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?