Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[canadyjd]

I agree with everything except "submitted to His Lordship". You have outlined what true repentance is (his previous acts and understanding of his deserved punishment...a "change of mind")

OK, it's good to agree with you.:thumbsup:

I believe the men in John 12 (which included Nicodemus and Joseph of Arithimea) were saved. Robetson's Word Pictures nails it...

They did not confess (ouch hōmologoun). Negative imperfect in contrast to the punctiliar aorist episteusan. "They kept on not confessing." How like the cowardly excuses made today by those under conviction who refuse to step out for Christ.

What does the passage mean when it says they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God? Does that have no bearing on whether they are saved or not?

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

What does the passage mean when it says they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God? Does that have no bearing on whether they are saved or not?

What it means is they didn't want to lose their place in the synagogue. You can go into any church today and see true believers with this same mentality. I see this same attitude here on the BB with those I believe are saved. As long as we have this sin nature, the approval of man and self will always be a battle. Man is saved by grace through faith. That is the only bearing whether one is saved or not.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What it means is they didn't want to lose their place in the synagogue. You can go into any church today and see true believers with this same mentality. I see this same attitude here on the BB with those I believe are saved. As long as we have this sin nature, the approval of man and self will always be a battle. Man is saved by grace through faith. That is the only bearing whether one is saved or not.

So how many other ways in your doctrine can people continue in sin and they are still Christians in your view? :tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

So how many other ways in your doctrine can people continue in sin and they are still Christians in your view? :tonofbricks:

Since it's not debate or discussion I believe you are looling for, I"ll not be wasting my time with your posts, RB. No offense meant. Any interaction with you is fruitless and only brings more heat than light.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Since it's not debate or discussion I believe you are looling for, I"ll not be wasting my time with your posts, RB. No offense meant. Any interaction with you is fruitless and only brings more heat than light.

Ok. :thumbsup: (where's the victory icon...)

 

[webdog]

Ok. :thumbsup: (where's the victory icon...)

Are we seeing your true colors bleed through? Like I stated, if it's about "victory", discussion with you is fruitless.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Are we seeing your true colors bleed through? Like I stated, if it's about "victory", discussion with you is fruitless.

It's about the victory of the truth of the Gospel. And you, sir, cried uncle. :thumbsup:

 

[mparkerfd20]

It's about the victory of the truth of the Gospel. And you, sir, cried uncle. :thumbsup:

Sometimes humor just isn't the best medicine here RB. :thumbsup: It's a VERY legitimate question you asked, but I agree that webdog shouldn't answer it the way it was asked. The way you asked it, how ever humorous it was, was degrading and probably not the best way to ask it.

 

[EdSutton]

A resounding AMEN. I have asked the board to show me where there are Christians who are not disciples of Christ. No answer.

I have never said there is any such thing, but I can speak for no one else. When one becomes a believer, he or she then, and only then, in fact, become a "disciple" or a "Christian."

Put another way, the question still effectively is, "Does one have to be/become a disciple, in order to believe and be saved?" Or stated another way, "Lordship salvation" is also correctly called "discipleship salvation." In so many words, you have claimed, only one who "has forsaken all" can even be saved, I believe, if I recall correctly, even though it took many pages and posts, before you finally made this admission.

Hence, I believe your position to be basically consistent with that of Lordship Salvation, which is in various ways said to be what amounts to "performance based," regardless of who is making that claim, or in what exact form it is made.

As Dr. John Gerstner has stated, in so many words (and I believe this to also be fairly consistent with the position of Dr. John MacArthur, again in a few words), there are "non-meterious works" and "requirements" for salvation that are included in the "definition" of "faith." These are not to be construed as "works 'in addition' to faith, however, but these 'things' are an integral part of "saving faith."

I see two problems with this: One, the Bible never even uses the words of "saving faith" and certainly not as opposed to any 'non-saving faith', anywhere that I am aware. It does say "by grace, you have been saved through faith"(Eph; 2:8-9 - NKJV); "thy faith has saved thee" (LK. 7:50; 18:42 - KJV, YLT) and 'faith (in) God'; 'believe (in) the LORD God'; 'believe in Jesus' (or some variation on these wordings) multiple tmes, with the object of that faith being the triune God, and the result of that faith being "eternal life" or "salvation." (Jo. 3:16; Ac. 16:31; Rom. 4:5; etc).

As far as I'm aware, the Bible only makes the distinction between "believe" and "believe not" for salvation (Ps. 78:22; Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:13-18; 3:36; 5:38; 6:36, 64; 8:24; 45-46; Ac. 19:9; 28:24; Ro. 3:3; 11:30-31; II Cor. 4:4; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; I Jo. 5:10, etc.)

Two, as far as I can tell, the Bible knows of no such distinction between these so-called "meritorious works,' and any "non-meritorious works, deeds, and/or requirements" as an integral part of 'faith', in salvation, as far as I know. Salvation or justification by God, is in no way, dependant on someone's works. Befoe you bring up James chapter 2, let me note that James is talking about 'before man', and not 'before God.' "My brethren ... "; your assembly...";"You see..."; "you, ...You...your" time and again; "Someone will say...", etc. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness (before God) in Gen. 15:6, which was more than 15 years before Isaac was even born, let alone 'offered.' when Abrham 'offered' Isaac, who was a 'young man,' at least a teenager. on the altar. (BTW, at 15 years old, and and 5'10" and 250# I assure you had my own father at 115 years old at 5'7" and 170#, attempted to sacrifice me, as Abraham was going to do to Isaac, we would have had a time of "let us now reason together," and my 'reasoning' would probably have been such that this would not have happened, for I assure you I was both strong enough, adn fast enough, to prevent it.) This "faith' was "fulfilled", (before witnesses), In essence - "This is what I have believed for many years, and here is the evidence of my faith in that I believe God!" (Abraham) (Do you see...? (Rom. 4; Jas. 2:22) just as Jesus 'fulfilled the Law,' and Abraham's faith did not at this time occur, here at this point. One has to go to Gen 15:6 to find the only Scriptural occurrence of Abraham's faith for justification before God and this faith was apart from works, intrinsic or otherwise added, in any way! (Rom. 4; Gal. 2:16) One certainly ahould walk in righteousness, and live Godly, when they are saved, as all attest this, as far as I know, in this. But Scripture does not make this "automatic," INn any way that I see.

I just wonder if anyone notes that the justification of Rahab (before the nation fo Israel) included lying about the spies she was hiding, and '"lying" is the subject of another thread titled "Is it ever right to lie?". Have you also noted that any 'descriptive words about Rahab, are "Rahab the prostitute," (HCSB) and while I do assume that Rahab changed 'professions (and positions), Scripture does not say that she ceased being a prostitute, FTR, and still describes her in this manner, 1500 years later..

I liken it to this, in this way: -

1.) The one(s) who believes (in) Jesus/God, will be saved. (Lk. 8:12; Ac. 16:31; I Cor. 1:21; Heb 10:31)

2.) "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mk. 16:16)

3.) The ones who believed and ate bread and fish were saved. (Jn. 21: 9-15a)

The Ones who are/were in fact, disciples, are saved by believing in Jesus,the one who became sin for us, on the cross, and not by any supposedely "added to" or "contained in" what is faith. Such is the mercy of God, and I am one who was saved at the preaching of a less than clear' message preached and invitation given FTR. (I plan to start a thread on this, shortly, as well.)

5.) Finally, the one who ate the fish and honeycomb, was, in fact, 'the Savior of all men, specifically of the ones who believe.' I(I Tim. 4:10) .

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sometimes humor just isn't the best medicine here RB. :thumbsup: It's a VERY legitimate question you asked, but I agree that webdog shouldn't answer it the way it was asked. The way you asked it, how ever humorous it was, was degrading and probably not the best way to ask it.

Well, I will admit to a "neener neener neener" moment...how could the question be asked better then?

 

[canadyjd]

As Dr. John Gerstner has stated, in so many words (and I believe this to also be fairly consistent with the position of Dr. John MacArthur, again in a few words), there are "non-meterious works" and "requirements" for salvation that are included in the "definition" of "faith." These are not to be construed as "works 'in addition' to faith, however, but these 'things' are an integral part of "saving faith."

I see two problems with this.....

I believe you have accurately stated the LS position, with the exception that all is viewed as a gift of God's grace and not as a human work that in any way "merits" salvation.

You view "repent" as the flipside of "believe" and "repentance" as the flipside of "faith". The words mean different things, and yet they are both "required" for salvation. As was stated earlier, they are linked together in salvation.

I want to ask you something again. Not that I think I can persaude you to agree, but that I want you to look at the rhetoric that is being used to describe those who hold the LS position (as heretical, man-centered, etc...) and tell me you really believe it is fair to describe brothers and sisters in Christ in such a way.

If "repent" and "believe" (as well as "repentance" and "faith") are two different things that are required for salvation, forever linked in salvation, flipsides of each other, etc..., why is it such a leap into heresy to say that Lordship is the "flipside" of repentance?

For instance, suppose I say that when one's mind is changed in repentance that change includes a recognition that Jesus is "Lord", i.e., that is He has the right and authority to make demands of that person's life (even if the person doesn't understand the theology or the terminology). I even believe that the person's faith will include the "desire" to forsake everything for Christ's sake. I found my beliefs on the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ and document everything I believe in scripture.

If I believe the above statement, is it fair to call me a "heretic"? Is it fair to compare me to well known heretics? Is it fair to claim I believe and teach a "works-based salvation that frustrates grace", even though I repeatedly affirm that salvation is completely a work of God's grace?

Now, would it be fair for me (I am not making this claim, but simply trying to make a point) to claim you believe and teach a "works based salvation that frustrates grace" because you believe "repentance" is required for salvation?

Would it be fair for me to claim you are a heretic that doesn't believe salvation is by God's grace through faith alone because you believe repentance is "required" for salvation?

Would it be fair for me to claim that all your appeals to scripture are simply "extra-biblical presuppositions" that really do not even warrant looking at since you have obviously read your theology into all those passages of scripture?

Of course, it would not be fair or accurate or truthful to describe you and your beliefs in such a way; and neither has the way the LS position (with some rare exceptions) been described in these threads been fair, accurate, or truthful.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

What it means is they didn't want to lose their place in the synagogue. You can go into any church today and see true believers with this same mentality. I see this same attitude here on the BB with those I believe are saved. As long as we have this sin nature, the approval of man and self will always be a battle. Man is saved by grace through faith. That is the only bearing whether one is saved or not.

I disagree with you. The fact scripture mentions they would not "confess" Christ and that they love the approval of men rather than the approval of God tells me they weren't saved.

It is a theme introduced earlier in John 2:23-25 (just prior to the teaching concerning being "born again"). Scripture states that many were believing because of the signs Jesus was doing, but that Jesus wasn't "trusting" or "believing" Himself to them. The reason? Jesus knew what was in men. He knew whether their "belief" was genuine or not, therefore He wasn't trusting Himself to them.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Revising comment.

 

[Allan]

I disagree with you. The fact scripture mentions they would not "confess" Christ and that they love the approval of men rather than the approval of God tells me they weren't saved.

The disciples did this very thing.

When Christ was taken, they fled. Peter denied Christ and that he was even his follower. WHy did they do this? They loved the approval of men more than God. They feared men and not God.

Then after Christ died the disciples didn't continue in faith but returned to their old jobs and what-not. Jesus upon returning rebuked them for their 'unbelief'.
Why again? same as above.


However, unlike 'maybe' some others, I personally do not believe a saved person can continue in disobedience but will come to or even back to discipleship. They will be open about their faith as they mature in their faith. See the time when Jesus proclaims to Peter just before his denials about strengthening the others for an example.

 

[DHK]

There is very little information concerning whether Nicodemus was saved, though many believe his actions after the death of Christ indicate he was.Joseph of Arimathea is clearly identified as a "disciple" in John 19:38, though a "secret one", meaning a secret disciple.

You contradict yourself.
On the one hand you identify that Joseph indeed was a disciple.
On the other hand you identify him as a secret disciple.
In reality there is no such thing as a secret disciple.

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

When the Sanhedrin got together and condemned Jesus to death the vote was unanimous. There were no objections. Why? There are only three possibilities concerning both Nicodemus and Joseph:
1. They, under peer pressure, denied Christ (as Peter did).
2. They, as cowards would, abstained, and thus their votes did not count.
3. They were cowards (secret believers) and didn't even show up for the meeting.

Choose what you think might have happened. But there was no opposing vote when the Sanhedrin (of which both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were members of) met together to condemn Jesus to death by crucifixion. They were not only secret believers; they were cowards. That doesn't fit the definition of a disciple, not even by Christ's standard. Thus you have a problem harmonizing Scripture.

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Both of them were ashamed of Christ.
They don't fit the description of a disciple.

 

[canadyjd]

You contradict yourself.
On the one hand you identify that Joseph indeed was a disciple.
On the other hand you identify him as a secret disciple.
In reality there is no such thing as a secret disciple.

Scripture identifies Joseph as a "disciple" and then says " a secret one". John 19:38. How do I "contradict" myself by quoting scripture? Is scripture contradicting itself?

When the Sanhedrin got together and condemned Jesus to death the vote was unanimous. There were no objections. Why? There are only three possibilities concerning both Nicodemus and Joseph:
1. They, under peer pressure, denied Christ (as Peter did).
2. They, as cowards would, abstained, and thus their votes did not count.
3. They were cowards (secret believers) and didn't even show up for the meeting.....But there was no opposing vote when the Sanhedrin (of which both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were members of) met together to condemn Jesus to death by crucifixion. They were not only secret believers; they were cowards. That doesn't fit the definition of a disciple, not even by Christ's standard. Thus you have a problem harmonizing Scripture.

I can't find the passage of scripture that says Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. Could you point it out to me?

As far as Nic at night is concerned, I don't see any definite statement that he was a believer. His actions after the crucifixion may reflect remorse concerning his vote to condemn, or it may be that he finally believed with faith upon seeing the way in which Jesus died.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

Webdog,

Charles C. Ryrie is a Calvinist who has taken on MacArthur in print and he doesn't share his view on LS.

Ryrie believes in regeneration before faith, yet he's not for Lordship salvation.

Apparently, regeneration before faith doesn't lead to the LS view.

Just something for you and others to consider.

Actaully TCG, Ryrie "Doesn't" hold to 'regeneration before faith'. Not sure exactly where you picked that up from though.

I know you said in another thread that you were reading Ryries "Basic Theology" and I would ask you to look at Chapter 56 subheading "Regeneration" in which he states:

A. The Meaning of Regeneration

The word, used only twice in the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Titus 3:5), means to be born again. To be born from above (anothen) occurs in John 3:3 and probably includes the idea of being born again also (see the use of anothen in Gal. 4:9). It is the work of God which gives new life to the one who believes.

B. The Means of Regeneration

God regenerates (John 1:13) according to His will (James 1:18) through the Holy Spirit (John 3:5) when a person believes (1:12) the Gospel as revealed in the Word (1 Peter 1:23).

C. The Relation of Regeneration and Faith

In the Reformed statement of the ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given new life in order to be able to believe. While this is admittedly stated only as a logical order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has the new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? Of course, there can be no chronological order; both regeneration and faith have to occur at the same moment.....

Bolded & underlined in "B" mine for emphasis

It is quite apparent that Ryrie does not (or at least at the time of writing this as well as his study bible) hold to regeneration preceding faith.

If he has changed his theological stance on this please advise where you found this information, I would like to see it and he current view concerning it.

Thanks.


PS. He is at best a 3 point Cal (T, U, P)

EDITTED LATER: I agree as well that regeneration preceding faith does not necessarily lead to LS, though it does seem to be a persistant 'addition' in general view of the 'seeming' majority.

 

[Allan]

As far as Nic at night is concerned,

:laugh: Sorry this just has WAY to many implications :laugh:

couldn't resist :love2:

 

[EdSutton]

My comments will be interspersed in blue bold in canadyjd's reply.

I believe you have accurately stated the LS position, with the exception that all is viewed as a gift of God's grace and not as a human work that in any way "merits" salvation.

This is probably generally true as regards Lordship salvation starting from a supposed 'Calvinist' perspective; it is not necessarily true as regards Lordship salvation starting from an 'Arminian' perspective. Anything about "merit" are not my words, however, as Drs. Gerstner and MacArthur are the ones to mention "non-meritorious", not me, maybe that is because I don't claim my own N.D., anywhere. here on the BB??

You view "repent" as the flipside of "believe" and "repentance" as the flipside of "faith". The words mean different things, and yet they are both "required" for salvation. As was stated earlier, they are linked together in salvation.

"Repent" is a synonym for "believe," for salvation, as I view it, and I have stated such, in so many words. You are correct that the words do not 'mean' exactly the same thing, expecialy in English, however.

I want to ask you something again. Not that I think I can persaude you to agree, but that I want you to look at the rhetoric that is being used to describe those who hold the LS position (as heretical, man-centered, etc...) and tell me you really believe it is fair to describe brothers and sisters in Christ in such a way.

First, let us be accurate, here. I am in no way the cause of, nor able to affect any "rhetoric" some others may be using; I have used the word "heretical" exactly one time in all these discussions, and applied it to no one in particular, in offering my take on this, viz. (Incidentally, my quote is found in the post 'bolded,' prior to my copying it, here.)

[Not to mention that the teaching and proclaiming the one must or can "make Jesus Lord of your life" represents an egotism that exceeds that of Lucifer when he said, "I will be like the most High." by suggesting we can "make Jesus" anything, when He already is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and God is the One who made Him Lord. (If anyone could 'make Jesus' to be anything, then that individual becomes God, and if that is not an 'heretical teaching', then I never saw such.)]

I have not one time used the words "man-centered" on the BB in 2 1/2+ years, for I checked. ("Google is your friend, here!" as I believe webdog says.) "Man-centered" seems to be mainly a phrase Lou Martuneac uses to describe the teachings of Lordship Salvation, from what I have seen, although a few others have used that phrase.

Nor do I use the word heresy or 'heretic', either, very often, FTR, having used "heretic" most often as the identification of the historical figure of "Marcion, the Heretic", another who thought he should be able to "write his own Bible". I have called no one here a heretic, by any stretch. In accord with a previous request/directive from Dr. Bob, I do not (nor did I then) do so. Although I still do see where one individual who posted called what he described as "Easy Believism" as "obviously heretical." If what I am teachng is, in his opinion, 'easy-believism,' does that mean that poster is viewing me- EdSutton (and probably webdog, Lou Martuneac, skypair, DHK, and I could continue with several other BB members) as on holding to an 'obviously heretical' position? Just wonderin'! [Actually, I could probably answer that question fairly easily by saying "Yes! That is exactly what the poster thinks about a salvation with no outward appearance (as he judges them) of 'works'.", but am in a relaxed mode, for now, having to soon go and bale hay.]

I have not seen that most who hold a similar view to me have done much describing of others as any 'heretics', though, and will let this go at that.

If "repent" and "believe" (as well as "repentance" and "faith") are two different things that are required for salvation, forever linked in salvation, flipsides of each other, etc..., why is it such a leap into heresy to say that Lordship is the "flipside" of repentance?

I never said this was a leap into heresy. I think I answered this, otherwise, already, simply because of what you are meaning by "Lordship," where I beieve you equate, at some level, some 'performance' as necessary, albeit not as a 'pre-condition' to salvation, but where the (supposed) absence of such, is a definite, if not sure-fire sign one does not possess salvation. If I missed that this is not what you hold, somehow, I do apologize if I may have mischaracterized this. Unfortunately, I have to go very shortly, but will try later to get back to this post in more detail, if I can find the time.

For instance, suppose I say that when one's mind is changed in repentance that change includes a recognition that Jesus is "Lord", i.e., that is He has the right and authority to make demands of that person's life (even if the person doesn't understand the theology or the terminology). I even believe that the person's faith will include the "desire" to forsake everything for Christ's sake. I found my beliefs on the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ and document everything I believe in scripture.

I have already responded, here, I believe.

If I believe the above statement, is it fair to call me a "heretic"? I didn't.

Is it fair to compare me to well known heretics? Again, I didn't.

Is it fair to claim I believe and teach a "works-based salvation that frustrates grace", even though I repeatedly affirm that salvation is completely a work of God's grace?

I would claim that those of a 'Calvinistic' POV Lordship Salvation 'system' efectively teach this, because effectively it 'affirms' salvation solely by grace through faith, yet seeks to define (or re-define) faith as 'containing' works, intrinsically. And I reject that definition of 'faith'. Lordship salvation seeks to have it both ways; salvation by grace through faith, alone, but no salvation apart from works, at some level. At least the 'Calvinistic' Lordship Salvation proponents seek this.

Now, would it be fair for me (I am not making this claim, but simply trying to make a point) to claim you believe and teach a "works based salvation that frustrates grace" because you believe "repentance" is required for salvation?

It would be a misreading of what I am saying.

Would it be fair for me to claim you are a heretic that doesn't believe salvation is by God's grace through faith alone because you believe repentance is "required" for salvation?

Ditto, Above.

Would it be fair for me to claim that all your appeals to scripture are simply "extra-biblical presuppositions" that really do not even warrant looking at since you have obviously read your theology into all those passages of scripture?

Of course, it would not be fair or accurate or truthful to describe you and your beliefs in such a way; and neither has the way the LS position (with some rare exceptions) been described in these threads been fair, accurate, or truthful.

This is the debate, I would suggest. Unfortunately, too often, 'personality' has taken a lead role over 'principle', in the discussion, IMO.

Ed

peace to youraying:

 

[DHK]

Scripture identifies Joseph as a "disciple" and then says " a secret one". John 19:38. How do I "contradict" myself by quoting scripture? Is scripture contradicting itself?I can't find the passage of scripture that says Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. Could you point it out to me?

As far as Nic at night is concerned, I don't see any definite statement that he was a believer. His actions after the crucifixion may reflect remorse concerning his vote to condemn, or it may be that he finally believed with faith upon seeing the way in which Jesus died.

peace to youraying:

John 7:32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him.

John 7:46-48 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

John 7:50-52 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
51 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
--At this point Nicodemus doesn't speak up directly for Jesus. But he rebukes the Sandhedrin, condemning them that every man (including Jesus) is deserving of a fair trial. No one else had the courage to do at least this much. This was some indication of his salvation.
He was willing to take the mocking and scorn that he received for even saying this much in defence of Christ.

Look at the story in its entirety:
John 19:38-42 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

What do we know about Joseph of Arimathaea?
1. He is called a disciple (but secretly for fear of the Jews).
--Question: Is there a such thing as a secret disciple? By modern day LS advocates the answer is NO, and thus the Bible itself defeats their own position.
2. He beseeches Pilate for the body of Jesus.

Again we turn our attention on Nicodemus?
1. The setting: This was a very dangerous place and time. Both Jews and Romans were out hunting the disciples, followers of Christ. Most of them had fled in fear. The ones that were here at the foot of the cross were the ones that showed their true love for Christ. Where were the rest of the twelve? Why were they hiding at this most momentous time in history. But Nicodemus was here.
2.Nicodemus had planned ahead of time for this event--the burial of Christ. This in itself demonstrates that by this time he had become a follower of Christ. To the burial place he had brought no less then one hundred pounds of herbs, spices and burial clothes. This was all pre-planned on Nicodemus's part.
3. He was the one who helped Joseph in burying Jesus. It was these two believers (so-called secret disciples) that were the ones that actually buried our Lord. Perhaps they were disciples now. But after they were saved, there is no evidence they were disciples at all. They were secret believers--ashamed to speak up for the Lord; ashamed to speak a word in his favor. That is not the mark of a disciple.

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

They were believers. But it took a long time for them to become disciples: the only disciples that were willing to step out and take the body of Jesus and bury it. Where were Peter, James, John, and the others?