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

[Martin Marprelate]

The wheat contrasts those who are not genuine, though distinguishing them from the genuine is difficult. And I agree we have to distinguish between the application of this parable under Law and in this Age.

We can absolutely make application of the wheat and the tares to this Age, and the contrast is still that which is genuine with that which is false but appears genuine.

There is nothing in the parable that says that the tares are difficult to distinguish from the 'good seed.' As soon as they come up, they are immediately identified (v.27).

In our Lord's time on earth, people thought that the Messiah would usher in the kingdom at once (Luke 19:11; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6). They also thought that the wicked received punishment in this life (eg. Job 4:7-9; Luke 13:2-3; John 9:2). The purpose of the parable is to teach that all the way through the age, there are going to be the unsaved along with the saved and doing just as well, and it is only at the end of the age that you will see the different fates of the wheat and the tares.

 

[Darrell C]

Certainly. Matthew 13:38. 'The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.'

So what Kingdom is in view?

Let's look at it:


Matthew 13:38-43

King James Version (KJV)


38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.


So we apply this to the Ages prior to this one? This current Age? The Millennial Kingdom (and I realize you do not, if I remember correctly, view a literal thousand year period is taught in Scripture, but you can correct me and clarify if I have that wrong (been too long, Martin, lol))?

I would suggest that all three are in view and relevant to the teaching.

Consider:


Matthew 25:31-34

King James Version (KJV)


31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


Now, consider the reapers again:


Matthew 13:38-43

King James Version (KJV)


38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.


While we can say that believers prior to this Age were in the Kingdom of God from an eternal perspective, we have to consider that Christ distinguishes between the spiritual rule and reign of God in the hearts of believers and Kingdom Christ often taught about:


Matthew 11:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


While we do not see Angels gathering in regards to the end of the Age of Law, we still see a distinction drawn between the two Ages, and that brings us back to whether the "wheat" can be properly identified as the Church.

In this Age, it can be, and should be.

Because at the end of this Age, regardless of whether one is A-millennial or Premillennial, we are still told that the reapers are going to gather, and the end of that gathering is the destruction of the Tares.

In this Age tares sit among the wheat on pews in churches all around the world. The Wheat is not representative of the Children of the Kingdom being in the world in a general manner, because we would have to conclude that the world in general is in the Kingdom. We don't look at the world and do a double-take and with surprise say, "Wait, how is it that unbelievers are mixed in with the world, did not God make them all children? Shall we root out the unbelievers from the rest of the world?"

All that to say, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Devil. And he has sewn tares among the wheat."

It's a good time to visit Britain just now. The exchange rate is in your favour.

Maybe its due to my heritage but I have always wanted to see the Kingdom (pun intended, lol). I love rain, and am told it rains quite often there. My ideal abode would be a small cottage on the shore with large windows I could watch storms through. Preferably on the channel maybe, less risk of tsunamis.

I have kept the answer nice and simple for you.

Now Martin, you know an answer like that is not going to seem to be an answer in light of the context of the question.

Hank, dear brother, the field is not the church, "The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38).

Martin, dear brother...the Kingdom is not housed in buildings, it is in the world, as our Lord taught.




God bless.

 

[HankD]

Again, the "church" which the gates of hell cannot prevail against is known only to God.
Every local church is a mixed multitude of saved and lost.
There may be assemblies in which all are saved but still even those assemblies are at risk of a lost "professing Christian" joining.

Now this is opinionated I know, (many things about eschatology are) but IMO the kingdom of heaven of Matthew 13 includes ALL of "Christendom", That is - all who name Christ as Lord including the cults and the churches of the dead and dying. Yet they name Christ and are therefore part of Christendom.

At the end of the age there will come what I like to call The Great Gathering:

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Matthew 12: 30 ... Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (wherever His barn is located).
...
Matthew 13
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

There is nothing in the parable that says that the tares are difficult to distinguish from the 'good seed.' As soon as they come up, they are immediately identified (v.27).

It is not until the fruit bearing stage that the tares are identified, brother:

Matthew 13:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

The same is true concerning tares in regards to the Church, and that, my friend, is what Lordship Salvation is all about.

There will be fruit, and the fruit can be judged, and while we do not stand in the place of the reapers, that doesn't mean we cannot identify tares based upon the fruit.

And while genuine believers can be without fruit in their early stages of growth, just as the tares, that is not the point of Lordship Salvation. The point is that there comes a time when the "believer" should be able to be identified with either wheat or tare. THat is first and foremost an internal judgment we all should be awre of, but that does not mean that the Church Leadership is not given a mandate to judge what is genuine and what is not. If a man was sleeping his with his step-mother in this day, and was a member of your congregation...

...would you ignore it? Think, "Well, he will grow out of it."

I doubt that very much, my friend.

In our Lord's time on earth, people thought that the Messiah would usher in the kingdom at once (Luke 19:11; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6). They also thought that the wicked received punishment in this life (eg. Job 4:7-9; Luke 13:2-3; John 9:2). The purpose of the parable is to teach that all the way through the age, there are going to be the unsaved along with the saved and doing just as well, and it is only at the end of the age that you will see the different fates of the wheat and the tares.

Sorry, no, the evidence of their being tares is not at the end of the Age, but at the time of fruit bearing. That is how the tares are identified.

Just as in the previous parable, we see growth, yet it dies out. While it is yet tender growth there is no reason to assume that conversion is taking place, but, when it dies out...the evidence is apparent.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So what Kingdom is in view?
Let's look at it:

Matthew 13:38-43
King James Version (KJV)
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So we apply this to the Ages prior to this one? This current Age? The Millennial Kingdom (and I realize you do not, if I remember correctly, view a literal thousand year period is taught in Scripture, but you can correct me and clarify if I have that wrong (been too long, Martin, lol))?

I would suggest that all three are in view and relevant to the teaching.

You remember correctly. You are finding three ages in the text because your system demands that you find them. I'm afraid they're not really there. There is the present age and the age to come. Check out Matthew 12:32 and Mark 10:30; there's a pile of other examples to two ages if you care to look for them. What has happened is that the age to come has broken in upon the present age with the coming of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). Jesus Christ has bound the strong man and is now busy robbing him of his goods (Mark 3:27). The Rider on the white horse is riding out all through the present age, sacking the borders of hell and freeing Satan's prisoners (Revelation 6:2). But the age to come will not arrive in all its fullness until the Lord Jesus returns to set it up.

So in v.38, the field is the world in the present age; the good seed is the people whom Christ has called out of the world (John 15:19) and the tares are those who are unredeemed (1 John 4:5).
Christians therefore are 'in the world but not of it' until the end of this age and the beginning of the next when Christ returns and the tares are gathered up and burned while the wheat is gathered into the Lord's barn.

Consider:
Matthew 25:31-34
King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

I see no need for three ages here either. It is the same separation at the end of the age.

Now, consider the reapers again:
Matthew 13:38-43
King James Version (KJV)
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

While we can say that believers prior to this Age were in the Kingdom of God from an eternal perspective, we have to consider that Christ distinguishes between the spiritual rule and reign of God in the hearts of believers and Kingdom Christ often taught about:

I see what you're getting at but I can't accept it. Abraham is the father of all who believe; he believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 8:56). That he didn't see it in the same detail and glory that we see it doesn't matter. He was saved in just the same way that we are- by grace through faith. "And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom [in this context, unbelieving Jews] will be cast out into outer darkness......" (Matthew 8:11-12).

Matthew 11:11

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Because JTB did not have the benefit of seeing our Lord's death and resurrection as we do. Yet he will be sitting down with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven, no doubt about it.

While we do not see Angels gathering in regards to the end of the Age of Law, we still see a distinction drawn between the two Ages, and that brings us back to whether the "wheat" can be properly identified as the Church.

In this Age, it can be, and should be.

I do not think that the KoH is identical to the Church.

In this Age tares sit among the wheat on pews in churches all around the world.

This is the Presbyterian position, and it should not be so. The field is the world, not the church. To be sure there are 'those who have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4), but that is because many Pastors bring unconverted people into membership, either because they are slack and doltish or because they want to build a big church and they don't care how they do it.

The Wheat is not representative of the Children of the Kingdom being in the world in a general manner, because we would have to conclude that the world in general is in the Kingdom.

I don't follow your argument here. The field is the world and the wheat is believers in it. That is what the text says very clearly.

We don't look at the world and do a double-take and with surprise say, "Wait, how is it that unbelievers are mixed in with the world, did not God make them all children? Shall we root out the unbelievers from the rest of the world?"

At this point you are pressing the parable too hard and bringing your human reasoning to bear. Just take the text as you find it.

All that to say, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Devil. And he has sewn tares among the wheat."

Maybe its due to my heritage but I have always wanted to see the Kingdom (pun intended, lol). I love rain, and am told it rains quite often there. My ideal abode would be a small cottage on the shore with large windows I could watch storms through. Preferably on the channel maybe, less risk of tsunamis.

Well if you come to the beautiful South West of England (the rain keeps it green), be sure to let me know.

God bless.

You too!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is not until the fruit bearing stage that the tares are identified, brother:

Matthew 13:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

The same is true concerning tares in regards to the Church, and that, my friend, is what Lordship Salvation is all about.

There will be fruit, and the fruit can be judged, and while we do not stand in the place of the reapers, that doesn't mean we cannot identify tares based upon the fruit.

That is exactly right. 'By their fruit you will know them.' I think perhaps that I misunderstood your previous post which seemed to say that you couldn't identify the tares until the end of the age, or at least that there was great difficulty in doing so. We are in full agreement here.

 

[John of Japan]

What do you believe Jesus meant by worthy?

As always, Jesus meant exactly what he said: worthy means "worthy," the Greek word for which I have already given an authoritative definition.

I have now answered your question twice with no hint as to a LS-defense, though you've not answered mine. Please answer mine now (it's only fair): Are you worthy?

Are we going to keep going in circles, or do you have a point in defense of LS using the "take up your cross" saying? And you've not refuted my statement (from the context) that the saying was to those already believers, and therefore could not be for salvation.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, the theological problem with LS is that it confuses salvation with sanctification. Salvation is a miracle of God, but to "make Christ Lord" is an individual matter of growth, based on our identification with Christ and His crucifixion. Positional sanctification means that we have all of Christ, which enables us to live the Christ life.

Here is the key verse again: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

 

[Revmitchell]

As always, Jesus meant exactly what he said: worthy means "worthy," the Greek word for which I have already given an authoritative definition.

I have now answered your question twice with no hint as to a LS-defense, though you've not answered mine. Please answer mine now (it's only fair): Are you worthy?

Are we going to keep going in circles, or do you have a point in defense of LS using the "take up your cross" saying? And you've not refuted my statement (from the context) that the saying was to those already believers, and therefore could not be for salvation.

Ok look, I have no need to carry on this conversation. Especially since you seem to be rather antagonistic. (not sure why) However, I will try to explain my point again.

Words have basic meanings and the context then shows how they are applied. I am trying to understand your view of how Jesus is applying the word "worthy". I have had several responses such as "I am never worthy". Such answers are not helpful and show a lack of understanding of what Jesus meant. It is clear from His own words that Jesus mean that we are actually worthy in some sense of the word or application. It appears to me (and I can be worng) that simply answering "I am not worthy" is an attempt to avoid dealing with a difficult passage. So instead of just accusing I am looking for clarification on how you see the context of that word. I have yet to see you answer with any clarity.

I am just simply looking for more clarification. The reason is your answer as of yet is unclear.

Further, the fact that they were already believers, while true, adds nothing to the context of the word "worthy". You seem to believe it does but refuse to give clarification how. All of your answers to me thus far have appeared vague and over simplistic.

I am just looking for more clarity.

Nothing I have said or have included in this post is meant to be offensive or any kind of attack.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus said if you do not take up your cross and follow me you are not worthy. So, according to the non-LS folks the time period of sanctification that it takes one to grow into being able to actually take up one's cross they are Christians but still not worthy. The standard for "worthy" (whatever that means) is to take up one's cross.

 

[John of Japan]

Ok look, I have no need to carry on this conversation. Especially since you seem to be rather antagonistic. (not sure why) However, I will try to explain my point again.

I'm not antagonistic, simply debating. I like to get right to the point. I will admit, though, that I'm a little frustrated. You want to repeat your own thoughts (which so far have nothing to do with LS), but you won't answer mine.

Words have basic meanings and the context then shows how they are applied. I am trying to understand your view of how Jesus is applying the word "worthy". I have had several responses such as "I am never worthy". Such answers are not helpful and show a lack of understanding of what Jesus meant. It is clear from His own words that Jesus mean that we are actually worthy in some sense of the word or application. It appears to me (and I can be worng) that simply answering "I am not worthy" is an attempt to avoid dealing with a difficult passage. So instead of just accusing I am looking for clarification on how you see the context of that word. I have yet to see you answer with any clarity.

I am just simply looking for more clarification. The reason is your answer as of yet is unclear.

Um, no, I never said "I am never worthy. I will clarify some, since you insist, even though as far as I can see this has nothing to do with the OP. I am worthy only through Christ, never through myself. The only way I can be worthy is through the positional sanctification bought by Jesus Christ on the cross.

As for the meaning of the term "worthy," either in English or in Greek, I really don't see your point. What does this have to do with LS? Are we somehow worthy before God if we "make Christ Lord" in the sense of taking up our cross as part of the salvation process?

Further, the fact that they were already believers, while true, adds nothing to the context of the word "worthy". You seem to believe it does but refuse to give clarification how. All of your answers to me thus far have appeared vague and over simplistic.

I am just looking for more clarity.

So am I. What is your point as regards LS?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe in LS, right? And you are defending it here, right?

Nothing I have said or have included in this post is meant to be offensive or any kind of attack.

Good. Ditto for me.

But you must realize that when you make it personal ("Are you worthy?") you must expect the same in return.

So again, are your worthy? If so, how did you get that way?

 

[John of Japan]

Jesus said if you do not take up your cross and follow me you are not worthy. So, according to the non-LS folks the time period of sanctification that it takes one to grow into being able to actually take up one's cross they are Christians but still not worthy. The standard for "worthy" (whatever that means) is to take up one's cross.

I believe you are confusing positional sanctification with progressive sanctification. The split second I am born again I am made able to take up my cross and follow Jesus (dedicate my life to Him, offer my body as a living sacrifice), just as the saved drug addict did two seconds after salvation in the illustration I gave in post #77. This is positional sanctification. We are sanctified at the moment of salvation in being set apart to Christ through His death on the cross.

Progressive sanctification, on the other hand, is the growth process to which you are referring. This comes through knowledge of the Word and following Christ (John 17:17).

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not antagonistic, simply debating. I like to get right to the point. I will admit, though, that I'm a little frustrated. You want to repeat your own thoughts (which so far have nothing to do with LS), but you won't answer mine.


Um, no, I never said "I am never worthy. I will clarify some, since you insist, even though as far as I can see this has nothing to do with the OP. I am worthy only through Christ, never through myself. The only way I can be worthy is through the positional sanctification bought by Jesus Christ on the cross.

As for the meaning of the term "worthy," either in English or in Greek, I really don't see your point. What does this have to do with LS? Are we somehow worthy before God if we "make Christ Lord" in the sense of taking up our cross as part of the salvation process?

So am I. What is your point as regards LS?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe in LS, right? And you are defending it here, right?
Good. Ditto for me.

But you must realize that when you make it personal ("Are you worthy?") you must expect the same in return.

So again, are your worthy? If so, how did you get that way?

Jesus said we must take up our cross. The truth is that is no different than making Him Lord. These are not two separate subjects. If Jesus is the Lord of your life then you will take up your cross. If He is not then you will not. There is a clear connection here.

The use of the word worthy in the way you have used it is not the same way in which Christ used it when He said we are not worthy if we do not take up our cross. So I am asking:

1. What did Christ mean when He used the word "worthy".
2. If there is a point in which we are worthy then what is the point in which we are not worthy?
3. If it takes time in sanctification or spiritual growth to reach the point that we are willing or able to take up our cross then what is our status with regards to Jesus use of the word "worthy" leading up to that time?

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe you are confusing positional sanctification with progressive sanctification. The split second I am born again I am made able to take up my cross and follow Jesus (dedicate my life to Him, offer my body as a living sacrifice), just as the saved drug addict did two seconds after salvation in the illustration I gave in post #77. This is positional sanctification. We are sanctified at the moment of salvation in being set apart to Christ through His death on the cross.

Progressive sanctification, on the other hand, is the growth process to which you are referring. This comes through knowledge of the Word and following Christ (John 17:17).

I am not confusing those at all. In fact I have said nothing that would justify this response here. I now have another question for you. What did Jesus mean when He said:

Luk 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

 

[John of Japan]

Jesus said we must take up our cross. The truth is that is no different than making Him Lord. These are not two separate subjects. If Jesus is the Lord of your life then you will take up your cross. If He is not then you will not. There is a clear connection here.

I thought I made it clear that this is exactly what I believe. And again, he said it to believers, right, not to the lost?

The use of the word worthy in the way you have used it is not the same way in which Christ used it when He said we are not worthy if we do not take up our cross. So I am asking:

1. What did Christ mean when He used the word "worthy".

Since I can't seem to satisfy you on this point (and I'm really puzzled here), why don't you tell me what Jesus meant by "worthy"?

2. If there is a point in which we are worthy then what is the point in which we are not worthy?

I made this clear. We are worthy in Christ, but not in our own human self.

3. If it takes time in sanctification or spiritual growth to reach the point that we are willing or able to take up our cross then what is our status with regards to Jesus use of the word "worthy" leading up to that time?

Did you even read what I said??? IT TAKES NO TIME. We are sanctified and made able to take up our cross at the moment of salvation.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not confusing those at all. In fact I have said nothing that would justify this response here. I now have another question for you.

Yes you are confusing the two. You keep referring to my position as if it were progressive sanctification (it takes time to be made worthy), when it is positional sanctification (we are made able at the moment of salvation). Someone who is saved by has not taken up their cross to follow Christ is not progressing to the place where they can do so, they are already there. They simply have not appropriated what is theirs in Christ.

What did Jesus mean when He said:

Luk 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

Are you trying to teach me or debate me? What is your point here?

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes you are confusing the two. You keep referring to my position as if it were progressive sanctification (it takes time to be made worthy),

Because that is what you argued. I think we are unintentionally talking past each other. When we make too many points in one post it begins to be hard to keep up with them all. I ask questions as I do to keep the conversation narrow so we do not get confused about each others points.

Someone who is saved by has not taken up their cross to follow Christ is not progressing to the place where they can do so, they are already there. They simply have not appropriated what is theirs in Christ.

So those who have not "appropriated what is their is not worthy? Jesus did not leave room for some middle, unappropriated ground.

Are you trying to teach me or debate me? What is your point here?

See my first point.

 

[HankD]

according to LS I must make Jesus the Lord of my life. Please don't tell me I have misunderstood LS theology because I came out of it.

I am not worthy to make Jesus the Lord of my life. However He is indeed the Lord of my life, He is the only worthy human being in the universe and I live in Him.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

I did not make Him lord of my life. It became more and more obvious that He is indeed my Lord and my God.
It did not happen overnight. It was an act of passive enlightenment.

Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed (metamorphoo) into the same image from glory to glory (progressive), even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Because that is what you argued. I think we are unintentionally talking past each other. When we make too many points in one post it begins to be hard to keep up with them all. I ask questions as I do to keep the conversation narrow so we do not get confused about each others points.

Let me clarify then. Christ's death on the cross makes one able to follow Him unreservedly by taking up our own cross (being willing to die for Him). This can happen simultaneously to salvation (thus, it is not progressive salvation), or it can happen later in the Christian walk when the believer realizes all he has in Christ. It is not a result of growth in Christ, therefore it is not progressive sanctification but positional sanctification.

So those who have not "appropriated what is their is not worthy? Jesus did not leave room for some middle, unappropriated ground.

As long as a believer does not surrender his life to Christ, he is unworthy of the cross. And I agree that there is no middle ground. One is either a believer or not a believer, and the "take up your cross" statements are clearly to believer. You have not disproved this.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, the theological problem with LS is that it confuses salvation with sanctification. Salvation is a miracle of God, but to "make Christ Lord" is an individual matter of growth, based on our identification with Christ and His crucifixion. Positional sanctification means that we have all of Christ, which enables us to live the Christ life.

Here is the key verse again: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

I should have said here that "'to make Christ Lord' is an individual matter producing growth." In other words, many Christians do not grow much because they are unwilling to make that full surrender to Christ. Full surrender (based on positional sanctification) makes one willing to grow (progressive sanctification).