Non-lordshippers

[Reformed]

I agree that taking up your cross is post regeneration and entails discipleship not justification, but LS confuses the two.

“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.)

I believe you are conflating a practical argument with a theological argument. Dr. MacArthur is speaking of the outward evidence of a changed life in this quote. Earlier he quotes Jesus' exchange with his disciples in Luke 9. Jesus plainly states that those who wish to follow him ("come after me") must deny themselves, take up his cross daily, and follow him. Obviously these three things would be of no profit pre-regeneration. MacArthur understands the difference between the practical and internal manifestation of this work of grace (see the quote from MacArthur in my previous post).

Let me provide a different scenario that may help make my point. As a Calvinist I believe that no one comes to faith in Christ except the Father predestines them unto eternal life and then finally calls them in time. That is my theological understanding as a Reformed Christian. Now would I be contradicting myself if I said, "No one can come to Christ unless they first believe. They must respond to the gospel"? Absolutely not! Both things are equally true. It's how I understand the dynamic between both things (predestination/election and human choice) that keeps both from being contradictory. God has chosen the means by which he calls sinners to repentance, and that is the preaching of the gospel. Even though the Father divinely elects and draws sinners to himself, the individual must exercise faith. A better way of wording it would be to say that the sinner will exercise faith as a result of the effectual call. In the same way the proponent of Lordship Salvation can rightly emphasize the outward manifestation of repentance without separating it from the internal work of the Spirit.

 

[The Archangel]

If you simply take the term literally: salvation by submitting to Christ as Lord, then perhaps you are right. But that is not what LS means.
Please do a search on Paul Washer + Lordship Salvation and you will find out what the term means, and what is taught as Lordship salvation.
It does turn out to be salvation by works or by obedience.

One of Washer's favorite invitations is "Repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
But how does a person repent of his sins? No one can remember all his sins much less repent of them. No such command is given in the NT.
That is gospel of works.

You're essentially fighting against a Strawman. No proponent of Lordship Salvation I know or have read (and I've read Washer to a small extent) claims what you're claiming here and on other threads.

We affirm: Progressive sanctification. We deny that a "Christian" can be "Carnal." Here is a good statement by Jim Elliff (and I'll likely start a new thread on the subject of his article) that clearly presents 1 Corinthians 3:

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

See more at: http://www.ccwtoday.org/article/southern-baptists-an-unregenerate-denomination/#sthash.LMzsANFP.dpuf​

Lordship Salvation was not known before the mid-20th century. It is a new doctrine. You won't find that term in older commentaries.

There's a simple reason for this. Before the mid-20th Century, no believer in his or her right mind would have thought that it was possible to follow Christ and yet remain in rebellion to God.

MacArthur's writings, and the writings of others, are a reaction to error, not the development of new doctrine.

But, here's a practical question based on your assumption that Lordship Salvation is false:

What would you say to a gay person? Would you say that their lifestyle is OK with God and all they need do to be saved is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?"

I'd imagine you would tell the gay person that their lifestyle was (and is) incompatible with being a Christian. And, if you do so, essentially, you believe in Lordship Salvation.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

"Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20)."

One thing that is common about assertions as above, the implication is that the six references actually support the assertion is some way. However, if you read the references, they say nothing about the assertion.

Is repentance a turning from sin? Acts 3:19 simply says we should repent and return. It does not define the term. Repentance for the forgiveness of sin is taught at Luke 24:47, but again nothing provided defines the term. Strike one.

Acts 17:30 does teach that repentance is something we do, not something done to us. Therefore the entire assertion is unbiblical.

The Greek work translated as repentance simply means to turn, as in an about face, you were going in one direction and you turned to go in another. Perhaps you thought salvation was by works and you turned about and now believe salvation is by faith.

Now at Mark 1:15 we see that we are to repent and believe the gospel. Could it be as simple as changing from not believing the gospel to believing the gospel for the forgiveness of sins?

No, because Acts 8:22 does say we are to repent of this wickedness, for our heart is not right with God. So our heart with its appetites and inclinations needs to be altered, we need to turn our heart towards godliness, at least to the extent we are able.

At Acts 26:20 we see we need to repent and turn to God, which is consistent with Acts 8:22. Turning away from unrighteousness or righteousness by works to trusting in Christ, i.e. the gospel, is turning to God and away from self fulfillment.

Ok, having discerned that the first assertion of MacArthur was unbiblical nonsense, lets consider the second assertion,

At Acts 11:18 we see that God grants repentance that leads to life. Here the word “granted” is interpreted to mean given or instilled or “bestowed.” But the word means to allow, thus God allowed Gentiles to turn to Christ and this was demonstrated by giving the gift of the Holy Spirit. God did not preclude repentance and faith, but credited it as righteous as demonstrated by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

At 2 Timothy 2:25, again we see the phrase “grant them repentance.” So again MacArthur reads “bestowed” into the text, when the meaning is “allowed” i.e. did not preclude. Strike two.

Will repentance effect a change of behavior? Luke 3:8 is cited which admonishes us to bear fruits in keeping with repentance. But Jesus teaches only those who abide in Him and He abides in them (indwelt with the Holy Spirit) bear fruits, so the repentance in view is the repentance and faith God credited as righteousness. In other words, being born anew, a new creation created for good works, will result in bearing fruit in keeping with repentance.

Finally at Acts 26:18-20 we see the phrase “opened their eyes” and this is interpreted as meaning the “bestowal” of “irresistible grace.” However, by presenting the gospel truths, their eyes were opened to the good news of salvation through faith, so no supernatural mind manipulation is in view.

Bottom line, none of the cited references actually support the unbiblical assertions of John MacArthur, strike three John, you have struck out once again.

 

[DHK]

Posted by Archangel
Originally Posted by DHK

If you simply take the term literally: salvation by submitting to Christ as Lord, then perhaps you are right. But that is not what LS means.
Please do a search on Paul Washer + Lordship Salvation and you will find out what the term means, and what is taught as Lordship salvation.
It does turn out to be salvation by works or by obedience.

One of Washer's favorite invitations is "Repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
But how does a person repent of his sins? No one can remember all his sins much less repent of them. No such command is given in the NT.
That is gospel of works.

You're essentially fighting against a Strawman. No proponent of Lordship Salvation I know or have read (and I've read Washer to a small extent) claims what you're claiming here and on other threads.

That is why I recommended to you to do a search on Washer and Lordship Salvation. The statement above is an exact quote of someone else's link who was defending him. I am not setting up a strawman. Do a search and see what you find.

We affirm: Progressive sanctification. We deny that a "Christian" can be "Carnal." Here is a good statement by Jim Elliff (and I'll likely start a new thread on the subject of his article) that clearly presents 1 Corinthians 3:

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

See more at: http://www.ccwtoday.org/article/sout....LMzsANFP.dpuf
​

This is totally unscriptural.
Paul writes in 1Cor.3:1-4, first to "brethren," and then calls them carnal. Why deny the Scriptures? They are carnal brethren, or carnal Christians because, as he tells them, they are still on milk and are not able to eat meat. The reason for that carnality was their propensity to follow the doctrines of false teachers, and then simply to give into the lusts of the flesh.
Paul wrote to carnal Christians.
Each chapter is filled with carnal problems.
In chapter one and two he deals with their divisiveness.
In chapter three he hits their carnality head on, and still attacks divisiveness.
In chapter four he must defend his apostleship because of false teachers.
In chapter five he rebukes them for immorality.
In chapter six he rebukes them for taking one another to court.
In chapter seven he deals with problems related to marriage.
In chapters 8-10 he deals with problems related primarily to idolatry.
In chapter 11 he deals with the problem of the abuse of the Lord's Table.
In chapters 12-14 he rebukes them for the abuse of the gifts of the Spirit.
In chapter 15, the great resurrection chapter, there are some that deny the resurrection!
--This was a carnal church where Paul dealt with carnal problems brought on by carnal believers. That cannot be denied. Any old commentary will say the same thing. The denial of such is a new doctrine.

Originally Posted by DHK
Lordship Salvation was not known before the mid-20th century. It is a new doctrine. You won't find that term in older commentaries.

There's a simple reason for this. Before the mid-20th Century, no believer in his or her right mind would have thought that it was possible to follow Christ and yet remain in rebellion to God.

The Corinthians did just that, at least to some extent. The question is how long? It is always how long? When you sin (and we all do), how long is it before you repent (one minute, one hour, one day, one month, one year?)
The immoral man of 1Cor.5 who committed incest was a believer. He did repent. We find that our in 2Cor. But how long did it take? For how long did he remain a "carnal Christian"?
Your doctrine is not biblical. Rather it is novel.

MacArthur's writings, and the writings of others, are a reaction to error, not the development of new doctrine.

There has always been error; there has always been sin, and a need of repentance. There is nothing new here. The Calvinist have a need to attack non-Cals. Now, that is new. It used to be that they coexisted peacefully and fought the common enemy, Satan, together.

But, here's a practical question based on your assumption that Lordship Salvation is false:

What would you say to a gay person? Would you say that their lifestyle is OK with God and all they need do to be saved is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?"

I'd imagine you would tell the gay person that their lifestyle was (and is) incompatible with being a Christian. And, if you do so, essentially, you believe in Lordship Salvation.

A total non sequitor.
We believe that fruit follows salvation.
LS advocates that fruit must be a part of salvation.
The reality of LS is that the thief on the cross was not saved because he showed no fruit in his life.

 

[convicted1]

I believe you are conflating a practical argument with a theological argument. Dr. MacArthur is speaking of the outward evidence of a changed life in this quote. Earlier he quotes Jesus' exchange with his disciples in Luke 9. Jesus plainly states that those who wish to follow him ("come after me") must deny themselves, take up his cross daily, and follow him. Obviously these three things would be of no profit pre-regeneration. MacArthur understands the difference between the practical and internal manifestation of this work of grace (see the quote from MacArthur in my previous post).

Let me provide a different scenario that may help make my point. As a Calvinist I believe that no one comes to faith in Christ except the Father predestines them unto eternal life and then finally calls them in time. That is my theological understanding as a Reformed Christian. Now would I be contradicting myself if I said, "No one can come to Christ unless they first believe. They must respond to the gospel"? Absolutely not! Both things are equally true. It's how I understand the dynamic between both things (predestination/election and human choice) that keeps both from being contradictory. God has chosen the means by which he calls sinners to repentance, and that is the preaching of the gospel. Even though the Father divinely elects and draws sinners to himself, the individual must exercise faith. A better way of wording it would be to say that the sinner will exercise faith as a result of the effectual call. In the same way the proponent of Lordship Salvation can rightly emphasize the outward manifestation of repentance without separating it from the internal work of the Spirit.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

You're essentially fighting against a Strawman. No proponent of Lordship Salvation I know or have read (and I've read Washer to a small extent) claims what you're claiming here and on other threads.

We affirm: Progressive sanctification. We deny that a "Christian" can be "Carnal." Here is a good statement by Jim Elliff (and I'll likely start a new thread on the subject of his article) that clearly presents 1 Corinthians 3:

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

See more at: http://www.ccwtoday.org/article/southern-baptists-an-unregenerate-denomination/#sthash.LMzsANFP.dpuf​

There's a simple reason for this. Before the mid-20th Century, no believer in his or her right mind would have thought that it was possible to follow Christ and yet remain in rebellion to God.

MacArthur's writings, and the writings of others, are a reaction to error, not the development of new doctrine.

But, here's a practical question based on your assumption that Lordship Salvation is false:

What would you say to a gay person? Would you say that their lifestyle is OK with God and all they need do to be saved is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?"

I'd imagine you would tell the gay person that their lifestyle was (and is) incompatible with being a Christian. And, if you do so, essentially, you believe in Lordship Salvation.

The Archangel

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Luke2427

So then faith without works is... alive??
If you do NOT confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord... you still can be saved???

Hmmmm...

There you go again....you actually believe a saved person should demonstrate the fruits of being made a new creature....
You sovereign grace people always bring up progressive sanctification as a reality in the life of an actual Christian....what are we going to do?

I guess we need someone to step forward with a strawman or two to fight this off:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs:


Be prepared for the "question begging" and "logical fallacies" to be flying in 10, 9, 8........

Is this a word of knowledge...or a prophecy? this is going to be fun:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell

No such thing as a Calvinistic version of repentance

.

This is a trustworthy statement and worthy of all acceptation:thumbs:

As a non cal I can tell you that many, many people all over this country have the same version of repentance.

Yes...almost everyone knows this:thumbs:

In fact your version is not all that common

.

Yes...it looks like a clear denial...as we have seen before:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

To be specific there are many unbiblical definitions of repentance.

If there are many...show us one or two.

When Washer states that in order to be saved you must repent of your sins, he shows his lack of understanding of repentance.

Or...he believes what he reads in scripture;
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

No one can repent of their sins.

All Christians have repented of their sins

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

No one can remember all their sins, much less repent of them all.

Sure they can and indeed have...they repent of all known sins, and repent of all sins they have ever committed ....

The Bible does not demand that an unsaved person repent of his sins.

Yes it does:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

The Archangel

You're essentially fighting against a Strawman.

Yes indeed...this is his specialty....build the strawman, fight the strawman, get the strawman to "tap out" within a post or two...sometime even the strawman gives some resistance:laugh::laugh:

No proponent of Lordship Salvation I know or have read (and I've read Washer to a small extent) claims what you're claiming here and on other threads.

No...not one...and if this is shown...sometimes the thread gets closed on the third page before it can be answered:wavey:

We affirm: Progressive sanctification. We deny that a "Christian" can be "Carnal."

yes of course....there are two men spoken of...carnal or spiritual

Here is a good statement by Jim Elliff (and I'll likely start a new thread on the subject of his article) that clearly presents 1 Corinthians 3:

very good...If you could can you show the greek from 1 cor2:14...natural/ fleshly...and show how Paul explains the term....as carnal..as fleshly

Like how we say someone who works out in the sun ..their flesh is tough
"as leather"...it does mean it itheir skin is leather...but it as tough as leather...

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

See more at: http://www.ccwtoday.org/article/southern-baptists-an-unregenerate-denomination/#sthash.LMzsANFP.dpuf​

yes

There's a simple reason for this. Before the mid-20th Century, no believer in his or her right mind would have thought that it was possible to follow Christ and yet remain in rebellion to God.

It never would have entered their minds that such a being existed,lol

MacArthur's writings, and the writings of others, are a reaction to error, not the development of new doctrine.

yes very clearly...Ryrie was a godly man ,but he contributed to this false idea as did the Scofield bible.

Thank you for this helpful post!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed

I believe you are conflating a practical argument with a theological argument. Dr. MacArthur is speaking of the outward evidence of a changed life in this quote. Earlier he quotes Jesus' exchange with his disciples in Luke 9. Jesus plainly states that those who wish to follow him ("come after me") must deny themselves, take up his cross daily, and follow him. Obviously these three things would be of no profit pre-regeneration. MacArthur understands the difference between the practical and internal manifestation of this work of grace (see the quote from MacArthur in my previous post).

Let me provide a different scenario that may help make my point. As a Calvinist I believe that no one comes to faith in Christ except the Father predestines them unto eternal life and then finally calls them in time. That is my theological understanding as a Reformed Christian. Now would I be contradicting myself if I said, "No one can come to Christ unless they first believe. They must respond to the gospel"? Absolutely not! Both things are equally true. It's how I understand the dynamic between both things (predestination/election and human choice) that keeps both from being contradictory. God has chosen the means by which he calls sinners to repentance, and that is the preaching of the gospel. Even though the Father divinely elects and draws sinners to himself, the individual must exercise faith. A better way of wording it would be to say that the sinner will exercise faith as a result of the effectual call. In the same way the proponent of Lordship Salvation can rightly emphasize the outward manifestation of repentance without separating it from the internal work of the Spirit.

[/QUOTE]
Thank you for this clearly worded post...it is very helpful:thumbs:

 

[Reformed]

There's a simple reason for this. Before the mid-20th Century, no believer in his or her right mind would have thought that it was possible to follow Christ and yet remain in rebellion to God.

I do not want this statement by you to go unaddressed. The 20th century saw the increase of easy-believism and antinomianism at the expense of progressive sanctification. The former are a virulent cancer in the church today. Lordship Salvation was nothing less than a recapture of the doctrine that being born from above results in a radical organic change in the life of the new Christian (2 Cor. 5:17). That change begins with a recognition of the new believer's former sinful condition and his repudiation of it. That is what we term repentance. Opponents of Lordship Salvation use a supposed gap in the ordo salutis as a point of refutation. The fact is that repentance is part and parcel with the new birth. There is not a scalpel sharp enough to divide the different components of the new birth. But just as salvation is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8, 9), so is repentance. The natural man could never repent while still in his unregenerate state (1 Cor. 2:14). But once the Spirit regenerates the immaterial part of man, repentance follows. The godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) is God-given, so repentance is not something for the individual to boast in.

I pray that the biblical doctrine of progressive sanctification will once again become the majority teaching in Christian churches.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not knowing whether I've jumped into a long-standing feud, I have to say that the above statement--as stated here--is incorrect.

Lordship salvation does deal with "obedience," and it deals with it rightly from a biblical standpoint. However, the statement posted here isn't right because no one is saved "by obedience."

A better statement of the obedience that Lordship proponents talk about is this: Lordship is about obedience because one has [already] been saved. And, if the obedience isn't there, if we see nothing but rebellion against God and the Bible, then there is sufficient evidence to suggest that salvation never occurred in the first place.

The Archangel

:thumbs::thumbs:

I don't really understand this whole LS "issue", but this statement sure seems to me to make good sense.

 

[The Archangel]

I do not want this statement by you to go unaddressed. The 20th century saw the increase of easy-believism and antinomianism at the expense of progressive sanctification. The former are a virulent cancer in the church today. Lordship Salvation was nothing less than a recapture of the doctrine that being born from above results in a radical organic change in the life of the new Christian (2 Cor. 5:17). That change begins with a recognition of the new believer's former sinful condition and his repudiation of it. That is what we term repentance. Opponents of Lordship Salvation use a supposed gap in the ordo salutis as a point of refutation. The fact is that repentance is part and parcel with the new birth. There is not a scalpel sharp enough to divide the different components of the new birth. But just as salvation is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8, 9), so is repentance. The natural man could never repent while still in his unregenerate state (1 Cor. 2:14). But once the Spirit regenerates the immaterial part of man, repentance follows. The godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) is God-given, so repentance is not something for the individual to boast in.

I pray that the biblical doctrine of progressive sanctification will once again become the majority teaching in Christian churches.

Agreed. Good comments. Thanks.

The Archangel

 

[Tom Butler]

. But just as salvation is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8, 9), so is repentance.

And here is the scripture passage to support that view:
Acts 11:18

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life

And 2 Timothy 2:25

...with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.

So this leaves us absolutely nothing to brag about with regard to our salvation. Even the repentance and faith necessary for salvation were given to us by God Himself.

 

[convicted1]

That's not the confession. The confession is "the Lord Jesus." It is a confession of an eternal truth, for there is never a time on one's life that Jesus is not his Lord.

It's just as John's confession, "Behold the Lamb of God."

I hope you're making sure all those who come to Christ under your tutelage (and I have to be honest, if your posts here are any indication, it's an event hard to imagine) that they're using just the right words.

 

[DHK]

Here is a problem with the belief in Lordship Salvation and its consequent denial of Carnal Christianity as per 1Cor.3:1-5

Here John MacArthur explains the situation in the Corinthian church in his commentary on chapter 12:

Now just to remind you about some of the problems, it is inconceivable that anyone church would have manifested to the fullness all of these problems, but the Corinthian church did. For example, they had divisions every way you could cut it. They were divided about human opinion of little picky things. They were divided over human philosophers. They were divided over human wisdom. They had human personality cults and cliques. They manifested carnality. They were sexually perverted so that in the congregation was both fornication and incest. There was worldliness, preoccupation with the things of the world. They were suing each other. There was rebellion against apostolic authority. There was a failure to discipline. There was marital conflict. There were conflicts in the area of the single people. There was abusive liberty. There was idolatry, selfishness, pride, demon worship. The insubordination of women. Abuses of God's intended roles for men and women. Abuses of the Lord's Supper. Abuses of the love feasts and add to that folks, abuses and perversions of spiritual gifts. That's the context in which 12-14 is written.

It isn't any different than anything else in the whole letter. It's just right in line with all the other things that were going on in the Corinthian assembly. Just as they had perverted everything else, they were perverting this dimension of their life. Now if you study it carefully you will find, and as we have, you will recognize this that they had managed to drag into the church life all of the features of their former pagan existence. They had not made a clear cut separation, they had not come out from among them and been separate. They had not ceased to handle unclean things. They had dragged them all into the assembly.

And even though they were rich in spiritual gifts, Chapter 1, verse 7 says "So that you come behind in no gift." In other words, they had everything. They lacked nothing. They had a fullness of the gifts. In spite of all of that, with all the knowledge that they should have had, with all the gifts that they did have, they were ignorant of how they should function. Especially regarding the gift of languages, modern day called tongues. But biblically the word is languages.
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1848/concerning-spiritual-gifts-part-1

What does the Bible actually say:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
--The people that Paul is writing to are: sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. They are members of the church in Corinth--saved individuals. Throughout the epistle they are called brethren.

However MacArthur runs into a problem:
1. They don't act like Christ is Lord of their lives.
2. They act carnally, and he even writes: "They manifested carnality."
3. His theology, however, would prevent him from calling them carnal Christians for he denies such exist. This and the above statement is a contradiction.
4. Theoretically he would prefer to call them unsaved, and in other articles he does. They are carnal, don't exhibit having Christ as Lord, and therefore can't be saved. This goes directly against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who declares these believers "Saints," in spite of LS theology.

 

[Iconoclast]

And here is the scripture passage to support that view:
Acts 11:18

And 2 Timothy 2:25


So this leaves us absolutely nothing to brag about with regard to our salvation. Even the repentance and faith necessary for salvation were given to us by God Himself.

:thumbsup::applause:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Here is a problem with the belief in Lordship Salvation and its consequent denial of Carnal Christianity as per 1Cor.3:1-5

Here John MacArthur explains the situation in the Corinthian church in his commentary on chapter 12:
What does the Bible actually say:
1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
--The people that Paul is writing to are: sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. They are members of the church in Corinth--saved individuals. Throughout the epistle they are called brethren.

However MacArthur runs into a problem:
1. They don't act like Christ is Lord of their lives.
2. They act carnally, and he even writes: "They manifested carnality."
3. His theology, however, would prevent him from calling them carnal Christians for he denies such exist. This and the above statement is a contradiction.
4. Theoretically he would prefer to call them unsaved, and in other articles he does. They are carnal, don't exhibit having Christ as Lord, and therefore can't be saved. This goes directly against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who declares these believers "Saints," in spite of LS theology.

and NEVER ONCE did Paul even hint that they were lost in the eternal sense.