LORDSHIP SALVATION

[ladylynn]

What does your own church have to do with either MacArthur or Lordship Salvation, and particularly MacArthur's teachings that address Lordship Salvation?





Who has called anyone a heretic?

And I agree, we are called to a higher ground, but unfortunately, we also have to deal with those who present false doctrines and concepts, as well as those that falsely charge others with something they are not guilty of.




But it's okay to make disparaging remarks about MacArthur? lol

Look, I don't agree with everything MacArthur teaches, but if there is one teacher I don't have a problem directing new believers to it is MacArthur.

And when people accuse him of something so conflicting with his actual teachings...that should be addressed.

So who is shooting who? lol





That is the same problem...every denomination has.

Except for those peculiar fellowships where any belief is acceptable, that is.

There is nothing wrong with being a member of a denomination in itself, if the Student knows that all men have error. If someone is looking to their denomination as the foundation of their faith...they are sadly mistaken. Christ is the Foundation, and we have to be satisfied, in regards to what fellowship we belong to, that we have found the place that God would have us a part of.




So does every other fellowship out there.

But we can determine whether they are by examining their beliefs in light of Biblical Doctrine, right?

And so far I have yet to find a single denomination that qualifies, nor do I forget that even in Scripture we see cultural differences between Jew and Gentile which allow for a difference in practice. So, for example, I am not going to blast my Jewish brother if he wants to consider Saturday the day he wants to set aside in the week as a time of distinct worship, nor will I raise an eyebrow if he celebrates Passover.





Now LadyLynn, I have got to ask you...do you really think there are "well meaning Christians out there blowing up abortion clinics?"

You might want to think about that before answering, lol.




That is not "going over the top," that is complete disobedience to the Word of God and God's will on such a basic and fundamental level that we can quite easily...question whether it was a Christian that did it or not.





I agree, and again recommend John's site as a good resource if one wants to actually know MacArthur's teaching considering Sola Fide.

Now, can I ask what relevance this has to anything I said?


God bless.

"Hey Pilgrim.," (pictures of John Wayne talking)

I would agree with you about John MacGarther having good Bible teaching and much sound doctrine. We were raised on him in our church and from him and our church we got a solid foundation. Many Christians begin in a Church of a true family of believers and have learned and been given a steady diet of milk for a good amount of years., We were given a good beginning and as we start maturing and reading the Bible for ourselves and coming to our own personal convictions about our walk with Christ that sometimes rubbed the church family the wrong way.

Much like a teenager who is beginning to learn to stand on their own, learn how to drive and go out and make decisions based on their learning themselves as they are walking. When they begin growing they have to be able to develop their own relationships. And for us as a young Christian family, we had to be able to make friends outside of the church even if they were not exactly the same kind of Baptists we were told to fellowship with. We got in trouble for that by our church family for listening to Christian radio and having friends from work who were Christians from another denomination come for dinner.

Although we had to leave that church in order to be free to grow and mature as adult Christians, we took with us a major foundation in Bible doctrine that has served me to this day. A wise preacher has said., "If we are gaining or have gained any new understanding of the Bible, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of those who first taught us the foundational truths when we first began." God has used those beloved pastors and teachers in our lives and we are grateful for them.

But disagreeing with them doesn't mean we reject them., or condemn them, it means we came to our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ that enabled us to leave our 'spiritual parents' It was not easy but it was needed.

Not condemning or making disparaging remarks about John MacGarther at all. Sorry you took it that way. Am expressing my experience with the Lordship salvation issue. As young believers who were growing, we fell into that Lordship salvation teaching and could not stand under it and had to leave.

Not all churches teach they are Thee ONE true church and that they are THEE faithful remnant. I do steer clear of those churches despite how sincere they are. They are sincerely wrong.

And yes Pilgrim, there are very sincere Christians who have fallen into the trap of thinking blowing up an abortion clinic would be a good thing in light of all those babies being slaughtered. And many Christians have a zeal not according to maturity or knowledge. It happens every day and all the time. Maturity takes time. This is getting pretty long. But hope you understand my disagreement with John M. is not one of shooting the brethren. I respect him as a teacher on many levels and disagree with him on other levels. And agree with much of his theology but don't agree with his way of dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently than he does. Blessings.

 

[ember]

Well, in reality, many of us don't seem to give much importance to the Lordship part of our Salvation, or our lives and actions and even our posts here would show a whole lot more of Jesus than most of us demonstrate.

If I examine myself. I have to examine using Gods standard (not my own, or not mans) And if I do this, I find myself in serious trouble. because I have failed, am failing, and will continue to fail to live up to Gods standard.

So there is no way I can examine myself and think I have made it.. For I would be lying to myself.

I have to examin the cross. And continue to have faith in it, for it is my only hope

(compliments of e-g)

 

[ember]

I never said that, there you go misreading again.

quite a bit of that going on...it's just so.....well it makes you wonder

 

[P1LGR1M]

"Hey Pilgrim.," (pictures of John Wayne talking)

I would agree with you about John MacGarther having good Bible teaching and much sound doctrine. We were raised on him in our church and from him and our church we got a solid foundation. Many Christians begin in a Church of a true family of believers and have learned and been given a steady diet of milk for a good amount of years., We were given a good beginning and as we start maturing and reading the Bible for ourselves and coming to our own personal convictions about our walk with Christ that sometimes rubbed the church family the wrong way.

Much like a teenager who is beginning to learn to stand on their own, learn how to drive and go out and make decisions based on their learning themselves as they are walking. When they begin growing they have to be able to develop their own relationships. And for us as a young Christian family, we had to be able to make friends outside of the church even if they were not exactly the same kind of Baptists we were told to fellowship with. We got in trouble for that by our church family for listening to Christian radio and having friends from work who were Christians from another denomination come for dinner.

Although we had to leave that church in order to be free to grow and mature as adult Christians, we took with us a major foundation in Bible doctrine that has served me to this day. A wise preacher has said., "If we are gaining or have gained any new understanding of the Bible, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of those who first taught us the foundational truths when we first began." God has used those beloved pastors and teachers in our lives and we are grateful for them.

But disagreeing with them doesn't mean we reject them., or condemn them, it means we came to our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ that enabled us to leave our 'spiritual parents' It was not easy but it was needed.

Not condemning or making disparaging remarks about John MacGarther at all. Sorry you took it that way. Am expressing my experience with the Lordship salvation issue. As young believers who were growing, we fell into that Lordship salvation teaching and could not stand under it and had to leave.

Not all churches teach they are Thee ONE true church and that they are THEE faithful remnant. I do steer clear of those churches despite how sincere they are. They are sincerely wrong.

And yes Pilgrim, there are very sincere Christians who have fallen into the trap of thinking blowing up an abortion clinic would be a good thing in light of all those babies being slaughtered. And many Christians have a zeal not according to maturity or knowledge. It happens every day and all the time. Maturity takes time. This is getting pretty long. But hope you understand my disagreement with John M. is not one of shooting the brethren. I respect him as a teacher on many levels and disagree with him on other levels. And agree with much of his theology but don't agree with his way of dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently than he does. Blessings.

I would just ask you to present one teaching of MacArthur concerning Lordship Salvation you feel is error.

Secondly, again I reject that a "sincere Christian" is going to blow up an abortion clinic. A sincere Christian comes under obedience to the Word of God, and it seems to me that perhaps a little bit of study would be in order to determine if one could justify murder.

Lastly, I'll be honest...I have no clue as to what it is you are in disagreement with MacArthur about. If it is in regards to his teachings concerning Lordship Salvation, then I would ask, again, you present something you feel is in error.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

now I've got to dig in and answer this treatise...joy and happiness...sigh


P1LGR1M;2350405It's not an opinion, it is just the facts.

Why do you think MacArthur consistently refuses to sign documents that unite Protestant and Catholics together?

Because our views are contrary one to the other.

Like I said, you are going to be hard pressed to find a better teacher concerning Sola Fide than MacArthur. While he is basically a Reformed Theologian, his teachings are not obscure as some Reformed Theologians are. I love R.C. Sproul to death, but, Sproul can at times be found to get a little unclear in regards to salvation by Faith Alone.

My guess is that you have never actually heard any of MacArthur's teachings. I recommend "The Gospel According to Jesus" to anyone.


you 'guessed' wrong...I've heard him on the local Christian radio station many times...cause I don't think he's all that does not mean I am in the dark.

How on earth do you think I have an opinion on the matter if I know nothing? I don't operate that way...

You do.

I guess you have forgotten the context of this discussion and the response"

Here it is again:

Anyone familiar with John MacArthur will know that his teachings concerning Lordship Salvation are a direct address of "easy believism," and that we are hard pressed to find a teacher who better understands Sola Fide.

well, that is your opinion of what he teaches

You are not being honest, and you are bearing false witness.

No-one can say that my statement is just an opinion...it is a fact.

Recently, MacArthur came under fire yet again for refusing to sign The Manhattan Declaration.

Here are a few quotes from a response he did in explaining why he refused to sign:


• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.


In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

well who would sign that then? not sure why you even bring it up?

Of course you don't.

That's the problem. You are having time keeping up with the context of this discussion, yet you feel you have liberty to bear false witness about teachings and teachers...you are not even familiar with?

Please.

Now, understand that MacArthur's primary issue with Catholic teaching is on the point of Sola Fide. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the issues before discouraging anyone with false charges. I am sure it is inadvertent, though if you feel you can point out where MacArthur is teaching a works-based salvation...feel free to post what it is you find that in.

oh cut out the false charges business...this is not a court ... I maintain there is no tier system for salvation and you declaring that to be a fact simply demonstrates you are following a man's teaching rather than the Bible

On the contrary, I can tell you exactly where me and MacArthur differ in views.

You, on the other hand, are simply slinging opinions about issues you are ignorant of.

John MacArthur does not teach a Dichotomy in the Body. So I suggest you stop bearing false witness against him.

listen up: I NEVER SAID ANYONE WAS TEACHING A WORKS BASED SALVATION...speaking of false claims, maybe you should take care to follow your own advise? I don't know why people think they can make things up and try to put words into other peoples posts...

I give up.

I am truly sorry you cannot understand the conversation at hand.

Much less Lordship Salvation and the implication of it.

And I doubt very much that you are going to teach on that...better than MacArthur.

oy

?

Some people say that about the term Trinity.

And Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

And Communion.

MacArthur didn't really create the term himself, but used that term to respond to critics that charged him with teaching a works-based salvation.

You are doing exactly what caused the need for this issue to be addressed, you are falsely charging him with something that nobody familiar with his teaching can reasonably claim.

oh my goodness...get some sleep...no one died and you are being rather silly as I never said any such things...apparently, you are primed and ready to go off at the slightest indication your pre-rehearsed speech is deemed necessary by your hair trigger nerves

get a grip....please

Alrighty then.

This is true. However, there are many that run under a false sense of security who not only do not have a Lord...they do not in truth have a Savior. There are many who are perfectly willing to submit to a baby in a manger, but have not submitted to God. The have created a Christ of their own making, and when we understand salvation, we understand that there are evidences of genuine conversion. People that say they are "saved" yet live unchanged lives would do well to study MacArthur's teachings on Lordship salvation.

yeah well, the Bible is also pretty chock full of folks making false gods...so nothing new there

Great, and when you actually do read my responses and have a relevant reply, let me know.

John does a little Lordship Salvation teaching here:


1 John 1:6-7

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


Here is a little Lordship Salvation taught by Christ:


Luke 6:46

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]46 [/SUP]And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


As one member pointed our, we don't go to extremes and neglect how one is saved. That is not what is in view. What is in view is the genuine nature of salvation and whether one has been saved, or whether one is like unto those who seemed to be doing things in the Name of the Lord...


Matthew 7:22-23

King James Version (KJV)


[SUP]22 [/SUP]Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

[SUP]23 [/SUP]And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



...yet they were not in relationship with the Lord through salvation, thus whether He is Lord and SAvior is a moot issue.


God bless.



look...you adhere to the term lordship salvation...and I do not

On the contrary, Lordship Salvation is a derisive term that MacArthur addresses, as does the Scripture above.

You should listen to what he has to say.

The point still remains a matter of addressing false professors who have a false sense of security, gained through false teachers who teach false gospels that sound a little like "The Gospel has nothing to do with sin."

Scripture does not teach that, and those who do need to be silent in a public Forum, for they reap to themselves the greater judgment.

you have posted at some length and half of it concerns things I never hinted at, never mind actually posted

Not my fault you cannot understand the relevance.

the problem with having one's feet so firmly planted in another person's theology is that if they fall you fall too

for that matter, you might find yourself defending them in matters where no defense is even needed...

If it makes you feel better to think my doctrine is that of another's that's okay with me. And I have no problem of being accused of holding to MacArthur's views, though I would rather have opportunity to point out where he is in error.



And it is not so much MacArthur being defended here, it is an address of your false witness.

You have no clue as to what MacArthur teaches, and it is galling to see someone besmirching one of the few teachers around that can be trusted.

So who do you listen to? What teachers would you recommend. I would be very curious to know.

In summation, salvation is not a two tier system and you might get tired of reading that, but that is most likely the main objection anyone would have to the gospel presented a la MacArthur

Mr MacArthur is rather the king of disapproval when it comes to what others believe...and very vocal about it

he is not my teacher even though he does have some good things to say

This is a false argument.

Please present one teaching of MacArthur that teaches a two tier system.

And I am glad that MacArthur has the courage not to bow down to popular opinion. I am glad we have men who refuse to allow the Gospel of Jesus Christ suffer for the sake of liberal theology and opinion, which is condoning other gospels that are damnable heresies.

You would do well to know a little something about a subject before you try to teach on it, and you would do better not to falsely charge others with things you have dreamed up in your head.

Now show me MacArthur teaching a two tier system.

And I will check back tomorrow for your response, as well as get to the other posts.


God bless.

 

[ladylynn]

lordship salvation is basically legalistic calvinism...

lordship salvation teachers manage to mesh their legalism with their calvinism by pointing out that you can recognize salvation by the fruit it produces...so the problem is not so much in the doctrine but in the emphasis...

at its purest level lordship salvation can lead to christians never being assured of their election because they are never sure that they have done enough good works to evidence salvation...but in practice it generally leads to total self righteousness as they tend to set an arbitrary standard for what constitutes 'enough' good works to evidence salvation...which always seems to have them including themselves among the 'elect' and excluding anyone less 'righteous' than them...

I'm reminded of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" when Charlie Brown yells;


THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gr8grace]

Not my fault you cannot understand the relevance.

In the same way you can't understand the relevance of Eph 2:10?

We MAY not have evidence or works to PROVE that we are saved.

Anyone that has trusted in Him alone is saved.

Unbelievers feel sorry for their sins and feel "convicted" from some of their sins. It Is not a sign or evidence of salvation.

The sign? Their belief and statements(fruits) about Christ alone and Faith alone in HIM.

 

[Stephen63]

Wow, ember..... six pages on Lordship salvation..... with a close majority not knowing anything about it. That's strange, since I've known about it for over 20 years!
And imagine this...... Four pages on Google with 293 results both for & against..... and what do I hear from all the naysayers? Opinions & statements with no validation. Even Wikipedia got it right about it being taught in the early 80's.

I've heard this statement in church all my life as a christian.... Christ is either your Lord of all, or not your Lord at all.

Now, about that false doctrine of "making" Jesus Lord when He already is..... While we don't have the authority to bestow the title of Lord onto Jesus, especially since He was given that title by the Father, we can "make", determine, accept, validate Jesus Christ as "our own" personal Savior & Lord..... And we CANNOT do that by simply a "decision". It is a COMMITMENT, subjecting ourselves by our own free will to be Christ's servants. Jesus can't possibly be a Lord without a people to be Lord over, yes?

Note the scripture:
Luke 17:5-10 (NASB)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" [SUP]6 [/SUP]And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea'; and it would obey you. [SUP]7 [/SUP]"Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? [SUP]8 [/SUP]"But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'? [SUP]9 [/SUP]"He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? [SUP]10 [/SUP]"So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.​"

Just another time Jesus was teaching the principles of the Kingdom of God to His 'disciples'.

ember, it was so sweet of you to start this thread just for me when I mentioned in another thread I believed in Lordship salvation. Thanks a bunch!

P.S. ..... When we "make" Christ our personal Savior & Lord, this happens:
Ezekiel 36:27
King James Version
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ephesians 2:10 (NASB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, (not some actual christians will choose to & others won't) which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Ephesians 2:10 (TEV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP]God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do.

Ephesians 2:10 (NLT)
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

 

[P1LGR1M]

In the same way you can't understand the relevance of Eph 2:10?

Would quote something I have said that evidences I do not understand Ephesians 2:10?

This is the problem, my friend...a focus on part of what Scripture teaches.

By the time we get to the end of this post you make the same statement...I am making.

We MAY not have evidence or works to PROVE that we are saved.

This might be true in the lives of new believers, however, those who remain in the faith of Christ will evidence fruit, if only in...remaining.

So we don't just consider that it is a matter of works proving genuine faith, because many commit themselves to religious effort and think that those things "prove" they are in relationship with God.

Secondly, we look at the "evidences" that would cause us to question, first in ourselves, then others, whether faith is genuine.

For example...an unbroken pattern of sin in the life of one, who has no remorse, and further...justifies their sin. Another would be...their doctrine. Do we not question those who call themselves Christians, yet teach that God was a man? That God condones homosexuality? I am not saying everyone engaged in such cannot be saved, because one can be saved and ignorant of Scripture, but, do we think that the Power of God to convert the lives of believers is utterly helpless to actually do that?

And this is how I see it: I think all of us, until we put forth our reasonable due diligence in seeking God's will, will question our own salvation. The Security of the believer is something that is made real in our hearts, not through sermons, but through God enlightening our minds to a proper understanding of the Gospel. That is usually accomplished through HIs opening our understanding to His Word.

We cannot convey a true sense of security to another believer, we can only direct them to the Word of God, and hope they will yield to God in their understanding.

Anyone that has trusted in Him alone is saved.

I agree, if it is genuine.

Many say they are trusting in Him alone, then speak of the works they do...to maintain their salvation.

Unbelievers feel sorry for their sins and feel "convicted" from some of their sins. It Is not a sign or evidence of salvation.

Sorry, but unbelievers do not feel convicted, though they may be under conviction. There is a difference, you know.

Judas was sorry with worldly sorrow, quite different from the conviction the Comforter produces when He is ministering to the natural man.

And I don't want to be the one to discourage the natural man, or the sinning believer, from benefitting from the work only God can do in the heart.

It's not a bad thing for someone to question their salvation. If they are concerned, this would evidence God working in their lives. I don't think it is our place to judge what kind of conviction it is, whether that of a sinner in need of salvation or a believer in need of repentance from sin, but, I would encourage those under conviction to follow up in repentance.

The sign? Their belief and statements(fruits) about Christ alone and Faith alone in HIM.

And that is evidence you deny is a reality.

When someone professes faith in Christ yet their "belief" and "statements" are not the beliefs and statements of Scripture, we have every right to question whether their faith is in the Christ of Scripture or a Christ they have devised themselves.

Heard some kind of "reverend" speaking the other day as I drove back into state, who made some statements I have no doubt have their roots in demonic doctrine. One was "The Bible is silent on abortion."

Is that true? Is the Bible silent on abortion?

What this man is doing is speaking lies and doctrine of demons to comfort those who stand in opposition with a very basic Bible Principle...murder is evil, and not of God.

He made a casual reference to the Law in regards to miscarriage, thus wresting Scripture, misrepresenting it to make it seem Scripture validated the error he was teaching.

And there will be millions of people who will hear this man and think that God is Pro-Choice.

Is the man saved? Does he represent Christ and the Bible?

You tell me.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm reminded of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" when Charlie Brown yells;


THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, thanks. Now when I read some of these posts the Peanuts theme song is going to start...


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Who is teaching Lordship Salvation?

Do you even know what it is?

I just made a statement, Did you get offended? WHy? If you were not saying this, then it was not directed to you now was it?

Here is the statement:

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

I don't see "classes of Christians" as being the case in the issue of the debate about Lordship Salvation, it revolves more around whether one can be saved yet maintain an un-Christian lifestyle.

One does not need to teach 'lordship" Salvation to teach this.

And again, I ask...

...who is teaching Lordship Salvation?

And I will ask another question, what exactly does "One does not need to teach 'lordship" Salvation to teach this" mean?

That's the problem: if a believer presents the Biblical Doctrine that God calls His people to be holy...they are teaching Lordship Salvation.

That is the charge against John MacArthur and despite the fact he has many times taught the error of extremism in regards to easy-believism and legalism, that same false charge is levied against anyone who points out that those who are nominal in their beliefs and teach that there is no conversion in reality in the lives of believers should be questioned.

As far as being offended, sorry, not much here to be offended by. It is simply an address of what I perceive as error.

And I am still waiting for someone to present something of MacArthur that can be viewed as negative and in conflict with Scripture. I could do that, but it will not be in regards to Sola Fide.

Again, we are hard pressed to find a better advocate of Christ in that matter. And if his preaching steps on someone's toes, my advice is they should consider that their beef is not with Macarthur, but with the Scripture he presents to support his teaching, and the God of the Bible.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

As far as there being "classes of Christians," let me introduce you to those classes:


1 John 2:12-14

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.


That is a Biblical classification of Christians, stated by John the Apostle.


And? Next time you want to tell me something I already know to support your position. You could at least ask if I knew it or not. Nothing I said was against this.

And? lol

The point is that we have to distinguish between what is actually in view and the false arguments that arise in this discussion.

Here it is again:

Amen ember., salvation does not have classes of Christians!! We are the sheep, Jesus is the Good Shepherd..., we just follow and quit trying to run a head of Him and maybe try and suggest who goes where and who doesn't get to go.

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

I don't see "classes of Christians" as being the case in the issue of the debate about Lordship Salvation, it revolves more around whether one can be saved yet maintain an un-Christian lifestyle.

Now let's look at what prompted the statement I responded to:

Originally Posted by ember

without even going into the ins and outs of lordship salvation, I take a look at what the name states and recognize a two tier system of salvation

that immediately sends out red flags

salvation does not have classes of Christians

I guess you may have missed the implication of the statement, which can be paraphrased thus: "Without actually giving any thought to the issue, I make up stuff that sounds good to me, the realities of the issue are not important. So I declare that "Lordship Salvation," with me just basing my opinion on the name, means that those who teach Lordship Salvation create a two-tier system. So I conclude that Lordship Salvation teaches classes of Christians, and that is error."

The only error here is thinking that opinions should be publicly displayed and that bearing false witness based on uninformed opinion is a legitimate activity Christians should be engaged in.

So there's your "And?"


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

You want to tell me that we do not have immature and mature believers? That we have believers that know Scripture, and those that are woefully ignorant?

You want to tell me that Scripture does not exhort us to grow?
I never said against that thing at all.

All I said is that I do not need Lordship salvation doctrine to tell me, that, I already had the bible tell me that.

Now, would you like to calm down, and actually read what people say.

Calm down? lol

My friend, if I get upset, you'll know it.

I would agree, you don't need Lordship Salvation to tell you...that there are classes of Christians, just as there are classes of Marines.

This is just basic.

The Body is made up of many members, all diverse, and all responsible to the Instruction of the Word of God.

When people go to one extreme or another...they violate the Word of God.

And that is the real heart of the debate about "Lordship Salvation."

Both extremes are in error.

I asked simple questions, which go to illustrating what the previous discussion centered on, which is that a "two tier system" is a false argument based on false premise, and I will remind you that the Word of God was provided to counter that false argument.

My, but that sounds a lot like Lordship Salvation, there. lol


I did not need someone to come up with a doctrine and call it lordship salvation to understand that now did I? Did God come up with this doctrine, or men?

Are you now acknowledging Lordship Salvation? Or the Biblical Principle that is debated?

Just because a term is applied to something doesn't mean it then becomes valid or invalid.

Why, you are demanding that one read Scripture, have faith in the Gospel, and truly repent!

How dare you!



Sorry, I can not take credit for that. Gods word already said it, I was just saying, if we read Gods word. we would know it.

Sounds awfully familiar, lol.

That is the point, my friend...there is more than just saying a prayer.


And you did not need some doctrine written by men to tell you that, Gods word said it quite well.

Sometimes extra-biblical terms just make sense.

Like Trinity. Communion. Antinomianism. Easy-Believism. Hermeneutics. Exegesis. Eisegesis. Exposition.

And sometimes false doctrines such as create conditions which can be misleading need a term to counter those conditions.

Let's see, what is the title of that one teaching against easy believism, "Empty heads, empty hearts?" lol

And equally erroneous is trying to build Doctrine that neglects to bring the Full Counsel of God's Word to the table.

And I am all for dividing those who are believers and those that are not. That way those who are not will have a at least a better chance than hoping that those preaching greasy grace are right, and they do not need to examine themselves.



lol. So we need more than Gods word? You want to be like Jews and catholics who write things outside of scripture ad held these up as by God?

Not sure how you reach this conclusion by what I said. I say quite clearly that building doctrine that does not incorporate the Whole Counsel is foolish. I say nothing about elevating the works of man above Scripture.And just for the record, I am going to be the first person to encourage people to focus on the Word of God and keep the works of men in their proper perspective.

My posting always reflects that. So this is yet another false argument added to the discussion which only serves to confuse the issues that are actually relevant.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Good like with that, And good luck judging who is saved and who is not. Chances are many you think are saved are not, and people you think are not saved may be, Your not God, you can not read a persons heart. And how dare you think you can

Now I am judging who is saved and lost?

Would you quote me where I imply I am God or that I judge people or that I think I can read hearts?

That has been pointed out several times.

Yep so why risk it?

Risk what?

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

You would think we would listen and learn from the mistakes of the jews and catholics.

Who is we?

Those who claim to be Gods people.

1. The jews
2. The church (rome)
3/ The church (even after rome split into the protestants, we still make the same mistakes. People are proving it here.

So you are not "God's People?"

Were no Jews "God's People?"

Were no Catholics "God's People?"

And "God's People" are not found in the Church...?

I agree mistakes are made, and you are presenting great example of what can be considered mistake.

I would suggest to you that the controversy of Lordship Salvation is a primary example of why Doctrinal Purity is critical to the Body of Christ.

And before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, I will also point out that we owe a great deal to certain Jews, a great deal to certain Catholics, and a great deal to certain in the Church, even in our modern times. And John MacArthur is one of them.

How many times have you been in the Media making a stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and denouncing other gospels which are false?

Just how many of your sermons are freely given to the public for the express and sincere desire of helping people understand the Word of God?

One thing is for certain, MacArthur is not for everyone. Catholics hate him, Charismatics hate him, and those engaged in easy believism hate him.

And if anyone from those groups would like to present a valid presentation as to why John is in error in his positions against false doctrine...I'd be happy to take a look at their objections.

Please, speak for yourself.

I have never actually been guilty of the errors of Jews and Catholics.



Yet here you are justifying a doctrine made by man, based on words outside of scripture.. or if your nnot. You just judged me for nothing.

I have not judged you at all, lol.

I have simply addressed your post. I have addressed statements I see to not only be in error...but contrary to Christian Conduct on a fundamental level.

This is why the Church is weak today, because we have so many people who think they can present opinions and equate that to Biblical Truth. I am against such liberal efforts and have no qualms pointing out something I see as error.

And anyone is free to correct me, but you better do so with a Biblical Basis.

Now you quote me justifying Lordship Salvation, if you don't mind, so I might be able to confront my accuser.


Continued...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Here is the statement:

Yeah and you still do not get it. Are you still offended?

You said.

1. There are classes (I would rather call it stages) of christianity.
2. Basically a question, Can one be saved and maintain a un-christian lifestyle.

My response.

I do not need a doctrine called Lordship salvation to know this (ie, to know those two statements are true.)

You got offended.. Why? I just made a statement of fact. I do not need lordship salvation to know that there are babes in Christ, Kids in Christ, Teens in Christ, Young adults in Christ, and elders in Christ.

I do not need Lordship salvation to know. If I claim I have faith, But I have not done any works whatsoever (I have no change) then my faith is dead.

All I need is my bible.

so again, What is your problem?

 

[P1LGR1M]

Who is we?

My friend, there is hope for you, you don't have to keep making the same mistakes.


What mistakes? I do nto listen to men, I will seek guidance, But I will use the word of God to test what they say.

Seems like you want to follow mens words. But hey, there is hope for you. Saul was a Pharisee of Pharisees.

It was humor, you know, humor? Supposed to be light-hearted, and a way to show that there is no enmity directed at my antagonist?

Of course you don't, lol.

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

But we keep making the same mistakes..

Who is we?

My friend, there is hope for you, you don't have to keep making the same mistakes.

As far as "making the same mistakes of the Jew and the Catholic, who is judging?

This is an erroneous caricaturization of people in general based on the name they might fall under. I can tell you this, Catholics range just like any other group, and I have had more than one conversation with mature Catholics that are fundamentally sounder than many Evangelicals I talk with. They don't all deify Mary, nor do they agree with praying to her or angels or saints that have passed.

And they don't judge people based on the group they are supposedly a part of.

Which is what you are doing.

You want to tell me the mistakes Zechariah made? How about Luther? For that matter, how about telling me the mistakes that Jewess Mary made?

What in the world are you talking about, anyway?

Don't you understand that sin is not a problem that is divided into groups, it is an issue that involves all of mankind?

And I am the one creating a two tier system? You better think about who is elevating you. I have no problem acknowledging that I am in the same class as everyone else in humanity, and that the only distinction to be made is the distinction between lost and saved. Forgiven and remaining condemned.

And that distinction is not one I created, it is one God created, and explains in His Word. And it is Christ that makes a distinction between good trees and evil, fruit and no fruit, wheat and tares, wheat and chaff.

And since Tares are indistinguishable, God has given us warning so that we, on an individual basis, can examine ourselves to know if we be in the faith, or if we have deceived ourselves. And an unbroken pattern of sin in our lives, without repentance and conviction, is a Biblical evidence of self-deception.


Continued...

 

[ladylynn]

Gee, thanks. Now when I read some of these posts the Peanuts theme song is going to start...


God bless.

Is that a bad thing????????

 

[P1LGR1M]

You do this?

I would certainly like to know, if you are implying I have...where exactly you see me as having done this.
I just stated a fact, Have you?

You haven't stated a fact, you have levied a charge that will remain false witness unless you can verify the charge with evidence.

If you think you are going to obscure the details of this conversation, you deceive yourself.


Here is the statement again:

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

and add words to scripture or books or doctrines, which are not there.

You do this?

I would certainly like to know, if you are implying I have...where exactly you see me as having done this.

Who is it that it is a fact they have done this?

Jews? Catholics? Relevance to the discussion?

More to the point...what Lordship Salvation proponent has done this...in fact. Where has John MacArthur done this?

My question to you, "You do this?" challenges your charge. You say...

...But we keep making the same mistakes..and add words to scripture or books or doctrines, which are not there.

...so the obvious corollary is that you include yourself in this, or...you are simply speaking fluff. Of course you do not consider yourself guilty of this, right? So provide examples of those that do, and how it is relevant to the issue of Lordship Salvation.

Are you following lordship salvation?

I follow Christ, and I make Scripture the only authoritative resource available to believers.

As far as Lordship Salvation goes, we have to examine the individual proposals of those who say they are followers, rather than going around speaking generalities that only serve to confuse the issue, and erroneously bias people who will likewise conclude apart from all relevant elements of the issue.

Now will you quote something that might be seen as a basis for your question? lol

Then it would seem you are.

Always answer your own questions?

Seems to be a pretty popular approach for some, guess I shouldn't be surprised.

If your following Antimonialism, or any doctrine of men, you are.. I do not now if you are or not,

Finally, a true statement: it is obvious...you don't know.

And it is equally obvious you don't care.

but you sure seem to have a guilty complex. why is that?

I am not the one bemoaning "We are making the same mistakes as the Jew and the Catholic and the Church." lol

My conscience is clear. Now if you would like to point out something you think I should be guilty for, or am guilty of...please do so. That has been asked several times in this thread.

That is not even a reasonable statement, lol.

Oh its not.

No, it's not. lol

A man gets scripture right, then makes up some doctrine based on things which are not supported in scripture.

Now you have changed what you said. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

...and add words to scripture or books or doctrines, which are not there. Even if a man of God who got every doctrine right and led many people to God did this, it does not make what he did right. He did not trust God in this area.

Where in this do you say "...then makes up some doctrine based on things which are not supported in scripture..."?

But thanks for confirming my conclusion, your statement makes no sense. Here is why: if a man adds to God's Word...he did not get every doctrine right, but quite the opposite, he failed on such a fundamental level it is absurd to suggest he did get every doctrine right, lol.

Further, we already understand the unlikelihood of doctrinal flawlessness, so it is not an issue of great concern. If we conclude there is someone who is doctrinally flawless, we might suspect idol worship, lol.

And further, the suggestion that terms not found in the Bible cannot represent Biblical Truth is absurd. And that is a primary thrust of your argument, that the term Lordship Salvation is not found in Scripture, so the teaching must not be either. Are you Trinitarian? Do you partake of Communion? Have you been immersed in Christian Baptism?

or supported weakly but not emphatically. And he claims this doctrine is from God. And that's not reasonable?

Which brings us back to square one: why do you object to those who use this term to discuss the issues behind the controversy?

I have provided Scripture I believe teaches that salvation is questionable if there remains an unbroken pattern of sin, an absence of growth, a failure to continue in the faith.

It's "not right for a man of God to get every Doctrine right?"


I never said that, there you go misreading again.

Not really, I am just trying to reconcile the paradox you suggest. This is somewhat similar to the paradox of "Christian Abortion Clinic Bombers."


God bless.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Are you now acknowledging Lordship Salvation? Or the Biblical Principle that is debated?

Just because a term is applied to something doesn't mean it then becomes valid or invalid.

Neither one.. I do not see its points as biblical.

Most Christian so called "doctrine" of differing churches have some points of truth to it, It does not make it fact or biblical.

Thats why it can be dangerous, the owner can point to the actual truths which are supported with no question, to get people not looking to believe in a lie based on that small amount of truth (ie half truths, or even if their is half of the stuff that is true)

Remeber, Change one word, and you have a different interpretation. When it comes to the gospel. thats dangerous, Paul said change one word and make it a different gospel. and your headed and leading people to hell. (gal 1)

Sometimes extra-biblical terms just make sense.

Like Trinity. Communion. Antinomianism. Easy-Believism. Hermeneutics. Exegesis. Eisegesis. Exposition.

And sometimes false doctrines such as create conditions which can be misleading need a term to counter those conditions.

Let's see, what is the title of that one teaching against easy believism, "Empty heads, empty hearts?" lol

Easy Believism? Hmm, Peter called it licentiousness, and judged that those peoples condemnation was pre-ordained.

See how sticking to scripture makes it so much easier than trying to waddle through a bunch of words which some person came up with to explain a term he decided to make up?

Not sure how you reach this conclusion by what I said. I say quite clearly that building doctrine that does not incorporate the Whole Counsel is foolish. I say nothing about elevating the works of man above Scripture.And just for the record, I am going to be the first person to encourage people to focus on the Word of God and keep the works of men in their proper perspective.

My posting always reflects that. So this is yet another false argument added to the discussion which only serves to confuse the issues that are actually relevant.

If your saying these doctrines, which are not founded in Scripture. but by some man, are the words of God. (like say lordship salvation)

then your doing the exact thing the jews and Catholics did.

If your not. Then I have nothing against you.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Is that a bad thing????????

Just being facetious, Lady, I actually love the Peanuts theme and think it quite appropriate for some of these posts.




God bless.