least his model doesn't demand what it disallows. He just recognizes that only a hateful God would make such a system, and embraces a hateful God.

You are unable accept sin, or personal righteousness, or God tolerating sin, or an unjust God that would punish us for not being personally righteous. Jesus doesn't fix it, because salvation relies upon repentance, and we only find repentance through God because we are inherently sinful without salvation. Worse, it isn't even OUR sins we're tasked to do something about, but our "national tolerance" of the abandonment of God, meaning the the self-righteous dealing with the motes in other people's eyes.

So, you're left with a hateful God that you can't accept as hateful, or an errant Bible that you can't accept as errant. I can deal with an errant book over a hateful God any day of the week. For Phelps, this works because it validates their hate. For you, this is not unlike the Catholic Church's futile need to hold to concepts of earthly manifestations of infallibility.

IGNAT POSTS:

Why did Christ Jesus blast them? The essence of Christ's message can be expressed in these few words. "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." St. Matt 4:17. He identified the specific kinds of behaving which were good and which were evil. Evil behavior must be avoided or repented of for salvation for everyone. Those who repent of all sin are saved. Those who do not repent will be damned.

The Pharisees thought that they were free of the call to repentence if they were descendents of Abraham. Our Lord said to them, "If you were children of Abraham, you would be doing the works of Abraham" St.Jn. 8:39.

To Ignat,
who says, here is an explanation of "repenting of our righteousness." This is basically looking at the sin underneath all of our sins.

"Sin underneath all of our sins"? This is very awkward language. Sin is sin and some is worse than others. Repenting of sin with a firm intention of not sinning further is most important. Am I understanding this correctly by saying there is no reason why anyone should be depressed when he realizes he is full of failings. After all this is a first step. We must acknowledge our sin before we can be sorry and repent. Recognition that we are sinners is the only correct attitude for us to have in the presence of God. He has come to seek all men, but if a person considers himself righteous by doing so he is closing the door to God.

But I think you are assuming that in the message. Macarthur never calls anyone to put on the righteouness of Christ in the sermon. If you were a non-Christian listening or a legalistic one listening...what would you think you should do to get God to not abandon America?

Well I would hope to turn to God. I listen to MacArthur quite frequently and have read a few of his many books, and he's a great defender of the scripture. In fact, much of what you wrote here I know he'd agree with. I have yet to read the whole transcript but did not hear anything that sounded legalistic to me in what he said. Remember he's talking to Christians and was in a church setting. He wasn't talking to non-Christians but Christians who came out for the National Day of Prayer.

From there it is just 3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4,3,4, over and over and over, all the while people are flying airplanes into buildings, people are killed by hurricanes and volcanoes, and we're supposedly to blame.

again, it's because we choose to live this way. The further we get away from God, the more depraved we'll be. When we go after other things and ignore God, can we still expect to have his hand of protection on us? Isn't that like putting God on a shelf with a sign that says.....Open in case of Emergency? God is not mocked Baker. He knows what's in man's heart. Like I said before, Jesus spoke very openly of judgment. You'd have to get rid of most of the scripture to accept what you believe is the "true" God of heaven.

Worse, it isn't even OUR sins we're tasked to do something about, but our "national tolerance" of the abandonment of God, meaning the the self-righteous dealing with the motes in other people's eyes.

No, it is our sins we need to deal with. One individual at a time. As far as what's going on in our nation, I'll take the blame myself for all those times I didn't go to vote, or didn't call my senator, or whatever it would have taken to help elect the officials that would most represent what I believe would have best followed the will of God. The whole reason Falwell set up the Moral Majority in the first place was for the Christians to have a voice and be encouraged to vote. But I think it was done too late. We were already on the way down to what Paul said was God giving us up to a "depraved mind."

I think maybe the reason you see Phelps, MacArthur and I with some of the same thoughts is because Phelps is mixing truth with error. He uses the bible as his tool to beat people over the head with and he forgets the scriptures that say if God's word is not accepted to just walk away, shake the dust off your sandels and move on to the next town. Phelps is trying to brow beat people to believe and it's not at all the Christian way. We are to preach the word of God in love and he's not doing that. As you've said before, he's preaching it in hate.

Sin underneath all of our sins"? This is very awkward language. Sin is sin and some is worse than others

how many sins does it take to keep us out of heaven? Answer? ONE. When Christ died it was our sin nature he died for. When we accept him, we leave our old nature behind and become new creatures. We still sin (hopefully not deliberately) but he died for all our sins, past, present and future. That's why Christian's should have a testimony of the before and after. There should be a noticeable change. Deep down, they know they have been renewed. That's why sometimes you see so many new Christians that are newly born so excited about their new birth. Things they have experienced could only be done by the power of God.

IGNAT LOYOLA POSTS:



Scripture most definitely tells us that sin will bring us to condemnation.
----St.Paul's list of sins that deprive the sinner of eternal life. Rom. 1:19-2:11; 1Cor.6:9-10.
----How about Ezekiel 18:24, "If a just man turn himself away from his justice...all his justices which he has done shall not be remembered."
----Apoc. 21:8, "But the fearful, the unbelieving and the abominable, and murderers and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
----St.Matt. 25:41, "Then He shall say to them, also that shall be on his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."
--Rom.6:21, "What fruit therefore had you then in those things, of which you are now ashamed? For the end of them is death."

Christianity begins with Christ's central teaching. He came into this world to reveal a Judgment is coming in which eternal life or eternal damnation depends upon repentance, on commitment to God's standards of charity and on the Ten Commandments. You speak quite a bit about the Gospels and they themselves can be seen as a series of warnings. Even the most unalarming parables, such as those of the prodigal son or of the Good SHepherd, make the deadness of state of sin the mortal threat of being lost quite clear.

All heresy in one form or another takes major steps toward denying this teaching. Heresy preaches freedom...freedom from the laws of GOd. Heresy teaches that we can excuse ourselves of sin. Well, truth is we can't.. Everyone whether they like it or not , believe it or not, accept it or not, are bound by the laws of God that are written in our hearts. The world keeps telling us that worldliness is evidence of strength and that obedience to Christ and His laws is weakness. It is totally the other way around.

It's not has God abandoned America so much as it is that America has/is abandoning God. It's not God bless America as much as it is America bless God.

Nope, not according to the Bible and your philosophy. I'm not Eve, and I didn't design myself as being evil without the presence of God. You propose that we naturally turn away from God without the help of God. You can't for a moment say we "choose" to be this way, and then say that we are born this way.



Nope, because you've said I could be a saint and still suffer if the nation as a whole is depraved. God has turned has back on the NATION, so if I am in the WTC on 9/11, or in New Orleans during Katrina it just sucks to be me, I guess. If we don't turn the nation AS A WHOLE back toward God, then God won't turn to us, according to what you've been saying.

So, it's not just you and me, according to you. In order to to get God to stop "abandoning" us we have to shove the nation back in his direction. We can only do that by convincing other people to repent of sins that are frankly none of our business, since you believe God punishes us for their sin indirectly by abandoning our nation.

Of course, I don't believe a bit of this, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic.



If you are going to discuss Phelps, you might want to know what he believes. He's not trying to change anyone. He believes that those that are abandoned are abandoned, period, and we're already abandoned.

So, the only difference between you and Phelps is that you believe that somehow we can move back toward God without God's assistance, yet claim we can't without God's assistance. Phelps believes the same thing, accept without the paradox of self-righteousness vs. natural corruption. The important similarity is you BOTH believe in a God that turns His back on His children.

I don't believe this at all. God NEVER turns his back on his children. NEVER. He lets go of the nation...yes. He never turns his back....we turn our back on him. Something to keep in mind. He always has a remnant. Always.

God abandons us by "letting go." He takes his hand off us and lets us have our way...similar to the people wishing for a King. They were looking around to the other nations, not to God so God gave them their desire and many evil monarchs came into power. These are all lessons for us, so that when he does set up his future kingdom we're going to remember these times and not wish to go back to them. Adam and Eve had no idea the Pandora Box they opened. They really didn't understand because they couldn't comprehend the mess that would result in disobedience. We do know this now.

Did you not read Psalm 81? His heart is that we will listen and come back to him. That's his heart. He doesn't turn away. The mocking? It's not to the ones who wish to repent and come to him. Again, it's made to those who will have none of him outside of their own selfish desires. They are NOT his children.

Even when Israel was sent into Babylon captivity for discipline he set Ezekiel as "watchman" for Israel. His name means God Strengthens. God doesn't send trials into our lives to sink us, but to strengthen us. To draw us closer to him.

Israel is an example. One of the reasons they went into captivity was their idolatry. Even all their priests were worshipping the sun toward the east it says in Ezek 8. After the captivity while they still were not perfect, they didn't go back to their idolatrous ways. THey learned their lesson.

One thing we haven't talked about is the fact that God will protect his name. Israel was polluting his name to all the heathen nations. He will not tolerate that. We, too, as a nation have claimed our national heritage to be a Godly one. We also have polluted his name. In God We Trust? Really?

"But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me; they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt; then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought for my name's sake that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out in the land of Egypt" Ezek 20:8-9

He goes on to say they deserved to be made an end of in the wilderness but said instead:

"Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying them neither did I make an end of them.....v17."

Nevertheless I withdrew my hand and wrought for my name's sake that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen in whose sight I brought them forth. v22

Because he loved them he spared them but they would have to suffer the consequences and they would lose the blessing afforded them....he did send the heathen nations to whip their butts time and time again but only when they were walking away from him. he took them to the spiritual woodshed...and they knew it. When they were following him like they should they had victory after victory. That's what it says in Psalm 81. It's the same with us. God honors those that honor him.

Earlier in 14:14,20 we see that even if such righteous men as Noah Daniel and Job were then in Palestine, the prolonged sin of the land would forbid its being spared judgment. God goes on to say that the wicked people who would be exiled to Babylon would be positive proof of the righteousness of God's judgment on Jerusalem.

"and they shall comfort you when you see their ways and their doings and you shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, says the Lord God." 14:23.

For many Christians like MacArthur and myself we can see why things are happening and that God has every reason to mete out his judgment on our nation. We have lost our way by getting off the path we once were on. We are going to lose the next big battles...you wait and see unless we turn as a nation and repent as a nation. I don't see that happening to tell you the truth.

Otherwise, we're on our own. Our strength is not as powerful as our weakness coupled with God's power...think Revolutionary War.

Paul said..."when I am weak, then am I strong."

Evidently MacArthur differs:



You, yourself refer to it as "abandoning" us. When a parent "abandons" a child, is it a positive statement on that parent? Don't pretend I'm making up words here, I'm using what you guys are handing out.



I've read Psalm 81, but according to you, without God to help overcome our natural evils there can be no repentance. Why, without God, would we repent? On the one hand you claim we have no ability to do good works without God, and on the other you claim that we are abandoned by God until we repent.

Also, I would assume that the final interpretation as to whether or not we are His children in your model wouldn't happen until we die. If God abandons people to their sin, He's almost insuring that, isn't He? Is this that hardening people's hearts for His glory silliness?



If I walk off from my child and let her learn for herself, it is because I know that it is POSSIBLE to do right outside my influence. According to you, though, outside of God's influence we are corrupt and evil and incapable of doing right. Given that, would God, who wants us to do the right thing, abandon us ensuring that we will do the wrong thing?

Again, I don't even believe the circumstances of your system, but I'd at least think that the circumstances would need to make sense to those who DO believe. The fact is, it doesn't. Phelps makes more sense, because at least in acknowledging a God that hates he doesn't also build in this backup parachute out of thin air, with us somehow finding our way to repentance without God.

Reply By: lulapilgrim Posted: Saturday, June 09, 2007 IGNAT LOYOLA POSTS:• The gospel tells us that sin can’t ultimately bring us into condemnation (Rom 8:1). Its heinousness is therefore what it does to God; it displeases and dishonors him.Scripture most definitely tells us that sin will bring us to condemnation.

Lula, I agree with you totally. The "sin" that does not bring us into condemnation is for the believer, but absolutely for one who is not in Christ. I should have been more clear on that point...sorry.

KFC, here below are some of the specifics (from the transcript) of some of the topics that Macarthur brings up that are at issue. I am showing these because he gives many examples of sin management, sin abatement, sin recognition in the greater society (unsaved) yet gives absolutely no clear gospel message. There is no method of dealing with all of this sin other than through our own obedience. This is works based righteouness.

In short, there is no Jesus. No putting on the righteousness of Christ. There is only sin management put forth. This may seem picky but it is very serious about whose righteousness we are going to look to.

Macarthur- “It’s a frightening thing to think about that. Frightening thing to think that you might be abandoned by God, that the opportunity for salvation is past, that the day of grace is over. The passages that I read to you relate to an individual in the case of Samson. But for the most part, they relate to a group such as the Pharisees or to a nation, such as Israel. And I think it’s very relevant to talk about this because I’m going to try to show you from this passage tonight that it’s pretty convincing that God has abandoned our nation. God has abandoned America to the effects of its sinful choices. Oh, this isn’t the first nation that it’s happened to, this is the story of history. Acts 14:16, the Apostle Paul said, “In the generations gone by, He…God…permitted all the nations to go their own way.” This is the story of history. All the nations of history go their own way. So like the nations of old, like the nations past, we follow the same cycle of having the truth, rejecting the truth and being abandoned by God.” -End Macarthur

In this first paragraph he compares Samson to Israel to America. This line of logic is not what I would expect from such a careful expositional teacher as him. Equating OT Israel to all of America is popular, but very, very assumptive.

Then he brings in Acts 14 to support this saying that “all nations”, “have gone their way.” So if “all nations” have gone their way, why are we surprised at America?

It is also very assumptive to say that Paul is explaining this cycle of “having the truth, rejecting the truth and being abandoned by God.” That a nation is given the truth and it is up to them to keep it or throw it away. So an entire nation then could be saved? Not even Israel enjoyed that.

Macarthur- “The key, listen to Me. Walk in My ways. The only hope for this or any other society is to hear the Word of the Lord and obey it…to hear the Word of the Lord and obey it. And I would suggest that this is not a good time for weak men preaching weak messages in weak churches. This is a time for bold and powerful, strong biblical ministry that calls people to hear the Word of the Lord and respond. This is the only hope for any people for any individual”- End Macarthur

So this is the end of the sermon, his call to repentance? To, “hear the Word of the Lord and obey it?”

I assume and hope he means that we are to put our faith and trust in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and that only His righteousness can bring about obedience. But Macarthur does never specifically says it here. He only brings up the need for obedience and he does not classify this for a believer or a non-believer.

If you were a non-believer and you heard this message, how would you separate it from any other religious teaching in the world? Is it a gospel message? Does this set you free like the gospel should? Is this good news, that God expects and demands our obedience? Whose righteousness is that based on? Our own?

We all know full well that we cannot. We need Jesus. He is the only way for us to be obedient, to be righteous to turn from sin. Yet where is this in this message????

This is sin managment that leads to moralism and self-righteousness. Separating the world up into “us” (the good people who obey) and “them” (the bad people who sin). If only these dirty sinners would stop behaving this way, then God would start blessing our country again. This is works based righteousness. We behave good again and God owes us a good life, a good country and blessings.

Is that what Paul was writing to the church in Rome about? Is this what Romans chap 1 is about?

Lula, you replied to a couple of things that I needed to further explain as well. Don't worry I am not promoting heresy here. We are all sinners and we do need to obey follow the law of God and we can only fulfill or accomplish that through Jesus Christ. I am in no way saying that "freedom in Christ" means you are free to live the way you want. That is heretical. As followers of Christ we do obey out of love and joy for what Christ has done for us because this is pleasing and honoring to God.

Below you said,

To Ignat, who says, here is an explanation of "repenting of our righteousness." This is basically looking at the sin underneath all of our sins."Sin underneath all of our sins"? This is very awkward language. Sin is sin and some is worse than others. Repenting of sin with a firm intention of not sinning further is most important. Am I understanding this correctly by saying there is no reason why anyone should be depressed when he realizes he is full of failings. After all this is a first step. We must acknowledge our sin before we can be sorry and repent. Recognition that we are sinners is the only correct attitude for us to have in the presence of God. He has come to seek all men, but if a person considers himself righteous by doing so he is closing the door to God.

Let me explain what I ment here by the sin underneath all of our sins. Sin is sin. We are all sinners. But if we are in Christ as in Colossians 3:3
"For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God." When God looks at us He sees Christ in us.

The sin beneth the sins part come from Martin Luther and his "Treatise Concerning Good Works" where he wrestles with the questions of why do we keep sinning as Christians?

Underneath our behavioral sins lies a fundamental refusal to rest in Christ's salvation and the drive instead to find our own. Martin Luther says the same. Here is an excerpt from Martin Luther Treatise Concerning Good Works (1520):

All those who do not in all their works or sufferings, life and death, trust in God's favor, grace and good-will, but rather seek His favor in other things or in themselves, do not keep the [First] Commandment, and practice real idolatry, even if they were to do the works of all the other Commandments, and in addition had all the prayers, fasting, obedience, patience, chastity, and innocence of all the saints combined.

Luther says if you look to your moral performance as the basis of your relationship with God, then you are breaking the first of the Ten Commandments: "Have no other gods before me." If you fail to grasp and believe the gospel of free justification through Christ's work you violate the first command. How could this be? Again from Luther:

If we doubt or do not believe that God is gracious and pleased with us, or if we presumptuously expect to please Him through our works, then all [our compliance with the law] is pure deception, outwardly honoring God, but inwardly setting up self as a false savior .Note for yourself, then, how far apart these two are: keeping the First Commandment with outward works only, and keeping it with inward [justifying faith]. For this last makes true, living children of God, the other only makes worse idolatry and the most mischievous hypocrites on earth...

Luther says that if we obey God's law without a belief that we are already accepted and loved in Christ, then in all our 'doing-good', we are really looking to something more than Jesus as the real source of our meaning, and happiness. We are trusting in our being a good parent, or being a good spouse, or our moral uprightness, or our spiritual performance, or our service to other people as our real "Saviors". If we aren't sure God already loves us in Christ, we will be looking to something else as our foundational significance and worth. This is why Luther says that we are committing idolatry (breaking the First commandment) if we don't thoroughly trust in Christ for our acceptability, even if we are otherwise totally moral and obedient to God.

And as this Commandment is the very first, highest and best, from which all the others proceed, in which they exist, and by which they are directed and measured, so also its work, that is, the faith or confidence in God's favor at all times, is the very first, highest and best, from which all others must proceed, exist, remain, be directed and measured...

All people sin in general because we are sinners, but why do we sin in any particular instance? Luther indicates the first commandment is foundational to all the others. Why? Because we will not break commandment 2-10 unless we are in some way breaking commandment One and serving some idol. Every sin is rooted in the inordinate lust for something which comes because we are trusting in that thing rather than in Christ for our righteousness or salvation. At the moment we sin it is because we are looking to something to give us what only Jesus can give us. Beneath any particular sin is the general sin of rejecting Christ-salvation and indulging in self-salvation.

Lula, I agree with you totally. The "sin" that does not bring us into condemnation is for the believer, but absolutely for one who is not in Christ. I should have been more clear on that point...sorry.

Yes, I agree with this. Jesus himself said once we have heard his word and believed in him we shall not come into condenmation but are passed from death to life. It doesn't mean we still don't sin. We have just left our sin nature behind.

Then he brings in Acts 14 to support this saying that “all nations”, “have gone their way.” So if “all nations” have gone their way, why are we surprised at America?

No, not really. Maybe more disappointed than anything, but not really surprised. We remember well Jesus even saying when he comes back will he even find faith on the earth. The warnings of the Apostles show us how they felt as well. They knew the strong pull of the world and how that would affect us.

I am showing these because he gives many examples of sin management, sin abatement, sin recognition in the greater society (unsaved) yet gives absolutely no clear gospel message.

Again, I have to stress the context and circumstance of this sermon. It was given on the National Day of Prayer which is on a Thursday . It wasn't made on a typical Sunday morning. It was given to those who gathered for this day that is especially set aside for a National Day for us to organize ourselves as Christians in prayer on behalf of our nation.

In short, there is no Jesus. No putting on the righteousness of Christ. There is only sin management put forth. This may seem picky but it is very serious about whose righteousness we are going to look to.

of course if this was a common way he preached I'd agree with you, but he most definitely preaches the righteousness of Christ. You are making an argument out of what he DIDN"T put in, but do you have an issue with anything he DID say? Just because he didn't add that to this particular sermon you cannot say he doesn't believe what you said to be true.

So an entire nation then could be saved? Not even Israel enjoyed that.

no, of course not, but a Nation could be blessed. Even in the OT, not all Israel was saved as you said, but you have to say they were blessed far above the other nations when they were walking in the same direction as their God. But as I'm sure you know it does say that "all Israel" will be saved in the end times (Rom 11:26). We know that only 1/3 of the remnant will be saved yet it says "all Israel". I take that to mean the Nation will be secured all the way into the Kingdom even if only a remnant.

So this is the end of the sermon, his call to repentance? To, “hear the Word of the Lord and obey it?”

I'm going to refer you back to your very first comment. You said this:

The "sin" that does not bring us into condemnation is for the believer, but absolutely for one who is not in Christ.

Does he need to call believers to repentance once they have already come to him? But to a Christian, wouldn't the call to obey the word be revelent?

Many times in scripture we hear that same exhortation...hear and obey the Word. There's nothing wrong with that. It's scriptural to say this to believers. Of course to an unbeliever why should they? If they don't have the relationship first, they would have no desire for such a thing.

If I'm not mistaken I think it's not that you disagree with what MacArthur said, you just wished he went further with either an altar call or a strong call to unbelievers. But like in scripture it's always important to look first to who the writer is speaking. It's no different here. I'm sure if you did a search by looking at his other sermons, you'd find that he doesn't preach a works-based righteousness. In fact, he's pretty strong against it.

IGNAT LOYOLA POSTS:

Ignat, I'm not sure we are on the same page even though you say you totally agree with me. StPaul was concerned about sin that would "disqualify" him from Heaven even as much as up to the last moment of "running the race".

1Cor. 9:24-27, "Know you not that they that run in the race all compete, but one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone that strives for the mastery, refrains himself from all things: They do it to receive a perishable crown, but we an unperishable one. 26 I, therefore, do not run aimlessly, I so fight not as one beating the air: 27 but I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, less perhaps, after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified."

What does this mean in relationship to the fact that sin can indeed bring believers into condemnation? St.Paul was certainly a baptized believer! It means that while we are in this present life our perseverance can never be taken for granted. No one should feel assured of this free gift with an absolute certainity although we ought to have the most secure hope (virtue) in the help of God. For unless we are unfaithful to His grace, God will bring the good work to perfection, just as He began it, working both the will and the performance. Phil. 2:13.

While Martin Luther most assuredly believed that systematic discipline of the flesh and performing good works are repugnant to our nature, I think here in v. 27, that St.Paul is pointing out the ascetical effort which every person must keep on making in this life physical mortification and self-control of our flesh. Helped by God's grace and confident of His mercy, a Christian who makes the effort will be able to say as St.Paul did at the end of his life, "there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lrod, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day." 2Tim 4:8.

KFC POSTS:

I've never heard the term 'sin nature' before this. What you've said seems to contradict one another. Does it mean we sin with impunity?