Featured People are so ignorant these days of Lordship Salvation...

"If He is not your Lord He is not your savior".

This sticks in my craw because Jesus Christ is God (the Logos) come in the flesh the unique God-man.

His persona cannot be dissected into Lord, Savior, God, man... Since He is the indivisible incarnate Logos the above quotation should not be made.

If one has accepted His persona via the drawing and calling of the Holy Spirit then you have Him (o logos) in His incarnate entirety and your sanctification is assured (well, you have somewhat to do with it as well).

HankD

 

Would you then agree or not with those who seem to be teaching in Lordship salvation that a sinner must repent of all known sins, and then able to get saved?

And once saved, they must confess and repent of all known sins, in order to make sure that thet were even saved?

And Dr MacArthur holds that a christian no longer even has the old sin nature, but just the new one, do you agree with that also?

Just seems like they have confused justification, and who we are right now in christ, with still working out the sauctification into the image of Christ...

Dies not seemto have too much "grace" in teir certain viewpoints!

 

You didn't say whether or not you had read his book.

On p. 202 (1st ed.) he says concerning the passage, "The Bible does not teach salvation by martyrdom. The Lord was not advising the disciples to try to get themselves killed for him. He is referring again to a pattern, a direction. He simply says that genuine Christias do not shrink back, even in the face of death. To express it another way, the true disciple tends to follow the Lord, even at the expense of his own self."

When I first read the book I received the distinct impression that MacArthur was saying that the "take up your cross" passage was about salvation. The above quote reinforces that view. And just as you have IMO, he ignored the implications of making a teaching to people already disciples to have something to do with salvation. He ends the chapter by saying, "That is how it is when you sign up to follow Jesus Christ. That is the stuff of true discipleship" (ibid). If that is not applying this passage on commitment to salvation, I don't know what is.

 

I agree that MacArthur is not a theologian. He seems weak in the original languages; his use of the Granville Sharp rule for "pastor-teacher" in Eph. 4 is one example.

I also agree that he is an extremely talented teacher. I listen occasionally to him and marvel at his voice, ability to convince, delivery, etc.

 

Matt. 12 is only speaking of salvation incidentally. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit means one cannot be forgiven, and is therefore lost. But to apply the passage to Lordship salvation is very poor exegesis. It is not talking about how to get saved, which is the LS emphasis, but about one way to be lost forever.

A parable is an extended metaphor, and that is exactly what John 15 is; that is unless you think Christ is a real plant, and we are actually somehow real branches.

Yes, by all means let us examine ourselves...but not others.

How does love for Christs occur? Automatically? Or is there a process somehow? Please consider the doctrine of positional sanctification before you answer.

 

As to fruit inspectors and "examiners" ; IMO there is a qualified place for the examination of another.
Faithful pastors and missionaries must do it for the sake of the individuals entrusted to them.

But in what venue?

Not as judge, jury and hangman but as a student of the great physician, to examine the health of those to whom they minister, to diagnose whatever illnesses present and administer the medicine of the word and to give advice as to avoiding those things which led to the illness.

Yes, sometimes it is necessary to quarantine a sheep from the flock to stop the spread of the disease to others but when he/she has returned to health then they are returned with joy to the assembly.

HankD

 

What is poor exegesis is to ignore the clear meaning of our Lord's words. "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things........" If someone is born again by the Spirit of God he will, he must, bring forth good fruit. If there is no fruit there is no new birth. I know of no more wicked thing than for a preacher or teacher to tell his hearers that they can live like the devil and still belong to God. ''Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before Me in this house, which bears My Name and say, "We are safe!"- safe to do all these detestable things?" (Jeremiah 7:10-11, NIV).

So because you think it's a parable you suppose that you can ignore its clear meaning and incidentally avoid dealing with Galatians 5 and Romans 8:3?

That is exactly what I said. However, to teach people not to examine themselves because it's OK to be a 'carnal Christian' is both wrong and wicked (cf. Jeremiah 8:11).

Love for Christ comes from a renewed heart, from the New Birth ( cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3). 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' When we are born again we love Christ and love to keep His commands (Psalm 40:6-8). We are also set apart (sanctified) by God for good works which He prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10).

 

I don't ignore it's meaning. I simply don't agree with you. Do I have to agree with you to avoid ignoring the meaning of a passage?

Wow, what brought that on? I haven't said what I believe the parables you mentioned mean, so how would you know I "ignore its clear meaning"?

Frankly, the view that one must consciously accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved (LS) and the doctrine that we will bring forth good fruit if we are saved are two different subjects. I'm not sure you really understand LS as taught by John MacArthur and others.

Wow, where did you get this? Have I used the term "carnal Christian" or taught the concept? No. Please simply stick to what I actually write here and don't assume you know things about my teaching that I haven't written.

I agree completely with this statement, but you are not discussing LS here but sanctification, and you even use the term "sanctify." In fact, I have said exactly what you just said, only in different words: sanctification (both positional and progressive) is not possible apart from regeneration.

 

Well said.

 

I see a distinct difference in considering the cost of salvation, saying I will move my life this way and actually moving forward and doing it. The latter indicates a saved person the former does not. I do not limit man's ability to consider to merely saying I want salvation and I will trust Jesus for that. There is no scripture to support that. As Jesus said and as I posted who would not first weigh the cost?

 

"No Scripture to support that"? You have not yet considered my post on becoming a little child (Gr. paidion) in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

 

It is my position that you take his analogy too far. I see His analogy as simply indicating that we trust Jesus in a way that relies fully on Him. When you compare that verse with the one I posted about counting the cost we see a more clear picture.

 

Well Darrel, I only note that the Lord Jesus does not say, "The church is like.....," He says, "the kingdom of heaven is like......" IMO, the kingdom of heaven is more than simply the church. It is:
1. God's kingship, rule or recognized sovereignty (Luke 17:21; Matthew 6:10).
2. Complete salvation: all its spiritual and material blessings. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And they.......said, "Then who can be saved?"' (Mark 10:25-26).
3. The church: the community of men and women in whose hearts God is set apart as King. "....And on this rock I will build My church........I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).
4. The redeemed universe: the new heaven and new earth. ".......Inherit the kingdom prepared for you......" (Matthew 25:34).

This is a long way of saying, yes, in the parable, the 'sons of the kingdom' are the Church, but you should not automatically assume that 'kingdom of heaven' = church.

The KoG arrives with the Lord Jesus. 'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' are the first word of His public ministry. The age to come has broken in upon the present age and it is constantly expanding (Matthew 11:12). Al through the time between our Lord's ascension and His second coming, He is adding to His kingdom (cf. Revelation 6:2), and folk are being drawn out of darkness into the kingdom (Colossians 1:13). But the kingdom was in embryo in our Lord's time on earth (Matthew 13:31-32) will not come in its fullness until His glorious return (eg. Matthew 25:31).

The kingdom that the Jews were looking for (John 6:15; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6) is not on offer. When Christ returns there will be the New Heavens and the New Earth, the age to come in all its fulness. There is only one people of God (John 10:16; Galatians 3:26-29; Ephesians 2:11-18). This is not Replacement Theology; it's Inclusion Theology

I doubt our differences will be sorted out on this forum, but I'll respond to your other posts as I have time. Thanks for the conversation.

 

Frankly, I'm pretty sure we'll just have to continue to disagree on this one.

What about the definition of the Gospel given in 1 Cor. 15:1-8? I have never had an LS advocate satisfactorily explain to me why Paul's definition does not include anything about the Lordship of Christ. In fact, one BB denizen once told me, "Oh, you guys just keep quoting that." Of course we do. The passage is vital in understanding the Gospel.

That brings up this point. When you do evangelism, do you insist people acknowledge the Lordship of Christ as they believe on Him? This is where the rubber meets the road. I once was on an ordination council where the candidate persisted in sounding like he believed in LS until I asked him the above question. He said that no, he did not, and I was satisfied.

It is this insistence that makes LS problematic to the rest of us. It is especially problematic when the special speaker makes it a condition of salvation, and tells everyone to get saved if they hadn't done that. John Mark Charlton tells about the devastation in a church when this was done in his book, The Evil Fruit and Errors of Lordship Salvation. People who had been saved and served God for decades became convinced they were not saved.

 

My view is that the "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 13 is all of what is called Christendom including the cults and odd sects of so called "Christianity".

Christendom is the expanse of churches, assemblies, gatherings, groups, etc... who name the name of Jesus Christ both saved and unsaved most calling Him Lord.

For this reason I believe Jesus does not call this mixed multitude the kingdom of the church.

Only God Himself can see that collective group of His born again sons and daughters (the redeemed church) within this hodge-podge.

This kingdom is scattered across the globe and again contains within it the mixed multitude of the children of God (wheat) and the children of the devil (tares).

This mixture can and does happen within individual local churches although there may be individual local churches in which all are saved or all are lost.

At the end of the world/age there will be the Great Separation of the wheat and the tares.
Until then, strangely enough Jesus tells those of the harvest to leave the tares alone.

HankD

 

And that's ok

That's not a definition. When you preach the gospel do you also include that He appeared to those same people every time you preach or witness? Was Paul trying to be exhaustive in that one section of scripture?

I will point you to Romans 10:9-10. Why did Paul include it?

It's not a definition. He is recounting what he preached to them and we do not know the entirety of the context, circumstances, or mind set of the people. Did those people already understand that if we are going to believe in God that He must be Lord? prove to me they did not or make clear the entirety of the circumstances of the event Paul is looking back to.

That brings up this point. When you do evangelism, do you insist people acknowledge the Lordship of Christ as they believe on Him?

I insist that they understand in full before finalizing a decision just what the Christian life will be like. They understand that they will be giving up their own lives and now doing what God commands in their lives. They understand this is a life of sacrifice and commitment not just a get out of hell free card.

 

I'm sorry revmitchell but this does sounds like an admixture of faith and works. The work being "giving up their own lives". To me it just doesn't ring of the free gift of God - the gospel of faith.

HankD

 

People call whatever they want works. In scripture works are a reference to the law. However, when you deal with Jesus's words on counting the cost and taking up our cross in an exhaustive and effective manner then I will believe this is more than just a personal preference for you.

 

It certainly is a definition, or there is no definition of the Gospel in the Bible. As for the people Jesus appeared to, I go with John R. W. Stott's excellent explanation: "He actually mentions four events--the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus. Yet it is clear that his emphasis is on two, namely that Christ died (and was buried in order to prove it) and that Christ rose (and was seen in order to prove it). The appearance attested the reality of his resurrection, as the burial attested the reality of his death" (Christian Mission in the Modern World, p. 44).

Yes, this is a very common point brought up by LS advocates, but it is a weak one. The passage says, "the Lord Jesus Christ," not "Jesus Christ as Lord." And if you are going to truly use that passage in evangelism, do you make sure people do that confession so you can hear it, with their mouth? So a deaf person or a person handicapped so he can't talk can't get saved, right?

And try the book of Galatians, which is more openly about the Gospel and a false Gospel than Romans is. The title "Lord" (and it is a title in Greek) occurs in 7 verses, but in none of them is it tied to the Gospel.

Surely you don't believe Paul preached the Gospel there only once, do you? He was in the city for 18 months (Acts 18:11), and preached the Gospel many times. I classify "preached the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1 as an iterative aorist: he preached it over and over.

Also, "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks" (Acts 18:4). What did he preach? He clearly says so: Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2). The Bible does not say in Acts or the epistles that he preached "Lordship" to them. He preached "Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Not "Christ is Lord," because they needed first to have their sins forgiven and be regenerated before they could accept Christ as Lord.

Well, at least you are being consistent. Most LS advocates are not.

 

I don't have a problem with this what I disagree on is your claiming Paul meant this as a definition.

Ok at this point it seems our conversation is deteriorating. The reason I say this is you make an absurd claim but offer no alternative for my point. Basically you are just mocking. I know you are better than that.

OK????

You do not seem to realize it but you are creating your own problem by trying to create one for me. I can turn all those verses and mine back at you and say why did Paul not talk about death burial and resurrection? Sometimes it is just Resurrection. Further, sometimes Baptist is made part of the picture by some in scripture and other times it is not. Sometimes repentance is made part of the picture and other times it is not. Your argument hurts your own.