Lordship Salvation?

Amy I'm tired of going around and around with you about this insane point you are trying to make.

The Scripture DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. The issue is NON-EXISTENT. There is NO NEED for Scripture to speak on this matter because it is MOOT. A person is saved is saved is saved is saved is saved. Scripture doesn't even REQUIRE faith in the Substitute past the moment of initial belief.

The ball is in "your" court to prove that faith is required after the intial moment of believing. If it's not, which it ISN'T, then all you are doing is playing games.

This is ridiculous. You are wanting me to provide you with something that I have continually said is not there and that isn't even required.

So how about you start answering some questions and show me in Scripture where faith in the Substitute is required after the inital moment of belief, because I search the Scriptures as well and I haven't found that evidence, so please provide or stop with the nonsense.

 

The ball is your court to prove your wacky doctrine. If you can't use scripture to do it, you need to back off.

I will have to get back to this later. I really have to get some work done today. I spent way too much time on here yesterday.

NP, your turn.

 

If we are going to argue from the negative, then you show me some scripture that says:

. . .that someone who is born can be unborn. (Can I stop being the biological son of Dean Evans, even if I don't believe he's my Dad anymore? Silly.) . . .

. . . that one of the snake-lookers went back and were snake bitten again because they didn't believe in their "one look" healing any more. . .

. . .or one scripture that proves that a person could drink "living water" that has the power to eradicate thirst forever, yet be thirsty again because he decided it wasn't true.

I wait with baited breath for your scriptures.

lacy

 

Amy,

I appreciate your sentiments here, and can understand the concern you have. I realize that my first two posts on the previous page (Man this thread is active!) were pretty lengthy. I did attempt to address this thought there.

I think the distinction that needs to be recognized is that either we believe that a person becomes a child of God at a point-in-time or else we believe that no person is regenerated, no person becomes a child of God, until AFTER their existence on this earth has come to an end. I do not see any middle ground.

If someone has trusted in Christ, then they are a child of God - period. Let's not place any conditions on that. I hope we agree there. And if so, then the question is really if that change that occured in their life can be undone when the child of God stops believing.

BTW, did anyone read my 1st two posts on the previous page? I spent a lot of time to express the logic and Greek grammar on this issue. Yet those who believe that believing must endure until our death have not addressed any of my points. I was very careful and thorough. If I am wrong (Hey, wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last!), please explain where my logic, and the grammar, is wrong.

Thx,

FA

 

If you believe that a person must wake up every morning and get his "believe" on in order to stay saved, then yours is the "wacky doctrine".

 

BTW, the typical Reformed position to this issue is that if someone has genuinely believed, then he WILL endure to the end, both in his faith and in doing good works...


What do you guys think about that? (I do not believe that it is biblical, FWIW.)

FA

 

This pretty much sums it up right here.

If you believe what God says in Acts 16:31, then once you believe, you're saved forever and ever and ever, period, without any chance of losing it.

If you think that God didn't mean exactly what he said, and you think you can become unborn from above, then it's a whole 'nother argument.

God gave warnings to saved people, including warnings about Gehenna. If you think you can become unsaved, then you think that's what the warnings concern. If you believe Acts 16:31 is true, then what are you losing? Or, do you simply add to what the text says, and say, "Well, those warnings can't really be to saved people; the Bible just says that!"

 

Show us scripture that plainly says that any person who does NOT believe will be saved. [/quote]

I've given it over and over and over. How many do you need before you believe what God says?

"Believe [an event, not durative action] and you will [indicative; it will happen] be saved."

Notice that it doesn't say, "Continue believing without fail and you will be saved if you continue believing until you die."

There are warnings to those who fall away, and only a person who is there are able to fall away. A skydiver can't fall away from the plane if he stays on the ground.

Here is an argument of semantics of what we've picked up in our lives. It's like the word "saint" and "lost".

I grew up using "believer" and "saint" as being synonymous with "saved". Well, only a saved person can be a saint, and only a saved person can be a believer (IOW, be faithful; this word is a present, active, participle, and is synonymous with "faith"), but when I actually read what the Scriptures had to say, I saw that not all saved people are called "saints". I also saw that not all saved people are "believing" or being faithful.

So, when most people say "unbeliever", they are referring to an unsaved person, but when the Scriptures say it, it can be referring to an unsaved person.

So, if you're asking will an unsaved person be saved after they're dead, then the answer is no, they're headed for the lake of fire. But, if you're asking will an unfaithful saved person be saved, then the answer is yes, but there may be a stop in hell in between.

 

This is the basic premise of Lordship salvation, although there may be an added up front commitment added by some as LM has pointed out. But basically it is saying that anyone that does not confess Christ as Lord and allow Him to be Lord is unsaved.

This is back-loaded works-based salvation that will always keep a believer down and never allow them to grow, because they will always be worried if they are doing the right thing and if they are doing enough of the right thing.

They say that anyone who is not a disciple can not be eternally saved.

It's just wrong.

 

Amy,

The ball is really in your court, since the grammar does not assume continuous faith. But if you're looking for a text, well earlier I said about John 1:12, 13...

How about that verb in John 1:12, 13 "receive?" "To all who received him, who believe in His name, He gave power/authority to become the children of God who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Notice what I underlined about the will of man. I am not saved because I made some commitment to follow christ, or because I really desired to become a child of God. It was a birth brought about by God. And that verb ELABON - an aorist 3P/pl. of LAMBANO - is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense speaks (in the indicative mood) of things which occur in the past. There are many past tenses in Greek:
imperfect - "was believing" - continuous past tense
perfect - "having believed" - both point-in-time in the past and having a state which continues into the present
aorist - "believed" - referring to something which occured at a point-in-time in the past.

If I wanted to refer to someone having been shot yesterday, I'd use the aorist tense, since the person was obviously not continuously being shot. ("Once shot, always shot." ) If I wanted to say that he was shot at a point in time in the past and was now in the state of having been shot, I'd use the perfect tense. If I wanted to speak of a shootout that started yesterday (at the OK-corral) and lasted some time, or perhaps was even still going on, I'd use the imperfect tense. Wyatt Earp "was shooting."

The way that John expressed it in 1:12, as I discussed it in the previous post, makes it clear that we become children of God based on a point-in-time kind of faith. We may struggle with our faith later, but we remain a child of God.

So think about it, according to John 1:12 the giving of this spiritual life is aorist and takes place the moment the faith occurs. The giving is conditioned upon the believing. If believe meant continuous faith, then the giving could not take place until death. Eternal life could not be a present possession in this life since you would have to wait until death to get it. But such is not the case as Jesus and John make clear in 5:24 and 6:47 - it is a present possession. ("He who hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has passed out of (crossed over out of") death into life.")

Now if Jesus guaranteed that we would not come into judgment but have passed from death into life, how can that be conditioned on anything that occurs after our faith in Christ at a point-in-time?

But there's more in this verse to indicate point-in-time action. The word typically translated "become" in this verse is an aorist infinitive (GENESTHAI) and so it too is punctiliar and cannot mean that at some later time those who received Him would become God's children if they continue to believe. It's past tense, point-in-time action. And this aorist infinitive expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the two preceding finite aorists ELABON ("received") and EDOKEN ("gave"). IOW, the moment of someone accepting/receiving Christ, that, too, is the moment of becoming a child of God. The fact that receiving Christ means receiving him by faith is clear from vs. 7 where we read, "...so that all might believe through Him."

Now aorist infinitives strongly point to punctiliar (point-in-time) action taking place. This point-in-time nature of "become" demands that "received," "gave," and "believe" also be understood as point-in-time.

So then not only is the immediate context of "believe" in verse 12 surrounded with aorist verbs indicating point-in-time action, but the present tense participle "believe" is equated with the aorist tense verb "receive." They are synonymous expressions.

But we're not done here. What about the verb translated "believe" in v. 7? What tense is it? Aorist. And not just indicative aorist, it is an aorist subjunctive which ALWAYS specifies punctiliar ("point-in-time") action. In the indicative mood, the aorist tense is fairly "simple," not necessarily saying a whole lot about the action except that something happened - in a punctiliar fashion. But in other than indicative the focus is no longer on the time of the action, but on the kind of action in Greek - so it's point-in-time kind of action is being emphasized. So then, one act of faith, punctiliar ("point-in-time") action, was required for faith to be saving. Continuous faith is not required. The action spoken of here is clearly point-in-time kind of action.

Now, one more grammatical point about the verb "believes" as used in John's gospel. The use of the present tense does not imply that the action involved cannot stop. On the contrary, the present participle is used here - with an article ("the"). The present participle is used of actions that have stopped! People sometimes take the Greek present tense and note that it can be continual action. But they ignore the fact that this is a present articular participle used throughout John (PAS hO PISTEUON EIS - "all the ones who believe in/upon") - for just that reason. For example - John 9:8 (Usually translated as, "Is this the man who sat and begged?") - has two present participles there. In the final analysis the Greek construction translated by "he who believes" or "the one who believes" is merely descriptive. It identifies a person as "a believer," but it does not specify anything at all about the continuity of the action. It might best be described something like "the believing one" or "the one who believed."

Amy, the present participle with an article IS used of actions that have stopped, in general. Essentially John does not say anything there about the duration of the believing.

Thx,

FA

 

Bet your breath isn't as 'baited" as that snake's was! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Thank you that you do not believe this is Biblical. It is the germ plasm of the false teachings of Lordship Salvation, reduced to its basest point!

I had not seen J.Jump's response, when I posted this, BTW.

Ed

 

Maybe someone should start a thread discussing the differences and similarities between a front-loaded gospel and a back-loaded gospel.

I believe there is absolutely no essential difference.

In other words, saying "You have to have enduring works before you can be saved", is identical to saying, "If you are really saved, you WILL automatically and inevitably have enduring works, or else it proves you were never saved to begin with,"

 

Faith Alone:

I agree that once we place our faith in Christ we are a child of God. What I don't understand is how a child of God stops believing.

How do you stop believing that your Father is your Father?

I don't believe a child of God will stop believing . Or maybe we have different definitions of "believing".

 

They can "think" they don't believe anymore because other things have clouded their judgement.

Alzheimers and mental illness is one instance where a true believer can stop believing, at least physiologically.

 

Yes, that would be different. Do you think also that a believer can stop believing? One who does not a physiological problem? One who is of sound mind?

 

I believe a true believer can be deceived by added beliefs that cover up their true faith in Christ. My sister is a prime example. She was a saved late in childhood. She showed obvious signs of fruit in her life, and had a genuine love for the Lord. For many reasons, she never had a boyfriend thourghout high school and her early teens. You can imagine the devastation this has on a person...the feeling of not being wanted by the opposite sex.
Needless to say, a guy finally took interest in her from work. Problem is, he was mixed up in occultic behavior (vampirism, voodoo, etc.).

At this point, my sister fell for this guy so hard, and even put up with infidelity on his part. The guy was scum. She was so blinded by what she perceived as "love" from him, she also went along with his garbage. She was found dead with him in her apartment. She died a very painful death.

Even during the brief time in her life where she was going through this apostacy, my then future wife was saved. I remember the look on her face and tone of her voice when I told her that. Gone was the dark, tough girl that came along with her boyfriend, and I could see the genuine excitement for my wife! She always told me her life needed to be changed back, but she got herself deeper and deeper to the point, IMO, the Lord took her. This, I believe, is "a sin unto death" spoken about in the other thread.

So Amy, to answer your question, I believe a true believer can be decieved into thinking they don't believe, but my God is greater than the god of this world who does the deceving. He promises to never leave nor forsake us.

 

Thank you for sharing that Webdog. I believe that too. I don't believe your sister stopped believing. I am so sorry for your loss. raying:

 

Someone gives you a "real" personal example and that's still not enough to convince you. :tonofbricks:

 

Webdog shared that personal story and that was appropriate. Considering there was such a loss involved others should be sensative to such a loss in making their arguments.