Lordship Salvation? - Part Two

Show me one other instance where that was repeated and then show me in Scripture where is says that will happen to all believers. But I'll give you an attaboy because that's at least a better attempt to answer the question than Amy.

 

Yeah, I know. I should get the award for BB's dumbest member. :BangHead:

 

Why do you need another one? The symbolism is perfect. The three were in the fire, but a fourth was seen...with the likeness of the Son of Man.

Christ will never leave me nor forsake me.

 

HUGE difference between trembling at the name of Christ and obeying a lost person's demands that have no power behind them.

Not even remotely close. These men were righteous not disobedient. You need an example of the disobedient going through the fire unburned. Got one of those handy?

 

Well, I would say they are saved from the lake of fire, which is forever. Why do you think they're saved from hell, which is temporary?

 

Here, I'll let you argue with the Scriptures and doubt the honesty of God a bit more:

1 Corinthians 12:3: Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Oh, I guess they didn't really, really, really, TRULY call him "Lord". That's just another slip of the inarticulate deity who authored the Bible, right?

 

Here's another tidbit for consideration on this text:

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Eternal salvation is something that we possess the moment we believe. It is something that is never lost even at the judgment seat. Yet here the text tells us that this person "shall be saved." That is a future tense verb.

Wonder why it says he shall be instead of he already is?

What is he not saved from now that he will be at some point in the future?

Again the text simply doesn't allow eternal salvation to be in view because of what it SAYS.

 

Well, I was going to ask what the Bible says about their works (they were just), but JJump beat me to it. They were obedient; just; they didn't deny him; etc.

 

Benny Hinn calls Jesus Lord.

 

Is being an unfaithful believer a sin?

 

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

 

Thanks 2 Tim


HOG, JJump, is it a sin to be an unfaithful believer?

 

So? Even though he errs gravely in many areas, why would you think that he has never been saved?

 

Any missing of the mark is sin. We're all sinners. But, different sins are treated differently in Scriptures.

But, let me ask you a question: Is the one who is unfaithful simply not doing what he should, or is he actively doing that which is right in his own eyes, such as those in Matthew 7, which is lawlessness? Or both?

 

If the unfaithful believer is sent to hell for 1000 years, obviously Christ blood was not suffient to save them, since it is His blood which saves us from the power and punishment of sin.

 

The idea that a regenerated born again Christian would be anywhere other than in God's presence in the millenium or for eternity is heresy. And this thread should be closed.

 

I agree 2 Tim. I think there has been ample evidence that the ME doctrine is not in any way biblical. Anything that denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save us from the condemnation and punishment of sin is heresy.

 

No one has suggested that.

It is a matter of being out of fellowship, not presence. The believer who is under the loving rod is as close to his Father as the one who by virtue of his suffering with Christ gets to enjoy the reign with Christ.

It's just not near as good of a time.

Lacy

 

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. How does Chastening in any way "deny the sufficiency of the blood of Christ"?

 

The purpose of the passage, I believe, is to illustrate a much more important point. It's not the purpose of the text to determine if the ruler was saved.

Mat 19:23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also. Mat 6:22 The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.