Lordship Salvation

Bless your little pea pikin heart for the above statement.

 

Liz: You're now sounding rather like the usual type of lost person I find on the internet - and like the ones I mentioned who don't seem to believe anyone is going to hell. We MUST judge in order to know how to deal with people. We must not use hypocritical judgment.

Liz, I can remember the bliss of thinking I was perfect when I was a “babe” in Christ, and no one but me and those in the Baptist church were the truly saved one’s (having doubts about many of them). You are dumping all that don’t believe as you into the dumpster.

I’m judging you now, not of salvation (Jesus Christ says He is the only one that is going to do that), but of not understanding His Word, and not understanding what I am saying. We will judge those fallen angels, but we know that they are lost, for God says they are. We will not judge on whether or not they are “lost”. You disappoint me, which I’m sure makes no difference to you. Many of the things you say sound Christian, so I accept you as such, even though you don’t believe everything I believe.

At the risk of sounding like an Arminian, we are told very clearly to warn the wicked about their wrongdoing. If you don't want to judge anyone then how can we do that?

You are warning me, as you have judged me of committing adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lying, idol worship, robbery, bearing false witness, and no telling what else. You don’t even know me, but are able to say I am as those wicked mentioned above.

I am not above sounding as if I judge, but when I do it is when I actually know. I know Armenian church/s that you mention are in error, but if there are individuals that are “scarcely saved”, believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I know some of them do, their problem is going to be all their work was done for nothing, as Christ will not accept those works. These are Christians in the sense of not Paul, but of Peter. Peter says, in I Peter 4: 18”And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Can you image Paul saying the righteousness of Christ barely got us into His Body? Is the Christian to inherit the earth, or the heavenlies?

Peter, and James do not speak of the Christian faith, but of the Jewish faith of Pentecost. Do the Armenian not claim direct association with Peter, as they sit on their throne on the earth, looking for the kingdom to come? The Christian is to look for the rapture, the kingdom of Christ, and not the kingdom of God. Those not raptured will go marching into the kingdom on earth if they are lucky.

Perhaps you are right in your assumption that all in that faith are lost(am I reading you correctly) for how can a church that brings idol worship into its mist claim to worship only Jesus Christ as their savior. But if they believe in their heart that Jesus Christ does save them, then how can we know they are lost? The system is corrupt, but God is saving individuals today, not a Nation, or a Church.

Do not the Baptist, Methodist, church of Christ, Christian churches, and all other main line churches do as the mother church? Didn’t we bring along with us the teachings of the Catholic church? Two Holy days the churches keep, and both are in error for they are both “idol worshippers” Holy Days. What have we to do with idols? Don’t even the Baptist join with all the other religions of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” when we say we preach the “great commandment”. That is not Christian, but I dare say some of we Baptist’s are saved despite the ignorance and lack of understanding of what we do and say.

ituttut: But do they also believe that believing on the name of the Lord Jesus they will be saved?</font>[/QUOTE]Liz: Yes, but apparently they believe Muslims can be saved too. At least, such is the inevitable conclusion one must reach if one believes that Islam is not contrary to scripture.

Isn’t this just that we are not to judge as to whom is saved, and who is not? If that person is really a Christian that believes Islam is not contrary to scripture, doesn’t mean the person is not saved; it’s only that they are in error on this one point. It cannot, and will not make the person become unsaved.

ituttut: It is a separation from God, and these know they will never be separated from Him. This to me is salvation, as we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Separation from God is hell.</font>[/QUOTE]Liz: Quite what sort of a punishment separation from God is, to those who hate God, I am not sure. it seems to me rather like a case of God giving people what they want.

But you are saying the person hates God because they believe hell is being cast away from God. How could one wanting to be with God, hate him, knowing He will keep them from hell? By your condemning everyone in sight, do you suppose God will give you what you want? It is He that is in control, and not what we want.

ituttut: Weird, but again, does this one believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you REALLY believe the two beliefs are compatible? So the options at the end of life are heaven, hell, or go round and try again? You REALLY believe a saved person can believe such a thing?

Some people in phases of their life get sidetracked. If one is saved by believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they are saved. That saved one will regain their senses. Talk to them 30 years from now. By then they will believe one or the other, but not still both.

ituttut: These people are really in trouble if they don’t believe that Jesus Christ can save them, and don’t accept the free gift. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree, but why do you regard these particular beliefs as incompatible with salvation and belief in reincarnation as compatible with salvation?

The wording as presented. None of the others show proof as the two present from personal experience of visits of “dead relatives”: One does not believe the Word of God, and the other admits to paganism.

If that is the case then the people concerned are each married to several other people. I know one can make a case for multiple wives from the Bible (if one ignores the New Testament) but I have never heard a case made for multiple husbands. Do feel free to enlighten me. If you believe that the first sexual intercourse equals marriage, then the people concerned are in fact adulterers, which isn't really any better, is it?

Answering separately.

Alas, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We are dead to the law.

in the ten cases I mentioned, I would be telling them to do something they have already done. They must have done it, they said the prayer ....

What prayer?

Liz: The answer is much simpler than that. Like perhaps 97% of those who go forward at such an event, she was never saved at all.

The judgette sitteth upon her throne.

Nothing of the sort.

Then no comment.

Yes, and if we don't, that is proof positive that we were never saved at all.

Can’t buy that for that would mean we had to do a work after all.

I don't believe in dispensationalising away inconvenient verses of scripture, sorry.

Liz </font>[/QUOTE]Then you remain in you belief of His Word contradicts. Do you believe you are saved by the gospel of John the Baptist of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, repeated by Jesus, and Peter and the other Apostles, or the gospel of Jesus Christ from heaven as revealed to Paul of “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”?

If you will admit it, I dare say you actually believe as does the “mother church”. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

O not at all. For a start I am by no means a babe. Secondly, during my life I have been in the Anglican church (for most of my life), a Charismatic house church fellowship, the Elim Pentecostal church and the Plymouth Brethren, as well as the Bapitst church. I have met saved people in every one of those churches and in many other churches besides.

We are told very plainly in scripture that we may only be equally yoked with believers. How are we supposed to do that if we don't judge whether or not the person we are contemplating being yoked with is saved or not? How can you decide whether someone will be admitted to church membership, or even baptised, unless you make such a judgment?

Huh?!! I said no such thing!

I think we you on a completely different wavelength from me in this: I am not talking about "Christians" who think they are saved by works, but about "Christians" who think that saying a prayer saves them and they can keep living exactly as they did before. I think perhaps you misunderstood the term "Arminian"

I do not accept your basic hyper-dispensational premise, so the point is moot.

Romans 14.5-6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

I disagree with you most strongly on this point. i do not believe it is possible to be saved WITHOUT repentance.

It will, however, give a VERY good indication of whether or not the person IS saved. How can a man be saved and yet believe Islam, which denies that Christ died on the cross, is a valid religion?

You misunderstood me. I am saying that the unbeliever (until such time as he seeks God) hates God. Therefore separation from God is no deterrent to him.

Again you are sounding like the typoical unregenerate person I meet on abortion debate lists. I cannot condemn anyone. What i CAN do is to tell them that if they carry on as they are they WILL BE condemned.

And suppose they then believe in re-incarnation. Will you still believe they are saved?

You take this as a reason to live as we want to? Since you will almost certainly dispensationalise away whatever scriptures I give you here, we may not get very far with this.

The one they believe saves them. You know, the sinner's prayer, usually prayed in "repeat after me" fashion

I spoke to this woman, you didn't. I do not accept that someone who is saved can take such a low view of the Bible.

Not so. The work is the RESULT of salvation, not the CAUSE of it. Read James. O, sorry, that doesn't apply to you does it?

I see no contradiction.

Liz

 

Your last, first Liz. I Corinthians 7:14, ”For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Hebrews 13:4 tells us the marriage bed is undefiled.

Marriage was from the beginning, and has not, and cannot change. When two come together as one flesh they are married. The “one” marriage is without sin, and the other encounters are marriages but are sinful. Until just recently I have held what most have put forth on this matter, but find in studying only from His Word, the traditional view leaves much to be desired.

Genesis 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Eve was a helpmate, and also a wife. At this time they were married without knowing each other, for they were actually of “one flesh”. But they would have gotten together had they not fallen. They would then have mated by sexual contact producing one that contained parts of the two parents. A trinity has been formed. What I’ve found from the setting in which Adam made this statement, makes all the difference in the world.

From the first it is evident that marriage was to be of one man, and one woman, for this is what is dictated in the wording of “cleave unto his wife. One man and one wife being “fruitful and multiplying”. But the setting is of these two on earth in the garden, without sin in the world. But then came the fall. It is evident that after the fall, the act of marriage remains the same, but God then gives permission for man to have more than one wife – Exodus 21:10. But just shortly before this God had given the Ten Commandments, which includes “shalt not commit adultery.” It is interesting to note that God did not repeat what Adam said in commanding Noah to be “fruitful and multiply”. God did not tell Noah to have only one wife. So His Word now reveals to me that from the fall, having more than one wife was permissible.

I like you cannot find where a woman is to have more than one husband. I believe this is because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of Christ.

So this brings us now to why can’t I have more than one wife. It is because the first Adam, the first son of God was in a sinless state being made by God from the dust of the ground in the image of God. So on this earth without sin, there would be no adultery for the man and the woman would not commit that which would not occur to them.

The reason I have not, and will not commit the physical act of fornication or adultery is that I am now in the Body of Christ, the second Adam, the Only Begotten Son of God, and this is the reason Christ revealed to Paul ”What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit”, I Corinthians 6:16-17.

This is today why the Christian that has been made righteous in the Body of Christ is not to desire or covet other than their husband or wife. We after all are human, and this does occur physically by some Christians, and I dare say with most Christians in their minds. But we cannot dwell on such thoughts for they will all to often lead to the real thing. As we are Once Saved Always Saved we cannot ever become unsaved, but we will be chastised here, and I’m sure deductions will occur of what we could have had when He gets through with us at the rewards ceremony.

For today, I believe the confusion is &gt;&gt;&gt;The man and the harlot are married as they became “one flesh”, just as this man, if he is married, became “one flesh” with his “wife”. But this harlot is not this mans wife, as the man already has his wife in holy matrimony that is sanctified by God, and there coming together to make “one flesh” is not sin. Anything these two do after being made one flesh, sanctified and commanded by God to “be fruitful, and multiply”, will be a sin of the “flesh”, as it is then of lust, and the desire for sex, and not love.

The man in verse 16 that becomes one flesh with the harlot, is either committing fornication, or adultery, and is married to this harlot as they have become one flesh. But it is a sin as this act of marriage is done in lust, which is not for the purpose of them becoming husband and wife, to form a family. God sanctifies the marriage of the man and woman for one purpose, and that is to multiply sexually to fill the earth.

Of course now we know the full purpose of this. Marriage, the coming together of the man and the female, becoming one flesh, to produce “one flesh of them” was to have Mary delivery the Only Begotten Son of Man.

So what now? That has been accomplished. There was something besides the Word of God becoming human, offer himself as a human sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ now has an inheritance, and guess what? We are it. Ephesians 1:18, ”The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints”.

I hope this will make sense to you, as it has now become much more clear to me by studying His Word, rather than just accepting tradition of man. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Thank you, that was about as clear as mud.

By your definition there is no such thing as adultery. How can there be? As soon as someone has sex with a person to whom they are not married, they merely take an extra spouse.

There are an awful lot of people out there with an awful lot of spouses, aren't there.

Liz

 

Just the legitimate ones, sinners and saved sinners that have committed fornication or adultery. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

1tuttut:

My present issue in this thread is not dispensationalism...harp on about that to your heart's content, and I will not care.

IT is with your remark about understanding all of Scripture clearly.

It is with anyone who says, " The Word ALL becomes VERY CLEAR, " if by that is meant that that one thinks the entire Scriptures are clear to him.

I have no quarrel with one who says,"We understand much...we understand most..we work hard to learn...we do our best...we do make mistakes ...we do have some things we're not sure of ... ." You, I hope, are one of these.

My disagreement is rather with one who is not inerrant who says that his understanding ,in all of its details, of how some also not inerrant translators understood Paul is THE INERRANT equivalent in every place of what Paul himself wrote. In other words when discussing just about anything he says: "MY INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE WORD , AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU DISAGREE WITH GOD."

IMO, that is extremely proud, and what amazes me is that some good folks here at BB will accuse a poster for pride who refers to the Greek or who has an earned doctorate in Bib/Theo or who has attended an accredited school , but when such wild eyed claims are made , which are quite similar in dogmatics to papal decrees, about having a perfect understanding of every point that Paul ever made, then, no one here that I've seen calls that person prideful.

So, I will: "Such a person as that IS prideful."

Bill

[ May 18, 2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

I don't see it as problematic to think that Paul understood more perfectly than did Peter.

What I believe to be problematic is for anyone to imagine that she/he has a perfect understanding of Paul.

Perhaps this belief of mine could be connected to this thread's topic in this manner if those who understand so clearly the whole Scripture including Pauline concepts, and Baptism is a popular topic in Pauline literature, so very perfectly will share their wisdom :

The KJV translators rendered Paul statement in Romans 6:2b-3 as,

"How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death."

What does that clearly mean, and what makes it so clear?

 

How is this for the Gospel of Grace revealed to Paul?

Galatians 3:8 [KJV] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Thank God there is only one Gospel and there has and will always be only one Gospel, the Gospel of Grace, which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.Romans 1:16 [KJV]

 

To the "Greek"? Can you say "Greek" here?

 

I’ll not now get into a strifeful engagement with you as it just oozes from you. You are presently taking up space in a slippery spot. Perhaps you will not be judging the next time we met.

I’ll presently leave it with we must let the Holy Spirit interpret for us, and then we can be sure of what we say is truth, and not that which comes by way of “theory” of man.

I see you have another post to me. Past my bedtime. Will answer tomorrow if have time to compute. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

we are to have the mind of Christ by being humble as was He (Phil 2) not by thinking that we know as He knows.

 

You raised the subject of seeing clearly, not I.

I'm glad you are not a "know it all," but, if you are not, then please explain how "His Word ALL becomes VERY CLEAR" to you.

If you wish to considerably modify that claim , then I'll happily drop the subject.

But it does seems to me that you were involved in a " "strifeful engagement" and were "oozing" something before I ever posted in this thread.

[ May 21, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Answer to follow. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Originally posted by OldRegular:
How is this for the Gospel of Grace revealed to Paul?

Galatians 3:8 [KJV] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Thank God there is only one Gospel and there has and will always be only one Gospel, the Gospel of Grace, which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.Romans 1:16 [KJV] [/QUOTE]

Paul is correct, but no one knew this before Christ revealed it to Paul. This doesn’t mean what you interpret it to mean for Jesus disagrees with man’s logic on this subject. Luke 16:16, ”The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” I would say Jesus is trying to tell you something. It sounds an awfully lot like that “bad word” some Christians distain - dispensations. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

I don't see it as problematic to think that Paul understood more perfectly than did Peter.

What I believe to be problematic is for anyone to imagine that she/he has a perfect understanding of Paul.

===

Not perfect, but in seeing Christ’s gospel of this dispensation that He gave to Paul has cleared up the contradictions of theology of man. When we understand our own dispensation, this helps us to put into perspective those things that were, that are, and that to come. All we can do is meet perfection, and be in it, viz. the Body of Christ.

===

So, if you do not understand Paul perfectly, then, you do not understand ALL the Word CLEARLY--right?

===

Do you agree God is a God of division? If we fail to see this, how can we see more clearly this dispensation? From the very first God reveals this from Genesis 1:1, and on through His Word, but makes whole that which He parts.If Christians would learn to separate the Old from the New, they could without question believe Christ as he address’ we today in His heavenly revelation to Paul.


===

Please, again, as I before said, I'll not trouble you about your dispensationalism. I only made my initial post in regard to your claim that a person could clearly understand ALL the Word. I do not believe that.


Perhaps this belief of mine could be connected to this thread's topic in this manner if those who understand so clearly the whole Scripture including Pauline concepts, and Baptism is a popular topic in Pauline literature, so very perfectly will share their wisdom

===

Please remember you are the one that is diverting here; so let’s separate this subject to give you room to properly chop me down to size.[qb]


===

He who himself chops will not by others be chopped!

No, I am not diverting. If one claims to understand ALL the Word clearly, and Rom 6 is part of the Word, then a ques about Rom 6 is no diversion.