All LS Discussions and Debates

What Bible are you reading? Mine says nothing of the kind in Mt 13:2-23 -- not in either explanation Jesus gave of the sower and the seed. You can't interpret parables right if you don't adhere to the basic rules of communication.

Well, I'm not going to go through and "fact check" you since I just discovered the first incidence of that statement being untrue.

Can you give that opinion any more "guts?" Cause my "gut feeling" is you are just dodging the truth.

Again, please provide some scriptural context (as I did) to your opinion. Here's an example from my side: "I am come that they may have life [eternal life] and that they may have it more abundantly [during this life and beyond]." There are obviously TWO "may" decision points: one regarding eternal life and one regarding abundant life. Again, rather than believe me, you choose to believe the ONE decision paradigm of JM. And if you want to be saved in this life, I would recommend JM's "way." That'll work to some extent regardless of whether you are eternally saved or not.

That's a good parable to offer. The thing is that the taxcollectors and harlots refused to be saved but repented and went in. The Pharisees said they were going in but never repented. We're talking here about JUSTIFICATION, dad, not SANCTIFICATION/"works."

I agree. In fact, you finally distinguish between repenting to salvation from repenting to sanctification. Good job!

skkypair

 

OOOH! That was CRUEL in the extreme! :laugh:

So I take it you didn't want to hear what I might have wrote anyway?

skypair

 

WHERE it says it is irrelevant. Those who do not produce fruit, are cut down and thrown in the fire. That is a basic, spiritual truth that Jesus expresses multiple times. The fact that none but the last plant produces fruit, means the others are cut down and thrown in the fire.

Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Jesus says "EVERY", not "some". And He does not say "except in this case, in direct contradiction to what I have told you countless times, these people who produce no fruit shall be saved".

Not so. You have to interpret scripture as a whole> every tree that does not bear good fruit is thrown into the fire. The choked and withered plants produce no fruit: therefore they are thrown in the fire.

Laying down simple truth, that most people reject because they just don't like it.

LOL> Bro, you really need to look at the Greek before you make such statements. "Might" and "may" are carry overs from the Old English, and are not present as conditional articles> the word translated "they may have", is just one word, meaning "to have". Jesus came so they WILL have life, and WILL have it more abundantly. There is no "may" or "might" actually present in the verse, that indicates possibility: rather it is a statement of fact. They "have" eternal life, and they "have" it more abundantly. No "might".

Not at all. They are "repenting" of refusing to work/follow Christ. I agree such refusal means they are not saved.

"Forsaking sin" to salvation...

"forsaking a particular sin" sanctification.

I am glad you admit forsaking sin is required for salvation.

 

Heres the problem Sky;
my post to you was about Lordship Salvation. It's seeing the ultimate and dropping everything else for it. Jesus Christ is the greatest treasure you will ever have.
Sanctification and Justification; How is it you can separate the two when you can't have one with out the other? When we are sanctified we are Justified. Sanctification is being made holy. Justification is being judged holy. They happen at the same time instantly because it's the same God who does both. You can't have a spiritual relationship with out being Justified and Sanctified. You can't have a spiritual relationship with out complete submission to the righteousness of God.
MB

 

Aw, shucks! You noticed!
And I though I had managed to get this one by without anyone noticing.

I dislike this because it is both a 'pejorative crack' and also entirely inaccurate, as I've said multiple times.

No, I did not say that, at all. You did.

I said the issue was not, is not now, nor has it ever been "personalities", not that it was "more about those" that believe in one thing vs. another, at all. The issue is what is being preached and taught.

And who is supposedly suggesting "lordless" (sic) in this? Or not believeing in "Lordship"? Certainly, this is not what I have ever said. None that I have seen, have said this, at least generally speaking, with the possible exception of some in the "crossless gospel" controversy, which 'question' is not within three states of even being in the same area code as what you are suggesting, in the first place.

Regardless of what "repent" actually means, what does that question have to do with the OP title? I notice you did not address this, but, again, should I here be surprised?

"Repent" - ("nacham" in the OT)properly means "to sigh", and the word is basically used 'to be eased' or 'to be comforted' The "who" or "what" is being "eased" is determined by the wording and context of the Scriptures, concerned. This word is found some 40 times in Scripture. [The three instances where the KJV renders "shuwb" (rendered as 'turn' in hundreds of instances) as 'repent', I will not address, for this is a poor rendering, and the NKJV and YLT both "get it right", rendering it as as 'turn', in all 3 instances, and as do the ASV and DARBY, in 2 of the 3.] The 'force' of 'nacham' is somewhere between that of 'metanoeO' and 'metamellomai' in the NT.

"Repent" - ("MetanoeO" in the NT) means or the word is defined as "to think afterward (or differently)", or to reconsider. Has primarily to do with the mind, and is a 'transitive' or 'objective' word. It is the usual word for 'repent' in the NT. The 'subject and/or object of "repent' is determined by the wording and context of the Scriptures concerned. This is the word used in connection with salvation in every instance in the NT. (I have only posted most, if not all, of this stuff in this post, about a dozen times, already, on the BB!) [Heavy Sigh!]

In 6 instances, "repent" ("metamellomai") which means or the word is defined as "to care afterward" or to regret. It is what Paul did cncerning his letter to the Corinthains, (II Cor. 7:9) as well as the son about working in his father's vineyard, and Judas. (Mt. 21:29, 32; 27:9) It is a 'reflexive' or "inward looking" word (by contrast with "metanoeO", which is an "outward looking" word), and is used in this manner. It is also the word used for nacham in Heb. 7:21, a quote from the OT.

Ed

 

But you can try to have one without the other. You can do all the right things Lordship-wise and still not be justified before God. That was the case of the Pharisees, don't ya know. They were trying to be "made holy" without first being "judged holy." That is the point of the "whited tombs full of dead men's bones," MB.

That is true. But in the case of JM, did his "Lordship" believers DO anything to become "justified?" According to classic Calvinism, they not only don't but the can't. The faintest hint of a saving response on man's part is deemed by them to be "merit" about which one could "boast" as if one had "saved oneself."

So now what you clearly have is a quandry: How to make Jesus Lord of your life without such "works" as "making Him Lord" being the reason you are saved. Cause you can't really make God anything good until you are already saved, can you? Until you're saved, you have NO connection or understanding of spiritual things, do you? So how or why would you make Him Lord?

Are you saved only so long as you are completely submitted then? Can one still be reconciled with the Father and yet "out of touch" with the grieved, quenched, or resisted Spirit within??

Or are you basically saying what I would --- that your reconciliation with God is a separate issue from your Lordship-discipleship relationship with Christ?

skypair

 

Ever think Jesus was talking about the fig tree or the olive tree? Remember the fig tree He cursed and it died? It represented ISRAEL. Remember the olive tree whose natural branches were cut off and burned? That too was ISRAEL. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what trees Jesus is talking about, eh?

How convenient for you that you like the 'simple truth' you see in scripture. Maybe others merely don't like your version of it. Maybe your version is wrong, too.

dad, whether "may's" or "mights" are there or not, that still doesn't tell us that they aren't saved in TWO ways -- justified eternally and sanctified daily.

Always have and your exposition has helped me see that (or as Obama would say, "Refine my earlier position." :laugh: ). Basically, what I see you saying and agree with is that we are forsaking our old sin nature.

skypair

 

There is a problem with saying that Jesus taught the Gospel as it is today. Now, at first glance, that phrase sounds like heresy. Jesus came to die for us so that we might live right? Of course. He was crucified for us.

However, the biographies of Christ are a very confusing area to go to for salvation doctrine. There are three main reasons

i) Jesus had not yet died for the most part of each biography.
ii) Jesus and John were preaching the gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews
iii) Gentiles and Jews get saved in different ways in these gospels.


Now, since the third one will probably get me attacked, I want to give some examples.

GENTILE SALVATION in the 4 Biographies of Christ

i) The Thief on the cross: He was saved simply by believing. He realised he needed a saviour, and acknowledged his sin, and asked Christ to save him. HOWEVER, He didn't even understand the blood atonement. How could he.. the disciples didn't even understand it. Noone preached it until Paul.

ii)The woman at the well, and the samaritans with her. Jesus called Samaritans "dogs" in other areas of scripture, so they were not considered jewish, even though they had jewish heritage.

Joh 4:40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.


These gentiles were saved by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour. They weren't baptised by John for repentance.

JEWISH SALVATION in the 4 biographies

It is important to understand what John's baptism was for.

Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

John's baptism of repentance was to MANIFEST TO ISRAEL who Jesus was. Not many of the pharisees were baptized with the baptism of repentance, and therefore, hardly any of them believed on Christ.

Look at this passage in Acts

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These people that Paul met had partook in the baptism of John. They didn't know what the Holy Spirit was. They didn't know much about Christ, other than what John had told them. Paul comes to them, and finishes the plan of salvation that John begun for the jews. - REPENT, BE BAPTIZED, BELIEVE ON CHRIST.

The way jews were saved during this period of transition from Law to Grace varies wildly. Some of them are baptised by John, Christ is manifest to them, they believe and are baptised again in Jesus name. Other times, there is no baptism.

I did a study on this over the past few weeks, but I don't have my notes here (I am at work).

This is not the plan of salvation for today. Today's plan of salvation is found in Romans - Philemon.

Matthew - Acts is a transitional period, and even within Matthew - John, there is a transition. John is all about salvation of the gentiles, whereas Matthew is all about the Jews.


Anyone trying to get salvation doctrine out of Matthew - Acts is going to run into a tonne of problem verses. The exception is John, being that it was written much later, but it still exhibits some of the traits of the transitional period.

Some objections and answers

i) Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2.

No, he didn't. There is no blood atonement. There is no death, burial and resurrection. Peter preached from JOEL and Old Testament book about the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM being restored to Israel. The repentance and BAPTISM Peter preached was the same one John preached, that they might recieve Christ as King.

ii) The book of Acts shows the Apostles preaching the gospel.

No, it doesn't. It is an historical book about a period of time after Christ's death. It is infallible and perfect (KJB), but is not doctrinal. There are people getting saved in at least 9 different ways. Some with baptism, some without, some with tongues, some without, sometimes it mentions believing, sometimes it doesn't, although one would conclude that belief is evident in every salvation in acts.

Here are the main transitions in Acts

Law -> Kingdom (Matthew - Acts).

Jew to Gentile (Acts 8 - Jews reject Stephen. Same chapter, FIRST Gentile saved in acts. Chapter 9 - Paul, the missionary to the gentiles is saved. Chapter 10 - Cornelius is saved. By chapter 15, salvation is for the jews and gentiles, by faith alone. The problem chapter of chapter 19 is explained above).

Kingdom -> Grace ( Acts 2 - Acts 8 - Acts 28)

REPENTANCE

Now basically, you could call what I believe "Dispensationalism" but I am not a dry cleaner. Baptism is for this age, as an ordinance. Repentance, properly defined, is for this age. It is a change of mind about sin that agrees with God that man is a sinner. It is not an action. The man who repents, believes, and the man who believes repents. There is also repentance after salvation, which causes us to forsake sins.

I believe the KJB to be perfect. I believe the words used are perfect, and I believe that the perfect Bible perfectly defines itself.

Some refer to "The Law of first mention". I prefer to call it a principle. Generally, the first time the Bible uses a word, the context of that word sets up the usage for the rest of the Bible. For example, Egypt is associated with the world from the start, and it remains that way the entire Bible. Create is associated with God's goodness and it remains that way throughout the Bible.

Looking at the first three usages of the word repent

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Exo 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

The first two, God repents. God is not a sinner. He is not repenting of sin. He is repenting of GOODNESS that He initially created, because it has gone bad. The sin of mankind is grieving his heart.

When we repent, our minds are changed to agree with God on this point. We are sinners.

The first mention of man repenting is not even in reference to salvation. In fact, if one was certain inclined, it could be in reference to loss of salvation. The Jews have come OUT of Egypt (out of the world), and God "worries" that they might repent of their salvation, and go back into the world (egypt). Of course, one cannot lose their salvation, because as this passage demonstrates, God keeps us saved, and God kept them out of egypt, even though they were wicked, and some desired to go back (they said this later, when they were thirsty and hungry).

I am sorry if this makes little sense, or seems a bit scattered. I have constant headaches due to a tumor in my nasal cavity, and it makes it hard for me to collect my thoughts at times. I am going to see an ENT doctor about it very soon to get it removed.

 

I'm going to jump into this thread for this post and I'm right back out again.

Until a person is regenerated, he will not want to turn from his sin. Nor can he.

Romans 8:7-9 "For the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God; neither can it be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit...."

Some believe Paul is referring to "carnal Christians." I believe that he is referring to the unsaved, drawing a distinction between those "in the Spirit" and those who are not.

I'm outa here.

 

But those who walk in the spirit, are still in the flesh

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul said that. Paul was capable of sin, just as much as any other man. He said that in the chapter preceeding your quote

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Paul goes on in chapter 7 to explain what he means

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

You see that? The believer has two natures, a carnal fleshly nature, and the spiritual regenerated nature. The fleshy nature is not subject to the laws of God, and as Paul says, it cannot ever be.

That is why we need the spiritual nature. To be born again, so that we CAN follow after righteousness and holyness.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Paul begs, (beseeches) believers to live holy lives. Not all believers do. Holiness is not a requirement of salvation. In fact, I would say it's not even an evidence of salvation. The only evidence of salvation is faith.

Chapter 7 of Romans is the christian struggle. It is the struggle that happens when legal requirements are added to pure grace. Chapter 8 speaks about freedom from that struggle.


1 and 2 Corinthians deal with the carnal christian.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

Whenever the word "even" is used in this manner, it is used to say this is that, here is another way of saying the same thing. For example, see

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.


So carnal, in reference to the corinthian church, is referring to their spiritual standing. They are still like babes in Christ. They should be much further along, seeing as they had some of the highest manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but they were still carnal, and trying to impress God with their carnal minds.

"I am of Paul, I am of apollos" etc.

Are you willing to say that the entire book of 1 Corinthians was written to an unsaved church?

Paul doesn't imply it. He constantly says "brethren" and "we", making no distinction between his standing and their standing in Christ.

In fact, 1 and 2 Corinthians have the HIGHEST occurances of the word Brethren than any other book in the Bible, with the exception of the book of Acts, which was church history.

And 1 & 2 Corinthians are supposed to be unsaved carnal men? Why would Paul call them brethren once, let alone 36 times?

 

Lukasaurus (may I call you "Luke?),

Welcome to BB. :wavey: You seem to come down on "the good side" of the debate. :laugh: I particularly like and was going to post myself about the Samaritan woman at the well because Christ's message was NOT "move out on the man you are living with." She would know how to deal with that in the due course of her "discipleship" as opposed to what she needed to do to be saved was to hear and believe on Christ.

But there is a "wing" of Calvinism/Reformers, whom I've heard on Christian radio, who believe that it is by a life of discipleship that a person "perserveres" unto salvation (or, not perservering, were never saved). This, to some of us, sounds eerily similar to "Lordship."

BTW, I don't think anyone here swallows the whole menu of LS. Like Calvinism, it has its attractions but both, so far as I can see, fail to distinguish between saving faith (justification) and the discipleship that follows (sanctification). Therefore, they don't realize that repenting of being a sinner is a different "choice" than repenting of sins -- another good point you make.

You provide good scriptural authority but it might help to shorten your posts, as you would a paragraph, to one idea at a time or either divide your post up with quotes from the person you are answering.

skypair

 

Has JArthur Read MacArthur's Book?

JArthur:

I have offered to give you quotes from two of MacArthur’s books to show how he misuses 1 Thess. 1:9 to support his definition of repentance. You asked for these because you said you want to check the quotes and pages numbers.

I have for days asked you to disclose whether or not you have read any of MacArthur's major LS books. Thus far you are ignoring and/or dodging this issue.

Could it be you are yet another LS defender (MacArthur’s version) who NEVER read any of his books on the subject? You would be the third in less than two months.

To date, have you read, in their entirety, and of his five major books on LS? Yes or No?


LM

 

Having either one with out the work of God is impossible. Try as men may their efforts are futile. Our faith doesn't save us anyway no matter how well you may believe. Salvation is all of God and being all of God nothing man has or, does,,,, qualifies him for Salvation.
We are saved by grace through faith and it isn't even our faith it belongs to Christ.
This verse show how we are saved;
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Our belief is only our hope of Salvation as you can see above. As it says even we have believed that we might be justified.
It is the grace and faith of our Lord Jesus that saves us.

Absolutely no! Whether they believed they were is another thing.

None of mans efforts are counted for righteousness though he may make efforts. Submission is not meritorious. You first have to understand what submission really is. I could give you a scenario but I really hate scenarios.

I don't agree with that part of Calvinism. Man is and has always been a spiritual being whether spiritually evil or Spiritually righteous Man is only considered dead spiritually not literally. The body cannot live with out the spirit. If your spirit is really dead it is to late for Salvation.
We are drawn to God, taught of God, and convinced by God, and convicted by God. All man has to do is nothing. The only thing man can do is rebel. If he rebels he will not be saved. Man does not choose to be saved nor does anything that would influence the lord one way or the other. We believe that we might be saved not that we will be. Anyone can be saved it's God's will that all be saved. The only choice man exercises is to rebel. This keeps man from having faith in God.

I'm still saved and I'm not perfect. Yet, I am repeatedly corrected when I neglect my commitment. I am constantly praying for forgiveness because I am a sinner by nature. I have driffted away for short times and am always corrected and brought back to Him. At first I was very carnal but I hadn't learned by correction yet. We are all corrected if we are truly a child of God.

I wouldn't say that at all, because I wasn't saved until I surrendered. The Lord will not be Lord of your life until you do surrender. That is simply what Lord ship means. By surrender we submit to Him as our Ruler. If you drift away and do not accept correction then you were never really in submission. Your rebellion would prove that.
MB

 

EXACTLY what I would say!! Here's the nub of the truth you express --- WE had to CHOOSE/DECIDE to believe. It was based on that choice/decision that God GAVE us faith. Agree? Disagree?? Read Rom 4:5 before answering: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith [I'll admit, it's the faith God gave him for choosing to believe] is counted for righteousness."

Well, PTL!!

Is believe, right?

If we believe the gospel, then we must believe salvation is God's promise to us, no? That's not a 'might' promise but a sure and literal promise.

The problem with Calvinism, IMO, is that they tell you that you only have the hope of "might" being saved/elect.

Also false. There is also the choice to believe the gospel, MB.

skypair

I'm still saved and I'm not perfect. Yet, I am repeatedly corrected when I neglect my commitment. I am constantly praying for forgiveness because I am a sinner by nature. I have driffted away for short times and am always corrected and brought back to Him. At first I was very carnal but I hadn't learned by correction yet. We are all corrected if we are truly a child of God.

I wouldn't say that at all, because I wasn't saved until I surrendered. The Lord will not be Lord of your life until you do surrender. That is simply what Lord ship means. By surrender we submit to Him as our Ruler. If you drift away and do not accept correction then you were never really in submission. Your rebellion would prove that.
MB[/QUOTE]

 

I don't remember deciding to believe anything. I was convinced of the truth by the preaching of the gospel. Decision was never an oppition. Being convinced is believing although the one who convinced me is responsible for my being convinced. Being convinced is faith with out action. Men do deny being convinced but it is a false denial because they know it is truth. They hold the truth with out faith.
When we recognize a truth we don't sit back and think well should I accept this and believe it or not. We either are convinced or we aren't. Yet even though you do believe, belief is the result of being convinced. To be convinced of anything is the result of the one convincing you. Anytime during this we can still rebel but this is the only choice because with out rebellion there is no resistance and with no resistance you will become convinced. The gospel is effective and it will convict.
Belief does you no good with out conviction and you can rebel against the conviction but, you get to take the conviction with you and it makes you hate the light even more. You realize that when you see the light it will bring conviction therefore, you hate the light and love the darkness. Jn 3:19-21. Why? because this is knowing the truth in unrighteousness. This is having the truth and avoiding it.
Rebellion. This is a lack of submission. The choice was never to choose to believe but to rebel and is the only choice man has.

Not sure what PTL is all about.

There is a difference between belief and knowing the truth. The word belief implies faith. If we are convinced and convicted of our sins to the point of remorse and repentance we will have faith. However if we know the truth and when convicted we reject it and hold on to our sins we will not be saved because, this is rebellion

Salvation is more than belief. You must also surrender all. which faith in action.

You do not have faith with out action, that action must be submission.

Rom 4:5 those who do no works but have faith have surrenderd which proves that surrender is not a works for Salvation.

The Jews would have been saved and Paul wouldn't have to had prayed for them. if being belief was all that is needed
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Belief isn't faith until you place it in action. It seems that you think of belief and faith as a no action words.
No one is saved with out submission with a humble heart. To come to Christ in humility is to be submisive as a little child.
MB

 

Dr. Robert G. Wilkin has repented from 'good' concerning repentance. So that his view is now virtually the same as many if not most "Lordship salvation" adherents?

"Strange!" in the words of Mr. Spock.

Ed

 

GES- Drifting Far Off the Marker

Yes, and to diassociate his new LS like view of repentance from the Lordship camp, Wilkin and most GES men follow Hodges's teaching that repentance (by any definition) is not a condition for salvation.

See Ron Shea's two part series, Drifting Far Off the Marker for more on this.


LM

 

Does anyone know what Dr Lawrence Vance teaches? I have his book "The Other side of Calvinism" which is really good, and in the biography it states that he is a member of the GES. He has a small section on Lordship Salvation in the book, linking it to Calvinism.

 

While there may be much wisdom in what you are saying, from a practical view, Biblically, Scripture simply does not say what you are implying. several have posted Scriptures telling us that we "should" walk in a better manner. It's called 'growth", I believe. Its' also called being "filled with the Spirit," and several other things. Were this definite, as you are claiming, these admonitions would simply be so much "hot air," since there would be no possibility this would not be automatic. Have you read anything in the Epistles and Gospels that tell of such? Or that we should "strive" to maintain good works"? Here are a couple or three.

See your very next sentence, below, which seems to contradict at least three verses I posted.

FTR, I have no idea who "you and Charles" are.

Gal. 5 & 6 seem to tell us to "walk" in a certain way. It sdoes not say that we will 'automatically.'

Where does Scripture say what you are claiming, here? John 3? Unh-unh! Ac. 16? Not that I found. I believe you are putting what should be the 'friut" of salvation, as a 'requirement, frankly.

Church time; gotta' run.

Ed