MacArthur On The Dangers of Non-Lordship Doctrine

[J. Jump]

It's hard to argue with that summary

Maybe not for you Sorry I just couldn't resist again. It always amazes me and will continue to amaze me that you all can't see the contradictions that you place on Scripture with those views, but it's obvious that you don't. It truly saddens me more than anything else, but it is what it is I suppose. :wavey:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Please Reconsider

One is saved for the kingdom by believing in Christ Jesus the Anointed 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.

JJ:

As kindly as I can say it, you need to look at that statement in light of its implications and ask yourself if you might not have misspoke or overstated your beliefs.

Your statement above, as it stands, identifies a faith, plus works gospel. Sorry to be blunt, but if you believe the reception of eternal life and/or entrance to Heaven is predicated on the obedience of man to any kind of work or commands, that is works and it is wrong!

“Man being found worthy?”

The whole point of God’s redemptive plan for lost mankind is that man is not, and can never be, worthy of Heaven or entry into, as you say “His Kingdom.”

Here is MacArthur along the same lines you just wrote:

“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.)

Just like your statement JM is saying to become a Christian and to gain entry to Heaven, man must faithfully, unwaveringly obey a set of commands or forfeit Heaven. That is a deparure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).

I encourage you to go back to the Scriptures and rethink your stated position.

Yours faithfully,


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[J. Jump]

As kindly as I can say it, you need to look at that statement in light of its implications and ask yourself if you might not have misspoke or overstated your beliefs.

Your statement above, as it stands, identifies a faith, plus works gospel. Sorry to be blunt, but if you believe the reception of eternal life and/or entrance to Heaven is predicated on the obedience of man to any kind of work or commands, that is works and it is wrong!

Lou with all due respect you make the same mistake that the majority of Christendom makes, including John MacArthur. The kingdom of the heavens is not eternal salvation. The kingdom of the heavens is not spending eternity in heaven. Therefore I have not presented a works based eternal salvation.

Read any of my posts and you will see that I proclaim as does Scripture that eternal salvation comes only by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died and shed His blood on my behalf a sinner. If I or anyone else believes that they eternal salvation has become a done deal.

Faith that works (as James declares to us) is in regard to being found worthy at the JSOC in regard to holding a place of regality in the coming kingdom of Christ, which is 1,000 years in length.

So the faith that works statement is not in regard to eternal salvation, but in regard to the salvation of the soul, which has to do with the 1,000-year reign of Christ.

Hope that clears that up.

The whole point of God’s redemptive plan for lost mankind is that man is not, and can never be, worthy of Heaven or entry into, as you say “His Kingdom.”

Well it's not that we are worthy because of who we are or what we have done, but we are found worthy because we have allowed the Spirit to work in us and those works are credited to our account as if we have done them ourselves and therefore we are found worthy, but it's because of Him.

Hope that clarifies that a little more.

Just like your statement JM is saying to become a Christian and to gain entry to Heaven, man must faithfully, unwaveringly obey a set of commands or forfeit Heaven.

Well first of all I'm not talking about gaining entrance into heaven. We are not going to spend eternity in heaven. That is a church tradition that was picked up somewhere along the way and has stuck in Christendom for some reason. Not even God Himself is going to spend the rest of eternity in heaven, so why would I or anyone else want to?

John MacArthur mistakenly equates the kingdom of the heavens with eternity and those two are not the same thing. Different messages that must be kept separated in order to avoid serious mistakes, especially concerning the gospel as we can already see with LS.

Again hope this clears matters up a little more.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Enough For Now

JJ:

Thanks for the note.

I begin understand your take the 1,000 year reign of Christ. I do, however, have lingering concern with this,

“So the faith that works statement is not in regard to eternal salvation, but in regard to the salvation of the soul, which has to do with the 1,000-year reign of Christ.”

I’m sure you have a more precise way of defining this, but I am not going to pursue it.

I want to suggest you draw the distinction between the eternal salvation and the 1,000 year reign very clearly so that there is no misunderstanding. The statement I cited earlier from you, in its narrow context, is quite disturbing as I am hopeful you would agree.

Well first of all I'm not talking about gaining entrance into heaven. We are not going to spend eternity in heaven. That is a church tradition that was picked up somewhere along the way and has stuck in Christendom for some reason. Not even God Himself is going to spend the rest of eternity in heaven, so why would I or anyone else want to?

This strikes me as odd, and possibly a departure from Scripture.

Anyway, I am going to pretty much leave off this particular discussion at this point.

Kind regards,

LM

 

[Lacy Evans]

JJ:


The whole point of God’s redemptive plan for lost mankind is that man is not, and can never be, worthy of Heaven or entry into, as you [JJump] say “His Kingdom.”

LM

JJump might have said enter "His Kingdom", but I guarantee he didn't mean heaven. You are debating a position that you still don't understand. Millennial Exclusion is indeed scriptural, and it in no way compromises eternal security or the issue of Lordship in a believers walk. If fact, it is the only doctrine that retains the integrity of both issues without convoluting free grace by blending them.

Lacy

 

[skypair]

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.

Basically speaking of sanctification then, right?

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.

The support is this -- when one receieves Christ for eternal salvation, one receives the Holy Spirit of sanctification at the same time. If the person were to die right there on the spot, they would be sanctified for glory having done NOTHING else.

Now of course sanctification continues and the believer who lives grows in grace. But you have the right idea in one way --- just like Adam died in his soul immediately, in his spirit progressively and in his body eventually --- just so salvation. Saved in soul and eternally immediately, in spirit progressively by the HS, and bodily eventually.

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.

Now, now. This is GOD'S plan, not yours. Paul said that upon salvation we have the "earnest of the redemption of the purchased possession, the Holy Spirit." He IS our sanctification. If we grow in Him, we grow. If we die, we still have Him.

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

Yes. or "step."

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.

It wasn't so in the OT. They will be sanctified when they are resurrected into the MK.

As for us, Eph 1:13 "...after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." You do realize that we can't sanctify ourselves -- that it is the HS that does this, right?

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

I omitted much of the bloviating about what we all beleive to get to your point.

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.

Yes. And this starts when? Immediately, I should think.

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

A distinction without a difference, friend. Faith that works believes on Christ (or OT, God).

Israel didn't reject Christ's earthly kingdom, because that wasn't what was being offered to them.

Sure it was! To the very day described in Dan 9:26 (end of 69th week), the "King" rode in on a "colt, the foal of an ass" and was acknowledged by the people who looked for Him as "King." It was their leadership that rejected Him.

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.

Amen!

Christ was here offering the spiritual aspect of the kingdom. The kingdom of the heavens.

Well, actually the kingdom of God which is NJ in 3rd heaven for now. But that kingdom is physical --- we go their in physical bodies at the rapture.

That is the offer that Israel rejected...

No. Jesus offered Himself as earthly King just as He will once again upon His return.

You are right regarding the spiritual kingdom, though. God turned to the nations and gave them the spiritual kingdom to head his RELIGION on the earth for these 2000 years. This is what the parable of the olive tree means in Rom 11.

We as saved individuals are now in a position to accept or reject that same offer. Unfortunately most reject it

I'd say no to that. Believers have accepted the kingdom. It's just that believers are in a minority among the nations just like believers among Israel were. But yet we have gotten the gospel to much of the world, unlike Israel, right?

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).

More specifically, they were seeking a kingdom built by Messiah (11:16, "a city") or come down with Him to Jerusalem and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that Canaan would be their land forever.

Now angels will have some role to play I guess, but I don't know what role that will be.

John 1:57 suggests they will "ascend and descend" to the throne of Christ from US who help Him rule from heaven where we will be.

Again Scripture doesn't speak of an unworthy bride. You are either part of the bride of Christ, or you are not.

You're right.

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.

All saved are "worthy" in Christ. "Overcomers" have different things to overcome (Re: Rev 2-3 mainly). As to faithful -- "Though we believe not, yet He is faithful for He cannot deny Himself." 2Tim 2:13

You appear to be "setting up" an "elite" Christian, rather proud of his/her works, which I do not find in scripture.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

You appear to be "setting up" an "elite" Christian, rather proud of his/her works, which I do not find in scripture.

Where is boasting? It is excluded. Thank you, thank you. If you want to know any more about anything, just ask.

 

[TCGreek]

To argue that a person must not recognize Jesus as Lord as part of the salvation confession is to deny what Scriptures teaches (Rom 10:9, 10). Repentant faith, saving faith, comes from a person's heart that has been illumined by the Spirit to behold the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the light of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4-6).

"Lordship salvation" is in no way teaching salvation by works. A rebellious, dead heart that is awaken to the glory of God in the face of Christ, which is presented in the gospel, turns from sins and puts faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.

Isn't being unregenerate means to lord it over one's own life? And isn't being regenerate means recognizing the lordship of another who is savior?

By the way, "The Truth War" is an excellent response to the mood of postmodernity and its ill-effects on the church.

 

[skypair]

Lordship salvation is necessary for the salvation of the soul.

Nah! Jesus is necessary for the salvation of the soul -- the Spirit is necessary for the sanctification of the spirit. Lordship salvation is a human doctrine trying to wiggle its way into biblical sotierology among a people who otherwise wouldn't know if they were saved or not.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Scripture refers to it as the gospel of the kingdom as well as some other names, but opponents call it millennial exclusion.

There's the error Ed Sutton --- the "gospel of the kingdom" is the OT gospel of salvation. The OT saints WILL participate in the MK, the church won't. Church will be in what JJ calls "Millennial Exclusion" apparently -- and that is true because we were never promised the land of Canaan for an everlasting inheritance nor was the "Davdic covenant" whereby Israel will rule earth offered to the church.

As you can see, all this is a huge misapplication of scripture. :BangHead:

skypair

 

[skypair]

==Before they come to Christ they are lost, dead in sin, and a child of wrath just like everyone else (Eph 2:1-3). Once they come to Christ they are then born of God and cannot practice sin (1Jn 3:9-10).

But still "elect." They're NOT just like everyone else -- they can hear God so as not to sin but apparently ignore what they hear, right?

==You don't like it when I say that you don't understand Calvinism then you turn around and make a statement like that proving that you don't understand Calvinism.

Actually, martie, I didn't make up the term "Perserverance of the saints." Some Calvinist did. Now if they believed that God preserved them, why not say that up front? My thought is that they were looking for behavior by which the saint could be seen as "keeping the faith" and only later come back and say, "But it was all of God." I do realize that in this day and age, they try to revoke any such responsibility from man.

"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."

All such declarations get my award for "pomposity!" Take "perserverance ... depends not upon free will." You mean that once a person is saved, they STILL have no free will??? Still cannot choose right and wrong?? Oh, I see --- it HAS to flow from election else that might have been "chosen" too. :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

JDale,

Good "mediatory position" and scripturally solid, too! It's the "repent" part that I believe "trips up" the Calvinist. Not that he doesn't get around to repenting but that he can't see it as the means to salvation since 1) he is alreadly saved/"elect" when he thinks to do it or 2) his repenting is not a decision point, not his "rebirth, in his spiritual life.

skypair

 

[J. Jump]

Basically speaking of sanctification then, right?

Yes Lordship has to do with sanctification.

The support is this -- when one receieves Christ for eternal salvation, one receives the Holy Spirit of sanctification at the same time. If the person were to die right there on the spot, they would be sanctified for glory having done NOTHING else.

That would only hold true for a person that dies the instant after faith in The Substitute. And I'm not sure that has ever happened. Maybe on someone's death bed.

However one is not automatically qualified for rulership in the kingdom because of faith in The Substitute. In order to be qualified to rule and reign with Christ, one must endure trials (testings) as Adam did (he failed) and as Christ did (He passed).

We must pass as well. Entrance into the kingdom is not a guarantee.

Now of course sanctification continues and the believer who lives grows in grace.

Should grow in grace. That's not an automatic.

But you have the right idea in one way --- just like Adam died in his soul immediately

No his spirit died immediately not his soul.

Saved in soul and eternally immediately, in spirit progressively by the HS, and bodily eventually.

Spirit is saved eternally and immediately, soul should be saved progressively (not a guarantee) and bodily in the future. No reason to discuss this any further as you and I have already discussed these matters.

Now, now. This is GOD'S plan, not yours.

Exactly. I don't push my own plan, just what Scripture reveals.

Paul said that upon salvation we have the "earnest of the redemption of the purchased possession, the Holy Spirit."

Go back and read who that was addressed to.

[He IS our sanctification.[/quote]
The Spirit is not sanctification, but the one that can guide us down that path. It is actually the washing of the Word through the blood of Christ on the mercy seat that sanctifies us. The Spirit is not sanctification.

[/quote]If we grow in Him, we grow.[/quote]
If is the key word. There are those that don't grow according to Scripture.

It wasn't so in the OT. They will be sanctified when they are resurrected into the MK.

That's just a statement. And a statement that Scripture doesn't support.

You do realize that we can't sanctify ourselves -- that it is the HS that does this, right?

No you contradict yourself. You just said a couple spots us that the Spirit IS sanctification. Now you are saying that he is the one that sanctifies.

But yes I realize that sanctification does not come from me, but it does require my cooperation. We as saved individuals can thwart that process should we choose to do so.

Yes. And this starts when? Immediately, I should think.

It should and probably most often does. Doesn't mean it will and certainly doesn't mean it lasts.

Sure it was!

No it wasn't. Something can't be offered which is already theres. The earthly porition of the kingdom was already promised to Israel long before Christ was Incarnate. That was already theirs so there was nothing to offer in respect to the earthly kingdom.

Again he offered the kingdom of the heavens. That is not earthly, but spiritual.

It was their leadership that rejected Him.

Of course it was. Never said otherwise, but because of their rejection the lay people also rejected Him.

Quote:
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.
Amen!

How can you say amen to this statement, but yet you say Christ was offering them something they already had? That's a little confusing to me

Quote:
Christ was here offering the spiritual aspect of the kingdom. The kingdom of the heavens.
Well, actually the kingdom of God which is NJ in 3rd heaven for now. But that kingdom is physical --- we go their in physical bodies at the rapture.

Well you believe that if you want to, but that's just not what Scripture says.

Quote:
That is the offer that Israel rejected...
No. Jesus offered Himself as earthly King just as He will once again upon His return.

I would suggest you do some more studying on the kingdom.

You are right regarding the spiritual kingdom, though. God turned to the nations and gave them the spiritual kingdom to head his RELIGION on the earth for these 2000 years. This is what the parable of the olive tree means in Rom 11.

Wow . . . I'm not sure where you are getting this stuff.

Quote:
We as saved individuals are now in a position to accept or reject that same offer. Unfortunately most reject it
I'd say no to that.

Well you are free to say whatever you please But that doesn't make it so.

Believers have accepted the kingdom.

Saved people have accepted a Substitute. The kingdom is not even in question before a person is saved. It can't be. It's an impossibility.

Quote:
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).
More specifically, they were seeking a kingdom built by Messiah (11:16, "a city") or come down with Him to Jerusalem and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that Canaan would be their land forever.

Again incorrect. They weren't looking for the physical land. That was already promised them. They knew there was something more than a physical land.

All saved are "worthy" in Christ.

For eternal purposes that would be correct. Not for kingdom purposes though.

You appear to be "setting up" an "elite" Christian, rather proud of his/her works, which I do not find in scripture.

Nope the only thing I have to boast in is the Grace of God, the Blood of the Lamb on the Mercy Seat and the guidance of the Spirit.

It is Christ that does the work. He just gives me credit as if I had done it myself. He is truly Amazing and Awesome!

 

[J. Jump]

the "gospel of the kingdom" is the OT gospel of salvation.

Please provide Scripture that says the gospel of the kingdom is OT salvation and has nothing to do with what you would consider to be NT saved folks.

The OT saints WILL participate in the MK, the church won't.

Scripture please?

Church will be in what JJ calls "Millennial Exclusion" apparently --

Not even remotely close to what I have said.

and that is true

Not even remotely close to true.

we were never promised the land of Canaan for an everlasting inheritance nor was the "Davdic covenant"

Now that is true.

As you can see, all this is a huge misapplication of scripture.

Actually you need to get a better grasp of what is being said before making statements such as this. You clearly don't understand what I have been saying. Now you might still believe I am misapplying Scripture once you have discovered what I am actually talking about, but you haven't gotten it yet, based on several statements from your last two posts.

 

[Martin]

Skypair,

Since it seems clear to me, from the tone and substance of your replies below, that you are not interested in a serious, sober discussion of the theological points at issue here, I will not continue to waste my time responding to your replies. If you want to continue this discussion let me know by replying in a serious, thoughtful, sober, and theologically meaningful way.

But still "elect." They're NOT just like everyone else -- they can hear God so as not to sin but apparently ignore what they hear, right?

==If you read Eph 2:1-3, that I pointed out to you in my previous reply, you will read that before salvation the "elect" were "children of wrath, even as the rest" (vs3). Before salvation they are like everyone else. Of course this point is clearly taught in Calvinistic statements (etc).

I didn't make up the term "Perserverance of the saints." Some Calvinist did. Now if they believed that God preserved them, why not say that up front?

==I pointed out to you how the term is defined by the "offical" statements of faith/theology. If you wish to ignore that and continue to pretend like you have a valid point, fine. However I think you would be better served by looking at how Calvinists have defined and understand the doctrine instead of reading your own definition into the doctrine.

My thought is that they were looking for behavior by which the saint could be seen as "keeping the faith" and only later come back and say, "But it was all of God." I do realize that in this day and age, they try to revoke any such responsibility from man.

==It is clear from the statements of faith that I pointed out, some of which go back to the early 17th century, that Calvinist believe and have always believed that the perseverance of the saints is due to the work of God in the believers life and not due to the believer's efforts (Phil 1:6, etc). When I pointed out this fact, about the statements, to you in my previous reply, you responded with a blustery comment and not with serious theological insight or thoughts. This is the main reason I made my opening statement in this reply.

 

[ituttut]

I disagree with this as I believe we have to understand what sanctification is and the process in order to do according to what Scripture has laid out for us in that particular aspect of salvation.

We agree on many things. But you and I do not agree on "sanctification", so that places you in the position of saying I am not today "sanctified" forever from this moment on.

I know I am saved, and you say you are, then some one else says I don't understand my salvation other than I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. To this I say we all three are justified in one way or the other, sanctified in one way or the other way, and all will be "glorified". You say it is not possible but for one, and that one is you for you contend we do not understand "sanctification", and perhaps other things also.

You may not fully understand why I many times mention the "Kingdom Church", and the "Body Church". You're position (if I correctly understand) places you into the "Kingdom Church".

 

[J. Jump]

so that places you in the position of saying I am not today "sanctified" forever from this moment on.

Sanctification is the continual washing and clensing of the Word by the Spirit based on the Blood of Christ that currently sits on the Mercy Seat as He acts as our Mediator (High Priest).

Sanctification is a lifelong process so no I nor any other saved individual is not completely sanctified at this moment forever. Sanctification as Scripture lays it out for us is a process not a one-time event as eternal salvation is seen.

To this I say we all three are justified in one way or the other, sanctified in one way or the other way, and all will be "glorified".

Yes we are all justified in an eternal sense. Justification is also seen as a process as well which is outside of eternal salvation. I guess if you want to call part of the sanctification process a setting apart then yes we have been sanctified because we have been set apart from the world, but only for eternal purposes. We must continually separate ourselves from the world each and every day in a practical sense.

And yes eventually we all will be glorified.

You may not fully understand why I many times mention the "Kingdom Church", and the "Body Church". You're position (if I correctly understand) places you into the "Kingdom Church".

No I don't fully understand your terms and I think they lend themselves to confusing the matter at hand.

As far as the kingdom of the earth is concerned there are two realms. There is a physical realm and there is a spiritual realm. Israel has been promised the earthly portion of the kingdom. That is something that can not be taken away from them and they will one day rule over the nations at the head of the nations from the land that God promised to them on a physical earth.

Rule over the earth also eminates from the heavens where Satan and his co-horts currently rule. This spiritual portion of the kingdom was the offer that was being made to Israel during the time of Christ. He came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. Matthew refers to it as the kingdom of the heavens (that's the actual correct translation of the phrase Matthew uses and which can be found in John 3 at least according to the Aleph text). This is the spiritual portion of the kingdom.

This offer was rejected by Israel. However Abraham was promised that spiritual blessings would flow through his seed. So in order for that promise to be kept a new entity must be brought into existence, because the offer was taken away from Israel.

That's where the Gentiles come into the picture. Gentiles are saved (faith in The Substitute and made alive spiritually) so that they can now entertain this spiritual offer of the kingdom that Israel rejected.

We can accept this offer and rule with Christ in His coming kingdom from the heavens or we can reject the offer of ruling and reigning with Him and face the consequences of such actions. But our eternal destiny is secure.

Hope that helps.

 

[skypair]

That would only hold true for a person that dies the instant after faith in The Substitute. And I'm not sure that has ever happened. Maybe on someone's death bed.

Yup -- lots of people been saved there, too. And our admission makes the case that sanctification is having the indwelling Spirit, not living through trials.

However one is not automatically qualified for rulership in the kingdom because of faith in The Substitute. In order to be qualified to rule and reign with Christ, one must endure trials (testings) as Adam did (he failed) and as Christ did (He passed).

So we have -- not "works" salvation -- but "works" to enter the kingdom. Sounds like a "refinement" on the former to me.

We must pass as well. Entrance into the kingdom is not a guarantee.

What exactly do you think 1Cor 3:11-15 is talking about, JJ?? Aren't they all in the kingdom -- both those who get gold, silver, and precious stones and those who are saved only so as by fire??

Should grow in grace. That's not an automatic

. Having the indwelling Spirit is growth in grace AND automatic.

No his spirit died immediately not his soul.

I pointed out our reversal of these. It might actually be helpful if you saw them as I do. It might take away some of your confusion.

Spirit is saved eternally and immediately, soul should be saved progressively (not a guarantee)...

Here's what I see wrong with your "plan" --- you are putting YOURSELF "in charge" of your sanctification and NOT TRUSTING GOD for it. What does Phil 3:21 say? That the Spirit is the power "according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. " YOU are not the motive force -- God and the Spirit are. You are just in Cub Scouts still trying to earn "knigdom" merit badges.

[He IS our sanctification.

The Spirit is not sanctification, but the one that can guide us down that path. It is actually the washing of the Word through the blood of Christ on the mercy seat that sanctifies us. The Spirit is not sanctification.[/quote] Phil 1:6 -- "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" Who began the work in you? The Holy Spirit! Not YOU.

If we grow in Him, we grow.

If is the key word. There are those that don't grow according to Scripture.

All grow. 2Pet 1 says that there are those who, along their process of growth will stop growing and, when they do, they will be "blind and not see far off and forget that their sins were forgiven." There is NOTHING in there about losing kingdom qualification.

That's just a statement [that OT saints are not sanctified yet]. And a statement that Scripture doesn't support.

Scripture fully supports it. Who raises the dead from the grave? The Spirit! Where do we find this of the OT saints? Job 14:11-14, 19:25-28, Psa 50:3-5, Dan 12:2, 11-13, Isa 26:19-21, Ezek 37:12-14, Mt 13:44, Rev 20:4

No you contradict yourself. You just said a couple spots us that the Spirit IS sanctification. Now you are saying that he is the one that sanctifies.

Yes -- both. Just like Christ, He saves eternally and He keeps saving while we live ("saved by his death much more saved by His life," Rom 5:10).

But yes I realize that sanctification does not come from me, but it does require my cooperation. We as saved individuals can thwart that process should we choose to do so.

Basically, you are saying that we can lose our salvation then. Nope.

It should and probably most often does. Doesn't mean it will and certainly doesn't mean it lasts.

Check out your scriptures, JJ. It does.

Again he offered the kingdom of the heavens. That is not earthly, but spiritual.

1) I have never seen it called "kingdom of the heavens." 2) We are offered a heavenly kingdom -- it is physical -- Christ is "preparing it" for us "that where He is, there we shall be also." Where is Christ right now??

How can you say amen to this statement, but yet you say Christ was offering them something they already had? That's a little confusing to me

Because it is good seeing you acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant. :saint:

Well you believe that if you want to, but that's just not what Scripture says.

You keep saying this and it keeps being false. Grow up! I should think by this point we would accept that each of us got our theology from scripture -- it's just that one of us has been deluded by something man has added.

I would suggest you do some more studying on the kingdom.

I have -- here's the "scoop." The Matthew "kingdom of heaven" parables regard the earthly kingdom of Christ. Elsewhere the term speaks of God's kingdom in the 3rd heaven.

The "kingdom of God" is perfection wherever it is found -- the perfect word in man's conscience, the 3rd heaven, the New Heavens and Earth (the kingdom of heaven will "merge" with the kingdom of God at this point and forever!), the new creation (Holy Spirit indwelling), etc.

This "kingdom of the heavenlies" you speak of, I have never run across in scripture.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Please provide Scripture that says the gospel of the kingdom is OT salvation and has nothing to do with what you would consider to be NT saved folks.

OK, John the Baptist preached it, did he not? Then Jesus and His 12 disciples, then His 70 disciples preached it when they said, "The kingdom is at hand." What do YOU think they were announcing, JJ? That the kingdom of the OT gospel was come!!

So when did they stop preaching it? When Jesus was rejected, Mt 13. Mt 16 was Jesus announcement regarding His church -- the new dispensation of grace!

Scripture please? [OT saints participate in the MK, not church]

Our abode is NJ. Even in the New Earth where NJ will come down to earth, Israel has doors by which to enter and leave but it is the church that has the name of the city and of our God written on them. It is the saints who will be pillars in NJ. It is a place prepared for US, the church, not for "them" (Israel) who inherits Canaan forever nor for the "nations" who inherit the nations under the rule under Messiah and Israel (MK) and then God (NE).

Not even remotely close to what I have said.

I asked you to explain the details of your beliefs. So far, you have not -- not with scripture and not without. How many "brownie points" does one have to get to reign in the kingdom of the heavenlies? Discuss with me things like that.

... if you would like, we can go over your scriptures for your beliefs and see what we find, OK?

skypair

 

[skypair]

==If you read Eph 2:1-3, that I pointed out to you in my previous reply, you will read that before salvation the "elect" were "children of wrath, even as the rest" (vs3). Before salvation they are like everyone else. Of course this point is clearly taught in Calvinistic statements (etc).

And yet "elect" from the foundation of the earth. And when it comes to hearing, they are obviously at an advantage and NOT your "run of the mill" child of wrath.

==I pointed out to you how the term is defined by the "offical" statements of faith/theology. If you wish to ignore that and continue to pretend like you have a valid point, fine. However I think you would be better served by looking at how Calvinists have defined and understand the doctrine instead of reading your own definition into the doctrine.

OK, I will pretend that they "perservere" only by the power of God. It's not a biggy since our theologies get us to the same place on this one.

==It is clear from the statements of faith that I pointed out, some of which go back to the early 17th century, that Calvinist believe and have always believed that the perseverance of the saints is due to the work of God in the believers life and not due to the believer's efforts (Phil 1:6, etc). When I pointed out this fact, about the statements, to you in my previous reply, you responded with a blustery comment and not with serious theological insight or thoughts. This is the main reason I made my opening statement in this reply.

That's OK, martin. I am trying somewhat to be "devil's advocate" on this issue.

skypair