The thief on the cross and Lot--Carnal Christians

[Greektim]

Imagine this.

Your wife gets ahold of John MacArthur, John Walvoord, and David Jeremiah eschatology books and starts to disagree with you. She insists you are wrong in eschatology and will argue with you over this one. What do you do?? No what would you do? Imagine you had no control over her getting the books.

You will either not respond or respond and say something like your wife would not read those books which is besides the point. Imagine if she did and was persuaded?

She reads John Mac and formerly read Walvoord. And she is not an Amill... not yet anyways. She makes her mind up about her theology as I slowly teach her. I don't force her to confess any views. My influences certainly make a difference. But I lead the family when it comes to church.

 

[evangelist6589]

She reads John Mac and formerly read Walvoord. And she is not an Amill... not yet anyways. She makes her mind up about her theology as I slowly teach her. I don't force her to confess any views. My influences certainly make a difference. But I lead the family when it comes to church.

So she cooperates with you regarding church attendance that is good. But perhaps one day she will not and says she has to be in a Calvinist dispensational church, or a church reformed in soteriology but dispensational in eschatology and there are DOZENS of these types of hybrid churches out there. IN fact the Calvinist church down the street from me is one of them. They hold to Reformed soteriology, but teach dispensational eschatology.

 

[Greektim]

So she cooperates with you regarding church attendance that is good. But perhaps one day she will not and says she has to be in a Calvinist dispensational church, or a church reformed in soteriology but dispensational in eschatology and there are DOZENS of these types of hybrid churches out there. IN fact the Calvinist church down the street from me is one of them. They hold to Reformed soteriology, but teach dispensational eschatology.

Nope. She is submissive. She wants me to lead her. She doesn't want to take that responsibility.

 

[blessedwife318]

Nope. She is submissive. She wants me to lead her. She doesn't want to take that responsibility.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Just as it should be.

 

[evangelist6589]

Nope. She is submissive. She wants me to lead her. She doesn't want to take that responsibility.

Very good

 

[Rolfe]

Imagine this.

Your wife gets ahold of John MacArthur, John Walvoord, and David Jeremiah eschatology books and starts to disagree with you. She insists you are wrong in eschatology and will argue with you over this one. What do you do?? No what would you do? Imagine you had no control over her getting the books.

Why would you even want to control what books your wife reads? Seems a bit authoritarian. The command (Eph. 5:25) is to love your wife, not Lord it over her.

If Mrs. Rolf were to come to an opinion about the Scriptures, formed with the aid of a book that she has read, I would want to understand it. If I am holding to an idea that is wrong, I want it to be disproved. She has an insight into spiritual matters that is sharper than mine.

 

[JamesL]

Yet from reading your posts here, I believe this is the scenario that has actually played out:

Your husband gets a hold of John MacArthur, John Piper, and R.C. Sproul soteriology books and starts to disagree with you. He insists you are wrong in your synergism soteriology and will argue with you over this one. What do you do?? No, what would you do? Imagine you had no control over him getting these books. He just keeps buying and buying them.

Yup

Evan, I saw a video you posted in which you were preaching free will. So you have had a change in view. Granted, probably before you got married.

But, I think you have a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to wanting your wife to submit.

Are you at your church because God called you there?


If not, then you have not submitted to God in the matter. Preferring to make things better in your own strength and understanding.

If God has called you there, then you have not submitted to your church authority.


The church I'm at, God called me there. I knew it 3 years before he actually made the way. I trusted Him in it, even knowing that we were at odds doctrinally.

The most impressive thing about my pastor, upon talking to him about moving, was his insistence that I was not there on my own accord. He wanted to talk to my previous pastor to make sure I was not running away from a church, running away from strife, running away from sin.

From the word go, I submitted to him as pastor. I brought up the possibility of doctrinal disagreement, and he wanted to have some long chats about it, and I agreed.

Going into those chats, I assured him - knowing that God has called me here, I am fully aware that He has not called me here to challenge authority, to argue incessantly, or to make disciples after myself.

In other words, I submitted to his authority as my pastor because I submitted to God's authority first.

After our sessions began, I came to realize that he and I were in almost complete agreement doctrinally. He had begun to back away from some long-held positions. And without knowing when I first knew God had called me there, he told me that he had begun praying for God to bring men there who could teach. It was at the same time.

I respect him greatly, and I still have the same attitude. He trusts me, too.

I believe that if God called you there, He did so for the purpose of unity and harmony - not strife.

If you're having strife, it's because either God never called you there or you are not honoring the authority to which He called you.

Either way, it's not His will. And you cannot expect your wife to be on board with someone who is running around in his own strength

 

[PreachTony]

Yup

Evan, I saw a video you posted in which you were preaching free will. So you have had a change in view. Granted, probably before you got married.

But, I think you have a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to wanting your wife to submit.

Are you at your church because God called you there?


If not, then you have not submitted to God in the matter. Preferring to make things better in your own strength and understanding.

If God has called you there, then you have not submitted to your church authority.


The church I'm at, God called me there. I knew it 3 years before he actually made the way. I trusted Him in it, even knowing that we were at odds doctrinally.

The most impressive thing about my pastor, upon talking to him about moving, was his insistence that I was not there on my own accord. He wanted to talk to my previous pastor to make sure I was not running away from a church, running away from strife, running away from sin.

From the word go, I submitted to him as pastor. I brought up the possibility of doctrinal disagreement, and he wanted to have some long chats about it, and I agreed.

Going into those chats, I assured him - knowing that God has called me here, I am fully aware that He has not called me here to challenge authority, to argue incessantly, or to make disciples after myself.

In other words, I submitted to his authority as my pastor because I submitted to God's authority first.

After our sessions began, I came to realize that he and I were in almost complete agreement doctrinally. He had begun to back away from some long-held positions. And without knowing when I first knew God had called me there, he told me that he had begun praying for God to bring men there who could teach. It was at the same time.

I respect him greatly, and I still have the same attitude. He trusts me, too.

I believe that if God called you there, He did so for the purpose of unity and harmony - not strife.

If you're having strife, it's because either God never called you there or you are not honoring the authority to which He called you.

Either way, it's not His will. And you cannot expect your wife to be on board with someone who is running around in his own strength

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[evangelist6589]

Yup



Evan, I saw a video you posted in which you were preaching free will. So you have had a change in view. Granted, probably before you got married.



But, I think you have a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to wanting your wife to submit.



Are you at your church because God called you there?





If not, then you have not submitted to God in the matter. Preferring to make things better in your own strength and understanding.



If God has called you there, then you have not submitted to your church authority.





The church I'm at, God called me there. I knew it 3 years before he actually made the way. I trusted Him in it, even knowing that we were at odds doctrinally.



The most impressive thing about my pastor, upon talking to him about moving, was his insistence that I was not there on my own accord. He wanted to talk to my previous pastor to make sure I was not running away from a church, running away from strife, running away from sin.



From the word go, I submitted to him as pastor. I brought up the possibility of doctrinal disagreement, and he wanted to have some long chats about it, and I agreed.



Going into those chats, I assured him - knowing that God has called me here, I am fully aware that He has not called me here to challenge authority, to argue incessantly, or to make disciples after myself.



In other words, I submitted to his authority as my pastor because I submitted to God's authority first.



After our sessions began, I came to realize that he and I were in almost complete agreement doctrinally. He had begun to back away from some long-held positions. And without knowing when I first knew God had called me there, he told me that he had begun praying for God to bring men there who could teach. It was at the same time.



I respect him greatly, and I still have the same attitude. He trusts me, too.



I believe that if God called you there, He did so for the purpose of unity and harmony - not strife.



If you're having strife, it's because either God never called you there or you are not honoring the authority to which He called you.



Either way, it's not His will. And you cannot expect your wife to be on board with someone who is running around in his own strength

Yes I used to be an ARMINIAN and was against Calvinism.

 

[evangelist6589]

Yup



Evan, I saw a video you posted in which you were preaching free will. So you have had a change in view. Granted, probably before you got married.



But, I think you have a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to wanting your wife to submit.



Are you at your church because God called you there?





If not, then you have not submitted to God in the matter. Preferring to make things better in your own strength and understanding.



If God has called you there, then you have not submitted to your church authority.





The church I'm at, God called me there. I knew it 3 years before he actually made the way. I trusted Him in it, even knowing that we were at odds doctrinally.



The most impressive thing about my pastor, upon talking to him about moving, was his insistence that I was not there on my own accord. He wanted to talk to my previous pastor to make sure I was not running away from a church, running away from strife, running away from sin.



From the word go, I submitted to him as pastor. I brought up the possibility of doctrinal disagreement, and he wanted to have some long chats about it, and I agreed.



Going into those chats, I assured him - knowing that God has called me here, I am fully aware that He has not called me here to challenge authority, to argue incessantly, or to make disciples after myself.



In other words, I submitted to his authority as my pastor because I submitted to God's authority first.



After our sessions began, I came to realize that he and I were in almost complete agreement doctrinally. He had begun to back away from some long-held positions. And without knowing when I first knew God had called me there, he told me that he had begun praying for God to bring men there who could teach. It was at the same time.



I respect him greatly, and I still have the same attitude. He trusts me, too.



I believe that if God called you there, He did so for the purpose of unity and harmony - not strife.



If you're having strife, it's because either God never called you there or you are not honoring the authority to which He called you.



Either way, it's not His will. And you cannot expect your wife to be on board with someone who is running around in his own strength

If you read my entire post I had said that the pastors had a open interview for those wanting to give input on the church.

 

[JamesL]

If you read my entire post I had said that the pastors had a open interview for those wanting to give input on the church.

Right, I got that.

But input is different from being argumentative. I remember when I was at an AG church, I knew God called me there, and told me that He wanted me to be involved in a change at that church.

I think I've told you this before. I interpreted that as instruction to change their doctrine and practices. I spoke with the pastor of that church, told him what God told me. Then I proceeded to spell out my doctrine.

That pastor rightly said "if you think you're going to come in and teach eternal security, that's not going to happen."

Turns out, the change in that church was me changing. Not doctrinally, but toward unity and fellowship.

You say you agree with your church on essential matters, that means the gospel they preach is sound enough. Right?

Being an evangelist, your heart should bend toward the lost hearing the gospel. If you can't agree there, then you don't agree on the essentials.but if their gospel is sound enough, quit arguing over nonessential matters

 

[evangelist6589]

Right, I got that.



But input is different from being argumentative. I remember when I was at an AG church, I knew God called me there, and told me that He wanted me to be involved in a change at that church.



I think I've told you this before. I interpreted that as instruction to change their doctrine and practices. I spoke with the pastor of that church, told him what God told me. Then I proceeded to spell out my doctrine.



That pastor rightly said "if you think you're going to come in and teach eternal security, that's not going to happen."



Turns out, the change in that church was me changing. Not doctrinally, but toward unity and fellowship.



You say you agree with your church on essential matters, that means the gospel they preach is sound enough. Right?



Being an evangelist, your heart should bend toward the lost hearing the gospel. If you can't agree there, then you don't agree on the essentials.but if their gospel is sound enough, quit arguing over nonessential matters

I simply have input but he rejected what I had said so he was the one who was arguing. Then he made some false statements about LS that anyone would have understood if they had read a book on LS and looked up the scriptures presented. I simply defended LS.

You and me disagree in this area I know that. But saying I was arguing it came to argue is lying.

 

[Rolfe]

...but he rejected what I had said so he was the one who was arguing.

:laugh:

Seriously, you need to practice a bit of humility before it is imposed upon you.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

We would also agree that a true change in a sinner happens at the new birth, as tyjey are made anew in Christ, having the Holy Spirit, but do not see it as being its either surrendering all to jesus first in order to have a real salvation!