Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by baptistaw, Mar 23, 2010.
spam removed for the common good
I have read the entire site. I will now disregard it.
Stupidity has always been the language of ignorance.
While I don't necessarily agree with Lordship salvation in and of itself, to portray it as a 'damnable heresy', is ignorance at it's 5 star finest. Though in order to properly swallow it properly I am sure the best wine is served with it :thumbs:
Ok, I admit I might have been somewhat critically harsh and I appolgize for that part. Still you opinion of it being a 'damnable heresy' is quite honestly silly and niave.
BTW -the last sentence should have originally read:
Oh, thank goodness! For a minute there, I thought you were serious until I clicked on the link.
That's right people! There is no need to turn from your sins! God forgives you. Just say a prayer and you have your "get out of hell free" card and you can continue to live the life you want. No worries about trying to follow the Word of God. You're fine.
I believe Lordship Salvation is heresy. Whether damnable, that can be debated. If one goes through life thinking they can turn from sin to receive salvation, and then dies in that state, they will be one of the "Lord, Lord, did we not...".
We are either saved by grace through faith...or we are saved by works. LS is nothing more than front loaded works salvation...an exchange of turning from sin to receive salvation. Only one who has accepted Christ and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit can do that, and is empowered to do so. An unregenerated person has no clue what that means.
My goodness. Guess I am also a heretic, since I agree with scripture that we should "turn FROM these vain things...UNTO a living God."
Would someone please lock this tread (or delete it)? Calling half the members of the BB damned heretics, is clearly against BB rules...
While I disagree with Comfort and Cameron, I would not use the label "heretic" to describe their teaching, as much of the evangelical agrees with it, and honest persons can examine Scripture and find support for such teaching. To be sure, honest persons can also find support for significantly different soteriology, depending upon how they interpret the text.
This is a much more complex issue than it may appear on the surface. I know of strong men of God on both sides of the Lordship issue, and I do not think any of them are evil or heretical. However, they certainly do teach different approaches to this most vital of subjects. I have found my own position to fall somewhere between Ryrie (moderate free grace) and Darrell Bock (soft Lordship). I think MacArthur, Comfort, etc. go too far, while radical free grace people do indeed fall into easy believism.
As for the issue of repentance, it seems the Bible teaches both the "change of mind" and "turning from sin" meanings of the term, depending upon context. However, in the soteriological sense, to tell a lost man to turn from every single sin and name them seems to slide toward trusting in one's works rather than Christ alone. No honest Christian would state that he had turned completely from every known sin in his life - the Bible refutes such false and prideful perfectionism. Therefore, if Ray Comfort has not turned from all sin in his own life, how can he require this from a lost man seeking Christ? How much turning is required, how sorry do you have to be, etc.? The first casualty in such teaching is assurance. How can a person ever have any peace or assurance if his life focuses on morbid introspection?
As has been stated in other places, reformed theology and Lordship salvation are closely related. Since tempers flare so quickly on both subjects, it is not surprising that these debates get heated quickly. Anger does not further the cause of Christ.
Saving faith includes an attitude of repentance, where people turn from sins. All people, everywhere, are commanded to repent.
If you do not have repentance, leading to life, you will be one of those, who like the demons "believe," but do not truly trust. If you trust Christ, you will turn from your sins. If you simply say you trust Him, but do not, you will not. That is clear.
Half of the BB members are not LS advocates.
I also agree with Scripture that we are saved by grace through faith. If you first have to turn from sinning in order to receive salvation, that is a message that clearly frustrates what grace is and makes salvation works based.
Why would you want this thread locked...because you disagree with the OP?
Like most LS advocates...you have redefined what repentance is instead of allowing Scripture to define it.
Actually, I have turned from every sin in my life. I continue to do so.
What "free" (or meaningless) grace proponents fail to realize, is that "turning" from sin, and "stop sinning" are not synonymous. J. Mac makes it very clear that a Christian will not be able to stop sinning. But A true Christian will always be turning away from their sins. This is an act of the will, wherein Christians continually desire to follow God, and continually desire not to sin. When sin comes, the Christian does not delight in it. He hates that sinful part of himself, that "old man", and desires to be free of him. He longs for the day when he will finally be made perfect.
Anyone who can wake up and say "Woohoo! I cannot wait to sin! I don't care! Jesus paid for it, anyway!" has NEVER known saving faith. Paul is very, very clear on this.
Don't know: why do you have a tread locked every time someone questions an individuals salvation? Pot, meet kettle.
Not at all. Scripture defines repentance as a mental turning from sin, to God.
Your memory is infinite?
You have grossly characterized the free grace position, and have created a caricature in your mind as to what it entails.
"Every time" I do this? When? Your delusional.
Wrong. It defines it as the realization (a change of mind) one is a sinner, is guilty, and can do nothing in their own power to change this.