LORDSHIP SALVATION

[eternally-gratefull]

[/B][/COLOR]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:



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...


...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.

[/B]
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
[/B]
Always answer your own questions?

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

[/B]Finally, a true statement: it is obvious...you don't know.

And it is equally obvious you don't care.
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.




[/B]No, it's not. lol

[/B]Now you have changed what you said. Here it is again:


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?


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.




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.

rolls eyes..

I will be honest. I have no idea what your just tried to convey. And do not have time to play games this morning.

Try reading what I said, not trying to come up with preconceived ideas of what I mean, and maybe you will understand..

 

[P1LGR1M]

Yeah and you still do not get it.

I'll let the record speak for itself. So far no-one has sufficiently shown I am not understanding the discussion as it has unfolded. I understand that this post is in fact a reversal of the position you implied taking, and that is a good thing.

You validate what I have been saying since being involved in the discussion, so thanks.

Are you still offended?

I told you, you will know if that happens.

False charges and false witness run rampant on "Christian" Forums, and when it happens, I don't mind pointing it out.

Now you, or anyone, can present the first teaching of John Macarthur that can be called into question, I would love for you to do that. You are saying two things at once, "I recognize the validity of an address of easy believism, and...I reject it.

It's not me who is conflicted in my position.

You said.

1. There are classes (I would rather call it stages) of christianity.

And gave the Scripture to validate my position.

Now the burden is on you to agree, which you do, or to invalidate it.

2. Basically a question, Can one be saved and maintain a un-christian lifestyle.

That is a question that Scripture asks, not me.

My response.

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

The question remains, how can you think it reasonable to rail against something...you accept as Biblical?

That is the great mystery here.

You got offended.. Why?

It will take a little more than poor presentation and confused doctrinal positions to offend me, lol.

I just made a statement of fact.

This...

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.

Again, If one reads scripture, and has faith in the true gospel of Christ, and truly repents. The things of God will be evident in a changed life.

Adding a doctrine to the word of God to prevent something which may be or is bad does not help the doctrine any, It just is another cause for division.

...does not represent fact, it is incontrovertibly error.

You are saying that teaching on Lordship Salvation is in conflict with Scripture, you have suggested it is adding to the Word of God, and yet...


...here you are confirming the very points I have raised.

Simply amazing.

That is 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.

Well, some people will benefit from being taught the issues which surround the controversy, and hopefully, we will have less people going around besmirching honorable teachers who do a great job of sifting through the nonsense.

Anyone can levy false witness, and we can make anyone we choose look bad by exposing errors we perceive, the question is...should we? I think so, but, if we do, it needs to be based on Biblical Principles and done with Christian Conduct which does not present yet another reason for people to shun the Word of God itself.

By obscuring the issues the result is that those who might potentially benefit from the teachings that address the issues Biblically...will be justified in their rejection of the Truth in general.

MacArthur is going to get through to some of the people who are engaged in nominal Christianity, and I have yet to see the first teaching of his that lacks a Biblical Basis.

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.

Don'[t tell me about it...tell those who believe "there doesn't have to be any fruit."

All I need is my bible.

I agree. However, there is nothing wrong with people who have not yet learned how to study on their own taking advantage of the Teachers and Preachers God has placed in the Body.

They're there for a reason, it is God's wisdom to place them there for the purpose of edifying the Body that the Body might grow in grace and knowledge.

so again, What is your problem?

I think I have stated what I have a problem with quite well, and I think you know that.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

rolls eyes..

I will be honest. I have no idea what your just tried to convey. And do not have time to play games this morning.

Try reading what I said, not trying to come up with preconceived ideas of what I mean, and maybe you will understand..

I would agree, you are having a hard time understanding what I am saying, but hopefully, one day you will.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

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.

Yes...you do:

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.)

Now, as I said before, we have to examine each individual's understanding of what is meant by the Term "Lordship Salvation."

But it is being broad-brushed here with the error of besmirching those who view the tenets of the controversy to be true.

We both agree, according to what you have said, that Scripture does not teach a faith that is alone. That we are created in Christ unto good works. That an unbroken pattern of unrepentant sin should be questioned as evidence of genuine faith.

Right?

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

And we address each error on a doctrinal basis...not condemning whole groups and the individual believers among them.

You speak of Jews and Catholics as though there cannot possibly be any saved among them. If a believer being in error nullifies the grace of God...

...we are all in trouble.

No-one will benefit from salvation.

All believers start out in error, that is just a given. It is due primarily to ignorance, but, we can say that ignorance is no excuse. Not when we are commanded to seek after truth in God's Word. We are held to a standard that does not allow for error when it comes to those who teach.

There will be error, but what are we told is profitable for correction?

Scripture.

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)

This is not even relevant.

We distinguish between doctrinal distinctives of denominations and...false teaching.

And it seems you are trying to vilify Lordship Salvation and those who acknowledge the issues of the controversy.

Again, please show me something MacArthur has taught that is in error and unbiblical. You're not going to find it. MacArthur has a solid track record of defending Sola Fide, and to suggest his teaching is unbiblical on this issue is absurd. Only those ignorant of his teachings would levy such an accusation.

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)

This is an example of simply expressing opinion.

Please quote Paul from Galatians One where we see your opinion..."Paul said change one word and make it a different gospel. and your headed and leading people to hell."

Please show me where you derive that from Galatians One.

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.

So you recognize easy believism as equated to licentiousness, lol.

Great, go to ten people and ask them what licentious means.

Then go ask them what easy believism means. See which one understands you better.

Again, nothing wrong with using terms that are not in Scripture.

You do understand that Peter never used the word licentious, right?

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?

No, I don't.

The KJV Translators used a word that wasn't in there. So did other translators. Would you show me the word licentious in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?

It's just not there.

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)

So you're saying that the word licentious is the Word of God?

Are you saying that there is no Trinity?

We should not partake of Communion because some man decided to use an extra-biblical word?

It's just a matter of communicating the teachings and concepts of Scripture. We don't find the terms Positional Sanctification and Progressive Sanctification either, are they Biblical Teachings?

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

Which ones? All of them?

Again, you simply cannot broad-brush groups, nor put them all in the same box.

If your not. Then I have nothing against you.

Whether you have something against me or not, I don't know, nor do I see it as relevant. This is just a discussion, there is nothing personal in this exchange. If there is, it is not from my side.


God bless.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'll let the record speak for itself. So far no-one has sufficiently shown I am not understanding the discussion as it has unfolded. I understand that this post is in fact a reversal of the position you implied taking, and that is a good thing.

Ok Man, My topic is what I said and you understanding what I SAID.

If you are not going to understand this, there is no need of going on.

So are you going to admit you misunderstood me (and as far as I know. still are) Or continue to be to proud and prove you have no desire to discuss.

I will nto answer anythign else until we get this straightned out.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I would agree, you are having a hard time understanding what I am saying, but hopefully, one day you will.


God bless.

something needs to happen first.

You need to understand what I am saying, so you can properly respond. Until then (most of your answeres are based on false assumptions) I can not understand what your saying, because our foundation is on two differing things.

 

[ember]

PILGRIM:

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.

Well, when people think they speak for God and know better than anyone else, that is usually the false and ridiculous claim that they make.

It absolutely IS only YOUR opinion! MacArthur is a rabid cessationist and that alone puts him in very grave error...I can start to see where the false doctrine creeps in concerning salvation and works...

I just love it when things deteriorate to 'you are lying' 'you are bearing false witness'

IMO, that's trash talk designed to make the person who disagrees with you angry. guess what? I find it childish

Can't you just discouse without accusing? You know who the accuser is, right?

It is solid fact that MacArthur is a cessationist and not only so, but extremely angry at those who say that is not so!

You seem to be taking on his method of attacking...I think you should cool it

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?

Actually, God bears witness by His Spirit that I belong to Him. You seem to be getting angrier and angrier. Maybe if you start to actually speak about what is written by others rather than falsifying what they write, you would have the peace of the Holy Spirit!

 

[ember]

Here is pilgrims last word on this thread:

Not my fault

of course it's not your fault! you are following false teaching!

simply renounce it and ask for forgiveness and then accept the truth instead!

 

[ember]

I don't think lordship salvation has been discussed in these forums before...at least not while I have been a member here

I find it interesting that this false doctrine is defended in the same manner that all other false doctrines have been defended here

False accusations against other posters

Twisting both scripture and what others say

Accusations designed to put the disagreeing poster off guard and draw them into personal mud slinging

Blind adherence to what is NOT biblical!

No freedom in Christ...only a set of rules from which platform others are accused and told they are liars and not saved

Oh hooray!

yeah...I don't think any of the above is why Christ died!

 

[P1LGR1M]

Ok Man, My topic is what I said and you understanding what I SAID.

The topic is Lordship Salvation, and the misconceptions and false charges levied, not to mention false witness which is contrary to Christian Conduct.

I have addressed you in detail, and few would conclude I have not understood what you have said. I'm okay either way. I have done my part, and am willing to leave it at that. This kind of exchange, where one seeks to justify their error...does nothing but waste time and distract from the topic.

If you are not going to understand this, there is no need of going on.

You will need to show what I haven't understood.

It seems that you are beginning to understand, and I appreciate you ceding the point that Scripture teaches against easy believism, and faith that does not actually correlate to what Scripture teaches.

This is a major problem, and the state of Modern Christendom can be seen in the many people claiming to be Christians, yet defending unbiblical doctrines and lifestyles. Because of this error Secular Humanism is on the rise, and has in fact embraced America in a stranglehold of nominal righteousness.

Are those that promote the murder of infants Christians that can validate their beliefs with Scripture? Are those who say God is okay with people maintaining a homosexual lifestyle correct? Can the Word of God be a buffet of concepts that can be subjectively applied to all kinds of different Christians?

I don't think so.


1 Peter 1:15-16

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

[SUP]16 [/SUP]Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.


Now don't get me wrong, I am not denying that Christians grow and learn to live holy lives, so I am not suggesting that all Christians meet the same standard or their salvation is questioned. We allow for growth and the fact that we are going to sin after we are saved, and be in need of confessing our sins and being cleansed as we grow.

But that is not what is in view here. What is in view is the suggestion that we do not need to follow one of the most Basic Bible Principles we have...that we have a responsibility to be live holy lives before Holy God.

How long before we have "Christians" trying to teach that drug use is perfectly normal for Christians?

So are you going to admit you misunderstood me (and as far as I know. still are)

No, why would I do that, lol.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, point it out.

That's what debate is all about, my friend.

Or continue to be to proud and prove you have no desire to discuss.

Pride? What has pride have to do with it?

And how in the world can you conclude...I don't want to discuss it? lol

I will nto answer anythign else until we get this straightned out.

That is your choice, my friend.

I have to get going anyway, so I leave it to you to decide if that which you have said has remained consistent, and whether you might not consider that there can be beneficial discussion about the controversy that surrounds Lordship Salvation.

My primary objection is the implication that MacArthur and all who say they embrace Lordship Salvation are false teachers who are leading people to Hell.

At the very least, I can say with confidence that MacArthur's teaching will do exactly what Scripture has always done...bring conviction to those engaged in erroneous beliefs and practices.

We have to be careful when we deny works-based salvation we don't go to the extreme of creating an equally false gospel that nullifies the cleansing power of the Word of God. We look into that mirror and see our sin, come under conviction, and seek to live holy before God, not because we think it will contribute to our salvation, but because it is what He expects.


Romans 12:1

King James Version (KJV)
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

[SUP]2 [/SUP]And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.


Is there a good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God for our lives?

Or can we conform God's Word to an easily manageable and digestible set of cherry-picked concepts by which we can comfortably live.

The Word of God will bring conviction, and when there is no conviction, and there is in fact a contrary doctrine and practice instead, the Word of God teaches us that we should question that. First in ourselves, but, that doesn't mean that the unbroken pattern of men proclaiming the truth is contrary to a sound presentation of the Gospel.

Someone said, "The Gospel is not about sin!"

That is about the most damnable thing I have heard in quite some time. Thee is no Good News but that the bad news of man's condition is also brought to bear. The Bad News can be seen to begin in Genesis, but according to His Wisdom, it is not until New Testament Revelation that the Good News is fully revealed.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

something needs to happen first.

You need to understand what I am saying, so you can properly respond. Until then (most of your answeres are based on false assumptions) I can not understand what your saying, because our foundation is on two differing things.

My Foundation is Jesus Christ. Have you another?

What you are asking is for me to justify your statements, which I will not do. I have addressed what I see as being in error, and as I have said, you are welcome to rebuttal.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

PILGRIM:

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.

Point out where?

You only validate what I have said with this post, lol.

Now the truth is coming out. You are a Charismatic that hates MacArthur because his preaching against the errors seen in certain charismatic churches are pointed out.

Right?

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

I can.

That is the fact.

Please show where MacArthur's teachings concerning Lordship Salvation are in error.

You can't and that eats you up. I am very sorry for you, but that is going to be your fate as long as you treat the Word of God so frivolously.

And you reveal the real reason why you bear false witness, you are offended because his teachings cast your own beliefs into question. Go figure.

Well, when people think they speak for God and know better than anyone else, that is usually the false and ridiculous claim that they make.

Well, I would suggest that John MacArthur certainly knows better than you do, lol.

When he confronts error, unlike you, he is not just levying the charge...he backs it up with a Biblical presentation showing why he finds that issue to be in error.

Try it sometime.

It absolutely IS only YOUR opinion! MacArthur is a rabid cessationist and that alone puts him in very grave error...

A rabid cessationist. Thanks for being honest.

Now you have told the public the reason for your false witness.

And we both know that your enmity against John MacArthur is simply you trying to justify your own beliefs.

So anything in particular he teaches as having ceased that you have a problem with? I would guess perhaps the gift of languages. Which is not quite the same thing as "unknown tongues."

I can start to see where the false doctrine creeps in concerning salvation and works...

Thanks for being honest.

Before you said...

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...

The problem is that you are forced to be inconsistent, and this because your doctrine is biased and a result of what you want to believe, not what Scripture teaches.

You are illustrating that you don't mind being dishonest, hiding your true motives for bringing dispersion on another, and that, Ember, is something you better give some thought to.

And if you can convince yourself that this is Christian Conduct, then you are woefully deceived about what Christian Conduct should look like.

I identified your false witness and tried, very nicely, to point out that MacArthur has a consistent track record as a capable defender of Sola Fide, and that your implication that he teaches works-based salvation was in error, and that your error was due to unfamiliarity with what he actually teaches.

I can guarantee you this, if you persist in trying to maintain that your charges are just, and you do not do anything but slander, you are going to be exposed for what you are really doing.

Your doctrine will cause you to be hypocritical and it will cause you to change your story, so the choice is yours, withdraw your false witness and deal with the realities of this discussion, or, continue to have your doctrine examined.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

I just love it when things deteriorate to 'you are lying' 'you are bearing false witness'

I can see that. Of course, because your doctrine is in error, this is your only recourse.

IMO, that's trash talk designed to make the person who disagrees with you angry. guess what? I find it childish

So do I, lol.

Can't you just discouse without accusing?

I beg your pardon, I have never, from a child, ever discoused.

And I resent you implying I do.

You know who the accuser is, right?

Yes, I have made that very clear: you.

You are falsely accusing someone of something that is so far from the truth it is absurd. John MacArthur teaching works-based salvation? lol

That is why I presented the Manhattan Declaration and the ECT Document.

But you have revealed your true motivation for slandering him and providing deceptive and dishonest testimony against him. Now the Public can see your motives are suspect.

It is solid fact that MacArthur is a cessationist

And?

Cessation is not the only issue, he also denies ecstatic speech as the Gift of Languages. He also questions "Slaying in the Spirit." He also questions madhouse "worship" which makes the unbeliever think Christians are mad.

and not only so, but extremely angry at those who say that is not so!

Just like you think I am angry, right? lol

John has a concern for those who get involved with false doctrine and practice.

You seem to be taking on his method of attacking...I think you should cool it

Who have I attacked?

Could you quote me attacking someone?

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?

Actually, God bears witness by His Spirit that I belong to Him.

No-one has questioned yours, or anyone else's salvation, what is in view is an address of the doctrine.

You can't even keep your own statements together, first denying you imply MacArthur teaches works-based salvation, then admitting it.

I was correct in discerning your view, you denied it, then confirmed it.

You seem to be getting angrier and angrier.

I can't help you with perception, lol.

Trust me, I'm not mad (in the sense of being angry, not sure I couldn't be charged with Paul's meaning of the word, lol).

Maybe if you start to actually speak about what is written by others rather than falsifying what they write,

Good advice, which I suggest you take yourself.

You have falsely accused MacArthur as a works-based Salvationist, and that is just ignorant. You can accuse me of what you want, just try to present a quote so I can know the context.

you would have the peace of the Holy Spirit!

Not going to lose peace over those who hold to erroneous positions, or those who have no self control, which is largely due to the fact that they cannot support their positions from Scripture.

My views remain consistent, which is not something you can say. My views are not based on emotion, which is not something you can say. My views do not falsely charge, and I thank you again for illustrating that and being honest about why you hate MacArthur.


God bless.

 

[crossnote]

Pilgrim, you are reminding me of a cult follower whose leader can say or do no wrong.
MacArthur has changed his position on a number of issues the most grievous was this, while Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame was in their prime MacArthur was friendly with the movement, and with Chuck Smith even approving of the worship music and styles etc, but when Chuck Smith passed MacArthur turns and scoriates the Calvary Chapel movement in the Strange Fire Conference.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The topic is Lordship Salvation, and the misconceptions and false charges levied, not to mention false witness which is contrary to Christian Conduct.

Well thats good. But you said my response to you (which was not reguarding Lordship Salvation, but something you said) Was in error. Because you refuse to even consider what I said.

So are you going to discuss that so we can move on, Or continue to deny?

Its up to you. We can go no further until we get our origional dicussion completed first.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes...you do:



Now, as I said before, we have to examine each individual's understanding of what is meant by the Term "Lordship Salvation."

lol..

Dude, you keep sinking yourself deeper and deeper.

You claimed I did not believe that by what I said,

I said you misunderstood me

Now your twisting it even more? WHich is it??

I do not have to do anything, all I have to do is do what Gods word says. But thats not the point. the point is, STILL, I did not need the doctrine of Lordship salvation to tell me those things are true.

But we can not get past that, because your still arguing it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

My Foundation is Jesus Christ. Have you another?

How old are you, Really, I am asking because you seem to have no basis on how to read what people say. It seems like every word or thought that comes out of your mind is to defend yourself. like the whole world is out to get you. I remember being this way and others being like this when we were kids, and did not know any better, we thought the whole world was out to get us..

DO you feel this way?

I was not even talking about our eternal foundation. I am talking about the foundational meaning of OUR DISCUSSION.

You always want to twist things, Keep this up. and I will stop even giving you the time of Day, just turn you over in prayer, because I can not take you seriously

 

[P1LGR1M]

Pilgrim, you are reminding me of a cult follower whose leader can say or do no wrong.
MacArthur has changed his position on a number of issues the most grievous was this, while Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame was in their prime MacArthur was friendly with the movement, and with Chuck Smith even approving of the worship music and styles etc, but when Chuck Smith passed MacArthur turns and scoriates the Calvary Chapel movement in the Strange Fire Conference.

Not much of a follower if I say I have problems with some of his teachings.

How has MacArthur changed his position on this and present what you find to be in error.

MacArthur is not the prime issue here, the primary issue is when someone falsely accuses another, and that is shown to be false.

Now you can show how I am a cult-like follower of MacArthur as well, lol.

I am not familiar with Church Smith and believe it or not, I didn't rush out and get Strange Fire.

So please present what exactly MacArthur teaches about Lordship Salvation that warrants placing him in a category of works-based salvation.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

O

riginally Posted by P1LGR1M

The topic is Lordship Salvation, and the misconceptions and false charges levied, not to mention false witness which is contrary to Christian Conduct.

Well thats good. But you said my response to you (which was not reguarding Lordship Salvation, but something you said) Was in error.

Here it is again:

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.

Again, If one reads scripture, and has faith in the true gospel of Christ, and truly repents. The things of God will be evident in a changed life.

How is this not to do with Lordship Salvation?

Because you refuse to even consider what I said.

Not a single word you have said has gone without address.

So are you going to discuss that so we can move on, Or continue to deny?

Deny what?

It's amazing that you feel I am the one missing the point, lol.

Its up to you. We can go no further until we get our origional dicussion completed first.

Okay, here you 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.

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

Again, If one reads scripture, and has faith in the true gospel of Christ, and truly repents. The things of God will be evident in a changed life.

What is it you feel was missed in what has already been addressed?

Please share that with me.


God bless.

 

[Hoffco]

MacArthur is not a "works based", but GRACE based . But, the bad part of Macarthur and the reformers , is they put Justification ahead of Reg. Sanctification is first, Justi. follows Sanct,Regeneration is first. MacArthur say" sal. is all by faith" this is DEAD WRONG but mac. preaches a great Regeneration . He is confusing people by trying SOOO hard not to be "works "based. Love to all Hoffco