Lordship Salvation volume 2

[Iconoclast]

Not in the same way. You see, we believe God not only authored our salvation but also our sanctification. Ryrie argues that while God saves you, there may not be any further fruit afterwards. We hold that Sanctification occurs just like Justification, it was wholly wrought by God. Ryrie believes salvation was wholly wrought by God, but denies this consistency for sanctification. Thus, a person can believe but never again return to the Lord or exhibit fruit of the Spirit, but he will still be saved. Now, I do need to be careful here because Ryrie believes every Christian bears fruit, however, he will say that this fruit could be one small inkling of fruit at salvation.

Thus, in context my statement was attacking the idea of Ryrie and Hodge on this point. My belief is that God was powerful enough to wrought salvation and powerful enough to keep us bearing fruit through our sanctification.

Thus, with that clarification I show that sanctification and justification is God's grace upon us, and that we will bear fruit in accordance to that Grace. That is how powerful God's grace is.

You have stated this very well.....Ryrie is very solid...yet he missed it big time on this, because like others he was influenced by the false carnal christian heresy.:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

 

[JesusFan]

Acts is the book where we see how the Apostles proclaimed Christ. So where in Acts did they tell folk that they must receive Christ as Lord?
QUOTE]

Acts 20:21 You will notice it says faith in the Lord Jesus Christ not Savior Jesus Christ. The same in Romans. He must be confessed as Lord, not Savior. If you do a study on the Greek word for confess you will see it means “to say the same thing".” If (“Lord”) it is only spoken a word and not applied in surrender to what Lord means then it is not confession from a biblical standpoint as it is a lie since "Lord" is not simply a title, but rather a position. The confession has to be true to the Position of Jesus. In other words they receive Him as their personal Lord, Master. To reject Jesue as Lord and seek to take Him as Savior is not repentance towards God. Confessing is not simply admitting something in the Greek like it is in our English. To reject Jesus as Lord is to remain in rebellion to Who He is and to suggest that God saves people while they remain rebellious is foreign to scripture.

A christian has jesus as His Lord right at moment of his rebirth, its just that we all grow up into the knowledge of what that all entails to us now!

Gods point of view has ALL christians saved by Grace, indwelt by the HS, so jesus is indeed their Lord

our viewpoint, we know he is Lord, as in God, but will need time and wisdom to have this truth practically applied to my life now in Christ!

Think problem is that we are both saved and in the process of daily growing into image of jesus, its just that LS tends to at times take a snapshot in time and tries to prove we are not really saved, but could be a momentary glitch in our walk with Christ!

 

[HankD]

I find it interesting that the language of those against LS mimics so closely Calvinistic soteriology. I.e. HankD

But Timotheos just so you will know, I am not a calvinist.

Any arminian should have no problem with what I am saying.

At which statement have you identified me as a calvinist?

"To believe in Jesus Christ is impossible without the Holy Spirit"?

John 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;​

Notice He convicts the "world" of sin, not just the "elect".​

Arminans would say that those who repond positively to the reproval (some like the word "repent") become the elect while calvinists would say they are the elect.​

If we were not reproved/convicted of our sin we would not even know of our sin and need and would not have the spiritual sense to cry out for salvation. Therefore it is given to every man.​

The Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Trinity) is a gift from God sent by Jesus Christ to the world.​

John 1
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

Verse 12 Our part
verse 13 God's part.​

How is it that we came to be able to receive Him?​

I don't know. I don't care.
I was lost, helpless and hopeless.​

Now I am His and He is mine.​

Any arminian can confess that Jesus did it all.

BTW I'm not arminian either.

I have issues with both (which presumes only two sides), I am a mugwump.

HankD​

 

[Greektim]

I gave you an exposition of the rich young ruler from Mark 10. You deflect everything I said with a non sequitor from Luke 14. I wasn't talking of Luke 14. Is this your regular tactic?
Your conclusion: "So the great crowds in Luke 14 were already saved?" How do you get that out of the story of the rich young ruler recorded in Mark chapter 10.
A total non sequitor.

I deflect everything you say??? You were the one that completely ignored other statements I made, like my comment about Mark 8:34ff. All you did was give me a compliment about using context. However, that context refuted your premise about these presentations only being directed towards disciples. I also mentioned John 15:2 in relation to Matt. 7:15ff., but you never made a comment on that. Really? You are going to accuse me of deflecting "everything" you say??? Well back at you, mod.

I chose not to go down the road of Mark 10 further b/c it was a lost cause. The entire story is veiled in soteric language. But if you don't want to acknowledge any of that b/c it goes against your theology, then what should I do? Keep beating a dead horse???

My mentioning of Luke 14 and the "crowds in Lk 14 were already saved" was a conclusion of your own exegesis. You say that Jesus was speaking to people already saved, i.e. disciples. But the text says he was addressing the crowd along w/ his disciples. So I was basically giving the result of your logic, that the crow was already saved. Also, to say it is a non sequitor shows me you did not follow the logic of your own statements. I brought up Luke 14 for the same reason I brought up Mark 8, b/c you wanted proof that Jesus gave his evangelistic discipleship call to more than people who were already saved, i.e. crowds. I provided that. Then you call it a non-sequitor??????? I hope you don't wonder why I don't want to go down certain roads with you for too long. It is mind-numbing at times.

 

[JesusFan]

Carson's quote goes against what Lordship Salvation a la Washer and MacArthur teach.

Carson leaves room for growth. "It was written to produce converts who grow and persevere and develop as disciples." I don't think that any of us disagree with that.

Washer believes that one must be a disciple as soon as one is saved, wording it as a requirement for salvation. "Unless you forsake all that you have you cannot (be saved). But that is not what the verse says. He equates discipleship with salvation, whereas Carson doesn't, and neither did Jesus.

We here are ALL agreeing that when when gets saved by god, that we should be showing fruit /evidence of our new life in Him BUT

Think that big area of disagreement is just how much God requires of us to show, and just how fast to show it!

My contention on this is that we are indeed new creatures in Christ, that we all still have growing up on Christ to do, and some of us grow at different rates than others...

its NOT sinless perfection here, but it is that we will keep on growing, sometimes slower/faster, but we will desire to confess our sins and move on..

Christians do still sin, but we are the ones who confess/repent of that, and keep on going...

christian can drive themselves into the ditch by sinning, but the true believer will eventually find his way out, as he is under Lordship of Christ, regardless even IF he knows and practices all of what that means!

 

[Greektim]

I deflect everything you say??? You were the one that completely ignored other statements I made, like my comment about Mark 8:34ff. All you did was give me a compliment about using context. However, that context refuted your premise about these presentations only being directed towards disciples. I also mentioned John 15:2 in relation to Matt. 7:15ff., but you never made a comment on that. Really? You are going to accuse me of deflecting "everything" you say??? Well back at you, mod.

I chose not to go down the road of Mark 10 further b/c it was a lost cause. The entire story is veiled in soteric language. But if you don't want to acknowledge any of that b/c it goes against your theology, then what should I do? Keep beating a dead horse???

My mentioning of Luke 14 and the "crowds in Lk 14 were already saved" was a conclusion of your own exegesis. You say that Jesus was speaking to people already saved, i.e. disciples. But the text says he was addressing the crowd along w/ his disciples. So I was basically giving the result of your logic, that the crow was already saved. Also, to say it is a non sequitor shows me you did not follow the logic of your own statements. I brought up Luke 14 for the same reason I brought up Mark 8, b/c you wanted proof that Jesus gave his evangelistic discipleship call to more than people who were already saved, i.e. crowds. I provided that. Then you call it a non-sequitor??????? I hope you don't wonder why I don't want to go down certain roads with you for too long. It is mind-numbing at times.

Hey John of Japan, you must have missed my post to you about Acts 10:36. Would you care to comment on its (what seems to me) clear implications for the LS concept in Acts?

 

[JesusFan]

You have stated this very well.....Ryrie is very solid...yet he missed it big time on this, because like others he was influenced by the false carnal christian heresy.:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

Both saved/unsaved can live "in the mud' and both sin against God, at times might look like same kind of person even...

eventually though, the true child of God WILL come to his senses and be stirred by God to be convicted back to fellowship with the father...

one has a season of disobedience but comes back to the fold, while the sinner keeps on disobeying all life long!

problem is if we take a snapshot at a certain period of time, both look like neither was saved, but one comes back to God, while other stayed away!

 

[DHK]

I deflect everything you say??? You were the one that completely ignored other statements I made, like my comment about Mark 8:34ff. All you did was give me a compliment about using context. However, that context refuted your premise about these presentations only being directed towards disciples.[/quoe]
Did it? Let's see:

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mark 8:34)
--He was speaking directly to his disciples; nothing to do with salvation. It was about discipleship, just like most of the LS Scripture that such advocates use--pulled straight out of its context.

I also mentioned John 15:2 in relation to Matt. 7:15ff., but you never made a comment on that. Really? You are going to accuse me of deflecting "everything" you say??? Well back at you, mod.

Let's look at it: I answered this in great detail. The whole passage is speaking of false teachers. Either refute what I said, or do away with the needless comments. Or did you miss the post?

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
--False prophets--nothing to do with salvation; nothing to do with LS. What is your point. I spent a lot of time answering this passage also.

I chose not to go down the road of Mark 10 further b/c it was a lost cause. The entire story is veiled in soteric language. But if you don't want to acknowledge any of that b/c it goes against your theology, then what should I do? Keep beating a dead horse???

"Go, sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, take up your cross, and come and follow me."

That is what he said.
Give me an honest answer. When since your salvation have you done that? When have you sold ALL that you have? When have you given it ALL to the poor, and then followed Christ? Have you ever done this? Please give your testimony.

My mentioning of Luke 14 and the "crowds in Lk 14 were already saved" was a conclusion of your own exegesis. You say that Jesus was speaking to people already saved, i.e. disciples. But the text says he was addressing the crowd along w/ his disciples. So I was basically giving the result of your logic, that the crow was already saved.

No, I was speaking of discipleship, and I did say that at times he spoke to weed out those that followed him from true believers. Those would be his disciples. In other words, his words would be directed to those wanting to be his disciples. For example:

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
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 14:25-26)
--Those wanting to be his disciples would count the cost and then follow Jesus. Others departed from him.

Also, to say it is a non sequitor shows me you did not follow the logic of your own statements. I brought up Luke 14 for the same reason I brought up Mark 8, b/c you wanted proof that Jesus gave his evangelistic discipleship call to more than people who were already saved, i.e. crowds. I provided that. Then you call it a non-sequitor??????? I hope you don't wonder why I don't want to go down certain roads with you for too long. It is mind-numbing at times.

I answered most of the verses you gave to me. Apparently you did not read them very well. Go back and read again, and answer more carefully.

 

[freeatlast]

Both saved/unsaved can live "in the mud' and both sin against God, at times might look like same kind of person even...

eventually though, the true child of God WILL come to his senses and be stirred by God to be convicted back to fellowship with the father...

one has a season of disobedience but comes back to the fold, while the sinner keeps on disobeying all life long!

problem is if we take a snapshot at a certain period of time, both look like neither was saved, but one comes back to God, while other stayed away!

I assume you are referring to the false teaching of backsliding which is not biblical in regards to a believer. No the saved cannot live in the mud as you put it. They may need their feet washed off at the end of the day but living in the mud is what the lost do not a believer.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not (practice) commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born of God.

 

[JesusFan]

I assume you are referring to the false teaching of backsliding which is not biblical in regards to a believer. No the saved cannot live in the mud as you put it. They may need their feet washed off at the end of the day but living in the mud is what the lost do not a believer.

The saint of God still ahs that sin principle/flesh that they dwell in while upon this earth, and IF they choose to, can submit to the dictates of that and NOT the HS!

we can still sin as believers, sometimes quite evil, but we ALWAYS will evntually commit to confession and repentance and getting back on track with God...

Our relationship with the Father ALWAYS secured by Christ in us, but our fellowship depends on just HOW we choose to live for Him in this life daily![quote/]



Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not (practice) commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born of God.

A real believer in jesus will feel the HS conviction , and will eventually come back to the Lord, but might take a longer time, and be part of a process!

As Christians still have freedom to sin, just also freed by Christ to chose to not to!

Up to us in that regard, as we need to rely upon the HS to enable us to live as we should...[quote/]

 

[freeatlast]

I assume you are referring to the false teaching of backsliding which is not biblical in regards to a believer. No the saved cannot live in the mud as you put it. They may need their feet washed off at the end of the day but living in the mud is what the lost do not a believer.




A real believer in jesus will feel the HS conviction , and will eventually come back to the Lord, but might take a longer time, and be part of a process!

As Christians still have freedom to sin, just also freed by Christ to chose to not to!

Up to us in that regard, as we need to rely upon the HS to enable us to live as we should...[quote/]

I understand what you believe, but I believe what the ninle says.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[JesusFan]

I understand what you believe, but I believe what the ninle says.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

How do you define'commitith no sin?"

 

[freeatlast]

How do you define'commitith no sin?"

In the Greek it is speaking of the practice of sin. For a Christian to sin it is against their practice.

 

[JesusFan]

In the Greek it is speaking of the practice of sin. For a Christian to sin it is against their practice.

Christians still have a part of their sinful natures still residing, and that aprt of us cannot be controlled except by us crucifying it on the Cross and walking in the HS...

That is our duty, as we can still freely choose to live in the flesh, so to speak!

 

[freeatlast]

Christians still have a part of their sinful natures still residing, and that aprt of us cannot be controlled except by us crucifying it on the Cross and walking in the HS...

That is our duty, as we can still freely choose to live in the flesh, so to speak!

What matters is what the Lord says not man;

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[Alive in Christ]

freeatlast...

What matters is what the Lord says not man;

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil;

...and if you are going to take that passage "point blank" in isolation, then you are hell bound, and I am hell bound. and every human being is hell bound and Heaven is going to have a population of 3 for all of eternity, for the scripture proclaims...

There is none that doeth good, no..not one.

But there is hope!

Gods wonderfull, tremendous unfathonable GRACE!

It is by grace that you are saved, through faith, and that not of your self, it is the gift of God...not of works, or being good,(because there is none good) or not sinning (because we all keep on sinning) lest anyone should boast (of thinking they dont sin.)

 

[DHK]

I assume you are referring to the false teaching of backsliding which is not biblical in regards to a believer. No the saved cannot live in the mud as you put it. They may need their feet washed off at the end of the day but living in the mud is what the lost do not a believer.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not (practice) commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born of God.

However the "prodigal son" (take the words literally--"prodigal" + "son") found himself wallowing in the MUD eating the husks of corn along with the pigs. Backslidden??? I would say so.

 

[Greektim]

Did it? Let's see:

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mark 8:34)
--He was speaking directly to his disciples; nothing to do with salvation. It was about discipleship, just like most of the LS Scripture that such advocates use--pulled straight out of its context.

Pulled out of context??? You just complimented me for keeping it in context. Do you read what you say??? And what part about "he called the people unto him" is difficult to understand. The "people" are different from "his disciples" which were also part of the group. But the grammar point to the conversation directed from Jesus to the crowd. Why would he address his disciples, they were already following him???

Let's look at it: I answered this in great detail. The whole passage is speaking of false teachers. Either refute what I said, or do away with the needless comments. Or did you miss the post?

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
--False prophets--nothing to do with salvation; nothing to do with LS. What is your point. I spent a lot of time answering this passage also.

Clearly your "great detail" and "a lot of time" is way different in my book. While you made one point (over and over again) about v. 15 being about false teachers (and I'll grant the point), I did make the point that the parallel comment is found in John 15:2. This you never touched. Bearing fruit is not an option, it is a necessity. It is the validating proof of one's belief.

"Go, sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, take up your cross, and come and follow me."

That is what he said.
Give me an honest answer. When since your salvation have you done that? When have you sold ALL that you have? When have you given it ALL to the poor, and then followed Christ? Have you ever done this? Please give your testimony.

You neglect to quote the other salfivic language Jesus used: "have treasure in heaven", "get into the reign (or kingdom) of God" 3x's, "who can be saved?", "all things (even impossible things) are possible with God." The disciples understood that Jesus was giving an evangelistic call. Thus their question, "who can be saved?"

Before my testimony, let me comment that I do not believe the qualification to sell everything is a demand on ever disciple. It wasn't for Zacheus, it wasn't for Peter and the sons of Zebedee. But it is the standard to forsake all and follow Jesus.

Recently, my wife and I had a humongous yard sale. We sold a lot of stuff, gave a lot of stuff away to family (wife's parents house burnt down), and moved to Honduras. I still have a few possessions in the States, but not much. And they could go at any time. But while I am here, I am making a very small salary and give much of that to the locals who are below the poverty line. I just paid $120 for a kid to build me a dog house for my guard dog. I got overcharged, but he needed the money. My maid gets mad bonuses (it is part of the culture to have a maid so don't knock it, it supports their economy).

I am not bragging. Because I know that were it not for God's interceding grace, I would be back in the states where both my wife and I would have fat-daddy jobs teaching. We gave up a combined income of $70,000 plus benefits plus free college tuition for our children (whenever the Lord provides that as well). And it was not me but God through me. And I have never been happier. To reiterate... this is not false piety. You asked... I answered.

I answered most of the verses you gave to me. Apparently you did not read them very well. Go back and read again, and answer more carefully.

You wrote off Mark 8, Lk 14, Jn 15 and Acts 10 (though that was directed to someone else specifically, it still makes my point). You claimed that Jesus only called his disciples to radical obedience. But that was his message to the crowd in general. And I agree, he wanted to weed out the true followers from the fake. Because Jesus did not want converts, he wants disciples. He says say in Matt. 28, a much neglected passage in this debate. Sadly, non LSers will use this as the great commission and in the same breath preach an easy believism gospel. But Jesus wanted his disciples message to mirror his, thus the verbage is the same. Make disciples as I have made you disciples.

 

[DHK]

Pulled out of context??? You just complimented me for keeping it in context. Do you read what you say??? And what part about "he called the people unto him" is difficult to understand. The "people" are different from "his disciples" which were also part of the group. But the grammar point to the conversation directed from Jesus to the crowd. Why would he address his disciples, they were already following him???

I didn't mean to burst your bubble so to speak. I complimented you in the respect that you didn't give a number of verses Washer-style, one after another, with absolutely no context, but at least tried to give some context. It wasn't much, but it was more than Washer et. al. gives.
"The people are different than his disciples," you say. So they are. What does the verse say again?

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mark 8:34)
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
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. (Mark 8:38)

1. Jesus was speaking to an adulterous and sinful generation in general--the same generation that sought after a sign, but no sign would be given unto them but the sign of Jonah.
2. But more directly and selectively he was speaking to his disciples. He was giving principles of discipleship. There is nothing here on salvation. There is much on discipleship. The plan of salvation is not given. There is no "John 3:16" teaching here; no salvation teaching here. It is the tough teaching that a mature disciple must accept. It is meat not milk. (1Cor.3:1-4).

Clearly your "great detail" and "a lot of time" is way different in my book. While you made one point (over and over again) about v. 15 being about false teachers (and I'll grant the point), I did make the point that the parallel comment is found in John 15:2. This you never touched. Bearing fruit is not an option, it is a necessity. It is the validating proof of one's belief.

Most of Mat.7 speaks of false teachers and false teaching. The teaching of the teachers is the fruit. That is the context of the passage. Fruit means different things in different contexts. The context gives the meaning.
John 15:2 the fruit is not teaching.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (John 15:2)
--This passage is totally unrelated to Mat.7:15-20. The fruit in John 15 is spiritual fruit--the fruit of the Spirit, and possibly the fruit of souls coming to Christ. It has nothing to do with the false teaching of Mat.7. Neither does it have anything to do with salvation directly, but rather with a relationship of a believer to Christ. "He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit, for without me you are nothing." Where there is a relationship there will be fruit. That is not salvation.

You neglect to quote the other salfivic language Jesus used: "have treasure in heaven", "get into the reign (or kingdom) of God" 3x's, "who can be saved?", "all things (even impossible things) are possible with God." The disciples understood that Jesus was giving an evangelistic call. Thus their question, "who can be saved?"

There reference was to rich men and in direct relation to Jesus' statement:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
--This is what Jesus said, and they were astonished, so much so that they reacted thusly:
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? (Mark 10:25-26)
--Jesus is right. Rich people do not often get saved. They would rather trust in their riches. The disciples were astonished at that saying, and thus they blurted out "who can be saved!" meaning among the rich "who can be saved?" Take it in its context.

I am not bragging. Because I know that were it not for God's interceding grace, I would be back in the states where both my wife and I would have fat-daddy jobs teaching. We gave up a combined income of $70,000 plus benefits plus free college tuition for our children (whenever the Lord provides that as well). And it was not me but God through me. And I have never been happier. To reiterate... this is not false piety. You asked... I answered.

I know you are not bragging, and I appreciate your candor. It is refreshing to hear a testimony like that. Ours is very similar. When the Lord called us to the foreign mission field we basically sold all that we had at a garage sale, used that money for travel on deputation, and then left for a third world Islamic nation that I can't tell you on the internet.
However, if you had asked me to do that the day I was saved I would have said you were crazy. It took growth, preparation. It took Bible College and seminary. I got married. There was much that happened before the Lord called me to the mission field. Only when I was ready and prepared to go did the Lord call me. He doesn't call babes in Christ to do the work of an adult. But LS advocates teach that they do.

You wrote off Mark 8, Lk 14, Jn 15 and Acts 10 (though that was directed to someone else specifically, it still makes my point). You claimed that Jesus only called his disciples to radical obedience.

The Lord never asks a child to do the work of an adult.

But that was his message to the crowd in general. And I agree, he wanted to weed out the true followers from the fake. Because Jesus did not want converts, he wants disciples. He says say in Matt. 28, a much neglected passage in this debate. Sadly, non LSers will use this as the great commission and in the same breath preach an easy believism gospel. But Jesus wanted his disciples message to mirror his, thus the verbage is the same. Make disciples as I have made you disciples.

The Great Commission is a good place to start.
1. Go and make disciples. The first part is to go and teach so that they may be saved, and then disciple them to the extent that they may be ready to be baptized.
2. Baptize them.
3. Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you--in other words--disciple them. This is where the commands on discipleship come in. Not before salvation, but after, even after baptism. Most LS advocates end up making salvation into a works-based salvation. They put the cart before the horse.

When I got saved I simply believed that Christ died for me personally and that he would forgive my sins if I simply trusted him as my Saviour. It was a simple message that I had never heard in the 20 years I had spent in the Catholic church.

 

[Greektim]

I didn't mean to burst your bubble so to speak. I complimented you in the respect that you didn't give a number of verses Washer-style, one after another, with absolutely no context, but at least tried to give some context. It wasn't much, but it was more than Washer et. al. gives.
"The people are different than his disciples," you say. So they are. What does the verse say again?

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mark 8:34)
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
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. (Mark 8:38)

1. Jesus was speaking to an adulterous and sinful generation in general--the same generation that sought after a sign, but no sign would be given unto them but the sign of Jonah.

That is an excellent point. Jesus was giving this message to unsaved people.

2. But more directly and selectively he was speaking to his disciples. He was giving principles of discipleship. There is nothing here on salvation. There is much on discipleship. The plan of salvation is not given. There is no "John 3:16" teaching here; no salvation teaching here. It is the tough teaching that a mature disciple must accept. It is meat not milk. (1Cor.3:1-4).

I don't see how you can get "more directly" from the crowd with the disciples as if the mentioning of the disciples was an "oh yeah" kind of statement. As I said before, the grammar points to the crowd being the primary recipients of Jesus words. Logic would also tell us that since Jesus' disciples already knew what it would cost to follow him.

Most of Mat.7 speaks of false teachers and false teaching. The teaching of the teachers is the fruit. That is the context of the passage. Fruit means different things in different contexts. The context gives the meaning.

As I said, I will grant this to you (for now). I think the driving context is in vv. 13-14 which affects 15ff. But that is not my point for the time.

John 15:2 the fruit is not teaching.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (John 15:2)
--This passage is totally unrelated to Mat.7:15-20.

To be totally unrelated would mean that there is no overlapping parallels at all. The very fact that the language is so similar makes one think that they both derive from the same Jesus tradition. Bet let's continue.

The fruit in John 15 is spiritual fruit--the fruit of the Spirit, and possibly the fruit of souls coming to Christ. It has nothing to do with the false teaching of Mat.7. Neither does it have anything to do with salvation directly, but rather with a relationship of a believer to Christ. "He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit, for without me you are nothing." Where there is a relationship there will be fruit. That is not salvation.

If you read carefully, I was talking about John 15 in the context that it was not salvation but rather the necessary fruit to validate one's faith. If there is no fruit, there is no salvation. You even admitted as much. So our discussion is mainly going to be how much fruit and when will it start to grow.

There reference was to rich men and in direct relation to Jesus' statement:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
--This is what Jesus said, and they were astonished, so much so that they reacted thusly:
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? (Mark 10:25-26)
--Jesus is right. Rich people do not often get saved. They would rather trust in their riches. The disciples were astonished at that saying, and thus they blurted out "who can be saved!" meaning among the rich "who can be saved?" Take it in its context.

So first, you admitted that Jesus was giving a gospel call to the rich man b/c the context is about rich people getting saved. That's a start. There is a textual variant where the 3rd time it simply says "it is hard to enter the reign of God" w/ no qualifier on the rich. That is when I think you very much overstate your case when you think the disciples are talking about the rich when they ask the important question "who can be saved?". If the verse preceding was about it being difficult for everyone to enter the kingdom, then the disciples question makes a lot of sense. But even if there were no variant, the context does not decide the "who" in the disciples question. The question, the grammar of the question decides that. And it was an ambiguously general question not just about the rich.

I know you are not bragging, and I appreciate your candor. It is refreshing to hear a testimony like that. Ours is very similar. When the Lord called us to the foreign mission field we basically sold all that we had at a garage sale, used that money for travel on deputation, and then left for a third world Islamic nation that I can't tell you on the internet.
However, if you had asked me to do that the day I was saved I would have said you were crazy. It took growth, preparation. It took Bible College and seminary. I got married. There was much that happened before the Lord called me to the mission field. Only when I was ready and prepared to go did the Lord call me. He doesn't call babes in Christ to do the work of an adult. But LS advocates teach that they do.

The thing is, Jesus did ask you to do that from the beginning. If you lived during the time of his earthly ministry, he would have turned you down. He would have said, "Saviour, if you come after me, it is because I am your Lord not your Savior." If it was so easy to ignore the lordship of Jesus to follow him in obedience, then I would argue that you were not really saved until later in your life when you actually started following him. But I'm not really wanting to venture down that road. One's salvation is personal and it is not up to me to say when and where you were saved. I just wanted to share that opinion with you. My "experience" has changed through the years as I have come to understand more about the DoG and the message of Jesus. But I have to be careful not to assume everyone has a similar story as me.

The Lord never asks a child to do the work of an adult.

That was the best you could come up with from those lists of verses???

The Great Commission is a good place to start.
1. Go and make disciples. The first part is to go and teach so that they may be saved, and then disciple them to the extent that they may be ready to be baptized.
2. Baptize them.
3. Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you--in other words--disciple them. This is where the commands on discipleship come in. Not before salvation, but after, even after baptism. Most LS advocates end up making salvation into a works-based salvation. They put the cart before the horse.

How do you get from the command "make disciples" to be "the first part is to go and teach"??? Have you ever come accross this verb in any context where it means to go and teach? The order is simple, make a disciple then baptize them then teach them. This isn't making salvation works based. This is making the faith of a believer a faith that works. Anything else is a dead faith (Jms 2).

When I got saved I simply believed that Christ died for me personally and that he would forgive my sins if I simply trusted him as my Saviour. It was a simple message that I had never heard in the 20 years I had spent in the Catholic church.

My problem with the "simple message" concept is that the gospel is comprehensive and not simple. Certainly, small components are easy, but the overall message of the gospel throughout the entire Bible is not simple. It is far reaching and wide ranging. The fact that there is so much division on the gospel should demonstrate its comprehensive nature. Rarely do I hear in a gospel presentation Gen. 12:3 or Isa. 52:7. But those 2 passages are enormously huge aspects of the gospel. I would argue that a person can't understand 1 Cor. 15 properly w/out understanding other passages like Mk 1:14-15 and Gal. 3:8. But people skip right ahead to 1 Cor. 15 stuff like that is all the gospel is. It is disheartening really.