Arguments Against Calvinism...

[Reformed]

Reformed - I can only relate to you personal experience, as that's all I have. My church, and none of the other churches local to me that I would visit, stress Lordship Salvation. In my discussions with people who do support LS, they treat it as a works-based salvation, in that you have to show works to maintain your salvation. Perhaps they are telling me an incorrect form of LS, and if so, then I'll have learned something.

Tony,

My opinion is not experiential, it is exegetical (see the passages I used in my previous post).

As for your last paragraph, how many people on this board, outside of the Greek-heavy fellows in the translation forum, do you think will actually be able to provide a lot of in-depth "empirical data?" We're a discussion board, not a academic forum. We all use anecdotal evidence because that is the evidence most readily applied to our own understanding.

This is a cop-out. You made a pretty serious accusation against LS proponents that you cannot back up. And to hide behind "we all use anecdotal evidence". Yes. We all use anecdotal accounts but some of us primarily argue from scripture. You will find, at least among those who are Reformed or Reformed-leaning, that scripture is the only real authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Am I riled by your last two posts? Yes. I expect this sort of think from a certain moderator and a few of his fellow sycophants, but I actually thought you were above the fray.

Disappointing.

 

[PreachTony]

My opinion is not experiential, it is exegetical (see the passages I used in my previous post).

So nothing you experience shapes how you see the world? You rely only on scripture to shape your worldview? I applaud you if this is true. I doubt it, though, as our corruption makes it extremely difficult for such a case to occur. The events going on around us will always impact our view, no matter how much we try to act as though they don't.

More often than not, I will offer scripture to back up my points. This seemed a more informal discussion, so I hadn't leaned into scriptural reference to further the discussion. In fact, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS. Again, if I've been shown the wrong interpretation of LS, I will own up to it and review my stance.

This is a cop-out. You made a pretty serious accusation against LS proponents that you cannot back up. And to hide behind "we all use anecdotal evidence". Yes. We all use anecdotal accounts but some of us primarily argue from scripture. You will find, at least among those who are Reformed or Reformed-leaning, that scripture is the only real authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Again, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS.

Am I riled by your last two posts? Yes. I expect this sort of think from a certain moderator and a few of his fellow sycophants, but I actually thought you were above the fray.

Disappointing.

I'm sorry that my relating a personal account has angered you so. I hate that two posts undid all the good will that I had built up with you. Maybe I can rebuild the healthy rapport we once had.

 

[Iconoclast]

PT

Respond to the verses in post 79.....that will get this back on track

 

[Reformed]

So nothing you experience shapes how you see the world? You rely only on scripture to shape your worldview? I applaud you if this is true. I doubt it, though, as our corruption makes it extremely difficult for such a case to occur. The events going on around us will always impact our view, no matter how much we try to act as though they don't.

Experience is an influence in all our lives. Because of abiding sin we often allow it to have more sway than it should. But Scripture is the final arbiter. We may fight against it, rail against it, and deny it for a time, but if we are a believer Scripture will always be there to testify of the truth. That is my point in my responses to you. Whether you will admit it or not you have made a serious accusation ("works based salvation") that you have not proven exegetically. Think about it. You accused LS proponents of believing in a works based salvation. You think, because this was an "informal discussion" on a message board, that an accusation like that should be shrugged off? I cannot let that pass without being challenged.

More often than not, I will offer scripture to back up my points. This seemed a more informal discussion, so I hadn't leaned into scriptural reference to further the discussion. In fact, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS. Again, if I've been shown the wrong interpretation of LS, I will own up to it and review my stance.

See above for my comments on Scripture. As for my reason for commenting in this thread it has all to do with your baseless accusation, not just because you do no agree with LS.

And you have been "shown the wrong interpretation of LS". Deal with my points in my first response to you for the reasons why.

Again, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS.

You are repeating yourself.

I'm sorry that my relating a personal account has angered you so. I hate that two posts undid all the good will that I had built up with you. Maybe I can rebuild the healthy rapport we once had.

Tony, I am not concerned about winning a debate. I take exception to serious doctrinal accusations that have not been soundly substantiated by Scripture. Trust me when I tell you that this is not personal.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So nothing you experience shapes how you see the world? You rely only on scripture to shape your worldview? I applaud you if this is true. I doubt it, though, as our corruption makes it extremely difficult for such a case to occur. The events going on around us will always impact our view, no matter how much we try to act as though they don't.

More often than not, I will offer scripture to back up my points. This seemed a more informal discussion, so I hadn't leaned into scriptural reference to further the discussion. In fact, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS. Again, if I've been shown the wrong interpretation of LS, I will own up to it and review my stance.


Again, I searched all the way back to page 5 of the thread just now, and it wasn't until your last post yesterday that anyone had used scripture in this thread, so I'm guessing your jumping my case on "empirical data" simply because you don't like the opinion I've formed of LS in my dealings with those around me who support LS.


I'm sorry that my relating a personal account has angered you so. I hate that two posts undid all the good will that I had built up with you. Maybe I can rebuild the healthy rapport we once had.

SEE WHAT I MEAN..... Its more a judgement thing then it is a mercy thing. They prove it out themselves. Perhaps a serious study on the Sermon on the Mount is in order.

 

[PreachTony]

Experience is an influence in all our lives. Because of abiding sin we often allow it to have more sway than it should. But Scripture is the final arbiter. We may fight against it, rail against it, and deny it for a time, but if we are a believer Scripture will always be there to testify of the truth. That is my point in my responses to you. Whether you will admit it or not you have made a serious accusation ("works based salvation") that you have not proven exegetically. Think about it. You accused LS proponents of believing in a works based salvation. You think, because this was an "informal discussion" on a message board, that an accusation like that should be shrugged off? I cannot let that pass without being challenged.

My understanding of LS comes from discussion with those who claim to believe in such. My church, and none of my local churches, hold to LS has purported by MacArthur and Washer. Since my church doesn't teach it, I do not have a personal exegetical argument against it. I can only speak to what others have told me. I will not take back my comment that those LSers I know have taught a form of works-salvation, not in that works saved them, but that works maintain their salvation. I cannot take that back, as it is what has been told to me.

I actually agree with your assertion that a saved Christian will show fruit in their life. I believe our works are an outgrowth of our salvation, but I don't hold to our works having any effect in maintaining our salvation. I hope that explains why I stand against LS in the form I've been taught. Again, if I was taught a wrong form of LS, then I will admit to not knowing the true version, and I will review my stance.

See above for my comments on Scripture. As for my reason for commenting in this thread it has all to do with your baseless accusation, not just because you do no agree with LS.

And you have been "shown the wrong interpretation of LS". Deal with my points in my first response to you for the reasons why.

Thank you for offering clarification. I will review my stance. I didn't know that I was taking a test for you.

Tony, I am not concerned about winning a debate. I take exception to serious doctrinal accusations that have not been soundly substantiated by Scripture. Trust me when I tell you that this is not personal.

I never really thought it was personal, though it does feel like I'm the only one getting jumped for not using scripture when there was a long thread history here of not using scripture, but I'm also a bit frayed from work right now, so my nerves are not what they normally are. Then again, I see a lot of accusations against my point of view that are never scripturally substantiated, so...

 

[Reformed]

My understanding of LS comes from discussion with those who claim to believe in such. My church, and none of my local churches, hold to LS has purported by MacArthur and Washer. Since my church doesn't teach it, I do not have a personal exegetical argument against it. I can only speak to what others have told me. I will not take back my comment that those LSers I know have taught a form of works-salvation, not in that works saved them, but that works maintain their salvation. I cannot take that back, as it is what has been told to me.

Then you will not mind if I do not take your comments seriously.

I actually agree with your assertion that a saved Christian will show fruit in their life. I believe our works are an outgrowth of our salvation, but I don't hold to our works having any effect in maintaining our salvation. I hope that explains why I stand against LS in the form I've been taught. Again, if I was taught a wrong form of LS, then I will admit to not knowing the true version, and I will review my stance.

And LS does not teach that works have "any effect in maintaining our salvation". Washer does not believe that nor MacArthur, although they have been maligned to purport they do believe that.

Thank you for offering clarification. I will review my stance. I didn't know that I was taking a test for you.

You are not taking a test. Forgive the Jersey boy candor here, but I honestly do not care if you change your stance or not. I am not your judge. However, I will respond when I see error. Understand my M.O. My primary response is not really to the poster but to the silent majority who read but seldom post. I do not think many on this board understand the impact of their words on others who may not feel comfortable posting or simply choose not to.

I never really thought it was personal, though it does feel like I'm the only one getting jumped for not using scripture when there was a long thread history here of not using scripture, but I'm also a bit frayed from work right now, so my nerves are not what they normally are. Then again, I see a lot of accusations against my point of view that are never scripturally substantiated, so...

I do not hang on every post in every thread. I happened to open this thread and immediately looked at the last post. It happened to be yours. When you made the works-based accusation, which you will not retract, it ticked me off because it is doctrinally wrong. That is the reason for my visceral reaction.

 

[Reformed]

SEE WHAT I MEAN..... Its more a judgement thing then it is a mercy thing. They prove it out themselves. Perhaps a serious study on the Sermon on the Mount is in order.

You really do need to get over yourself.

 

[PreachTony]

Then you will not mind if I do not take your comments seriously.

Whatever floats your boat, brother...

And LS does not teach that works have "any effect in maintaining our salvation". Washer does not believe that nor MacArthur, although they have been maligned to purport they do believe that.

I would say at this point you don't need to tell me that; you need to tell that to the supposed LSers who are teaching it that way...

You are not taking a test. Forgive the Jersey boy candor here, but I honestly do not care if you change your stance or not. I am not your judge. However, I will respond when I see error. Understand my M.O. My primary response is not really to the poster but to the silent majority who read but seldom post. I do not think many on this board understand the impact of their words on others who may not feel comfortable posting or simply choose not to.

On the bolded section, I agree, even if I fail to act accordingly at all times.

I do not hang on every post in every thread. I happened to open this thread and immediately looked at the last post. It happened to be yours. When you made the works-based accusation, which you will not retract, it ticked me off because it is doctrinally wrong. That is the reason for my visceral reaction.

If I'm so doctrinally wrong, then what is doctrinally right? I know you offered scripture references in post 79, but if what I've written is so far off, then provide the alternative. Because I get the sense that several non-LSers around here have somewhat similar experiences to me when dealing with LSers. I'd appreciate a description of the doctrine from someone who apparently holds to it and knows it well.

 

[steaver]

I would say at this point you don't need to tell me that; you need to tell that to the supposed LSers who are teaching it that way...

Tony you are spot on when dealing with what any sect actually believes and teaches. You have to converse with them and then you will understand what they truly stand for.

Any sect can make up a list of "what we believe". But it is what is actually being preached to the congregations and believed by the congregations as to what is truly believed. SDAs are a good example, Mormons, and even many Calvinist will hold to no belief in TULIP means no salvation, even though other Calvinist will say Calvinism does not teach any such position. So I ma sure you are not making stuff up when you report what you have witnessed by these LSers.

 

[Reformed]

I would say at this point you don't need to tell me that; you need to tell that to the supposed LSers who are teaching it that way...

I do not know any who are teaching that way.

If I'm so doctrinally wrong, then what is doctrinally right? I know you offered scripture references in post 79, but if what I've written is so far off, then provide the alternative. Because I get the sense that several non-LSers around here have somewhat similar experiences to me when dealing with LSers. I'd appreciate a description of the doctrine from someone who apparently holds to it and knows it well.

You acknowledge I gave scriptural support in post #79 and you did not even bother to deal with the passages?

Lordship Salvation is a term that was not coined by those who hold to it. It teaches:

1. Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior at the moment of salvation (Acts 2:36). There is no "Savior now and Lord later" garbage.

2. Believers are a new creation (new creature in some versions; 2 Corinthians 5:17). This is an organic, spiritual change that takes place only in believers.

3. Believers, as a new creation, have new affections ("old things have passed away"). They have changed from an orientation of sin to an orientation of righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:17b; Ephesians 5:10).

4. Believers were created for good works (Ephesians 2:10). Good works do not save. Good works do not maintain salvation. Good works are an evidence of salvation. As a believer matures good works should be evident to a lesser or greater degree. This would fall under the category of progressive sanctification.

5. Salvation will be evidenced by a change in character (2 Peter 1:1-15). If there is no change of affections, good works, or change of character (especially as a professed believer matures) then there is something to be concerned about.

6. Believers will repent of their sins and be restored (1 John 1:8-9).

Let me tell what LS is NOT. It is not, "Aha! I caught you in a sin. You are not saved!" Christians sin (although, positionally speaking, Christians are no longer sinners). They will be disobedient. But true Christians will repent.

LS is the brassy part of Christianity. It calls on Christians to act like Christians. LS is the opposite of Antinomianism. Antinomianism, as found in the free grace movement, requires no change in a professed believers life. It ignores 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Ephesians 2:10. It is happy as a clam with "I see that hand". Just keep coming to church every week brother and drop that check in the offering plate.

Paul Washer is condemned by the Antinomians because he is brassy. He tells professed believers to stop cozying up to the world. He, and others like him, proclaim 2 Corinthians 6:12 (which has nothing to do with marriage btw).

There you go. Not an exhaustive treatment on LS, but enough to give something biblical to sink your teeth into.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't buy into it, either, EWF. Jesus is already Lord over everything, so how can I make Him Lord over my life.

I actually do not understand how a Christian with any tenure would feel the need to ask such a question. I am not trying to be difficult but this question just does not come across as genuine. It appears to be little more than a debate tactic.

The reason is the answer to it is obvious. Jesus is Lord in the sense that His ultimate purpose will, without doubt, come to reality just as He wants it too. There is, however, another sense in which Jesus should be Lord. That is when we are in habitual and intentional submission to Him. When we are not in intentional and habitual submission to Him we have not made Him Lord. We are walking in rebellion and against Him.

With that explained let'd drop the facade and carry on a conversation with genuine intent and skip the debate tactics.

 

[PreachTony]

I do not know any who are teaching that way.

And I do. Just shows that we're all surrounded by different people. I can only report the LSers I have encountered. If, as you say, they are wrong, then I have been shown the wrong form of LS. Not my fault...

You acknowledge I gave scriptural support in post #79 and you did not even bother to deal with the passages?

What, exactly, were you looking for in a response from me? Was I supposed to quote each place of scripture and tell you what I think it means?

Lordship Salvation is a term that was not coined by those who hold to it. In teaches:

1. Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior at the moment of salvation (Acts 2:36). There is no "Savior now and Lord later" garbage.

No argument here.

2. Believers are a new creation (new creature in some versions; 2 Corinthians 5:17). This is an organic, spiritual change that takes place only in believers.

Agreed.

3. Believers, as a new creation, have new affections ("old things have passed away"). They have changed from an orientation of sin to an orientation of righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:17b; Ephesians 5:10).

Here, I think, you could begin to see semantic and rhetorical arguments. The orientation of sin to the orientation of righteousness talk could cause some confusion. Is anyone in the body ever capable of truly having an orientation of righteousness? Or are we not still in some ways prone/liable to sin given we still remain in our corrupted bodies?

4. Believers were created for good works (Ephesians 2:10). Good works do not save. Good works do not maintain salvation. Good works are an evidence of salvation. As a believer matures good works should be evident to a lesser or greater degree. This would fall under the category of progressive sanctification.

As I said, our works are an outgrowth of our salvation, and as we mature in that salvation our works will become more evident and more effectual.

5. Salvation will be evidenced by a change in character (2 Peter 1:1-15). If there is no change of affections, good works, or change of character (especially as a professed believer matures) then there is something to be concerned about.

While I agree, I am still very cautious about questioning anyone's salvation, simply because I might not be seeing what I think I should be seeing from them. (Does that make sense?)

6. Believers will repent of their sins and be restored (1 John 1:8-9).

Standard repentance for the believer.

Let me tell what LS is NOT. It is not, "Aha! I caught you in a sin. You are not saved!" Christians sin (although, positionally speaking, Christians are no longer sinners). They will be disobedient. But true Christians will repent.

I'm glad you say it that way, because that's always seemed to me the go-to stance of the LSer, trying to catch someone in a fault.

LS is the brassy part of Christianity. It calls on Christians to act like Christians. LS is the opposite of Antinomianism. Antinomianism, as found in the free grace movement, requires no change in a professed believers life. It ignores 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Ephesians 2:10. It is happy as a clam with "I see that hand". Just keep coming to church every week brother and drop that check in the offering plate.

Paul Washer is condemned by the Antinomians because he is brassy. He tells professed believers to stop cozying up to the world. He, and others like him, proclaim 2 Corinthians 6:12 (which has nothing to do with marriage btw).

There you go. Not an exhaustive treatment on LS, but enough to give something biblical to sink your teeth into.

I've said before that my biggest falling out with Washer is that, in his own words, my experience with the Lord is nothing more than a "silly profession" brought about by a "stupid evangelist" who exercised "gospel reductionism." Call it a personal feeling, but that's just how it is for me.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm trying to grasp what you mean by the reference to 2 Cor. 6:12.

 

[DHK]

I actually do not understand how a Christian with any tenure would feel the need to ask such a question. I am not trying to be difficult but this question just does not come across as genuine. It appears to be little more than a debate tactic.

The reason is the answer to it is obvious. Jesus is Lord in the sense that His ultimate purpose will, without doubt, come to reality just as He wants it too. There is, however, another sense in which Jesus should be Lord. That is when we are in habitual and intentional submission to Him. When we are not in intentional and habitual submission to Him we have not made Him Lord. We are walking in rebellion and against Him.

With that explained let'd drop the facade and carry on a conversation with genuine intent and skip the debate tactics.

It goes to the very root of the problem, which is definitions. Christ is Lord by virtue of Him being Creator. He is the One great Sovereign; Lord over heaven and earth. Neither saved or unsaved can dethrone Him; neither obedience nor disobedience has any effect on Him being Lord. If you claim to be a believer and you live in disobedience how does that affect Christ as being Lord? It doesn't. He remains Lord no matter what you do, or what anyone does. Satan once tried to dethrone God. He failed. His ultimate goal is to dethrone God. He is deceived and will fail continually. Nothing can dethrone God.

When one says: "You need to "make" Christ Lord of your life, it is an absurd statement. He is already your Lord, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Furthermore, one cannot command the Lord to do anything. It is arrogant to think that one can command Christ to be "Lord" of anyone, including himself.

It is not "making" Christ Lord, but the question rather is: Will you (not personally but generally speaking) submit to the Sovereign Almighty Christ as Lord? He already is Lord. All of us need to submit to Him as Lord. That is the question. The point being made comes down to a proper definition of terms.

IMO, the LS of MacArthur and Washer leads to a works salvation. If the works of discipleship are required for salvation then indeed it is a works salvation. Discipleship is a part of growing in Christ, progressive sanctification, which follows salvation. It is not a part of salvation.

 

[Reformed]

And I do. Just shows that we're all surrounded by different people. I can only report the LSers I have encountered. If, as you say, they are wrong, then I have been shown the wrong form of LS. Not my fault...

I learned from my own mistakes not to judge, or even form opinions, of something I know nothing about. Before I became a Monergist I actually said Monergists were not Christians. They were to be lumped in with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I had to walk back a lot of hasty and hateful words.

What, exactly, were you looking for in a response from me? Was I supposed to quote each place of scripture and tell you what I think it means?

I expected nothing from you. My first response was a correction of what you said. If you never responded, or even told me to go jump in a lake, that would be fine by me.

Here, I think, you could begin to see semantic and rhetorical arguments. The orientation of sin to the orientation of righteousness talk could cause some confusion. Is anyone in the body ever capable of truly having an orientation of righteousness? Or are we not still in some ways prone/liable to sin given we still remain in our corrupted bodies?

Christians do have an orientation towards righteousness. "Orientation" means direction or disposition. It does not mean sinless perfection. There should be no semantical or rhetorical problems if the word is understood correctly. Paul calls believers "slaves to righteousness". All Christians are a work in progress, but there is going to be measurable growth to some degree.

As I said, our works are an outgrowth of our salvation, and as we mature in that salvation our works will become more evident and more effectual.

You will not have a disagreement with me or any other LS proponent. While good works will increase with maturity, good works will still be there no matter how long a person has been in Christ.

While I agree, I am still very cautious about questioning anyone's salvation, simply because I might not be seeing what I think I should be seeing from them. (Does that make sense?)

I never questioned anyone's salvation. I used the word "concern". You are a pastor, correct? If there is a professed believer in your church who is living like the devil, would you at least be concerned about their profession, enough to lovingly confront them? There is biblical precedent for this (c.f. 2 Corinthians 13:5).

There are only two circumstances where I believe we can question someone's profession. 1. If they are excommunicated as part of church discipline (Matthew 18:17) 2. If they apostatize and leave the church and the faith (1 John 2:19).

I've said before that my biggest falling out with Washer is that, in his own words, my experience with the Lord is nothing more than a "silly profession" brought about by a "stupid evangelist" who exercised "gospel reductionism." Call it a personal feeling, but that's just how it is for me.

I think you are taking Paul Washer out of context. You would have to provide me some specific quotes or a link I can go to to verify his statement. That is if you really want to get into that. I leave that up to you.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm trying to grasp what you mean by the reference to 2 Cor. 6:12.

Do not be bound with unbelievers. Read that entire portion of Scripture. Paul is telling the Corinthians to come out from among them. Be separate. Act like Christians. That is the theme of much of Paul Washer's preaching.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

It goes to the very root of the problem, which is definitions. Christ is Lord by virtue of Him being Creator. He is the One great Sovereign; Lord over heaven and earth. Neither saved or unsaved can dethrone Him; neither obedience nor disobedience has any effect on Him being Lord. If you claim to be a believer and you live in disobedience how does that affect Christ as being Lord? It doesn't. He remains Lord no matter what you do, or what anyone does. Satan once tried to dethrone God. He failed. His ultimate goal is to dethrone God. He is deceived and will fail continually. Nothing can dethrone God.

When one says: "You need to "make" Christ Lord of your life, it is an absurd statement. He is already your Lord, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Furthermore, one cannot command the Lord to do anything. It is arrogant to think that one can command Christ to be "Lord" of anyone, including himself.

It is not "making" Christ Lord, but the question rather is: Will you (not personally but generally speaking) submit to the Sovereign Almighty Christ as Lord? He already is Lord. All of us need to submit to Him as Lord. That is the question. The point being made comes down to a proper definition of terms.

You confuse the issue as usual. What you post here is true....but it is those who understand Jesus as lord who say what you posted here above.
It is those who oppose this teaching that speak of "making Jesus Lord"..in fact this concept of "making Jesus Lord "is used with the carnal christian heresy....some teacher....{like you} will say...listen brother ,,you are living a very carnal lifestyle since you made your descion for Jesus...you need to re-dedicate yourself and make him Lord of your conduct...give it all to Him...

One false teaching leads to another....admit it DHK...you have done this very thing have'nt you?

IMO, the LS of MacArthur and Washer leads to a works salvation

.

You were wrong then and you are wrong Now.

If the works of discipleship are required for salvation

no one says that...only you and others who deny truth concerning sanctification

Discipleship is a part of growing in Christ, progressive sanctification, which follows salvation. It is not a part of salvation.

Here is why you error on all of the above. Sanctification is indeed part of salvation. There are no unsanctified saints. Progressive sanctification is indeed part of salvation ...Salvation is ongoing.....Justification...a one time act of God and sanctification an ongoing work of God are all a part of salvation.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK



You confuse the issue as usual. What you post here is true....but it is those who understand Jesus as lord who say what you posted here above.
It is those who oppose this teaching that speak of "making Jesus Lord"..in fact this concept of "making Jesus Lord "is used with the carnal christian heresy....some teacher....{like you} will say...listen brother ,,you are living a very carnal lifestyle since you made your descion for Jesus...you need to re-dedicate yourself and make him Lord of your conduct...give it all to Him...

One false teaching leads to another....admit it DHK...you have done this very thing have'nt you?

I will let you repost this if you want to. I will not answer it unless you do. I have no desire to answer anything by anyone who addresses me as a false teacher. IMO you desire an infraction.

 

[Revmitchell]

It goes to the very root of the problem, which is definitions. Christ is Lord by virtue of Him being Creator. He is the One great Sovereign; Lord over heaven and earth. Neither saved or unsaved can dethrone Him; neither obedience nor disobedience has any effect on Him being Lord. If you claim to be a believer and you live in disobedience how does that affect Christ as being Lord? It doesn't. He remains Lord no matter what you do, or what anyone does. Satan once tried to dethrone God. He failed. His ultimate goal is to dethrone God. He is deceived and will fail continually. Nothing can dethrone God.

When one says: "You need to "make" Christ Lord of your life, it is an absurd statement. He is already your Lord, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Furthermore, one cannot command the Lord to do anything. It is arrogant to think that one can command Christ to be "Lord" of anyone, including himself.

It is not "making" Christ Lord, but the question rather is: Will you (not personally but generally speaking) submit to the Sovereign Almighty Christ as Lord? He already is Lord. All of us need to submit to Him as Lord. That is the question. The point being made comes down to a proper definition of terms.

IMO, the LS of MacArthur and Washer leads to a works salvation. If the works of discipleship are required for salvation then indeed it is a works salvation. Discipleship is a part of growing in Christ, progressive sanctification, which follows salvation. It is not a part of salvation.

Regardless of your caricature, the other option is one is saved and can be saved without any intent to submit to God. Sorry scripture does not agree with that no matter how you spin "definition".

By the way I do not get my theology from either McAthur or Washer. The latter I cannot stand to even listen too and I have not read anything by the former for years. Trying to tie this to them is sophomoric and childish.

 

[DHK]

Regardless of your caricature, the other option is one is saved and can be saved without any intent to submit to God. Sorry scripture does not agree with that no matter how you spin "definition".

I wasn't saying he couldn't be saved. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." The gospel is very simple.
I am simply saying that Christ is Lord of all.
Sanctification follows salvation.
I am not a believer in LS.

Basically, I was answering this question in #92

I actually do not understand how a Christian with any tenure would feel the need to ask such a question. I am not trying to be difficult but this question just does not come across as genuine. It appears to be little more than a debate tactic.

 

[PreachTony]

I learned from my own mistakes not to judge, or even form opinions, of something I know nothing about. Before I became a Monergist I actually said Monergists were not Christians. They were to be lumped in with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I had to walk back a lot of hasty and hateful words.

I understand that sentiment. It's a daily battle sometimes to realize what words we need to walk back on.

I never questioned anyone's salvation. I used the word "concern". You are a pastor, correct? If there is a professed believer in your church who is living like the devil, would you at least be concerned about their profession, enough to lovingly confront them? There is biblical precedent for this (c.f. 2 Corinthians 13:5).

There are only two circumstances where I believe we can question someone's profession. 1. If they are excommunicated as part of church discipline (Matthew 18:17) 2. If they apostatize and leave the church and the faith (1 John 2:19).

I am an evangelist. I have never pastored anywhere, nor do I believe myself to yet meet the qualifications laid out in the word, depending on how hardline you want to be. That said, I agree that we should show concern. And I believe that there is a gospel order in how that should be handled.

I think you are taking Paul Washer out of context. You would have to provide me some specific quotes or a link I can go to to verify his statement. That is if you really want to get into that. I leave that up to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftJVYoORug
If you listen to this audio of one of Washer's sermons, you'll hear him say that the Romans Road is nothing more than Roman superstition. While I believe that there is more to it, I also believe that this was Paul offering the Romans what we today would refer to as a 30,000-foot view. Like looking out an airplane window. You can tell the major highways of the faith, but the full detail is foggy at best until you are at groundlevel. But I wouldn't go after the way Washer does, saying preachers who use the Romans Road are just "stupid evangelists."

He goes on to say that an experience of grace and a profession of faith is a "silly profession." He says if you profess your salvation and walk for however long in that profession, if you so much as step off the straight and narrow in any way (find me a Christian that hasn't slipped) then you cannot be assured of salvation. Apparently, according to Washer, salvation can take weeks and months to come about.

Do not be bound with unbelievers. Read that entire portion of Scripture. Paul is telling the Corinthians to come out from among them. Be separate. Act like Christians. That is the theme of much of Paul Washer's preaching.

Thank you. The "marriage" comment tripped me up for a bit.