Lordship Salvation and Eternal Security!

[Marcia]

Absolutely! We must repent, and believe the Gospel! :laugh:

Sorry, I know that wasn't what you are talking about. Here goes:

No, we don't have to "do" anything to be saved (in the sense that you are speaking in). But our faith CAUSES us to do something.

Let me give you the example Jesus gave:

Mat 21:28 But what do you think? A man had two sons; and he came to the first and said, Son, go work in my vineyard today.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not. But afterwards he repented and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and did not go.
Mat 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father?

One of these two sons demonstrated faith. The other did not. What happens to those who do not "do the will of the father"?

This is not about faith but about doing the will of the Father. Jesus was talking to Jews and clearly referring to them not obeying God. I think this is leading up to other things but you need to give more scripture than that to show one must obey in order to be saved. I did not obey anything and I was saved. I was convicted, saw who Jesus really was, and turned my life over to Him. No one told me to obey; it was a matter of encountering the true Jesus Christ.

Because Jesus gave an invitation to the people standing around.

No, he didn't. Why do you say this? Where did give an invitation?

You said:

Those people who responded, OBEYED, and were then justified by faith.

There is no scripture there for this in the passage you cited.

 

[Havensdad]

This is not about faith but about doing the will of the Father. Jesus was talking to Jews and clearly referring to them not obeying God. I think this is leading up to other things but you need to give more scripture than that to show one must obey in order to be saved.

C'mon sis. Don't put words in my mouth. Saying one WILL do works when saved, and saying one HAS to do works to BE saved, is two different things.

I did not obey anything and I was saved. I was convicted, saw who Jesus really was, and turned my life over to Him. No one told me to obey; it was a matter of encountering the true Jesus Christ.

Actually, you DID obey. You just told me you "turned your life over" to Him. That is obeying. But I understand that is not exactly what you mean.

You just said you were "convicted" and THEN you "gave your life" to Him, right? You realize you are agreeing with a Lordship Salvation view of salvation here, right? You were convicted (I am assuming by this, you mean convicted of your sinfulness to God), and turned to God. You "gave your life to Him" (which is the definition of "submitting to Christ's Lordship"). You too, agree with MacArthur.

No, he didn't. Why do you say this? Where did give an invitation?

Mar 8:34 And calling near the crowd with His disciples, He said to them, Whoever will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mar 8:35 For whoever will save his life shall lose it; but whoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel's, he shall save it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

I am not sure how that could NOT be a invitation to follow Him. If I stand up in front of a crowd and say "whoever wants to go into the movies, come get a ticket", I am inviting them to do so.

Are you saying that those who responded to Christ in Faith WOULD NOT have been saved? This seems to go against the rest of scripture.


Let me ask you a question, no, if I may: We are justified when we are born again, right? You believe that we are saved instantly and forever(this is what I believe)? Is it then our responsibility to grow in holiness and righteousness, or is it something God does TOO us?

 

[Marcia]

Actually, you DID obey. You just told me you "turned your life over" to Him. That is obeying. But I understand that is not exactly what you mean.

You just said you were "convicted" and THEN you "gave your life" to Him, right? You realize you are agreeing with a Lordship Salvation view of salvation here, right? You were convicted (I am assuming by this, you mean convicted of your sinfulness to God), and turned to God. You "gave your life to Him" (which is the definition of "submitting to Christ's Lordship"). You too, agree with MacArthur.

I didn't obey anything. I realized I needed Christ. I don't see that as obedience. If there is obedience there has to be a command or order to obey. I was not following that. When you say one must obey, it assumes there is some kind of command. You probably would say the command is to repent but one can repent out of conviction without even knowing the word repent. In fact, I think turning to Christ in faith is repentance. I didn't know what repent meant at the time. I think you are setting a condition for salvation that is not in scripture. God saves out of grace through faith, not obedience.

Mar 8:34 And calling near the crowd with His disciples, He said to them, Whoever will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mar 8:35 For whoever will save his life shall lose it; but whoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel's, he shall save it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

I am not sure how that could NOT be a invitation to follow Him. If I stand up in front of a crowd and say "whoever wants to go into the movies, come get a ticket", I am inviting them to do so.

But you said people who heard it obeyed and were saved. I am still waiting for the scripture reference for that. That was my point - referring to something as though it was in the passage when it isn't. It's your own conclusion - if so, that's fine, but don't make it sound like it's in the passage.

Let me ask you a question, no, if I may: We are justified when we are born again, right? You believe that we are saved instantly and forever(this is what I believe)? Is it then our responsibility to grow in holiness and righteousness, or is it something God does TOO us?

Yes. Yes. Yes in part; we also grow in Christ through the Holy Spirit - it is not all us. We start by the Spirit and finish by the Spirit, not the flesh.

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Gal 3.3

 

[canadyjd]

I will address an important subject even though my original statement was deliberately misconstrued by placing carnal and Christian within quotation marks, The misconstrue appears this way, ...the phrase "carnal Christians"? My comments appear this way, "carnal" Christians.

My apology to you, Lou Martuneac. I should have paid closer attention to what you had written. I assure you that I did not deliberately miscontrue what you had said.

The NASB uses the word "fleshly" instead of "carnal". It has been so many years since I have read out of the KJV, that I couldn't remember the exact passages where "carnal" was used. Romans, Gal., but I had forgotten I Cor. 3.

Again, it was not deliberate.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

My apology to you, Lou Martuneac. I should have paid closer attention to what you had written. I assure you that I did not deliberately miscontrue what you had said.

The NASB uses the word "fleshly" instead of "carnal". It has been so many years since I have read out of the KJV, that I couldn't remember the exact passages where "carnal" was used. Romans, Gal., but I had forgotten I Cor. 3.

Again, it was not deliberate.

Thanks for clearing this up.


LM

 

[Havensdad]

I didn't obey anything. I realized I needed Christ. I don't see that as obedience. If there is obedience there has to be a command or order to obey. I was not following that. When you say one must obey, it assumes there is some kind of command. You probably would say the command is to repent but one can repent out of conviction without even knowing the word repent. In fact, I think turning to Christ in faith is repentance. I didn't know what repent meant at the time. I think you are setting a condition for salvation that is not in scripture. God saves out of grace through faith, not obedience.

Whether or not one is aware of the command, is irrelevant. The spirit convicts us, we give our life to Christ. J. Mac also, in "The Gospel according to Jesus", states that one might not be aware of such. But the point is, you ARE INDEED being obedient. Could you not have refused? Pushed the conviction away, and hardened your heart?

But you said people who heard it obeyed and were saved. I am still waiting for the scripture reference for that. That was my point - referring to something as though it was in the passage when it isn't. It's your own conclusion - if so, that's fine, but don't make it sound like it's in the passage.

I suppose I should have said IF someone heard it and obeyed, they would have been saved. Regardless, this is typical of Christ's proclamations.

Yes. Yes. Yes in part; we also grow in Christ through the Holy Spirit - it is not all us. We start by the Spirit and finish by the Spirit, not the flesh.

I am glad you brought up Galatians! Very Good!

Let's look at that...

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith--


These people, in modern terminology, are "justified". Yet they believe that "sanctification" occurs from WORKS. I can see you agree with this, because you brought it up.

But I do not think you have thought through the full implication of this. Paul is saying we are sanctified the same way we are justified; faith. If that is the case, it is NOT a choice we make, or else what is the difference between what Paul is proclaiming, and what the Galatians believe? If we choose to be perfected, and strive after it, would we not be doing the same thing Paul is condemning?

But if sanctification is something being done TOO us, then what does that mean that we are sanctified and Justified in the same way?

I am sleepy, so I will have to continue this tomorrow. But let me say this, and see if you can understand why I say it: Paul is condemning the view that Salvation and discipleship (or, to put it in less confusing terms, sanctification) are two separate processes. Those who are justified by faith, ARE being sanctified by faith, not "might if they so choose"....that would be perfecting by works.

ALSO> one last thing.

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

I do not know if you know any Greek, but this is in the "Passive" voice. That means it is something which is strictly being done TO us...we are not active participants. All those who "have been" perfected, are "being sanctified". Therefore, the idea that faith "should" or "can" make a difference is false. It WILL make a change.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm gonna say what one believer said in the gospels, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief."

Many believe they are saved but things don't "turn around" in their lives. The "shallow soil" and the "thorn choked" Christians in the parable of the sower are good examples -- no fruit. Why? The "mustard seed-sized" faith it took to believe unto salvation was not enough to grow a fruitful tree of faith nor to fight off the "hole they'd dug themselves" in the world.

This is where Christ's commission to "make disciples" is so key! It's not just to lead them to Christ but to "teach them." It doesn't mean you can't "save" them -- just that the "fruit" of LS isn't gonna come without "husbandry"/tending.

Have you ever led someone to the Lord 1300 miles from where you live -- say at Huntington Beach, CA, 1965 -- and wondered if they were practicing "Lordship salvation" (producing fruit) or not? Wouldn't that only happen if they "hooked up" with a good Bible-believing church? And if they didn't, would they not be saved?

To me the issues are separate, salvation vs. growth -- salvation vs. LS.

skypair

Salvation and Sanctification, but Salvation leads inevitably to sanctification.

 

[skypair]

The point is, that the ones who did not believe turned away. Since they are specifically said to not have "pistis", they cannot have been saved.

That is, indeed, debatable. :laugh: "Silence" is usually NOT a very powerful argument.

"Any tree that does not bear fruit, is cut down and thrown into the fire."

First I'd like to consider the source of that quote before responding. Are you speaking of Luke 13:7 -- "where Jesus was threatening to cut down the "olive tree"/Judaism? Or Rom 11 where Paul expresses the same point? Or John 15:4... where Jesus speaks of not abiding in Him and having one's earthly ministry taken from him -- become "castaway" as Paul 1Cor 9:27?

Mat 25:24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,
Mat 25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'
Mat 25:30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

This, Hdad, is the judgment of the OT Jews who had the "talents" (Paul calls them "oracles of God") but the unbelieving "hid" them.

I'm afraid, Hdad, that you have exhausted the possible references to burning judgment without showing that believers without works are "cut down and burned," in hell anyway.

Only the last seeds, in the parable of the sower, brings forth eternal life.

I think this notion should be rejected as well. But that will have to await God's speaking to you, I reckon.

A "Disciple" is one who serves and follows Jesus. They live their life for Him. They center their life around him. I am not referring to "discipling" in a twentieth century context of being under the teaching of elders in a local church body.

I don't think the pattern has changed -- only the Presence. You, for instance, could be said to be a disciple of Calvin, eh? Calvin is both dead but his "disciples" are still with us, no?

I am not sure what you are saying here, either. I am a five point Calvinist. I believe we should walk by the Spirit. If you believe that is wrong, label me wrong.

I'll offer you a parallel situation and maybe you will understand. In the MK, the people living there will be mightily blessed --- even believe that they have "inherited" the kingdom without any work of their own. It will be truly, to them, "all of God."

They will "conform" to the laws of Christ and appear for all intents and purposes to be "disciples." There is nothing really "strenuous" about having a perfect world given to you, is there?

But at the end, it is obivous that those who "conformed" but were never "converted" were not disciples at all! "Proposed to" but never "betrothed." They were "servants," even "friends," but never "children." A "child" is FIRST "born again."

We have such in the spiritual kingdom today. There are blessings to be had in the kingdom without lifting a finger -- having all "given" to us. We then believe that God must have "elected" us as well.

Here's the thing: It wasn't any of our choice to be "in Adam" which is why it must specifically be our choice to be reborn "in Christ." Fie on those who say "We didn't choose to be born physically and we can't choose to be reborn spiritually."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Salvation and Sanctification, but Salvation leads inevitably to sanctification.

Hi, TC! :wavey:

I see it a little differently --- justification, sanctification, and glorification are ALL parts of salvation AND occur in the order I just mentioned. So when you say "salvation leads to sanctification," I agree in that salvation of the SOUL leads furthermore and straightaway to salvation of the SPIRIT.

My point would be, we have to get our "moral compass," our soul/conscience, pointed towards God before we can even know the right direction to sanctification --- the right way to "think" about God. Unless we do that, a lot of the "pointing" input we receive comes from outside, from those whose paths we have chosen to follow, right?

That's why, TC, it has always bothered me that Calvies and Reform types acknowledge only one "spirit" in man. It is likely why they reject free will as well. If you have only one "spirit," it could be the one that is "dead" to God and oriented towards sin. And there, indeed, would be no "non-oriented" part of the spirit to collect "input" from creation (Rom 1:19-20) and from man (the gospel of Christ) with which to make a choice. Basically, all you would have is the spirit oriented to the flesh -- "total depravity," right? With everything to the contrary being an "I don't get it." :laugh:

But it is not that we "don't get it" (the "everlasting gospel" in nature and word). We are, indeed, "without excuse!" It's that we "get it" but reject it! That is what God time and again indicts/convicts us of, right? There is that part of our being (another part of our "spirit" -- our mind, emotions, and will) that does "process" seemingly random data for "clues" to blessed living and to eternal living (Ecc 3:11 -- notice, God has "set eternity in their minds" if you read it using the model, heart = mind). But it chooses not to "flip" the orientation of the soul, the throne of one's life, over to God.

And instead of recognizing the biblical paradigm, Calvies stick to the one where God "flips" the "switch" that cannot be "switched" by "the man without excuse" :tear: --- which nowhere in scripture is that correct.

So then the SOUL must be justified first. As I've told you before, in the OT this is the only part of salvation -- the reorientation of the soul towards God -- that was accomplished during their lives. They did not receive the sanctification that comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul says that their sanctification via sacrifices was "for the purifying of the flesh," Heb 9:12 and was NOT by the Spirit to the sanctifying of the spirit and the flesh. It changed their ways/behavior but not how they thought about their ways.

skypair

 

[Marcia]

Havensdad said:

Whether or not one is aware of the command, is irrelevant. The spirit convicts us, we give our life to Christ. J. Mac also, in "The Gospel according to Jesus", states that one might not be aware of such. But the point is, you ARE INDEED being obedient. Could you not have refused? Pushed the conviction away, and hardened your heart?

I responded to the revelation of who Jesus was -- I don't see that as obedience.

These people, in modern terminology, are "justified". Yet they believe that "sanctification" occurs from WORKS. I can see you agree with this, because you brought it up.

Agree with what? I don't agree that sanctification occurs from works. I think the opposite, which is why I posted that verse from Gal 3.3! Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here.

But I do not think you have thought through the full implication of this. Paul is saying we are sanctified the same way we are justified; faith. If that is the case, it is NOT a choice we make, or else what is the difference between what Paul is proclaiming, and what the Galatians believe? If we choose to be perfected, and strive after it, would we not be doing the same thing Paul is condemning?

But if sanctification is something being done TOO us, then what does that mean that we are sanctified and Justified in the same way?

I think we do have to desire to serve God as believers. There are too many examples in the NT that show believers who resisted sanctification. I am sure you are aware of them. If not, I will post some. I think ultimately the person is sanctified, but that may occur after death. Also, I think people can resist and then later respond to the conviction after drifting away. I have seen many cases of this in my ministry.

Paul is condemning the view that Salvation and discipleship (or, to put it in less confusing terms, sanctification) are two separate processes. Those who are justified by faith, ARE being sanctified by faith, not "might if they so choose"....that would be perfecting by works.

ALSO> one last thing.

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

I do not know if you know any Greek, but this is in the "Passive" voice. That means it is something which is strictly being done TO us...we are not active participants. All those who "have been" perfected, are "being sanctified". Therefore, the idea that faith "should" or "can" make a difference is false. It WILL make a change.

I see your point but I don't think that because justification and sanctification are both by the Spirit that they are one and the same. I think they are 2 different processes but connected. Justification automatically leads to sanctification. If we could not resist sanctification, then no one would sin, would they?

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad said:


I responded to the revelation of who Jesus was -- I don't see that as obedience.

My theology doesn't require you to. The fact of the matter is, you did what God WANTED you to do...you responded to the conviction, and gave your life to Christ.

But I believe this to be theological hair splitting here, so I will leave it at that.

Agree with what? I don't agree that sanctification occurs from works. I think the opposite, which is why I posted that verse from Gal 3.3! Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here.

Sorry. I warned you I was sleepy!:laugh: I meant that you agree with me, that sanctification is by faith.

I think we do have to desire to serve God as believers. There are too many examples in the NT that show believers who resisted sanctification. I am sure you are aware of them. If not, I will post some. I think ultimately the person is sanctified, but that may occur after death. Also, I think people can resist and then later respond to the conviction after drifting away. I have seen many cases of this in my ministry.

I do not necessarily disagree with you. But scripture says God "disciplines those He loves". I would say that those who "drifted away" (or "fell into sin" for that matter) were driven (or in some cases gently led) back, by God, through the Holy Spirit that scripture says dwells within us when we are saved. God is a "Good Daddy", and like any good dad, he is not going to let his kids be squished on the streets.

However, according to Paul, and Jesus, we are supposed to TREAT them like an unbeliever. This means we should evangelize them, and win them to Christ, in the same way we would any other lost person, I believe.

Many of those who we think "come back", are probably in actuality coming to Christ for the first time.

I see your point but I don't think that because justification and sanctification are both by the Spirit that they are one and the same. I think they are 2 different processes but connected. Justification automatically leads to sanctification. If we could not resist sanctification, then no one would sin, would they?

Agreed again. When we are saved (justified) the sanctification process begins. "Justification" is instant, while sanctification is life long. This is done primarily through the Holy Spirit. Whereas there was only one "man" in us before (the old fallen nature) there is now a "new" man as well, also the guiding/convicting hand of the Spirit. These two forces battle the old nature within us, and sometimes, for whatever reason (I believe because God allows it for our eventual good), they lose and we sin.

I think we are in essential agreement, Sis.

 

[Marcia]

I do not necessarily disagree with you. But scripture says God "disciplines those He loves". I would say that those who "drifted away" (or "fell into sin" for that matter) were driven (or in some cases gently led) back, by God, through the Holy Spirit that scripture says dwells within us when we are saved. God is a "Good Daddy", and like any good dad, he is not going to let his kids be squished on the streets.

I agree that the Holy Spirit convicts believers when they drift away or sin. But I also think scripture shows that believers can resist conviction. We see this in 1 Cor. 11 when believers were abusing the Lord's Supper and God took them home:

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

There is also the "sin unto death" in 1 John 5.16

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

So I think believers can resist conviction up to a point.

However, according to Paul, and Jesus, we are supposed to TREAT them like an unbeliever. This means we should evangelize them, and win them to Christ, in the same way we would any other lost person, I believe.

I think treating them like an unbeliever means putting them out of fellowship, not evangelizing them. This was discussed in 1 Cor. 5 about the man who was sleeping with his father's wife. First, we go to them about their sin (Matt. 18) and confront them and exhort them to repent. Most of the believers who drift away know they are believers - at least the ones I talk to in my ministry. They get enmeshed in something and find it hard to pull away. I don't think any of us should be proud enough to think we can't stumble the same way. In fact, we are to keep this in mind when rebuking a brother/sister for their sin:

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Gal 6.1

Many of those who we think "come back", are probably in actuality coming to Christ for the first time.

I agree with this. But if they say they are a believer, we should talk to them that way unless it is apparent they are not.

I think we are in essential agreement, Sis

I think on the main points, we are. I think we disagree maybe on the extent to which a believer can drift away or for how long. :wavey:

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by Lou Martuneac
I will address an important subject even though my original statement was deliberately misconstrued by placing carnal and Christian within quotation marks, The misconstrue appears this way, ...the phrase "carnal Christians"? My comments appear this way, "carnal" Christians.

Lou Martuneac rightly pointed out that I had misquoted his statement. He had used the phrase "carnal" Christians. I reponded by asking about "carnal Christians".

When I saw what I had done, I immediately and sincerely apologized to Lou Martuneac. It was unintentional. I believe we should present others statements as accurately and truthfully as we can. Otherwise, we shouldn't be using "quotes".

I'll repost my public apology:

canadyjd said:
My apology to you, Lou Martuneac. I should have paid closer attention to what you had written. I assure you that I did not deliberately miscontrue what you had said.

The NASB uses the word "fleshly" instead of "carnal". It has been so many years since I have read out of the KJV, that I couldn't remember the exact passages where "carnal" was used. Romans, Gal., but I had forgotten I Cor. 3.

Again, it was not deliberate.

peace to you

With this exchange in mind, please notice what Lou Martuneac said on another thread (Are there Carnal Christians). I want to reply to it here so as not to derail that thread with another discussion about John MacArthur.

Lou Martuneac said:
On the "carnal" Christian John MacArthur says,

The tragic result is that many people think it is fairly normal for Christians to live like unbelievers. . . . As I noted. . . . contemporary theologians have devised an entire category for this type of person--the “carnal Christian.”

While it may be commonplace for “Christians to live like unbelievers,” it certainly should not be “normal” for any Christian. The “carnal Christian” is not a category “devised” by “contemporary theologians.” It is a category of believers (“brethren”) identified in the Word of God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle Paul.

Walter Chantry and John MacArthur must ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion that the “carnal” Christian has been “devised,” invented, or fabricated only in recent times. (emphasis mine)

Lou Martuneac's has twice misconstrued John MacArthur's statements in the same way that I misconstrued his. The wording is exactly the same. There can be no doubt the error has occured. I will give Lou Martuneac the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional.

Lou Martuneac, I sincerely apologized to you for my inadvertant error.

I now call on you to issue an open, public apology to John MacArthur for misconstruing his statement in the very same way I misconstrued yours.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

To all:

I have inadvertantly included Lou Martuneac's statements with John MacArthur's quote. The facts are the same, but I want to clearly distinguish Lou Martuneac's words from John MacArthur's quote. My sincere apology to both John MacArthur and Lou Martuneac.

The second half of the above post should have read:

With this exchange in mind, please notice what Lou Martuneac said on another thread (Are there Carnal Christians). I want to reply to it here so as not to derail that thread with another discussion about John MacArthur.

Lou Martuneac said:
On the "carnal" Christian John MacArthur says,

The tragic result is that many people think it is fairly normal for Christians to live like unbelievers. . . . As I noted. . . . contemporary theologians have devised an entire category for this type of person--the “carnal Christian.”

While it may be commonplace for “Christians to live like unbelievers,” it certainly should not be “normal” for any Christian. The “carnal Christian” is not a category “devised” by “contemporary theologians.” It is a category of believers (“brethren”) identified in the Word of God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle Paul.

Walter Chantry and John MacArthur must ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion that the “carnal” Christian has been “devised,” invented, or fabricated only in recent times. (emphasis mine)

Lou Martuneac's has twice misconstrued John MacArthur's statements in the same way that I misconstrued his. The wording is exactly the same. There can be no doubt the error has occurred. I will give Lou Martuneac the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional.

Lou Martuneac, I sincerely apologized to you for my inadvertant error.

I now call on you to issue an open, public apology to John MacArthur for misconstruing his statement in the very same way I misconstrued yours.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

I got a question: According to this hypothesis, what percentage of the time does He have to be Lord of my life and me be obedient in order for Him to be considered my Lord?

skypair

Ask Him. Seriously, my belief is that we must accept Christ as our Lord and Savior in order to be saved. He was always saying, "Come and follow Me." Recognizing Him as our Lord means to follow Him. That means to change our lives (be born again) with the objective of conforming to Him. That's what His disciples did. Were they always successful? No. Did they slip back into sin? Yes. But they always made following Christ their primary goal. I think this is best expressed in the following scripture:

Jhn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Jhn 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

 

[JustChristian]

1. Are you saying that someone must obey something before being saved?

2. Where do you get the facts to make the statement that "those people who responded, obeyed, and were then justified by faith?" It's not there.

What does the story of the rich young ruler tell us? He refused to obey when Christ told him to sell everything and give it to the poor. This wasn't a negative comment on having money. It was a comment on making something other than Christ as our lord. The rich young ruler went away lost because he wasn't willing to accept Christ as Lord.

What about this statement by Jesus?

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.


This says that there is a cost associated with with becoming a Christian. We need to understand that's the case and accept it.

 

[webdog]

Ask Him. Seriously, my belief is that we must accept Christ as our Lord and Savior in order to be saved. He was always saying, "Come and follow Me." Recognizing Him as our Lord means to follow Him. That means to change our lives (be born again) with the objective of conforming to Him. That's what His disciples did. Were they always successful? No. Did they slip back into sin? Yes. But they always made following Christ their primary goal. I think this is best expressed in the following scripture:

Jhn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Jhn 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

...yet the thief on the cross only wanted Jesus to "remember him", and that admission that Jesus was God was enough for salvation.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm gonna say what one believer said in the gospels, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief."

Many believe they are saved but things don't "turn around" in their lives. The "shallow soil" and the "thorn choked" Christians in the parable of the sower are good examples -- no fruit. Why? The "mustard seed-sized" faith it took to believe unto salvation was not enough to grow a fruitful tree of faith nor to fight off the "hole they'd dug themselves" in the world.

This is where Christ's commission to "make disciples" is so key! It's not just to lead them to Christ but to "teach them." It doesn't mean you can't "save" them -- just that the "fruit" of LS isn't gonna come without "husbandry"/tending.

Have you ever led someone to the Lord 1300 miles from where you live -- say at Huntington Beach, CA, 1965 -- and wondered if they were practicing "Lordship salvation" (producing fruit) or not? Wouldn't that only happen if they "hooked up" with a good Bible-believing church? And if they didn't, would they not be saved?

To me the issues are separate, salvation vs. growth -- salvation vs. LS.

skypair

Bringing someone to Christ and maturing that person is part of "making disciples." That's how I understand the text.

 

[Rippon]

...yet the thief on the cross only wanted Jesus to "remember him", and that admission that Jesus was God was enough for salvation.

Huh?Did you expect him to sell all his possessions or what?!

 

[webdog]

Huh?Did you expect him to sell all his possessions or what?!

I didn't expect him to do anything. I read the story for what it says...not what you want it to say. He didn't want to give up self.