The thief on the cross and Lot--Carnal Christians

[evangelist6589]

Went to the church tonight to give input (pastoral team had asked for interviews from members wanting to give input on church) and one thing I brought up was the gospel tracts and evangelism style of the church which features a underemphasis on REPENTANCE and promotion of easy believism especially from certain tracts and or evangelists that have come to the church whom did not think the doctrine of repentance was important. This ended up turning into a debate on LS between me and a pastor whom thinks that christians can be Carnal and do not need to be disciples. He used the case of the thief on the cross which I argued was a rare exception and no doubt I believe God would save someone on his death bed whom calls out just as he did the thief, but he insisted that submission to Lordship as a disciple is optional. He also brought up Lot whom was a carnal Christian which I believe was out of context given he was living in the OT and he had no proof Lot remained in this state for good. But besides the point out of context argument.

I had said he did not understand the LS argument because he insisted LS argues complete surrender and repentance of sins prior to salvation which is not what LS argues. This is a process that true converts will engage in as they surrender to the lordship of Christ and the true will surrender.

So should we take the thief on the cross example and build an entire theology of evangelism stating that changing ones life after conversion is optional?

Or what of Lot? Was he a carnal Christian?

 

[Don]

Well...if he's truly stating that we have a choice about changing our lives after salvation, and it's not just a musunderstanding of what he's trying to say...I would point him to Ephesians 2:10.

 

[evangelist6589]

Well...if he's truly stating that we have a choice about changing our lives after salvation, and it's not just a musunderstanding of what he's trying to say...I would point him to Ephesians 2:10.

I pointed him to Luke 13:3 and repentance being the first message of Jesus and its crucial importance. But he insisted it was not as important given the gospel of John. I said the theme of repentance is in John just not the word.

Submission to the LS of Christ is the result of a true conversion, but his argument made it sound optional given the carnal Christian.

So I guess satanists and homosexuals whom at one time said the prayer and were members of baptist churches are carnal christians.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Write him a letter and accuse him of being false like you do others. Looks like you are going to take over your church Evan, yahoo!

 

[JamesL]

I'm wondering how was Lot an out-of-context reference?

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm wondering how was Lot an out-of-context reference?

From the Old Testament.

 

[Greektim]

Went to the church tonight to give input (pastoral team had asked for interviews from members wanting to give input on church) and one thing I brought up was the gospel tracts and evangelism style of the church which features a underemphasis on REPENTANCE and promotion of easy believism especially from certain tracts and or evangelists that have come to the church whom did not think the doctrine of repentance was important. This ended up turning into a debate on LS between me and a pastor whom thinks that christians can be Carnal and do not need to be disciples. He used the case of the thief on the cross which I argued was a rare exception and no doubt I believe God would save someone on his death bed whom calls out just as he did the thief, but he insisted that submission to Lordship as a disciple is optional. He also brought up Lot whom was a carnal Christian which I believe was out of context given he was living in the OT and he had no proof Lot remained in this state for good. But besides the point out of context argument.

I had said he did not understand the LS argument because he insisted LS argues complete surrender and repentance of sins prior to salvation which is not what LS argues. This is a process that true converts will engage in as they surrender to the lordship of Christ and the true will surrender.

So should we take the thief on the cross example and build an entire theology of evangelism stating that changing ones life after conversion is optional?

Or what of Lot? Was he a carnal Christian?

Why do you still go to this church? I don't get it?

 

[evangelist6589]

Why do you still go to this church? I don't get it?

Are you married? If it were up to me I would go to the Calvinist church down the road, but my wife insists on this church and refuses to leave. She has been attending the church for many years, long before we got married.

 

[evangelist6589]

Another thing

GreekTim

He told me that if I am not out getting people saved then I do not know what I am talking about. He made it sound like its all up to me and my efforts on getting people saved. In other words aggressive soul winning gets people saved. I said its all up to God and him drawing the elect to salvation as I am only a seed planter. God may or may not choose to bring the elect to salvation via my efforts. But I am to obey Him and do evangelism.

So I concluded I will not offer anymore input to the church in areas of evangelism, repentance, and lordship even if they ask. Just need to focus on areas that we agree on such as eschatology.

 

[PreachTony]

Went to the church tonight to give input (pastoral team had asked for interviews from members wanting to give input on church) and one thing I brought up was the gospel tracts and evangelism style of the church which features a underemphasis on REPENTANCE and promotion of easy believism especially from certain tracts and or evangelists that have come to the church whom did not think the doctrine of repentance was important. This ended up turning into a debate on LS between me and a pastor whom thinks that christians can be Carnal and do not need to be disciples. He used the case of the thief on the cross which I argued was a rare exception and no doubt I believe God would save someone on his death bed whom calls out just as he did the thief, but he insisted that submission to Lordship as a disciple is optional. He also brought up Lot whom was a carnal Christian which I believe was out of context given he was living in the OT and he had no proof Lot remained in this state for good. But besides the point out of context argument.

I had said he did not understand the LS argument because he insisted LS argues complete surrender and repentance of sins prior to salvation which is not what LS argues. This is a process that true converts will engage in as they surrender to the lordship of Christ and the true will surrender.

Submission to the LS of Christ is the result of a true conversion, but his argument made it sound optional given the carnal Christian.

So should we take the thief on the cross example and build an entire theology of evangelism stating that changing ones life after conversion is optional?

Or what of Lot? Was he a carnal Christian?

While I don't agree with the pastor in seemingly thinking that it's okay for Christians to remain beholden to the carnal nature, I do agree that a Christian can be saved and be in a carnal nature. That is something we all strive against. We should, in our saved state, be working to not sin. We should be trying to live the gospel. But we are also blessedly sealed unto the day of redemption. A Christian having fallen into their own carnal nature needs the prayers and help of their church brethren to help them get back up. As Paul wrote to those in Galatia, "1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:1-2).

As noted, I do not hold to Lordship Salvation, nor do I hold to easy believism. The biggest problem I have with LS is that it is nigh impossible for a new convert, fresh from the world, to enact Lordship Salvation in their own life. Recognizing Jesus Christ as Lord of everything is a process, not an overnight decision.

PS - How was Lot a 'carnal Christian?" There wasn't yet Christianity in Lot's time.

PPS - I really do wish you would learn the difference between "who" and whom," Evan. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[gigabyte71]

Are you married? If it were up to me I would go to the Calvinist church down the road, but my wife insists on this church and refuses to leave. She has been attending the church for many years, long before we got married.

Are you not the head of your home? Does your wife not submit to you?

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." ~ Eph. 5:22-24 ESV

 

[Deacon]

Our identity before God the Father from the moment we believe is righteous through Christ's work on the cross; "it is finished".

Works, even obedience are not necessary to maintain this postiion; God sees Christ in our place -- nothing can come between us.

Our obedience is a display of our appreciation, gratitude and love of God for what he has done for us and not a burden we need to place on those still seeking God.
Of course after we believe, works ouflow from those who have been called from darkness into light.

"Righteous Lot" is an example of God's grace to a man who stepped out in faith and failed yet was still considered faithful before God.

The thief had no chance to confess the multitude of his sins and no chance to display the works of 'Lordship' in his life.

It appears to me that you have a hard time submiting to church leadership.
What you really want is a church that will affirm your entrenched belief system rather than one that teaches you simple biblically sound doctrine.

Rob

 

[blessedwife318]

Are you married? If it were up to me I would go to the Calvinist church down the road, but my wife insists on this church and refuses to leave. She has been attending the church for many years, long before we got married.

So you have abdicated your responsibility as Spiritual Leader to your wife. That is a huge problem and it says a lot about you.

 

[quantumfaith]

Our identity before God the Father from the moment we believe is righteous through Christ's work on the cross; "it is finished".

Works, even obedience are not necessary to maintain this postiion; God sees Christ in our place -- nothing can come between us.

Our obedience is a display of our appreciation, gratitude and love of God for what he has done for us and not a burden we need to place on those still seeking God.
Of course after we believe, works ouflow from those who have been called from darkness into light.

"Righteous Lot" is an example of God's grace to a man who stepped out in faith and failed yet was still considered faithful before God.

The thief had no chance to confess the multitude of his sins and no chance to display the works of 'Lordship' in his life.

It appears to me that you have a hard time submiting to church leadership.
What you really want is a church that will affirm your entrenched belief system rather than one that teaches you simple biblically sound doctrine.

Rob

Awesome.......:applause:

 

[gigabyte71]

So you have abdicated your responsibility as Spiritual Leader to your wife. That is a huge problem and it says a lot about you.

Must not be in one of the books he read.

Here is a video by Paul Washer, maybe it would help the OP... (disclaimer: I have not listened to it, not a washer fan, but I know the OP seems to think a lot about him.)

http://www.theexpositor.tv/blog/video-message-on-recovering-biblical-womanhood-by-paul-washer/

 

[InTheLight]

our identity before god the father from the moment we believe is righteous through christ's work on the cross; "it is finished".

works, even obedience are not necessary to maintain this postiion; god sees christ in our place -- nothing can come between us.

our obedience is a display of our appreciation, gratitude and love of god for what he has done for us and not a burden we need to place on those still seeking god.
Of course after we believe, works ouflow from those who have been called from darkness into light.

"righteous lot" is an example of god's grace to a man who stepped out in faith and failed yet was still considered faithful before god.

The thief had no chance to confess the multitude of his sins and no chance to display the works of 'lordship' in his life.



Rob

^^^ This ^^^

What you really want is a church that will affirm your entrenched belief system rather than one that teaches you simple biblically sound doctrine.

Same statement could be made about Evan6589 and BB.

 

[blessedwife318]

Must not be in one of the books he read.

Here is a video by Paul Washer, maybe it would help the OP... (disclaimer: I have not listened to it, not a washer fan, but I know the OP seems to think a lot about him.)

http://www.theexpositor.tv/blog/video-message-on-recovering-biblical-womanhood-by-paul-washer/

My husband and I listen to Paul Washer (I was going to say enjoy but I will admit that listening to him you end up feeling like you got hit in the stomach hard, but I don't have a problem with that) and we listened to this message series before getting married and I will say it is really good on explaining Biblical roles and the importance of following them.

 

[PreachTony]

Must not be in one of the books he read.

Here is a video by Paul Washer, maybe it would help the OP... (disclaimer: I have not listened to it, not a washer fan, but I know the OP seems to think a lot about him.)

http://www.theexpositor.tv/blog/video-message-on-recovering-biblical-womanhood-by-paul-washer/

If you're wanting some Paul Washer, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftJVYoORug

In this sermon audio, Washer states that the Romans version of salvation leads people to Hell.

He says "It is not near as dangerous as conservative Baptists with their gospel reductionism. How dare we, all these stupid evangelists walking around telling men after they've made some little prayer that they need to write their name in the back of their Bible, and put the date and if the Devil ever comes to them, they need to show him that. That is Roman superstition, it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ."

He calls an experience of grace a "silly profession" that will damn people to Hell. He claims that so much as straying in the least after claiming to be saved proves that you were never saved to being with.

I was raised not to question a person's profession of faith, but rather to keep working with them. If they never had salvation to begin with, then eventually the truth will out and God will take care of the matter. I get the sense from men like Paul Washer that we should be questioning the faith and salvation of everyone who does not hold fast to Calvinism and Lordship Salvation.

 

[plain_n_simple]

"He claims that so much as straying in the least after claiming to be saved proves that you were never saved to being with."

A person who questions or makes accusations that another is not saved, does it to himself continually. It is evident faith has not been built up or maybe even established in this person. He is comforted by the thought that someone else is not saved. Quite twisted but when you consider the author of Calvinism is the Accuser, the fruit is plain to see. I hope his faith gets built up and he realizes he really is saved and puts away foolishness.

 

[blessedwife318]

He claims that so much as straying in the least after claiming to be saved proves that you were never saved to being with.

To be fair he said that if you stray without DISCIPLINE coming upon you, then you may have never been saved in the first place.