Our Role In Sanctification: An Imperative

[Yeshua1]

Reformed

Hello brother,



You can speak for me anytime.Your posts are always solid and are clearly meant to provide food for thought and clarify difficult issues////you , archangel Biblicist, thousand hills , ripppon,JBH28,con1,etc ...consistently do this:thumbsup:

.

this is the best we can do...make a clear presentation...then it between the person and their God.



:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Think a major reason we cannot grasp the LS position is that it appears that some deny the biblical truth that Christians still have sin nature remaining, and can act canral at times, as we would allow for the flesh to control us at those times!

IF you denyt all that, the LS makes more sense!

 

[DHK]

Again for the readers at home, who might be sitting on the fence. DHK has for a second time in one of the LS threads presented "evidence" from the expreacherman website:

Let's take a look at who expreacherman believes to be a heretic:

Now here again, there are a handful of these I would agree with him on. And as much as I have differences with some of what the SBC does, I think its a bit irrational to lump the whole conference in there.

Here is what your site said:

We will post quotes from and links to ministries, Pastors and teachers who, in our opinion, are teaching and preaching a false message of “works based” Lordship “Salvation” (LS) or Calvinism, which teachings are contrary to the clear, sound Biblical message of God’s Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, without any requirement for “works” before or after salvation is freely granted by God through our Faith in Jesus Christ.

He believes LS is a false doctrine. He doesn't necessarily condone all that are listed in your list. The list is a list of those who DON"T believe in LS. And that is true. If he included Mormons and J.W.'s there would be nothing wrong with that, for they also don't believe in LS. He is not condoning those in the list. He is listing those who don't believe in LS. Whether you agree with those ministries of the ones he posted is an entirely different topic, isn't it?

 

[DHK]

I don't mean to sound cruel, but is this the sum total of your theological education? Google? Aren't you capable of handling the text yourself? I'm not talking about seminary level work, just basic rudimentary exegesis. I don't need to peruse Google to understand theological terms and I certainly don't post links to make my point without positing my own argument.

Look. You can't even define "trinity" from the Bible. So we look to other sources for definitions. What specific text are you referring to? There is no one text that defines LS. There is actually a history of LS, but most recently defined by MacArthur and popularized by Paul Washer. That is why I refer to them. And that is why I google them.
I don't use Wikipedia often, but in this case it may prove to be a better source because it is neutral.
Here is their definition:

In 1988 John F. MacArthur Jr published the first edition "The Gospel According to Jesus".[10] By defining salvation by what it produces and what salvation will not fail to produce—namely, not only glorification, but good works, repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, and obedience,[2] the book in its sales not only heavily spread the extent of the debate, but the debate expanded in scope, from questions about conversion issues, to questions about what is also necessary, and who it is who does what, throughout the Christian life. Using surrender language in the gospel[11] became not the only issue.
Free Grace theology became an umbrella term for a variety of opposing or contrasting positions, sometimes arguing that Lordship salvation was legalistic, sometimes more opposed to it than that, for example, faulting it about not being specific about what degree, quality, and current visibility there must be to the obedience necessary.[12] The controversy continues to be debated in discussions about not only all the gospels, but in discussions about almost any of the Pauline epistles and the relationship of Paul the Apostle and Judaism, and the rest of the New Testament, as well as much material about salvation in topical studies, and in systematic theology. exp

Note that it defines LS, and then gives the opposing view's objection to it. It is not something you find in the Bible.

The link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation


It gives a short history of this "doctrine."

Which is it? Speak plainly. Does it border on heresy in your opinion or is it heresy? If it is a works-based salvation then it is heresy and I am not saved, nor others who believe like me.

That depends on your definition of it.
According to the definitions of MacArthur and Washer yes it is a works based salvation. Before their time no it wasn't. It has been redefined.
That article will show you how.
Whatever happened to sola fide? One cannot believe in LS and sola fide at the same time. A denial of sola fide in practice makes LS a heretical view. Would you agree with that? I never questioned salvation. One can believe in a heresy and still be saved. I believe that "speaking in tongues," as we know it today is a heresy, but I don't believe all in the Charismatic movement are unsaved.
There is a poster here that does not believe in the depravity of man. I don't believe in the Calvinistic view "Total Inability," but I do believe we all have a sin nature. But to believe that all are born totally innocent like Adam, IMO, is a heretical view. Yet I don't question that person's salvation. I could give many other examples.

You do not understand what Progressive Sanctification or Lordship Salvation is. I think I have done an adequate job of proving that.

I do understand progressive salvation. We are talking past each other.
We both have different views of LS. Until you come to an understanding of what is meant by LS, we will continue to speak past each other.

 

[Reformed]

Look. You can't even define "trinity" from the Bible. So we look to other sources for definitions. What specific text are you referring to? There is no one text that defines LS. There is actually a history of LS, but most recently defined by MacArthur and popularized by Paul Washer. That is why I refer to them. And that is why I google them.
I don't use Wikipedia often, but in this case it may prove to be a better source because it is neutral.
Here is their definition:

Note that it defines LS, and then gives the opposing view's objection to it. It is not something you find in the Bible.

The link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation


It gives a short history of this "doctrine."



That depends on your definition of it.
According to the definitions of MacArthur and Washer yes it is a works based salvation. Before their time no it wasn't. It has been redefined.
That article will show you how.
Whatever happened to sola fide? One cannot believe in LS and sola fide at the same time. A denial of sola fide in practice makes LS a heretical view. Would you agree with that? I never questioned salvation. One can believe in a heresy and still be saved. I believe that "speaking in tongues," as we know it today is a heresy, but I don't believe all in the Charismatic movement are unsaved.
There is a poster here that does not believe in the depravity of man. I don't believe in the Calvinistic view "Total Inability," but I do believe we all have a sin nature. But to believe that all are born totally innocent like Adam, IMO, is a heretical view. Yet I don't question that person's salvation. I could give many other examples.

I do understand progressive salvation. We are talking past each other.
We both have different views of LS. Until you come to an understanding of what is meant by LS, we will continue to speak past each other.

A plethora of words that equal one enormous dodge of the questions placed to you.

 

[DHK]

A plethora of words that equal one enormous dodge of the questions placed to you.

It must be that you are too lazy to read the post and do your homework. For in my post, I have answered your questions, as far as I can tell.

 

[DHK]

Reformed,
That you may understand the definition of LS, here is another outspoken critic of the modern definition of LS

"But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew... But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak." —Mark 14:68,71

The above passage of Scripture is speaking about the Apostle Peter. Peter sinned by denying Jesus. Yet, Peter was a born-again believer. King David was a Christian; yet he conspired to have a man killed, to cover up an unwanted pregnancy, from an adulterous affair with that man's wife. Abraham and Sara doubted God. Moses was a murderer. Samson went with a harlot. Jacob was a thief. Jonah ran from God. Noah got drunk. Isaiah was a man of unclean lips. These were God's best and brightest.

Lot was a worldly believer. Yet, 2nd Peter 2:7 calls Lot a “just” man. The Lordship Salvation crowd would have considered all of these men unsaved. Yet, we see they were saved.

This subject needs to preached about on a regular basis, because the damnable heresy of LORDSHIP SALVATION has infiltrated our churches, and is leading multitudes into Hell.

What is “Lordship Salvation?” Lordship Salvation is the unbiblical teaching that a person MUST cease from a sinful lifestyle to be saved. Lordship Salvationists pervert the true meaning of the word “REPENT” in the Word of God. Whereas Biblical repentance means that a person recognizes their guilt of sin (Romans 3:19); Lordship Salvationists corrupt the meaning of the word, teaching that a person must cease from living a sinful lifestyle to be saved. God does not ask us to give up anything to be saved. Eternal life is the gift of God (Romans 6:23). Salvation is receiving, not giving. God gave us His only begotten Son, Jesus, to pay our debt of sin. All we have to do to be saved is to acknowledge our guilt of sin, coming to God on that basis; believing on Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, to forgive our sins (Acts 10:43).

In 2nd Peter 3:9 we read, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” The Greek word for “repentance” here is “METANOIA” and literally means “a change of mind.” Not a change of lifestyle; BUT, a change of mind. The changed life should follow afterwards; but the Bible is filled with examples of saints who continued to live in rebellion and sin, such as Solomon and Samson.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Lordship Salvation/lordship.htm

 

[Thousand Hills]

Here is what your site said:

He believes LS is a false doctrine. He doesn't necessarily condone all that are listed in your list. The list is a list of those who DON"T believe in LS. And that is true. If he included Mormons and J.W.'s there would be nothing wrong with that, for they also don't believe in LS. He is not condoning those in the list. He is listing those who don't believe in LS. Whether you agree with those ministries of the ones he posted is an entirely different topic, isn't it?

It is not my site DHK, its a page from your site, the one your giving so much credence to. And yes it is a list of people he believes to be heretics. If you hover over the names it says they believe in LS. There are many on the list that I believe to be false teachers due to prosperity gospel, mysticism, or something else. But there are many solid Bible teachers listed there as well. Although you may disagree with them on Calvinism or LS does not mean they are heretics.

The guy is a fundy nut job and basically implying that any of us who believe in LS are heretics. And in my opinion your implying the same.

http://expreacherman.com/2014/06/22/lordship-salvationists-are-not-disciples/

Then you top it off by posting a link to another fundy nut job.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...n/lordship.htm

If I was a betting man (and I'm not since I'm a good Baptist), but if I was I'd bet that less than 5% of the BB population would take anything from either of these sites seriously, and that according to these guys the same 95% of BB would also be heretics for one reason or another,

 

[DHK]

It is not my site DHK, its a page from your site, the one your giving so much credence to. And yes it is a list of people he believes to be heretics. If you hover over the names it says they believe in LS. There are many on the list that I believe to be false teachers due to prosperity gospel, mysticism, or something else. But there are many solid Bible teachers listed there as well. Although you may disagree with them on Calvinism or LS does not mean they are heretics.

The guy is a fundy nut job and basically implying that any of us who believe in LS are heretics. And in my opinion your implying the same.

http://expreacherman.com/2014/06/22/lordship-salvationists-are-not-disciples/

Then you top it off by posting a link to another fundy nut job.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...n/lordship.htm

If I was a betting man (and I'm not since I'm a good Baptist), but if I was I'd bet that less than 5% of the BB population would take anything from either of these sites seriously, and that according to these guys the same 95% of BB would also be heretics for one reason or another,

There are plenty of other sources. I have posted a couple.

 

[Thousand Hills]

There are plenty of other sources. I have posted a couple.

umm, wiki??

 

[Iconoclast]

Think a major reason we cannot grasp the LS position is that it appears that some deny the biblical truth that Christians still have sin nature remaining, and can act canral at times, as we would allow for the flesh to control us at those times!

IF you denyt all that, the LS makes more sense!

Can you explain Romans 6:6

 

[righteousdude2]

What I believe ....

Sanctification is a two fold process.

1) we are saved and sanctified, with the word sanctified here meaning "set aside!"

2) We then go through the process of sanctification. The process begins at and after our justification, and ends once we reach glorification, or heaven.


OUR ROLE in the process is two fold. We must first be obedient to come to Him in repentance and be saved, and then out of continued obediance, walk in the Spirit, grow in the Spirit, and allow the Spirit to reign within us and to yield to the Spirits direction for our life!

 

[DHK]

Can you explain Romans 6:6

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.

This is a continuation of the picture of baptism:
Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection;

Verses 4 and 5 picture our baptism. We are buried with him through baptism to death.
If we have become united with him in the likeness of his death...

Our baptism is a picture. It is symbolic of our death to our sinful life and our resurrection to a new life in Christ. We do not believe in baptismal regeneration. It is purely symbolic. There is nothing that actually happened here. It is symbolic.
What did the water do? It made you wet! It didn't make you any more holy or save you.

Immediately after is verse 6:
Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.
--Knowing this (the meaning and significance of our baptism),
that our old man is crucified with him (symbolically, as in baptism). Literally, the old man was crucified together with Christ. But the old man, that is, the old nature, was not eradicated. It is you, the person. It was rendered powerless at the cross because Christ gained the victory over sin.
--that the body of sin might be done away with: not the human body, but the old nature that controls. It remains powerless at the cross. But we see in chapter 7 that it is still active; still present; still has power.

So that we no longer be in bondage to sin.
This is not a given. This is his will. Victory is ours as long as we look to the cross. Look to what our baptism signifies. If we have died to sin we have risen with Christ, then freed from sin. That is the picture. Can we act like it? It is not a picture of an eradicated sin nature.