Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[canadyjd]

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??

OK, I can take from this, I hope without redefining you too much, that from a Calvinist's perspective at least, you don't believe that those who advocate the LS position believe and teach a works-based salvation.

You just believe they are inaccurate in their belief (and teaching) that "Lordship" is imbedded in faith. That the emphasis on "Lordship" may lead unbelievers to the conclusion that salvation is "works-based", despite the teaching of grace through faith. Is that a fair summary of your belief?

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.)

I apologize to you. I should have been clear that I was not accusing you of participating in the rhetoric? You have come across to me as thoughtfully engaging scripture and comments on it. I really just wanted your opinion concerning the fairness of some comments.

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 to be clear, I do not recall accusing anyone of "easy-believism" or referring to anyone as a heretic. If I have, show me where and I will apologize.

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.

Fair enough. We'll let it 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.

I don't equate it as "performance" as much as "desire". That genuine faith would include the "desire" for the things of Christ, the "desire" to know Him and what He would have us to do. Will that desire lead to "fruit". Some may say "it should" or that "hopefully it will", but I believe scripture says it most definitely will. If "faith" lacks the "desire" for Christ and the things of Christ, is it genuine? I don't see how it could be.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Again, I apologize for not making it clear that I wasn't accusing you of engaging in the harsh rhetoric.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

....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.

Perhaps. But it is not a specific statement that Nicodemus was a believer or a disciple.

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.

First, I have not heard that LS advocates deny the possibility of a "secret disiciple". If you can quote one for me, I'll certainly take a look at it.

Second, neither statement shows he is a member of the Sanhedrin.

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.

1. Agreed. It was very dangerous to associate yourself with Jesus, even after His death. But, it is after His death. There is still no specific statement that Nicodemus was a disciple when/if he were present at the vote to condemn Jesus.

2. It doesn't mean Nicodemus "planned" anything. It was Joseph's tomb, wasn't it? Perhaps Joseph was planning a relative's funeral or even his own funeral. Nicodemus was there, at great personal risk, representing the Sanhedrin to have the body removed before sundown.

3. Nicodemus is never called a disciple or a believer (secret or otherwise). Joseph is called a secret disciple. To say there was no evidence they were disciples after they were saved is contradictory to your own argument that that Nicodemus stood up for Jesus when no one else would and that Nic and Joseph buried Jesus at great personal risk to themselves.

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?

Running and hiding. Weren't Peter, James, John and the others specifically referred to as "disciples"?

peace to youraying:

 

[TCGreek]

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:

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.

Dr. Ryrie clearly is not being clear on this one. Under the Relation of Regeneration and Faith he is quite tentative.

 

[DHK]

.Running and hiding. Weren't Peter, James, John and the others specifically referred to as "disciples"?

peace to youraying:

You are not looking at the evidence objectively:
When Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry called Peter and a couple of others (Mat.4:11) "Come and follow me," they left their fishing nets and followed Jesus. They became disciples right away. So did Levi, sitting at the receipt of customs. He left all and followed Jesus. That is what LS advocates use as examples of what one must to be a Christian. Believe on Jesus, leave all, and follow him. It is not enough just to believe.

The fact is that neither Nicodemus nor Joseph of Arimathaea were those kind of believers. Both indeed were members of the Sanhedrin. If you don't agree you need to do some more study on the subject. Both met Jesus secretly. Both met him out of fear of the Jews. Both did not forsake everything that they had. In fact both did not even forsake their own religion, or even their leadership position in a false religion, that of the Sanhedrin composed of both the Pharisees and the Saduccees. The Saduccees denied the Resurrection. They associated themselves with these unbelievers and yet considered themselves as followers of Christ at the same time.

According to LS beleivers their definition of a disciple of Christ would not allow this. It would contradict their theology. Yet the Bible says that Joseph was a disciple. Thus the LS advocates have a problem both with their terminology and with their theology. The Bible calls Joseph a disciple but he does not act like a disciple. He hardly acts like a believer. Not until he comes into the garden does he start acting like a real disciple of Christ. Why does he remain secretive about his salvation for so long and hide his salvation? In fact why is he called a disciple and act like an unbeliever? This disproves the entire theory of LS theology.
Nicodemus was the same way.
They were saved before hand. But not until they get to the garden do they begin to act like disciples. They had held back. They just pretended to be Christians before that time.

 

[canadyjd]

You are not looking at the evidence objectively:

I am looking at this objectively. The evidence from scripture, that you have provided, is very weak at best.

When Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry called Peter and a couple of others (Mat.4:11) "Come and follow me," they left their fishing nets and followed Jesus. They became disciples right away. So did Levi, sitting at the receipt of customs. He left all and followed Jesus. That is what LS advocates use as examples of what one must to be a Christian. Believe on Jesus, leave all, and follow him. It is not enough just to believe.

To "believe" is to have your life transformed. If your life is not "transformed", then is it genuine faith? Genuine faith produces evidence of that faith, according to our Lord Jesus.

The fact is that neither Nicodemus nor Joseph of Arimathaea were those kind of believers.

You have not shown scripture that specifically says Nicodemus was a believer.

Both indeed were members of the Sanhedrin. If you don't agree you need to do some more study on the subject.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again. I can't find the passage of scripture that says Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. Please point me to it.

Both did not forsake everything that they had. In fact both did not even forsake their own religion, or even their leadership position in a false religion, that of the Sanhedrin composed of both the Pharisees and the Saduccees. The Saduccees denied the Resurrection. They associated themselves with these unbelievers and yet considered themselves as followers of Christ at the same time.

You are making a lot of assumptions about 2 men of which scripture says very little. You have not shown Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, and you have not shown Nicodemus was a believer before or after the death of Christ.

According to LS beleivers their definition of a disciple of Christ would not allow this. It would contradict their theology. Yet the Bible says that Joseph was a disciple.

OK, you let's take a look at Joseph. Scripture says he was a "secret disciple". Are you saying that LS advocates, by terminology and theology, would reject the very idea of a "secret disciple"? If so, I have not seen that stated by any LS advocate.

But, I do believe I see your point. I just don't think it is a valid observation.

The Bible calls Joseph a disciple but he does not act like a disciple. He hardly acts like a believer. Not until he comes into the garden does he start acting like a real disciple of Christ. Why does he remain secretive about his salvation for so long and hide his salvation? In fact why is he called a disciple and act like an unbeliever? This disproves the entire theory of LS theology.

Again, you are making a lot of assumptions about how Joseph acted, and then try to claim it disproves LS. The fact is, we have very little evidence about how dedicated Joseph was to Christ and His teachings. For all we know, he sought Christ out at every opportunity to hear Him and learn from Him. For all we know, we gave generously to support His ministry. For all we know, He was witnessing to friends and families. The only thing we know for sure is that scripture discribes him as keeping his discipleship secret from the Jewish leaders (and perhaps strangers?), and that he sought the body of Jesus after His death to give Him a proper burial (fit for a king).

You are building a defense against LS based on numerous assumptions about a man that scripture does not tell us very much about.

Nicodemus was the same way.

Right. You have done the same thing with Nicodemus.

When I first started looking into the issue, I had concerns about the LS terminology concerning "wholehearted commitment" accompaning faith and other such language. It did not appear to allow for spiritual maturity or growth in a believer.

I believe that may be the point you are making, am I correct?

To the degree that LS advocates do not allow for spiritual growth, or even various rates of growth among believers (i.e, not all believers mature at the same rate), then I see this as a major weakness in their argument.

However, at least some LS advocates acknoweldge differing rates of spiritual growth among believers and have sought to clarify their earlier statements.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

The teaching of MacArthur is hardly inspiring. It is a travesty to read how he reinterprets the Bible to force into conformity with Lordship's works based salvation. Scripture never teaches the reception of salvation by forsaking everything. That is a message of what man must do and/or commit to do, which is a departure from the message of what Christ has done.

John MacArthur writes,
That citation from the 1994-revised and expanded edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a revision of what John MacArthur first wrote. In the original edition, John MacArthur states:

From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:

MacArthur wrote,
It is in his discussion of the rich young ruler. JM continues,


There it is in context: How to be born again, how to become a Christian is the subject. JM's answer, “Salvation (the requirement for eternal life) is for those who are willing to forsake everything...give Christ first place....” (TGATJ, p. 78)

That theme runs like a thread through all three editions of TGATJ. That may sound noble, but that statement defines a gospel of faith plus works.

The LS message that, “salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything," is a corruptin of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

I don't believe in "cheap grace." By that I don't mean cheap on Christ's part but rather on our part.

Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,

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 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

This isn't MacArthur saying this. It is Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

I am looking at this objectively. The evidence from scripture, that you have provided, is very weak at best.To "believe" is to have your life transformed. If your life is not "transformed", then is it genuine faith? Genuine faith produces evidence of that faith, according to our Lord Jesus.

True, and the lives of Nicodemus and Joseph were not transformed at the time of their conversion. They did not become disciples at the time they became believers. There is a difference, contrary to what LS advocates believe.

You have not shown scripture that specifically says Nicodemus was a believer.

Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, for he defended Jesus before the Sanhedrin (John 7:50-52), though his defense was not very bold.

By this open act of reverence Nicodemus at last made public profession of his being of the following of Christ. His wealth enabled him to provide the "mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds," with which the body of Jesus was embalmed (Joh 19:39).
The Gospel of Nicodemus and other apocryphal works narrate that Nicodemus gave evidence in favor of Christ at the trial before Pilate, that he was deprived of office and banished from Jerusalem by the hostile Jews, and that he was baptized by Peter and John. His remains were said to have been found in a common grave along with those of Gamaliel and Stephen. (ISBE)

If he was not a believer why would he risk his life in helping to bury Jesus?

If he was not a believer why would he defend Jesus in John 7:50-52?

I asked you before and I'll ask you again. I can't find the passage of scripture that says Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin. Please point me to it.

Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council member who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate, and asked for Jesus' body. (WEB)
--He was a member of the Sanhedrin as this verse indicates.
Luke 23:50 Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man (WEB)
Matthew 27:57 When evening had come, a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who himself was also Jesus' disciple came.
Luke 23:50-51 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just: (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them; he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
--Put two and two together. They all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Joseph “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them.” He had probably absented himself from that meeting “for fear of the Jews.
John 19:38 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.
--The Bible calls him a member of the Sanhedrin, a member of the council, the very council that condemned Christ to be crucified. But he did not take part of the vote. He was absent. He was a disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jews. That is not much of a disciple is it? He didn’t speak out for Jesus, but he could have. He could have defended him in the Sanhedrin, but he was a coward. He deliberately absented himself. He was afraid.

You are making a lot of assumptions about 2 men of which scripture says very little. You have not shown Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, and you have not shown Nicodemus was a believer before or after the death of Christ.OK, you let's take a look at Joseph. Scripture says he was a "secret disciple". Are you saying that LS advocates, by terminology and theology, would reject the very idea of a "secret disciple"? If so, I have not seen that stated by any LS advocate.

I have. A believer must be a disciple at the same time. A disciple must forsake all that he has and follow Christ. Certainly these two men did not forsake the Sanhedrin and follow Christ. They maintained their positions in a wicked organizations while pretending to be disciples. It doesn't fit the definition of LS theology.

But, I do believe I see your point. I just don't think it is a valid observation. Again, you are making a lot of assumptions about how Joseph acted, and then try to claim it disproves LS. The fact is, we have very little evidence about how dedicated Joseph was to Christ and His teachings. For all we know, he sought Christ out at every opportunity to hear Him and learn from Him. For all we know, we gave generously to support His ministry. For all we know, He was witnessing to friends and families. The only thing we know for sure is that scripture discribes him as keeping his discipleship secret from the Jewish leaders (and perhaps strangers?), and that he sought the body of Jesus after His death to give Him a proper burial (fit for a king).

I am going on much more than assumptions. There is more Scripture on these men than you think. There is also information on them outside of Scripture. LS theology changes the meaning of disciple. The word "disciple" simply means "follower," as does "Christian", "follower of Christ." The LS advocates redefine "disciple" and make it mean much more than "follower."

You are building a defense against LS based on numerous assumptions about a man that scripture does not tell us very much about.Right. You have done the same thing with Nicodemus.

Again, I believe I have posted enough Scripture (and could post more) to put forth a more than adequate case for both individuals.

When I first started looking into the issue, I had concerns about the LS terminology concerning "wholehearted commitment" accompaning faith and other such language. It did not appear to allow for spiritual maturity or growth in a believer.

I believe that may be the point you are making, am I correct?

Yes, that is a good part of the objection that I have.

To the degree that LS advocates do not allow for spiritual growth, or even various rates of growth among believers (i.e, not all believers mature at the same rate), then I see this as a major weakness in their argument.

However, at least some LS advocates acknoweldge differing rates of spiritual growth among believers and have sought to clarify their earlier statements.

I haven't seen many yet.

 

[Revmitchell]

True, and the lives of Nicodemus and Joseph were not transformed at the time of their conversion. They did not become disciples at the time they became believers.i

There is no indiction one way or the other on this. This is speculation at best.

There is a difference, contrary to what LS advocates believe.

And yet you have offered no scriptual support for this erroneus view thus far.

Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, for he defended Jesus before the Sanhedrin (John 7:50-52), though his defense was not very bold. If he was not a believer why would he risk his life in helping to bury Jesus?

Scripture says otherwise:

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

If he was not a believer why would he defend Jesus in John 7:50-52?

 

[DHK]

There is no indiction one way or the other on this. This is speculation at best.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I posted plenty of Scripture for you, which is not speculation. Let me repeat: A believer, living in fear and secretively is not living as a disciple ought to be living.
For example, Nicodemus is called a disciple.
He did not show up at the Council and object to Jesus being crucified.
He, though a member of the Sanhedrin, lived in fear of it. The Bible says: "Whosoever is born of God overcomes the world..." This disciple was living in fear and secretly, not as an overcomer. He was not living what might be called "a victorious Christian life." He was not living the life of a disciple of Christ. He was secret about His Christian testimony. Scripture states that he was, and that is not speculation.

And yet you have offered no scriptual support for this erroneus view thus far.

I have offered plenty of Scriptural support through the lives of Nicodemus and Arimathea that there is a difference between a disciple and a believer. Not all believers are disciples. But let me demonstrate that another way:

Luke 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.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--I have a 13 year old daughter. She is saved, a believer. According to you, or LS advocates, to be a disciple she must forsake ALL, including father, mother, brothers, sisters. According to your logic, I should encourage her to leave the house, forsake us, her family, and go on her own to follow Jesus. That is what my wife should have done when she got saved at the age of 7. Is that right. Is this the horrible teaching of LS theology? To forsake all and follow Jesus. You really want me to teach this heresy to my children?? Not a chance!!

Scripture says otherwise:

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

If he was not a believer why would he defend Jesus in John 7:50-52?

That indicates that he was a believer, not a disciple.
He was not a disciple according to LS theology. He does not fit the paradigm of the verses quoted above. He had not forsaken ALL. He had not forsaken the Sanhedrin.

 

[canadyjd]

Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathaea, a prominent council member who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate, and asked for Jesus' body. (WEB)
--He was a member of the Sanhedrin as this verse indicates. Luke 23:50 Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man (WEB)
Matthew 27:57 When evening had come, a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who himself was also Jesus' disciple came.
Luke 23:50-51 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just: (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them; he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
--Put two and two together. They all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Joseph “had not consented to the counsel and deed of them.” He had probably absented himself from that meeting “for fear of the Jews.

Thank you for the scripture. Joseph was obviously a member of the Sanhedrin. It is likely that the Sanhedrin had met in secret (during the night) to condemn Jesus. Not all members were "invited", but "all" who were there, condemned Jesus.

John 19:38 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.

He was a disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jews. That is not much of a disciple is it? He didn’t speak out for Jesus, but he could have. He could have defended him in the Sanhedrin, but he was a coward. He deliberately absented himself. He was afraid.

All of what you said is true, except for "deliberately absented himself", since he may not have known of the illegal meeting in the first place.

It does not demonstrate, however, that one could be a "believer" and not be a "disciple" since he is clearly identified as a "disciple".

A believer must be a disciple at the same time. A disciple must forsake all that he has and follow Christ.

Disciples sin. They fall short. Each time they grow and mature. At some point, they will become a mature Christian. As I stated before, to the extent that LS theology doesn't allow for growing and maturing in the faith, it is a major weakness.

Certainly these two men did not forsake the Sanhedrin and follow Christ. They maintained their positions in a wicked organizations while pretending to be disciples. It doesn't fit the definition of LS theology.

Scripture doesn't say Joseph "pretended" to be a disciple. It identifies him as a disciple.

LS theology changes the meaning of disciple. The word "disciple" simply means "follower," as does "Christian", "follower of Christ."

You have supported the LS argument with this statement, unless you are you saying a person can be a "believer" but not a Christian?

The LS advocates redefine "disciple" and make it mean much more than "follower."

And those who oppose the LS position redefine "believer" to be something less than "follower", someone who has given "mental assent" to facts about Jesus, when scripture calls for faith in Jesus. To be a believer is to be a disciple. Strong or weak. Immature or mature. But a disciple nevertheless.

Again, I believe I have posted enough Scripture (and could post more) to put forth a more than adequate case for both individuals.

Thank you for the scripture. You have made a very good argument against that aspect of LS which denies believers mature in their faith.

peace to youraying:

 

[Revmitchell]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I posted plenty of Scripture for you, which is not speculation. Let me repeat: A believer, living in fear and secretively is not living as a disciple ought to be living.

You impost what is not knowable on this passage. We do nto know all the circumstances for his coming at night. Any conclusions on this are specualtion at best.

For example, Nicodemus is called a disciple.
He did not show up at the Council and object to Jesus being crucified.

Again we do not knwo where he was or why. More speculation.

He, though a member of the Sanhedrin, lived in fear of it.

Scripture says he was a Pharisee in John 3.

The Bible says: "Whosoever is born of God overcomes the world..." This disciple was living in fear and secretly, not as an overcomer. He was not living what might be called "a victorious Christian life." He was not living the life of a disciple of Christ. He was secret about His Christian testimony. Scripture states that he was, and that is not speculation.

It says no such thing and again more specualtion.

That is what my wife should have done when she got saved at the age of 7. Is that right. Is this the horrible teaching of LS theology? To forsake all and follow Jesus. You really want me to teach this heresy to my children?? Not a chance!!

That indicates that he was a believer, not a disciple.
He was not a disciple according to LS theology. He does not fit the paradigm of the verses quoted above. He had not forsaken ALL. He had not forsaken the Sanhedrin.

The LS view is consistently misunderstood. Forsaking all never means an immediately mature Christian. Such fallacies are not helpful. It does mean you have a heart for God and do not live a life that works contrary to him. You are willing to learn and serve Him.

Again Nicodemus was a Pharisee John 3

 

[webdog]

The LS view is consistently misunderstood. Forsaking all never means an immediately mature Christian. Such fallacies are not helpful. It does mean you have a heart for God and do not live a life that works contrary to him. You are willing to learn and serve Him.

The bolded is in contrast to LS. LS teaches one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...not be willing to learn to be a servant.

 

[Revmitchell]

The bolded is in contrast to LS. LS teaches one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...not be willing to learn to be a servant.

You as others continue to misrepresent the LS position and JM. And since you cannot scriptuall define works you really have no credibility on this issue.

 

[webdog]

You as others continue to misrepresent the LS position and JM. And since you cannot scriptuall define works you really have no credibility on this issue.

It's hard to misrepresent what the man has said, as well as other LS advocates.

I did scripturally define works. Just because it didn't fit what you wanted to see is your problem. I have as much credibility on this issue as you do, and since you see the need for ad hominems, I would state you don't have a dog in the fight in regards to credibility.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's hard to misrepresent what the man has said, as well as other LS advocates.

I did scripturally define works. Just because it didn't fit what you wanted to see is your problem. I have as much credibility on this issue as you do, and since you see the need for ad hominems, I would state you don't have a dog in the fight in regards to credibility.

No you made no case just vague references to the commandments. As far asad hominems I have not offered any.

 

[canadyjd]

The bolded is in contrast to LS. LS teaches one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...not be willing to learn to be a servant.

Please document where a LS advocate teaches "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...."

I believe the "upfront commitment" language came from an opponent of LS, not from a LS advocate.

peace to youraying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Please document where a LS advocate teaches "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...."

I believe the "upfront commitment" language came from an opponent of LS, not from a LS advocate.

peace to youraying:

wow....I am amazed at the distortions.

 

[canadyjd]

wow....I am amazed at the distortions.

Isn't it interesting to watch? The opponents of LS continually make these distorted statements about what LS advocates believe and teach. After a while, people start repeating the distortions as if the LS folks had actually said it themselves.

peace to youraying:

 

[DHK]

Please document where a LS advocate teaches "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...."

RB’s testimony: I forsook all things to follow Jesus from the moment I was born from above.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1271947&postcount=60

posted by Ferron Brimstone: Lou,
Sorry I am so late getting back, pesky job.

I do believe that you must be willing to forsake everything to be saved.
I believe you must repent to be saved.
I believe you must come by faith to be saved.
But none of these are works, they are gifts bestowed upon us when we become new creatures (regeneration).

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1272084&postcount=69

again Ferron Brimstone posts: JM is a Calvinist, He believes that God chooses whom will be saved, this removes any possibility of works salvation.

The Lordship position as taught by JM is that upon regeneration (a change brought about by God) Salvation becomes so important that the regenerate will forsake all to obtain it.

Mathew 13:44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."

God Regenerates
God Justifies
God Sanctifies
God Glorifies

Salvation is of God beginning to end. Even the ability to accept Christ as Lord is a gift from God. A gift you will possess if you are regenerate.

If you love anything in this world more than Christ, then you are not Saved, if you do not repent, turn from your sin and accept Christ as Lord, you will die and go to Hell.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1271731&postcount=45

 

[canadyjd]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1271947&postcount=60

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1272084&postcount=69
[/b]
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1271731&postcount=45

I put the phrase "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...." in "quotes" for a reason. None of the comments by LS advocates that you presented uses the phrase "one must make an upfront commitment to servitude...."

As usually used by those who oppose LS, the "upfront commitment to servitude" is said to be a work that must be done to earn "salvation".

None of the quotes you provided suggests any such belief by those who said it.

peace to youraying: