Grace Evangelical Society: Controversial Teaching

That's basically "whitewashing" over the details, sht.

Or there's some "private interpretation going on. Let's take Acts 16 for example. Is "believing on Christ" not turning unto Him? Doesn't it involve NOT believing on self anymore? Or might the jailer still have mixed his own works in there?

Really? Can a lost man repent and follow Mohammed?

If repentance is capable only of the regenerate, wouldn't that suggest that he/she could repent again and be lost?

skypair

 

skypair:

I have argued against requirements to eternal salvation which Lou seems to be demanding when he critiques the GES, and have been pretty much consistent anywhere on this board.

However, you know as much as I do, that I have always maintained that for believers, or those professing Christ as their Savior, there are certain marks and results.

Among these are the desire to obey all righteousness, which includes baptism.

Note that those who are to "die to self" are those who are already professing Christians and therefore assumed to be possessors of eternal life.

If you will tell me that these Romans whom Paul exhorts to die to self and to whom he explained the meaning of baptism are unsaved at that point UNTIL (not yelling, just emphasizing) they do these things, then you have once again lost me.

What exactly are you saying ?

 

If you say so . . .

No because Scripture is not open to "private" interpretation. We are either in agreement with the Spirit or we are not. There is no middle ground.

I believe that was already addressed in the original post. I don't have any idea what the jailor did or did not believe in regard to Jesus Christ, so for me to say what he repented of or not before believing on Jesus Christ for salvation would be speculation at best and unncecessary to the conversation.

What we know is Paul told him to believe and that was it. Either Paul was telling the truth as it is explicitly stated or he wasn't. I believe he was, especially since the point is emphasied against explicity in Eph. 2:8-9.

Yes really.

In a generic sense he can, but it will not help him as far as repentance of sin goes.

Repentance "of sin" is only capable by those that have been born from above. Can one repent again and become "lost"? Absolutely in a Biblical sense. However we have lost the Biblical definition of the word "lost".

We now equate "lost" with headed for the lake of fire for all eternity and that's not how it is used in Scripture.

 

Good Grief.

 

Bad grief.

 

This just sounds to much like the Millenium Exclusion heresy.

 

When does one "die to oneself," pinoy? You are claiming it is AFTER regeneration. I am claiming belief and repentance (spiritual death) BEFORE regeneration. That is what baptism pictures.

And I happen to like Clarence Larkin's way of EMPHASIZING the important points of his explanations. :type:

skypair

 

:tonofbricks:

This is why I fail to comprehend you, skypair, and I think why you are irritating to me, and so we had some past exchange of words that had best been left unsaid.

The subject of this thread, to which I have been responding and interacting, is repentance, and good works, before eternal salvation.
I don't think regeneration ever really was focused on, but these so many posts already, I may be wrong there.

Now, here you come injecting your theology, which has no, I believe, direct bearing on the subject being discussed, which is repentance.

Lou M has been crusading against the GES for what he says is their crossless gospel, and their doctrine that repentance is not necessary for eternal salvation, and I pointed out that if it is about ETERNAL salvation,
then that kind of salvation is all OF GOD. No input from the believer.
Now you bring in baptism into the picture.
What has that got to do with the original subject matter ?

But just to go ahead and humor you, dying to self is denying oneself the shortlived pleasures of sin and putting God first where self was first. You go into the waters of baptism because you are no longer the man you were before and you bury that old man in there and come out a new man in Christ.

The unregenerate can go to the waters of baptism thinking that that is what saves him, while the truly regenerate goes into the waters of baptism fully understanding what it represents which is his death and resurrection along with his risen Savior.

I am sorry to disappoint you, skypair, but Paul has never written to unbelievers. All his letters were written to believers, even the book of Romans, and may I say to you that he has never addressed these people as anything other than brethren, from beginning to any part of the book, even before and after he taught them about what baptism is.

So, as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, writing through Paul, these were born-again, regenerate people, and nowhere does Paul teach that the unregenerate dies to self at baptism. Dying to self is not regeneration.

So, it's okay for you to like somebody's theology, but it's not okay for others to like Calvin's systematic presentations ?

I don't care about Clarence Larkin.

My former pastor, and president of the Bible College I attended in the Philippines, is a die hard Larkin man, and like you, he froths at the mouth at the mere mention of Calvin or John Mc'Arthur.

Well, he also taught (and I challenged him in front of the class) that the babies in the womb had no souls at that point.

I don't know if he got that from Larkin.

 

I haven't gotten in much of this, lately, concentrating on other subjects, but I do read the threads.

Anyway, as to what I have quoted above, that you wrote - I fully agree with the first sentence. This is stated in Ac. 17:30.

Once we get beyond this, however, it starts to go downhill, from my perspective.

Where does Scripture say this? Any of it?? Did I miss it?

Especially the bit where you state that "... when God requires of us sacrifice in return for His sacrifice."? When I read this, a huge red flag went up that is large enough to cover Buffalo and all Erie Co.!

Plus Niagra Co.!!

This is exactly what Lou Martuneac has (correctly) previously alluded to, and/or described in some of the Lordship Salvation (and/or 'free grace') threads, in essence, as 'Lordship Salvation's '"barter" system of theology'.

What you said here, is no different from that.

But it is certainly very different from what Jesus told Nicodemus; Paul told the Phillipian Jailer; Peter preached at Pentecost, and Scripture says about Abraham and David in Rom. 4!

Ed

 

Lu 15:7 - Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lu 15:10 - Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

 

Well, okay, Ed.
So let me put this in a more everyday, practical sense.
Before I heard the gospel, I was an armed struggle, Marxism-Leninism-Maotsetung thought-cadre.
One day I heard the gospel in this small southern Philippine town, and got a Bible, and turned in repentance to Christ.
I had faith in Christ.
I claimed Christ as my Savior, and He claimed me.
He told me right there and then as I read the Scripture that I was His own, and one day He is coming back for me, and all the rest of His own, and I understood, the first time I read it, what the Bible meant when it said "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God".
So, five Sundays later, I stand before that small church, ask to be accepted into membership, and said I wanted to follow the Lord into baptism, gave my own cute testimony of grace, was baptized, received into fellowship.

And that's where it ended.

I went back underground. Couldn't leave it, heck, they'd cut my head off.
Still preached that only a revolution can change the societal structure for the benefit of the masses.
Had the Bible, read it, but also had Engel's Dialectical Materialism, Mao's Red Book, and Lenin's books on revolution, besides.

I didn't feel any need to go to church, didn't feel any need to go fellowship with my new brethren.

I had this faith in Christ in my heart. Yeah.
I repented.
Of what ?

Now, you tell me.

 

Outta' curiiosity, have you read this book, since you are mentioning it?

And I would add, everyone who is debating on these threads, including me, should really get what is written by Lou Martuneac.

I mean, as much as he 'advertises' them, we oughtta' help him recover a few bucks for the effort! :laugh:

Ed

 

No more heresy than the double-minded folks throughout Christendom that say on the one side of their mouth that they believe Paul is telling the truth in Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 and then out of the other side of their mouth come all kind of requirements that directly contradict what Paul was saying in those two texts :tear: .

Paul said believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. He said we "have been saved" by God's grace through FAITH. That is either absolute Truth as it is given or it is a lie. I believe it is the Truth and as such we can not add anything to what Paul said.

Paul didn't say believe and repent of sins, and commit your life to the Lord and be a disciple and never fall away and whatever else you might want to add in here.

He said believe and you WILL BE SAVED. He said you HAVE BEEN SAVED by God's GRACE through FAITH.

That should be the end of all discussion, unfortunately as we can well see it is not :tear:

 

Lu 15:7 - Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lu 15:10 - Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

 

My question to you, which have always been my question to all, is :

saved from what ?

by the way, you don't really have to answer that here on this thread as it might derail the thread.

you can probably start another one.

 

That is EXACTLY the question that needs to be asked when we come across the terms used in Scripture. What are we being saved from! Great observation!!!

 

Revmitchell you have gone the way a number of folks have gone on this board from time to time and that is posting Scripture and highlighting a word and then acting as though you have proven a point. Just because the word "repent" is contained in two lines of Scripture in no ways proves your point.

Bottom line is turning away from sin and to a life of obedience is never required of someone to receive everlasting life. That is to mingle man's work in with the Precious/Perfect Works of Jesus Christ. :tear: :tear: :tear: :tear:

 

No, no, pinoy. It DOES bear on repentance -- on the order in which it appears in our salvation! And it is doubly relevant since you seem to think of it as a "work."

Being "dunked" in baptism signifies REPENTANCE by which we die. Coming out of the water signifies resurrection and regeneration. I am trying to focus your attention on WHO needs to repent -- God or the man -- in order that the man might be saved!

I appreciate the effort of an otherwise "humorless" man! :laugh: So ---- "dying to self" (your words), would you call that "repentance?" "coming out a new man" (your words), would you call that "regeneration?" Uh, uh, uh! Be careful not to get your theology out of order. :laugh:

Agreed! By the time they are baptized, they are only signifying HOW they were saved via a physical representation of the spiritual event. So going back to their salvation experience, they believed - REPENTED - and were REGENERATED.

I thought you were "gigging" me for SHOUTING and I responded that I liked that manner of presentation by Larkin. My repsonse had nothing to do with theology at that point. :laugh:

So you also rebel against him.

Not from anything I've read of Larkin. I have wondered but have not answered myself to my own satisfaction (so don't "flame" me for this) Is it the "breath of life" that imparts the soul as it was with Adam?" I myself am not willing to answer in the affirmative to that yet. And I'm not sure anyone can this side of the grave.

skypair

 

BTW,

I believe -- Lou, correct me if I am wrong -- this idea of "crossless" salvation reflects a common perception of Calvinism, that the cross is ancillary to the God's decision regarding one's salvation.

The cross is to election what baptism is to the regeneration -- a sign of something already accomplished and guaranteed whether the sign is given or not (consider that Calvinists also believe that the OT saints were saved/regenerated in the same way we are WITHOUT either sign - baptism or the cross!).

Right or wrong (and I surmise this depends on the individual) the impression is that there is no way to God that must pass by the cross. That "the election of God = salvation" rather than "in Christ = salvation."

skyair