MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

[EdSutton]

I've never said that it's an error to speak of beliving in or on Christ. I think that's necessary.

It's just the incorrect context for the passage in Acts 16:31.

As to being word of "God" or "Lord", I'll have to do some more research on it. Either could fit contextually, and either would be after initial salvation.

"Believe" on the Lord Jesus.

Then, teach the word of the Lord or the word of God.

Different aspects of the God-head.

In a brief look at the passage, I find it interesting that the Israeli Authorized Version (which I think all they do is put in the correct names), verse 32 has ADONAI, which is plural and appropriate for God the Father, while verse 31 has Lord Yehowshua HaMoshiach. So, the context supports "Word of God", apparently to them as well.

Actually, Adonai is rendered uniformly (in the KJV, ASV, RV, and NKJV) as Lord in the OT, to the best of my knowledge, but I admit I do not speak Hebrew, in any form and have to rely on what I've learned from others. God is the rendering of El, Elah, or Elohim, or in the case of the Hebrew Adonai YHWH, as Lord GOD (all caps), although most versions render the use of YHWH alone when not in the above combination usually as LORD, again, all caps. BTW, that is how one can tell in the OT, in English, the difference between the words Adonai, Elohim, and YHWH. And the Orthodox Jew will not speak the tetragrammon, but will, pronounce it as either Adonai or Elohim, I also believe, depending on the combination, and in fact renders Adonai YHWH as Adonai Elohim, despite its being contrary to the Hebrew langauge. And I have heard, but again cannot confirm, that Yeshua haMaschia (as I learned to 'spell' it) is the Hebrew for 'Lord, the Christ', as haMaschia is the Hebrew for the Messiah, or Annointed.

BTW, the NT was still written in Greek, so the version you are citing is still a translation, and here, I would say, one that is not correct.

Ed

 

[skypair]

Absolutely. Scripture tells us there are such. Now not believing as far as on The Substitute, because obviously if they are saved they have believed on The Substitute. Whether they are believing on Christ as the Messiah, the Annointed One, the King, etc. that's a totally different matter.


No that's an oxymoron. There are unbelieving "saved" people.

I believe you are talking about the "foolish virgins" and the churches in Rev 2-3 and 2Thes 2 who have folks left behind in the rapture, right?

They "believe in vain," they "draw back," is how Paul put it in Heb 10.

skypair

 

[skypair]

That's not what I was talking about The salvation to come is the salvation of the soul in regard to having a position of rulership during the 1,000-year reign of Christ. We will either have salvation during that time or we will not be saved during that time meaning we won't rule and reign with Christ.

This was the message of the Gospels and this is the majority of the message of the Epistles. Christ came offering His Spiritual Kingdom, not eternal salvation. Israel rejected that. The offer was taken away from the nation of Israel and given to a new nation that would bear the fruits of it.

Gentiles were now in a place to receive that offering, but in order to be in a spiritual position to entertain that offering they must be spiritually saved (eternally saved) through faith in the Substitute. Once our spirits are made alive then we are in a spiritual position to understand the spiritual position that is being offered to us. We must have a faith that works in order to be found worthy of this position. And if all the conditions are met then we will receive the inheritance in that coming day. If we don't meet the conditions then we will suffer loss.

Salvation is about eternal salvation. It's about salvation in regard to the coming kingdom. Those two contexts are different. They are different messages. They must be kept separate. When one starts mixing the messages or contexts then mistakes are guaranteed to follow.

That's a very brief look at the difference Scripture lays out for us.

Now it seems you are talking about the difference between the OT message and the NT message. The OT saints rule with Christ in the MK --- they came into the kingdom you speak of which really is justification, "given the righteousness of God."

The NT believers get both kingdom and eternal life at one and the same time. We will NOT be reigning on earth in the MK. We will be worthy to be taken out pretrib and return with Christ to set up the kingdom for Israel (re: the judgment seat, Mt 19:28 and Rev 20:3.

skypair

 

[skypair]

==What God commands in salvation (belief, repentance, etc) He also provides. When God draws a man to himself He also gives that man a new heart, the ability to believe, etc (Ez 11:19-20, Eph 2:8-9). Please show me where MacArthur doubts Calvinistic soteriology.

Why? Why not you answer to why one cannot choose salvation for oneself but CAN choose the make Christ Lord? And MUST do it in the same moment that he can't choose salvation??

==Because when a person is saved they have a new nature, a new heart, they are now born of God. The result of this is that they can't practice sin anymore (1John 3:9-10).

But before they were "effectually called" they were still elect. Again, why can't they sin all they want?

==You don't understand Calvinism.

And I will second LM's rejoinder to that. :laugh:

==That is nothing but a strawman argument. Lordship advocates do not believe that works, before or after salvation, aide in a person getting or staying saved.

Well, let's look at 2 theories Calvinists love: 1) "Perserverance of the saints" Now right there you have the saint perservering and NOT God preserving as free will believe. 2) Now you have its ugly twin, Lordship salvation. Same animal. "Either Christ is Lord or He is nothing" -- that is, either you are saved or unsaved. If He isn't "Lord" then you were never saved/"elect" to begin with. I believe that is how the rationale goes, is it not?

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

Why? Why not you answer to why one cannot choose salvation for oneself but CAN choose the make Christ Lord? And MUST do it in the same moment that he can't choose salvation??

But before they were "effectually called" they were still elect. Again, why can't they sin all they want?

And I will second LM's rejoinder to that. :laugh:

Well, let's look at 2 theories Calvinists love: 1) "Perserverance of the saints" Now right there you have the saint perservering and NOT God preserving as free will believe. 2) Now you have its ugly twin, Lordship salvation. Same animal. "Either Christ is Lord or He is nothing" -- that is, either you are saved or unsaved. If He isn't "Lord" then you were never saved/"elect" to begin with. I believe that is how the rationale goes, is it not?

skypair

Sounds reasonable to me, skypiar. I'd say you are on the right track. And I'll add a bit more fuel to the fire. (Or derail a thread, maybe.)

There is no real qualitative difference between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lordship Salvation! All, in some manner, despite the protestations to the contrary, attempt to backload works into salvation. All could well be considered as modern day Galatianism.

Ed

 

[skypair]

If you go to 2Cor, you will see that he WAS saved and that, repentant, he was to be restored because we know Satans devices. 2Cor 2:16-19.

==The Scriptures only teach Lordship salvation (Rom 10:9).

Please try to understand that JM is "elaborating" on this scripture. The thought really is that if we believe in our hearts that He is Lord (God) and confess with our mouths that He is raised from the dead, we shall be saved. Where in that passage do you see "Lord of our lives?" You don't, martin. You see "Lord." And so He is.

Let me make a clarification also. When I was born again, I heard and believed that I myself must come filthy though I was --- that I could not "clean up my own mess kit" without the power of Christ. I was also taught that Christ would do that work in me as I grew in grace (not me doing it but Christ). I was a smoker back then and knew 1) I couldn't quit alone, 2) that it was a sin against my body/temple, and 3) that I was gonna keep on doing it until God granted my power over it (12 years later, BTW). The main thing about "Lordship" is "in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths." Does that answer your questions about the scriptural view of "Lordship?"

==Have you read either of MacArthur's two books on this?

"The Gospel According to Jesus"

"The Gospel According to the Apostles" (or Faith Works).

You know, I've seen one of them at the library lately and I've had about all of Sproul that I can stand. Maybe I'll pick one or the other up. It's not that I dislike him or much of his teaching. It's just that he has "strayed" from scripture a little.

skypair

 

[J. Jump]

I believe you are talking about the "foolish virgins" and the churches in Rev 2-3 and 2Thes 2 who have folks left behind in the rapture, right?

Yes you could use the example of the foolish virgins and the churches. I don't believe in a split rapture though.

They "believe in vain," they "draw back," is how Paul put it in Heb 10.

Yes those have either believed in or drew back. However it's not a believing in vain or drawing back from eternal salvation, as some might think.

The NT believers get both kingdom and eternal life at one and the same time. We will NOT be reigning on earth in the MK.

Scripture doesn't support this statement. The kingdom and eternal salvation on not a package deal. One is eternally saved by believing in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ The Substitute.

One is saved for the kingdom by believing in Christ Jesus the Annointed King and being obedient to His instructions. There's a lot more that goes along with that, but we must be found worthy to hold a place in His coming kingdom.

The kingdom is two fold. There is an earthly kingdom which will be governed by Israel, so on that you are correct, but there is also a heavenly realm of rule, which will be occupied by some of the OT saints, who were looking for a heavenly land (Hebrews) and those NT saved individuals that were found worthy. Christ and His bride will rule from the heavenly realm over the earth in the stead of Satan and his co-horts, who currently rule from the heavens. This is the spiritual kingdom that was offered to the nation of Israel, an offer which they rejected and is not put forth for acceptance or rejection by saved individuals post Jesus' death.

 

[skypair]

If works are the evidence of being truly saved (vs. empty faith), which is the general message of James, why can't one assume that lordship is also the evidence of being truly saved? That's not lordship salvation, of course, at least not the way I think of it. It's not a prerequisite to being saved. It's evidence - after the fact - of being saved.

That makes the most sense to me. Jesus says that if we love Him we will obey His commands. In other words, one (obeying Him) will FOLLOW the other (truly loving Him, which is also the evidence, not the cause, of salvation).

In contrast, lordship lip service is probably evidence of false salvation. If you give lip service to Jesus being your Lord, yet your actions CONSISTENTLY bear out that you don't really care to serve Him, then isn't that evidence that you're not really saved? Note carefully the word CONSISTENTLY. Saved people screw up. But if you claim to be saved yet consistently live a fleshly life, I have to question whether or not you are truly saved. Fortunately it's not up to me to decide, but I'd still question it. But back to the point, it's a matter of evidence, not a matter of a requirement for salvation.

Not that it matters, but I am totally clueless as to why this has anything whatosever to do with Calvinism. Methinks that's an ax someone has to grind.

Like LM said, it is closely related to Calvinism in that 1) Cism calls it "perserverance of the saints" implying the saints effort, not "preservation" as if God was responsible. 2) It goes also to the heart of the point of whether someone who is saved "unconditionally" (not by one's own choice) can ever know he/she is saved.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

As far as "works" are concerned, many make the mistake of believing they are "working" for Christ. Well, it's not about "them", it's about Christ. This is the point John MacArthur makes in his writings. I accepted Christ as my Savior at age 33. He was already Lord(Philippians 2:10). My surrender to Him has grown over the years, but it began the moment I embraced Him as my Savior. Since then He has worked through me to complete what He began.
"And those he predestined, he also called, those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorifed."-Romans 8:30 NIV

I'm glad you stated it that way, because that's what has Biblical support. We cannot take credit even for our works, because it is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good purpose. That's even more of a reason not to pose Lordship as a prerequisite for salvation, but evidence. I also get the "lack of evidence" idea, too. Makes no difference to me how one puts it.

Ittuit:

I confess I was speaking from personal experience. My ex-wife made a great show of being a Christian. She did the whole praise and worship song things, even taught sunday school off and on. But she had an ongoing affair with a co-worker (who was living with his ex-wife because she was trying to reconcile). She was engaged in this before, during and (of course), after our marriage. She lived to please her flesh, and when challenged by me, refused to submit to scripture. To their discredit, some at her church (a Southern Baptist Church, no less), including the pastor, knew at least most of what was going on and nobody confronted her about it.

So I wasn't talking about smoking or wearing slacks when I said "consistently living a fleshly life".

 

[skypair]

I agree. To quote John MacArthur:
"At justification we surrender the principle of sin and self-rule. In sanctification we relinquish the practice of specific sins as we mature in Christ. total surrender to Christ's lordship does not mean that we make all of life's decisions as a prerequisite to conversion. It does not mean that we give up all our sins before we can be justified. 'It is not the commitment of the years of one's life on earth.' It means that when we trust Christ for salvation we settle the issue of who is in charge. At salvation we surrender to Christ in principle, but as Christians we will surrender in practice again and again. This practical outworking of His lordship is the process of sanctification."[FATIH WORKS-The Gospel according to the Apostles-pg. 109](emphasis mine).

Now this I can agree with. Salvation is the turning of one's soul/conscience over to the control of God. It is a totally new perspective of who we are and who we serve. It is He that works in our to "conform us to the image of His dear Son" through sanctification. If this is JM's final word, then I like it! :thumbs:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hey Jump -- how you doing this fine Thursday morning?

Yes you could use the example of the foolish virgins and the churches. I don't believe in a split rapture though.

Nor me.

Yes those have either believed in or drew back. However it's not a believing in vain or drawing back from eternal salvation, as some might think.

This is a pretty serious divergence from othodoxy, Jump. Maybe you could explain it.

Scripture doesn't support this statement. [skypair: "The NT believers get both kingdom and eternal life at one and the same time. We will NOT be reigning on earth in the MK."] The kingdom and eternal salvation are not a package deal. One is eternally saved by believing in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ The Substitute.

You mean you haven't found it "to support this statement," Jump. But it does. Right now they are "package" in that we are justified and sanctified simultaneously. What do you think qualifies a person for one but not the other?

One is saved for the kingdom by believing in Christ Jesus the Annointed King and being obedient to His instructions. There's a lot more that goes along with that, but we must be found worthy to hold a place in His coming kingdom.

So "works" = kingdom, faith = eternal life??

The kingdom is two fold. There is an [1] earthly kingdom which will be governed by Israel, so on that you are correct, but there is also a [2] heavenly realm of rule, which will be occupied by some of the OT saints, who were looking for a heavenly land (Hebrews) and those NT saved individuals that were found worthy. [3] Christ and His bride will rule from the heavenly realm over the earth in the stead of Satan and his co-horts, who currently rule from the heavens. This is the spiritual kingdom that was offered to the nation of Israel, an offer which they rejected and is not put forth for acceptance or rejection by saved individuals post Jesus' death.

Sounds like you are saying there are 3 parts to the kingdom --- earthly, 1st heaven, and 3rd heaven. 1) Jews rule earthly -- 2) OT saints were offered the 3rd heaven/atmosphere some OT saints and worthy NT saints -- and 3) 1st heaven where Christ and His "unworthy" bride" rule (I assume this last is what you designate "eternal life?").

Then I see that this 1st heaven (#3) was rejected by Israel and is not offered "post Jesus' death" -- so how can anyone rule there?

Well, first off, Israel rejected Christ's earthly kingdom -- but they will accept it one day and those who "looked for it" (Heb 11) will be resurrected into it postrib.

Second, 1st heaven will be populated by angels who preach the gospel from there (Rev 14) when Satan and his demons are cast out. And I believe in the New Earth that NJ will occupy much of that realm, but, no, I don't see anyone in glorious bodies floating around in air with no physical inheritance.

And the "unworthy bride" either converts during the trib and goes into the MK OR doesn't and goes to the lake of fire.

skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Good Points

I see the connection he's making, but we must be defining LS differently. Pardon me if my definition is wrong, because I haven't studied it or cared much about it. I think that even if James hadn't written his book, there is tons of Biblical support that if you are truly saved and regenerated, good works and obedience will follow. It is almost surely not instantaneous, and some people can resist it more than others (even unto physical death, as is shown by how the Corinthians disrespected the Lord's Supper), but in general it is part of our regeneration and grows as God continually transforms us into the image of His Son.

Yes, very good!

But I see LS pitted against "easy believism", which means lordship is a condition or prerequisite of salvation, not the EVIDENCE of salvation. If you aren't obeying Jesus as Lord, then you haven't done what's necessary to be saved. This is the definition of Lordship Salvation with which I'm familiar, and it is reflected in the name itself -- Salvation by Lordship (at least in part). This is where I see no connection whatsoever between LS and Calvinism.

Hi:

I appreciate your concern and interest.

You may have missed my notes here and in another thread. It is imperative to distinguish the real issues in the Lordship Salvation debate. The requirements to be born and again the results from having been born again are two completely separate issues in the Lordship debate.

The controversy is NOT over what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. I am in substantial agreement with any man who believes saving faith should result in some level of genuine commitment to the Lord and growth in the Sprit and Word of God

The debate and controversy is over what Lordship advocates insist are the requirements for salvation, i.e. what must a man do to be come a born again child of God. That is the crux of the Lordship debate. It is here that Lordship Salvation corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3), creating a false gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

In their zeal to address the doctrinal problems and excesses of the Easy-Believism/Mental Assent Only camp the Lordship advocate errs to the opposite extreme.

This is a sample from the Introduction to my book:

“This is not a question of a weak gospel verses a strong gospel, but of the one true gospel standing apart from all other false gospels. If the weak gospel erred by omission, the strong gospel equally errs by addition. All witnesses for Christ desire true conversions. In my zeal to secure more genuine conversions, however, I do not have the liberty to alter the gospel. Any alteration of the gospel either by omission or addition must be rejected.” (In Defense of the Gospel, p. v.)

When you get in to, as you say, “the evidence of salvation,” I am in substantial agreement that there ought to be some sign of genuine conversion in the form of a changed life. The problem comes when one tries to measure that level of change as if it in some way may or may not validate the conversion experience. At what point does one conclude that a man who professes Christ as Savior, but has issues with a besetting sin (Heb. 12:1) was never saved in the first place? How does one measure that, and come to that kind of conclusion?

I am speaking of the natural course of most Christians who do have their peaks, valleys and middle ground as they go through their life as a believer. I am not making excuses for a man who professes Christ, but lives more like the Devil. Lordship advocates are always quick to point the most extreme examples of sinful behavior to build a case for their solution, which is a "saving faith" that includes an upfront commitment to the Lordship of Christ to become a born again Christian.

I think we all agree that a new believer, throughout his walk with God, will experience some level of spiritual growth. That growth may evidence itself in tangible outward expressions for all to see. Spiritual growth for others may be more inward that is not readily apparent as the outward displays reveal. If, however, there is growth, there is a man who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him, and is working to bring him to maturity in Christ, right up to and including his ultimate glorification as he enters his Heavenly, eternal home.

Regards,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

No Magic at All!

I know you asked Martin, but my answer would be, "How would I know?" There's no magic behind praying these words as opposed to others.

OK:

My question was,

If a lost man is praying to receive Jesus Christ as his Savior, and his prayer includes a: "whole-hearted commitment" to live in “full surrender” to the lordship of Christ, to "follow Jesus in submissive obedience" and a “willingness to die for Jesus sake;” was he born again?

I am still looking forward to Martin's reply on the question.

There is no magic in those words, but those words are part of Lordship Salvation's defintion of saving faith for the reception of eternal life.

This is not a trick question. Refer to the quotes in my question because they are from the writing of pro-lordship advocates who insist these elements must be included in the form of commitment in the faith that saves, NOT just following conversion, but FOR conversion.

Let me further clarify: If a lost man prayed to receive Christ, and he believed his commitment to the lordship of Christ was necessary for him to be born again; was he saved?

So, with that in mind, this question is directed to all who care to answer...

If a lost man makes commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands, as if this is necessary in the faith that saves to gain for him the gift of eternal life; was he saved?​

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Not the Final Word

Now this I can agree with. Salvation is the turning of one's soul/conscience over to the control of God. It is a totally new perspective of who we are and who we serve. It is He that works in our to "conform us to the image of His dear Son" through sanctification. If this is JM's final word, then I like it!

skypair

Sky:

JM's The Gospel According to the Apostles is the closet he has come to orthodoxy on the gospel.

It is not, however, his final word. In Hard to Believe JM went right back to many of the disturbing and controversial positis that are found in both editions of The Gospel According to Jesus.

Here are some examples:

“Hell will be full of people who thought highly of the Sermon on the Mount. You must do more than that. You must obey it and take action…. You must also enter the narrow gate in utter surrender to Christ.” (Hard to Believe, pp. 81, 86)

“Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God--anyone who wants to be a Christian--has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Speaking of the Rich Young Ruler JM writes, “And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthy possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if He does.” (Hard to Believe, p. 9.)

“If you want to follow Christ right into Heaven, here’s the message: Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 11).

In every one of those quotes JM is speaking of how to get saved, not what should follow salvation. He is preaching a commitment to good works to get saved. That is a false gospel! This theme runs like a thread thorugh his Lordship books.

Furthermore, JM has never edited, explained or eliminated the problem statements in the versions of The Gospel According to Jesus.

The IFCA, of which JM is a member, published The Nature of Saving Faith in 1989 because of what they found in The Gospel According to Jesus.

For your consideration.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[J. Jump]

Hey Jump -- how you doing this fine Thursday morning?

Busy enough to be cloned about five times and still need more help Hope you are doing well.

This is a pretty serious divergence from othodoxy, Jump. Maybe you could explain it.

Well the very short explanation is the author of Hebrews is talking about a salvation that comes after eternal salvation. The author is speaking to folks that are already eternally saved. And the salvation that is spoken of is spoken of in a present and/or future aspect not a past aspect.

I would be more than happy to point you to some resource material that would go much more indepth than time or space allows here. Just PM me.

You mean you haven't found it "to support this statement," Jump. But it does.

No seriously there is no support for it. If there is please let us see it. Sanctification is always presented to my knowledge as a present process that is ongoing and not complete. Eternal salvation is spoken of as a one-time event that occurs in a person's past with which the results carry out into the future as a done deal. Two totally different things.

If sanctification was complete at the moment of salvation there would be absolutely no need for us to stay here on earth. We would be saved and then taken out.

We are here to go through the sanctification "process".

Right now they are "package" in that we are justified and sanctified simultaneously.

Again please provide some Scriptural evidence from the OT and NT that says sanctification is a one-time event that happens at the same time we are eternally saved. Talk about straying from orthodoxy This is the first time in almost 20 years of being saved that I have ever heard this.

And I would be interested to see if there are others on this board that agree with you.

What do you think qualifies a person for one but not the other?

Well what I "think" on the matter is of no matter. It only matters what Scripture says. Scripture says that one is eternally saved by God's grace through faith apart from works. We know through the teaching of Scripture that our faith must be in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died in my place a sinner.

If I believe that then I am saved, contrary to what others might say. That is what Scripture says about the matter.

Sanctification on the other hand is a cooperative process between the Holy Spirit and the saved individual. One must walk in the Spirit, put to death the deeds of the flesh, take up his cross daily, keep His commandments, etc., etc.

So "works" = kingdom, faith = eternal life??

Not exactly. If you are looking for an equation it would look something like this:

faith in The Substitute = eternal salvation
faith that works = kingdom salvation

Sounds like you are saying there are 3 parts to the kingdom --- earthly, 1st heaven, and 3rd heaven. 1) Jews rule earthly -- 2) OT saints were offered the 3rd heaven/atmosphere some OT saints and worthy NT saints -- and 3) 1st heaven where Christ and His "unworthy" bride" rule (I assume this last is what you designate "eternal life?").

No there is only two parts. There is an earthly part and there is a heavenly part. The third heaven houses the throne of God and universal rules proceeds from there, of which the earth is a part of. But when speaking of earthly rule and what parts humans will play in it Scripture only speaks of earthly rule and rule from the heavens, which is the sphere that Satan and his co-horts are currently ruling from, but to the thanksgiving and praise of God that rule is about to end!!!

Well, first off, Israel rejected Christ's earthly kingdom -- but they will accept it one day and those who "looked for it" (Heb 11) will be resurrected into it postrib.

Israel didn't reject Christ's earthly kingdom, because that wasn't what was being offered to them. That was already promised to Israel long before Christ Incarnate walked the earth. The earthly kingdom is theirs and can not be taken away. They will one day rule the earth in a physical sense.

Christ was here offering the spiritual aspect of the kingdom. The kingdom of the heavens. That is the offer that Israel rejected and because of their rejection it was taken away from them and given to a new nation that will produce the fruits of it. We as saved individuals are now in a position to accept or reject that same offer. Unfortunately most reject it

And Hebrews 11 talks of those that were seeking a heavenly land not an earthly land. They knew they were pilgrims (foreigners) in a strange land (earth).

Second, 1st heaven will be populated by angels who preach the gospel from there (Rev 14) when Satan and his demons are cast out.

Actually the world to come will not be subject to angels, we see this in Scripture. We are to be the nation of kings and priests. Now angels will have some role to play I guess, but I don't know what role that will be. They will not be ruling over the earth however, because that is man's position. That is they way it was supposed to have been (Gensis 1). And that is the way it will be in the future.

And I believe in the New Earth that NJ will occupy much of that realm, but, no, I don't see anyone in glorious bodies floating around in air with no physical inheritance.

New heavens and new earth are after the MK. Not much is given to us as far as what will and will not happen on the new earth and in the new heavens.

And the "unworthy bride" either converts during the trib and goes into the MK OR doesn't and goes to the lake of fire.

Again Scripture doesn't speak of an unworthy bride. You are either part of the bride of Christ, or you are not. Now it does speak of worth and unworthy saved people. Or overcomers and those that are overcome. Or those that are faithful and those that are unfaithful. Or those that are obedient and those that are disobedient, etc.

 

[webdog]

I would be more than happy to point you to some resource material that would go much more indepth than time or space allows here. Just PM me.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesas.htm

 

[npetreley]

You may have missed my notes here and in another thread.

Probably.

It is imperative to distinguish the real issues in the Lordship Salvation debate. The requirements to be born and again the results from having been born again are two completely separate issues in the Lordship debate.

The controversy is NOT over what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. I am in substantial agreement with any man who believes saving faith should result in some level of genuine commitment to the Lord and growth in the Sprit and Word of God

The debate and controversy is over what Lordship advocates insist are the requirements for salvation, i.e. what must a man do to be come a born again child of God. That is the crux of the Lordship debate. It is here that Lordship Salvation corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3), creating a false gospel message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

I agree 100%. It is the latter controversy in which I see no connection whatsoever to Calvinism. Calvinism asserts the perserverence of the saints (although I prefer preservation, not perserverence, myself). Just the name alone tells you they're already saints. They didn't become saints (get saved) by perservering.

So if anyone makes a connection between LS (in the sense of it being a requirement for being saved) and Calvinism, it is either a mistake on the part of the Calvinist who is claiming there is a connection, or it is a mistake on the part of the non-Calvinist claiming the two are connected. They aren't.

 

[ituttut]

npetreley

I agree. To quote John MacArthur:
"At justification we surrender the principle of sin and self-rule.....(snipped)

I like your post. Perhaps it is the word obey that causes the problem. When we look at those before the Cross and become aware of the "Body of Christ", the rapture, and other things God had hid in His mysteries, we know a change was made. Those of Old had to obey, and do a work.

We today conform, or are assimilated to, or into Him. I believe He actually absorbs us. Do we obey? If He is righteous, then we are righteous. We are not our own for He paid the price.

Obey? We abide in Him.

 

[J. Jump]

No wonder you never represent our views in the right light Webdog. You have been studying from someone that does the same thing. Now it all makes sense. I just read two paragraphs and this website has already mis-spoke regarding what we believe. I can only guess that the others would agree that they have been mis-represented. I know I certainly have, but that comes as no big shock :wavey:

 

[webdog]

Yeah, I'm not really shocked you would say that...