Who are the false professors?

[webdog]

Lot? You said Job at first.

Anyway, where does it say that Lot was unfruitful? Unfruitful means NO fruit, not some fruit.

What fruit was evidenced in Lot's life?

 

[Amy.G]

Even in good ole' righteous Job's life?

Yep, there it is. :laugh:

Ok, let's start over. So what is your point about Lot? You think he had no fruit? (that sounds funny)

 

[Amy.G]

What fruit was evidenced in Lot's life?

He obeyed the angels.

 

[webdog]

He obeyed the angels.

Being physically dragged out of the city is "obeying"

 

[Amy.G]

Being physically dragged out of the city is "obeying"

Why didn't Lot turn to a pillar of salt?

 

[webdog]

Why didn't Lot turn to a pillar of salt?

He didn't look back...but that still does not mean he went willingly. Notice the use of "restrained". The Hebrew means to take by force, not to ask politely.

 

[Amy.G]

He didn't look back...but that still does not mean he went willingly. Notice the use of "restrained". The Hebrew means to take by force, not to ask politely.

Gen 19:17 When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."

Gen 19:26 But his wife, from behind him, looked {back,} and she became a pillar of salt.

He did obey. He may have only produced a little bit of fruit, but he did produce fruit nonetheless. I think his wife was the one with no fruit.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

So if you don't really care then all this posturing was for?????

You are contradicting yourself here. Your posture was quite dogmatic and suddenly you don't care?

I don't claim anything. I have challenged you to deal with the text. This is a debate forum. You are ceding here. I accept that.

There are unfruitful believers, the text in Luke makes that clear and it remains UNTOUCHED, UNREFUTED and only complained about.

I'm dogmatic about what I believe about your position and mine.
I don't care how you frame your victory, nor do I care to continue to discuss this with you.
I would undoubtably say things that are unedifying and ungracious and I wish to avoid that.
I still strongly believe what I have said about your position and think that repentance of false teaching is truly necessary for you and those who are of the same conviction.

 

[webdog]

Gen 19:17 When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."

Gen 19:26 But his wife, from behind him, looked {back,} and she became a pillar of salt.

He did obey. He may have only produced a little bit of fruit, but he did produce fruit nonetheless. I think his wife was the one with no fruit.

So if a saved man comes out of a bar drunk, and is told not to drive, and he obeys, he has shown spiritual fruit?

He didn't look back to save his physical life. The righteous were removed from the city, Lot's wife included. She disobeyed God, and payed with her life in the same way Moses disobeyed God and paid with his life.

 

[Amy.G]

So if a saved man comes out of a bar drunk, and is told not to drive, and he obeys, he has shown spiritual fruit?

He didn't look back to save his physical life. The righteous were removed from the city, Lot's wife included. She disobeyed God, and payed with her life in the same way Moses disobeyed God and paid with his life.

I have shown you that Lot was fruitful. He obeyed. If you don't want to see it that way, that's fine with me.

Scripture doesn't say that Lot's wife was righteous. Many people are sanctified because of their relationship to one of God's own. The unbelieving spouse is one example.

 

[webdog]

I have shown you that Lot was fruitful. He obeyed. If you don't want to see it that way, that's fine with me.

Scripture doesn't say that Lot's wife was righteous. Many people are sanctified because of their relationship to one of God's own. The unbelieving spouse is one example.

You have failed to provide proof that the physical act of looking back to spare Lot from becoming a salt lick is "spiritual fruit".

Remember Abraham's negotiations? Those who were removed were righteous, as the destruction was for the unrighteous of the city. We are not appointed unto wrath, and that is one of the symbolism's in Scripture where the righteous are spared God's wrath on the unrighteous.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I'm dogmatic about what I believe about your position and mine.
I don't care how you frame your victory, nor do I care to continue to discuss this with you.
I would undoubtably say things that are unedifying and ungracious and I wish to avoid that.
I still strongly believe what I have said about your position and think that repentance of false teaching is truly necessary for you and those who are of the same conviction.

Fine, but in the privacy of your own mind and in your own time I challenge you to take on Luke and my treatment of it.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

What fruit was evidenced in Lot's life?

Did you mean to say Lot from the beginning?
I had no idea what you were talking about with Job.

Can I ask you a question?

Do we make a practice a forming our theology around the norms of Scripture or notable exceptions?

Whatever the deal is with Lot, I believe his situation is the notable exception and not the norm.

Just like I expect that people are converted by the preaching or reading of the gospel as opposed to revelations in dreams or visions.
Yes, God may use those means, but the stated norm in the Bible is faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

To advocate that a believer's life may be unfruitful, yet truly a believer, flies in the face of countless portions where the believer is commanded and exhorted to manifest acts of righteousness and to pursue holiness.
If the Bible refers to Lot as a true believer, then that is what God must see him as.
But since the canon is closed, no one else can be assured that their unfruitful belief is recognized by God as true belief until they meet Him face to face.

If God extends mercy to such an individual, then all praise to Him.
But to teach and preach that an individual can be assured of salvation despite having no fruiful evidences or worse is going beyond the clearer portions of Scripture.
Interpret the less clear portions by the more clear portions.
And what is clear is passages like Hebrews 3:12-14 and 2 John 8-9.

12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

We are to watch that we do not lose that which we have worked for. John is assuming that the believer is working. The fact that a "believer" might no longer continue in the teaching of Christ and therefore does not have God is apparant and is to be warned against.
And those who share in Christ are those who hold firmly to the end that which they had at first. Holding firm is abiding like in John 15 with the vine and branches.
Fruitful living is the expected norm and to presume salvation without this is apparant folly and danger.

 

[Amy.G]

You have failed to provide proof that the physical act of looking back to spare Lot from becoming a salt lick is "spiritual fruit".

Remember Abraham's negotiations? Those who were removed were righteous, as the destruction was for the unrighteous of the city. We are not appointed unto wrath, and that is one of the symbolism's in Scripture where the righteous are spared God's wrath on the unrighteous.

What I said was that Lot obeyed the angels. Obedience to God is the fruit of righteousness.

Here's another person that obeyed an angel.

Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
Mat 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took {Mary} as his wife,

Was his obedience to the angel of the Lord the fruit of righteousness?

 

[webdog]

What I said was that Lot obeyed the angels. Obedience to God is the fruit of righteousness.

Here's another person that obeyed an angel.

Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
Mat 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took {Mary} as his wife,

Was his obedience to the angel of the Lord the fruit of righteousness?

Were angels ever sent to the unrighteous?

 

[Amy.G]

Were angels ever sent to the unrighteous?

What are you talking about? I never said Lot was unrighteous. Are we talking about someone else now?

Was Joseph's obedience to the angel the fruit of righteousness?

Was Lot's obedience the fruit of righteousness?

 

[webdog]

Did you mean to say Lot from the beginning?
I had no idea what you were talking about with Job.

Can I ask you a question?

Do we make a practice a forming our theology around the norms of Scripture or notable exceptions?

Whatever the deal is with Lot, I believe his situation is the notable exception and not the norm.

Just like I expect that people are converted by the preaching or reading of the gospel as opposed to revelations in dreams or visions.
Yes, God may use those means, but the stated norm in the Bible is faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

To advocate that a believer's life may be unfruitful, yet truly a believer, flies in the face of countless portions where the believer is commanded and exhorted to manifest acts of righteousness and to pursue holiness.
If the Bible refers to Lot as a true believer, then that is what God must see him as.
But since the canon is closed, no one else can be assured that their unfruitful belief is recognized by God as true belief until they meet Him face to face.

If God extends mercy to such an individual, then all praise to Him.
But to teach and preach that an individual can be assured of salvation despite having no fruiful evidences or worse is going beyond the clearer portions of Scripture.
Interpret the less clear portions by the more clear portions.
And what is clear is passages like Hebrews 3:12-14 and 2 John 8-9.


We are to watch that we do not lose that which we have worked for. John is assuming that the believer is working. The fact that a "believer" might no longer continue in the teaching of Christ and therefore does not have God is apparant and is to be warned against.
And those who share in Christ are those who hold firmly to the end that which they had at first. Holding firm is abiding like in John 15 with the vine and branches.
Fruitful living is the expected norm and to presume salvation without this is apparant folly and danger.

Alex has done a much better job of explaining this on another thread, so I'll revert to that...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1142916&postcount=14

 

[webdog]

What are you talking about? I never said Lot was unrighteous. Are we talking about someone else now?

Was Joseph's obedience to the angel the fruit of righteousness?

Was Lot's obedience the fruit of righteousness?

Joseph's was.

Lot was obedient AFTER THE FACT, not before, nor do all cases of obedience to God mean they are spiriutal fruits. The lost person that obeys their father and mother is obeying God, and that is not fruit.

Why would Angels care about sparing Lot's whole family if they were reprobate? They would have perished WITH THE REST OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS THAT THE ANGELS CAME TO DESTROY.

 

[Amy.G]

Joseph's was.

Lot was obedient AFTER THE FACT, not before, nor do all cases of obedience to God mean they are spiriutal fruits. The lost person that obeys their father and mother is obeying God, and that is not fruit.

Why would Angels care about sparing Lot's whole family if they were reprobate? They would have perished WITH THE REST OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS THAT THE ANGELS CAME TO DESTROY.

We are obviously not going to agree on this. It is clear that you believe that God can save a person, put His Spirit in them and fail to produce any fruit through them. I do not believe that.

And unless you think that you as a parent are an angel of God, your comparison of obedience is silly.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Alex has done a much better job of explaining this on another thread, so I'll revert to that...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1142916&postcount=14

Well, that response is certainly convenient for you.
Link to someone else's.
Hmm.
You're the one who asked the wrong question in the first place and still has not acknowledged bringing confusion to the thread.
Then when an answer is provided along with some follow-up questions, you point to someone else's response to stand as your response.
Ooookkayy.

Your board interaction leaves much to be desired.