People are so ignorant these days of Lordship Salvation...

[HankD]

I can make judgments based on your words and actions. the sense of humility that you placed on this verse is in fact misplaced. The context of worthy is placed in the value of taking up our cross. Instead of dealing with that passage you dismissed it with a misplaced sense of humility. The humility that you expressed over this passage is inappropriate.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
...man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

The cross to bear is not subjective. Our "worthiness" is based on the cross of Christ. Our actions are a reflection of our relationship with Christ. the use of the word "worthy" is used in the sense that the actions of one who does not take up their cross does not fit the character of one who is a disciple of Christ. If we claim we are something we must show we bear the character of which we claim.

But rev if it were not subjective but objective then I would need to get a cross made out of real wood and carry it about on my back. So the Lord MUST be speaking metaphorically. Please give a real time illustration of what Jesus means by taking up a cross which is not the carrying about of a real wooden cross (objective) but using His metaphor (non-objective) of bearing our own cross.

RE: the definition of "worthy" (axios) in the passage in question

Uh I suggest you look harder.

Friberg Greek Lexicon: 00544 - Deserving or worthy of.
UBS Greek Dictionary: 00595 - Worthy, deserving, in keeping with.
Liddell, Scott Lexicon: 04274 - Weighing as much, worth as much.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament : Volume 1, Page 379 - Deserves praise or punishment, worthy of consideration, worthy to be received.

Suitable? It seems more to me (according to my research) that the word has a "merit" basis as well as "suitability" in NT usage.

To be forthright rev, I do not know if your nurturing or discipling is tainted with legalism so I am not even sure why I am responding to your posts. Perhaps because I dislike LS teachings - not so much expectations but their methodology.

I suspect we agree on the expected results of bringing forth the image of Christ in those who believe but perhaps might have a disagreement as to the method.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Darrell C]

Concerning "easy believism" : I am guilty because believing on Jesus Christ is one of the easiest things I know how to do.

That is not Easy Believism in a context of a discussion about Lordship Salvation.

Easy Believism is more along the lines of one can be saved but have nothing to do with Christ, the Church, or really, with God at all.

You are redefining terms to make them suit your argument against something that is equally not understood it seems.

Having left the very environment of LS and its attendant legalism I found an unparalleled freedom of power to overcome those aspects of my life which were not pleasing to Christ.

Lordship Salvation does not have "attendant legalism." The Church you left might have, but Lordship Salvation does not.

If you think it is legalistic to preach the very Scriptures that demand holiness on the part of the believer, perhaps you truly have embraced Easy Believism.

Am I being legalistic when I quote this...


1 Peter 1:14-16

King James Version (KJV)


14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.


Is that the kind of legalism you escaped?

As previously mentioned I am far from perfect and will not be so until I reach the city not built with hands.

You might want to give Hebrews another read. He makes it very clear...you have been made perfect.

But still, you are confusing what you do with the topic at hand. Lordship Salvation doesn't teach practical perfection, but teaches against nominal Christianity.

And I would also mention if you use "I cannot be perfect" as an excuse to not seek to sanctify yourself, that is not a Christian teaching or goal, in my view. You say you are a "rev," so tell me, do you tell those you teach "Don't worry if you sin, it's to be expected...you can't be perfect after all...?"

I have an analogy: I saw a movie (for shame?) once which showed a troupe of slaves aboard a roman galleon.
They were in the lower parts of the ship rowing furiously following a cadence master. If they got out of line or failed to produce sufficiently they were whipped individually or collectively. This is LS legalism (IMO).

No, that is just poor analogy, lol.

While it is true that God chastises those that belong to Him...

...what has that to do with Lordship Salvation?

Can you produce a Lordship Salvation teacher that teaches those works save? If you can, then you are not producing someone that teaches Lordship Salvation, you are producing someone that teaches legalism.

It's like the statement in this thread concerning church attendance...completely irrelevant to the issue.

I escaped that environment and have found a much better way. The word pneuma has a dual meaning - spirit or wind. Now I walk (or sail) with the Spirit who has never lead me into sin (I have wandered on occasion).

HankD

?

Because you left a legalistic fellowship you can now...?

My friend, we can live unto God no matter what fellowship we attend. Just because there is bad teaching doesn't change our salvation. At least it shouldn't.

If the Church we attend is that instrumental in how we live before God, then likely we have in view a babe.

And again...how often do babes actually discuss this issue?

You are misrepresenting those who embrace Lordship Salvation over Easy Believism. Nothing legalistic about it at all...when it is actually Lordship Salvation being discussed.

I suggested you go to gty.org and present what you disagree with from teachings that are specific to Lordship Salvation. Be glad to actually discuss the topic with you. Just go there, and search Lordship Salvation.


God bless.

 

[HankD]

That is not Easy Believism in a context of a discussion about Lordship Salvation.

well, then it is LS that needs to work on their erroneous accusative labels.
Again believing in Jesus Christ is one of the easiest things I know how to do no matter what anyone says (so far) or accuses. I will stand by it.

Easy Believism is more along the lines of one can be saved but have nothing to do with Christ, the Church, or really, with God at all.

OK then let that be known at the outset although your label is in error(see below).

You are redefining terms to make them suit your argument against something that is equally not understood it seems.

No I am not. It is whoever created this phrase called "Easy Believism".
What is the alternative to easy-believism? Difficult believism.

Instead of Easy Believism you should have created the phrase "Phony Believism".

This IMO refers to the "tares" of the wheat and the tares of Matthew 13.

The rest of your post I will not address as it seems to be trying to convince me that I did not experience what I experienced.

Nothing personal Darrell. It is LS methodology and some of their doctrine to which I object.
Hopefully it will one day clean up its act.

HankD

 

[evangelist6589]

Don't they teach though that sinners must repent and confess all known sins before coming to Christ?

That one cannot even have assurance received Jesus and was saved apart from having him made Lord over all areas of their lives?

if one claims to be one of His, and yet refuses to deal with all aspects of sinningm then were not really saved?

I know that they want to make sure the conversion was real, but haven;t they tend to swing too much into good works at times to counteract what they have seen as wrong evagelism?

Sinners must repent of their sins (Luke 13:3). No LS does not claim you need to be perfect to be saved. LS teaches that sinners do fall short and do fall into sin, however they continue to get up and press on. The true convert will want to attend church, read his Bible, and have a relationship with Jesus. LS does not separate a sinners prayer from sanctification because true converts will show signs of sanctification. Easy-believism on the other hand teaches that you are saved by reciting a prayer, and makes sanctification optional for rewards in heaven. As the Bible teaches fruit and conversion go hand to hand. A true conversion will show fruit.

 

[Iconoclast]

="HankD,

Secondly no one can tell me or anyone else when they have achieved a passing grade in LS.
What? Must I attend morning and evening service and midweek prayer service, tithe my income, make a missionary pledge, etc, etc...

Hello Hank....was looking over some Thomas Brooks;
http://www.gracegems.org/Brooks/crown_and_glory_of_christianity6.htm
here is a small outline that is helpful....what do you think-

1. First, It is possible for you to know whether you have this real holiness or not. It is possible for you by the light of the Spirit, by the light of the word, and by the light of your own consciences, to see whether holiness, which is the image of God—is stamped upon your souls or not.

2. Secondly, Consider this, that it is a point of very great concern to you to know whether you have this real holiness or not. Your souls depend upon it, eternity depends upon it, your all depends upon it! An error here may make a man miserable forever.

3. Thirdly, Consider that a cordial willingness to enter heartily upon this work of trial, is a hopeful evidence of your real integrity and sanctity. Unsanctified souls hate the light; they had rather go to hell in the dark, than come to be weighed in the balance of the sanctuary

4. Fourthly, Consider that there are very many who deceive themselves about their spiritual estates.

5. Fifthly, Consider that there is a great deal of counterfeit grace and holiness in the world.

6. Sixthly, Consider, if upon trial you shall find in yourself this real holiness which paves the way to happiness, it will turn exceedingly to your accounts. Your eternal happiness depends upon the real being of holiness in you—but your present comfort depends upon your seeing of holiness.
7. Seventhly and lastly, Consider that there are many who are truly holy, who have real holiness in them—and yet for lack of a narrow search, diligent inquiry into their spiritual estates, they come to be sorely and sadly afflicted with fears and doubts about their lack of holiness.

 

[HankD]

Here again there seems to be miscreant behavior where LS defenders accuse those of us who level the charge of legalism against them to say that we are accusing them of a works venue for salvation rather than sanctification.

I suppose there are those indeed who make such an accusation and in fact it may be true in some cases.
However as someone has already brought to light this is probably true in other venues (e.g. Doctrines of Grace local church).

To put it in metaphorical language babes in Christ (and those returnees who have fallen) need milk not a side of beef. No BBQ but sweet mother's milk.

I understand the LS zeal but IMO it is misplaced and harmful.
Of course Jesus is LORD, He is God come in the flesh.
And yes the church is infiltrated with tares of "Phony Believism".

But here is a very hard saying yet they are the words of Jesus.

Matthew13
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Jesus is coming in all His glory and when He does He will take care of business.
Leave the phony believers alone.

HankD

 

[HankD]

="HankD,


Hello Hank....was looking over some Thomas Brooks;
http://www.gracegems.org/Brooks/crown_and_glory_of_christianity6.htm
here is a small outline that is helpful....what do you think-

1. First, It is possible for you to know whether you have this real holiness or not. It is possible for you by the light of the Spirit, by the light of the word, and by the light of your own consciences, to see whether holiness, which is the image of God—is stamped upon your souls or not.

2. Secondly, Consider this, that it is a point of very great concern to you to know whether you have this real holiness or not. Your souls depend upon it, eternity depends upon it, your all depends upon it! An error here may make a man miserable forever.

3. Thirdly, Consider that a cordial willingness to enter heartily upon this work of trial, is a hopeful evidence of your real integrity and sanctity. Unsanctified souls hate the light; they had rather go to hell in the dark, than come to be weighed in the balance of the sanctuary

4. Fourthly, Consider that there are very many who deceive themselves about their spiritual estates.

5. Fifthly, Consider that there is a great deal of counterfeit grace and holiness in the world.

6. Sixthly, Consider, if upon trial you shall find in yourself this real holiness which paves the way to happiness, it will turn exceedingly to your accounts. Your eternal happiness depends upon the real being of holiness in you—but your present comfort depends upon your seeing of holiness.
7. Seventhly and lastly, Consider that there are many who are truly holy, who have real holiness in them—and yet for lack of a narrow search, diligent inquiry into their spiritual estates, they come to be sorely and sadly afflicted with fears and doubts about their lack of holiness.

OH Yes, seven times iconoclast - and its getting worse - see my previous post.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

well, then it is LS that needs to work on their erroneous accusative labels.

Been a while since I took a look at this issue, so forgive if I am in error on this, but I seem to recall the term "Lordship Salvation" was originally a derisive term coined for those who preached that Christianity is not devoid of works, which was an answer to the preaching that disregarded any responsibility on the part of the believer.

Unfortunately, there is a rift concerning the simplicity of the Gospel. It is as easy as believing on the Name of Christ, that goes without saying, but, the danger of Christianity being merged with certain cultures creates a dangerous situation in regards to those who may be under the impression they have embraced Christ.

For example, those in a drug culture might be convinced that they can be saved and continue in their normative culture and routine. For such, they feel they can be Christians and still engage in drug use. Now I ask you...is that true?

Or would salvation lead those sincerely saved to leave drug use.

Again, I am one who endorses Lordship Salvation, but I am not legalistic and I do not deny the grace of God. The only time I get involved in these discussions is to defend the actual teaching of those called "Lordship Salvationists," such as John MacArthur, who I view to be one of the best teachers out there, particularly for new believers.

The accusations are primarily against Lordship Salvation, who are put on the defensive by the accusers. But I am sure there are those on both sides of the aisle doing their part to accuse.

Again believing in Jesus Christ is one of the easiest things I know how to do no matter what anyone says (so far) or accuses. I will stand by it.

So who are you telling this to? Not myself. I have never said that believing in Christ was hard. This is a false argument in regards to Lordship Salvation.

OK then let that be known at the outset although your label is in error(see below).

I thought I did that.

And, it isn't my label. It is just a term coined to describe nominal conversion. Just like Lordship Salvation is a term coined out of, I am pretty sure...derision.

No I am not. It is whoever created this phrase called "Easy Believism".

You are redefining Lordship Salvation to mean legalism. Here is you doing just that:

I personally understand what is meant however by those who propound it, yet I still disagree because babes in Christ need to be carefully nurtured and dealt with in patience and long suffering.

You accuse LS of not doing this.

the LS movement has done more harm than good to the church by the "strong" laying heavy burdens upon the backs of the weak and the babes in Christ and no doubt have driven many babes from church attendance.

You accuse LS of laying heavy burdens on the backs of the weak and babes.

Secondly no one can tell me or anyone else when they have achieved a passing grade in LS.

You accuse LS of demanding a "passing grade."

What? Must I attend morning and evening service and midweek prayer service, tithe my income, make a missionary pledge, etc, etc...

You accuse LS of religious ritual.

None of these are relevant to Lordship Salvation.

John MacArthur is one of the few preachers I know that publicly acknowledges that tithing is not a New Covenant commandment.

You are defining Lordship Salvation by your own experiences in a legalistic fellowship, and ignoring the larger issue of why this controversy arose.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

What is the alternative to easy-believism? Difficult believism.

No, the alternative is recognizing that salvation results in the changed life.

Instead of Easy Believism you should have created the phrase "Phony Believism".

Easy believism is a good term, because it is not meant to be offensive. In view is more an intellectual recognition of facts, rather than an embrace of truth.

James speaks to this when He states...


James 2:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

This IMO refers to the "tares" of the wheat and the tares of Matthew 13.

And the point is to recognize that among the wheat there will be tares, and every Pastor should address that portion of his congregation. As I said, I've known those who say in churches for years, only to realize they were not saved.

The rest of your post I will not address as it seems to be trying to convince me that I did not experience what I experienced.

It doesn't, actually. I am quite sure, particularly with the emotional response, that you are angry with legalistic teaching. I can relate. In the fellowship I now attend, it drives me absolutely crazy when comments like this are made: "If you come to church on sunday morning, you love the Church; if you come to church on sunday evening, you love the Pastor; if you come to church on wednesday evening...you love the Lord."

To me, this teaches that church attendance determines how good of a Christian you are. And that feeds...easy believism. We have people that think they are doing the will of God in their lives because they go to church.

In a message about tithing (an unfortunate Baptist Distinctive, lol), envelopes were used to indicate the membership of the church, then another smaller stack to represent who was tithing on a regular basis. The point? That tithing somehow makes one a better Christian. That feeds...easy believism.

When we teach people they can be spiritual because of attendance and giving money, in my own opinion, we are teaching the wrong things. Some of the people regular in attendance I have dealt with outside of the building, and have not been really impressed with their daily conversation, or their understanding of the Gospel.

So here I am, one who endorses Lordship Salvation...and I am just as at odds with legalism as you. The difference? I understand Lordship Salvation is not legalism.

Nothing personal Darrell.

I know, Hank, its just a discussion. Again, I can understand your anger with legalism, but again, I think your anger is directed at the wrong teaching/s. I think you are not understanding the controversy, and you could if you would simply look into it.

Here is a link for Lordship Salvation, taught by a very good teacher, John MacArthur. I don't agree with everything John teaches, but as far as someone I would, without hesitation, refer anyone to, he is the guy.

It is LS methodology and some of their doctrine to which I object.

Correction, it is Judaizers you object to, don't confuse Lordship Salvation with legalism.

It is meant to deal with false conversion, rather than works. Most of us know that works are not a sure evidence for genuine salvation, as Christ said...


Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)


21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Its easy for one to convince him/herself that they are saved, that they know the Lord...because they do works. And when it is taught from the pulpit that church attendance and tithing are evidences, it is easy for one to sit in a church for years and think they're saved: regularly attending, tithing, and in some groups, the "evidences" are even more radical, such as speaking in ecstatic speech, or, like above, prophesying (which in the Charismatic Church means producing "new revelation"), casting out demons, and healing.

But when we understand the evidences better, because we understand discipleship better, we are not led astray to thinking that works evidence salvation in Christ.

Again, Lordship Salvation is not legalism, but, neither is it antinomianism to the extent that people can disregard the commandments of God and Christ. We understand that murder is something we are guilty of if we hate our brother without cause, for example.

Hopefully it will one day clean up its act.

HankD

I hope not, lol.

Someone has to stand against the inclination and trend of modern teachings. Lordship Salvation is a direct stand against Churchianity, the fastest growing religion in the world.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think the issue comes to rest upon the true meaning of gospel repentance. Some of the "grace" advocates deny repentance is essential to the gospel or salvation but restrict it to Israel alone. However, the Great Commission includes it to all nations (Lk. 24:47; Acts 11:17).

I understand gospel repentance to be inclusive of internal change - change of mind from unbelief to belief, change of heart from the love of darkness to the love of light and the change of will from resistance to submission to the gospel. The unregenerate man is not coming to Jesus but is on a path contrary to God and Christ and so "coming" to Jesus involves a change of direction.

So there is a radical change wrought by the Holy Spirit with regard to the ruling inclination of the soul however, the outward manifestation of that inward change is according to the measure of grace and faith wrought by God progressively. For example, Abraham versus Lot. Side by side you have the man of faithfulness in direct contrast to a man whose life manifest very little faithfulness and yet Peter says that Lot's heart was vexed by the ungodliness about him. I believe all the elect persevere in saving faith but with regard to the manifest life they differ as much as Abraham did from Lot.

 

[HankD]

No, the alternative is recognizing that salvation results in the changed life.




Easy believism is a good term, because it is not meant to be offensive. In view is more an intellectual recognition of facts, rather than an embrace of truth.

James speaks to this when He states...


James 2:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.




And the point is to recognize that among the wheat there will be tares, and every Pastor should address that portion of his congregation. As I said, I've known those who say in churches for years, only to realize they were not saved.




It doesn't, actually. I am quite sure, particularly with the emotional response, that you are angry with legalistic teaching. I can relate. In the fellowship I now attend, it drives me absolutely crazy when comments like this are made: "If you come to church on sunday morning, you love the Church; if you come to church on sunday evening, you love the Pastor; if you come to church on wednesday evening...you love the Lord."

To me, this teaches that church attendance determines how good of a Christian you are. And that feeds...easy believism. We have people that think they are doing the will of God in their lives because they go to church.

In a message about tithing (an unfortunate Baptist Distinctive, lol), envelopes were used to indicate the membership of the church, then another smaller stack to represent who was tithing on a regular basis. The point? That tithing somehow makes one a better Christian. That feeds...easy believism.

When we teach people they can be spiritual because of attendance and giving money, in my own opinion, we are teaching the wrong things. Some of the people regular in attendance I have dealt with outside of the building, and have not been really impressed with their daily conversation, or their understanding of the Gospel.

So here I am, one who endorses Lordship Salvation...and I am just as at odds with legalism as you. The difference? I understand Lordship Salvation is not legalism.



I know, Hank, its just a discussion. Again, I can understand your anger with legalism, but again, I think your anger is directed at the wrong teaching/s. I think you are not understanding the controversy, and you could if you would simply look into it.

Here is a link for Lordship Salvation, taught by a very good teacher, John MacArthur. I don't agree with everything John teaches, but as far as someone I would, without hesitation, refer anyone to, he is the guy.



Correction, it is Judaizers you object to, don't confuse Lordship Salvation with legalism.

It is meant to deal with false conversion, rather than works. Most of us know that works are not a sure evidence for genuine salvation, as Christ said...


Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)


21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Its easy for one to convince him/herself that they are saved, that they know the Lord...because they do works. And when it is taught from the pulpit that church attendance and tithing are evidences, it is easy for one to sit in a church for years and think they're saved: regularly attending, tithing, and in some groups, the "evidences" are even more radical, such as speaking in ecstatic speech, or, like above, prophesying (which in the Charismatic Church means producing "new revelation"), casting out demons, and healing.

But when we understand the evidences better, because we understand discipleship better, we are not led astray to thinking that works evidence salvation in Christ.

Again, Lordship Salvation is not legalism, but, neither is it antinomianism to the extent that people can disregard the commandments of God and Christ. We understand that murder is something we are guilty of if we hate our brother without cause, for example.




I hope not, lol.

Someone has to stand against the inclination and trend of modern teachings. Lordship Salvation is a direct stand against Churchianity, the fastest growing religion in the world.


God bless.

I think we are pretty much on the same page Darrell but I still see a correlation between LS and legalism (surely you recognize that its possible in at least some or a few LS local churches.
Hopefully discussions/debates will remove the poison in the well.
Yes, it could be my over reaction to what almost crippled me as a babe in Christ.
Your illustration about pastoral comments concerning Sunday attendance hit the nail on the head.

IMO Darrell, much of LS doctrine is performance oriented after the teachings of men and disallows the Spirit to freely direct the lives of the children of God.

HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But here is a very hard saying yet they are the words of Jesus.

Matthew13
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Jesus is coming in all His glory and when He does He will take care of business.
Leave the phony believers alone.

Hank, dear brother, the field is not the church, "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38). In the church the word is, 'This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk...........' (Ephesians 4:17. Read through to v.24).

 

[Darrell C]

Hank, dear brother, the field is not the church, "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38). In the church the word is, 'This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk...........' (Ephesians 4:17. Read through to v.24).

Martin, I would ask one question: what does the wheat represent? In contrast to the Tares?


God bless.

 

[HankD]

Hank, dear brother, the field is not the church, "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38). In the church the word is, 'This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk...........' (Ephesians 4:17. Read through to v.24).

True but the church is yet in the world brother Martin.

Soon He will come to deliver his church into heaven (come up hither!) but before that there will be the great separation:

wheat from tares (Matthew 13:40)
Sheep from goats (Matthew 25:32)

HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I would ask one question: what does the wheat represent? In contrast to the Tares?
God bless.

I'd better know, because I shall be preaching my way through Matt. 13 next month.
However, all the hard work is done for me here because the Lord Jesus graciously explained the parable to us (Matthew 13:37-43).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

True but the church is yet in the world brother Martin.

True it is, but the church is not of the world (John 15:18ff; James 127; 1 John 2:15-17) although it is in the world.

Soon He will come to deliver his church

HankD

To that much I can say "Amen!" God bless you, brother!

 

[HankD]

True it is, but the church is not of the world (John 15:18ff; James 127; 1 John 2:15-17) although it is in the world.

Granted but have not our local churches been infiltrated by the tares?
Obviously the virgin bride the "invisible church" on earth cannot be defiled.
Soon He will come for His bride.

To that much I can say "Amen!" God bless you, brother!

Maranatha!

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

What should be done with verses such as :

Mat_10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

That is not in a message to unbelievers speaking of salvation, but in an address of Christ's to the 12 apostles before He sent them on an evangelistic journey. Read the context. Also, look at the parallel passage in Luke, specifically to the disciples (Luke 9:18).

 

[Revmitchell]

That is not in a message to unbelievers speaking of salvation, but in an address of Christ's to the 12 apostles before He sent them on an evangelistic journey. Read the context. Also, look at the parallel passage in Luke, specifically to the disciples (Luke 9:18).

Ok?

 

[John of Japan]

Ok?

So to use it to prove LS is a non-starter.