Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

[webdog]

I am not debating you on the subject. Either way, *shrug* he bowed out on debating the topic with me anymore. To me that's virtual defeat.

Hence my initial comment stands...it's all about personal victory for ReformedBaptist. That's man centered, is it not?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hence my initial comment stands...it's all about personal victory for ReformedBaptist. That's man centered, is it not?

Nope. It's about showing LM's teaching as contrary the biblical Gospel. Soli Deo Gloria.

 

[DHK]

He testified: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you but my Father in heaven.

That exchange took place well before Peter's denial.
If Peter was not saved would God the Father be speaking to Peter or revealing to Peter such things about the deity of Christ, as He did there. I think not!!
Of course Peter was born again.

RB:
As per our previous exchange (I can't be on the BB all the time), do you agree that at least this exchange with Jesus would point to the conversion or a regenerated life in Peter before the cross?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB:
As per our previous exchange (I can't be on the BB all the time), do you agree that at least this exchange with Jesus would point to the conversion or a regenerated life in Peter before the cross?

It very well could be. The reason I asked the question before in this regard, which Ed answered thoroughly, was because I had an actual question on it. In the context of this debate, which is relatively new to me, this is something I am going to have to think on for a time before a form a judgment on the matter.

Good question.

RB

 

[TCGreek]

I find it interesting that Peter's obvious regeneration is being questioned.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I find it interesting that Peter's obvious regeneration is being questioned.

Is it? Or am I not allowed to answer the question slowly, cautiously, and biblically? Methinks you went to far TC. I am not "questioning" in the negative, but seeking to evaluate biblically.

 

[TCGreek]

Here's something we might want to consider: the Ephesians in Acts 19 were saved but still continued to practice sorcery.

It wasn't until sometime later that they gave up the practice of sorcery entirely, surrendering to the Lordship of Christ (Acts 19:17-18).

 

[TCGreek]

Is it? Or am I not allowed to answer the question slowly, cautiously, and biblically? Methinks you went to far TC. I am not "questioning" in the negative, but seeking to evaluate biblically.

I said "interesting."

 

[webdog]

Here's something we might want to consider: the Ephesians in Acts 19 were saved but still continued to practice sorcery.

It wasn't until sometime later that they gave up the practice of sorcery entirely surrendering the Lordship of Christ (Acts 19:17-18).

Good point...I forgot about that angle. If LS is true, that throws a huge monkey wrench into things.

 

[TCGreek]

Good point...I forgot about that angle. If LS is true, that throws a huge monkey wrench into things.

Webdog, a text like this is why I cannot embrace much of this so-called LS.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Here's something we might want to consider: the Ephesians in Acts 19 were saved but still continued to practice sorcery. It wasn't until sometime later that they gave up the practice of sorcery entirely, surrendering to the Lordship of Christ (Acts 19:17-18). Webdog, a text like this is why I cannot embrace much of this so-called LS.

Peter is not the only believer in the New Testament who struggled in his commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 19:18-19 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

The Book of Acts tells us about the initial reluctance of the Ephesian believers to abandon their old ways. Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote,

There were people at Ephesus who became believers in Christ knowing that they should give up their use of magic but who did not give it up, some of them for as long as two years after they had become Christians. Yet their unwillingness to give it up did not prevent their becoming believers. Their salvation did not depend on faith plus willingness to submit to the lordship of Christ in the matter of using magical arts. (Balancing the Christian Life).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Luke 22

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

I do understand that the KJV use of "converted" here can be properly translated "to turn back, or to turn to" so I do not think this verse is teaching that it was after Peter turned back that he was "converted" as we say, or born again. It would imply by the word epistrepho, that he had turned to Christ already, then turned away, and would need to turn back.

So I would conclude so far that Peter was converted already. The Son of God prayed for him that his faith would not fail and declared that he would indeed turn back, and when he did, to strengthen his brethren...which he did.

This shows me that Peter's faith never failed. His denial of Christ was a grievous sin, but it was not a denial of who Christ is, but that he himself was not Christ's and that he himself did not know Christ. This he did, no doubt, out of the fear of man.

Yet this must be seen not just of Peter, but of all the disciples because it is written as such and is a fulfillment of prophecy.

"And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." Mark 14:27 All ye shall be "skandalizō" "to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, metaph. to offend; to entice to sin"

I do not think that bring up Peter's stumbling in fulfillment of prophecy is an argument against the doctrine of repentance as taught either by the LS folks or by the Reformers. Peter and all the apostles stumbled and fell into sin on this occasion and I am sure, on others, just as we do. And some sins a true regenerate person may fall into may be very terrible. So what is the difference then between this and the unregenerate?

The unregenerate falls and does not get back up. The unregenerate does not have the Lord interceding on his behalf that his faith will not fail. This is contained in my confession of faith and reads:

Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of the corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sin and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. Ecc. 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ok, I don't see at all what either Ryrie or TC is saying concerning Acts 19. I see that those who believed the Gospel also are the ones who came showing theier deeds and many others also showing their repentance by destroying their idolatries.

If reference is to the disciples at the begining of the chapter, those were disciples of John the Baptist...hearers of John so to speak.

 

[TCGreek]

Peter is not the only believer in the New Testament who struggled in his commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Book of Acts tells us about the initial reluctance of the Ephesian believers to abandon their old ways. Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote,

Lou, thanks for the Ryrie quote.

 

[TCGreek]

Ok, I don't see at all what either Ryrie or TC is saying concerning Acts 19. I see that those who believed the Gospel also are the ones who came showing theier deeds and many others also showing their repentance by destroying their idolatries.

If reference is to the disciples at the begining of the chapter, those were disciples of John the Baptist...hearers of John so to speak.

RB,

In Acts 19:18, the expression "those who have believed" represents a substantival perfect participle, signifying that they came to faith Christ during Paul's 2yr ministry, but never gave up their practice of sorcery until the events of vv. 11-20.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

In Acts 19:18, the expression "those who have believed" represents a substantival perfect participle, signifying that they came to faith Christ during Paul's 2yr ministry, but never gave up their practice of sorcery until the events of vv. 11-20.

All I have to go on is BLB in regards to tense

pisteuo
5761 Tense - Perfect See 5778
Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Participle See 5796

erchomai
5711 Tense - Imperfect See 5775
Voice - Middle or Passive Deponent See 5790
Mood - Indicative See 5791

Why does Blue Letter put "Those who have believed" as a perfect active particple?

5778 Tense - Perfect

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in
English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be
repeated.

Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!")
is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense,
namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely,
once and for all time."

Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related
to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense
in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few
cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the
normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above

Also, where does it give the time frame of two years ago? I am not seeing that in this verse...

 

[TCGreek]

All I have to go on is BLB in regards to tense

pisteuo
5761 Tense - Perfect See 5778
Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Participle See 5796

erchomai
5711 Tense - Imperfect See 5775
Voice - Middle or Passive Deponent See 5790
Mood - Indicative See 5791

Why does Blue Letter put "Those who have believed" as a perfect active particple?



Also, where does it give the time frame of two years ago? I am not seeing that in this verse...

The context of the range of events starts with v.8, where we see Paul ministering the word.

These Ephesian Christians must have come to faith during that time for Luke to use the perfect tense. I know of no other explanation.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The context of the range of events starts with v.8, where we see Paul ministering the word.

These Ephesian Christians must have come to faith during that time for Luke to use the perfect tense. I know of no other explanation.

Perhaps the answer lays in what you do not already know.

I have read, re-read, and read again the text and context in several translations. I am at a loss at how Ryrie and you tie in the diciples in verse 8 are the same in verse 18. NKJV says "And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds."

Nevertheless, if we see those in verse 18 as believers, then I see nothing there but that they came and openly confessed their past deeds. Or perhaps they had little conviction as to what they were confessing now openly, perhaps something related to their idolatries. This was the case for me when I came to Christ, it was later that the Lord convicted me about the sin of idolatry in a crucifix I owned and images men have made of God.

Also, Matthew Henry I think comments well on this:

Those that had been guilty of wicked practices confessed them, v. 18. Many that had believed and were baptized, but had not then been so particular as they might have been in the confession of their sins, were so terrified with these instances of the magnifying of the name of Jesus Christ that they came to Paul, or some of the other ministers that were with him, and confessed what evil lives they had led, and what a great deal of secret wickedness their own consciences charged them with, which the world knew not of-secret frauds and secret filthiness; they showed their deeds, took shame to themselves and gave glory to God and warning to others. These confessions were not extorted from them, but were voluntary, for the ease of their consciences, upon which the late miracles had struck a terror. Note, Where there is true contrition for sin there will be an ingenuous confession of sin to God in every prayer, and to man whom we have offended when the case requires it

 

[TCGreek]

Perhaps the answer lays in what you do not already know.

I have read, re-read, and read again the text and context in several translations. I am at a loss at how Ryrie and you tie in the diciples in verse 8 are the same in verse 18. NKJV says "And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds."

Nevertheless, if we see those in verse 18 as believers, then I see nothing there but that they came and openly confessed their past deeds. Or perhaps they had little conviction as to what they were confessing now openly, perhaps something related to their idolatries. This was the case for me when I came to Christ, it was later that the Lord convicted me about the sin of idolatry in a crucifix I owned and images men have made of God.

Also, Matthew Henry I think comments well on this:

Mathew Henry seems to have gotten it.

According to v. 18, they had already come to faith sometime before. I'm saying that this was during Paul's 2yr stint.

 

[DHK]

Luke 22

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

So I would conclude so far that Peter was converted already. The Son of God prayed for him that his faith would not fail and declared that he would indeed turn back, and when he did, to strengthen his brethren...which he did.

This shows me that Peter's faith never failed. His denial of Christ was a grievous sin, but it was not a denial of who Christ is, but that he himself was not Christ's and that he himself did not know Christ. This he did, no doubt, out of the fear of man.

Yet this must be seen not just of Peter, but of all the disciples because it is written as such and is a fulfillment of prophecy. RB

I think too much is made of fulfilled prophecy.
Was it a fulfilled prophecy, or simply the omniscience of Christ, telling Peter ahead of time what was going to befall him. We call that foreknowledge, do we not? Over and over again Christ had told his disciples that he was going to die and rise again. But they understood him not. Was each time, each reminder a prophecy. I don't believe so. The prophecies are contained in the OT. Jesus quoted them, and reminded his disciples that this is what would happen.
But simply because he tells Peter ahead of time what is going to befall him does not make it a prophecy. He knew that Peter would sin, and sin in a very specific way, and he tells him so. I don't think that that is necessarily a prophecy.

But it is sin. It was sin on Peter's part. And it was a part of Peter's life where he did not put Christ first in life. He did not have to deny Christ. He chose to deny Christ. Just because Christ "predicted" it, doesn't mean it had to happen. Christ did not force Peter to sin. Peter made that choice on his own accord. He chose not to put Christ first in his life. At that moment in time Christ was not Lord of his life.