1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Our Role In Sanctification: An Imperative

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Reformed, Jun 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think a major reason we cannot grasp the LS position is that it appears that some deny the biblical truth that Christians still have sin nature remaining, and can act canral at times, as we would allow for the flesh to control us at those times!

    IF you denyt all that, the LS makes more sense!
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Here is what your site said:
    He believes LS is a false doctrine. He doesn't necessarily condone all that are listed in your list. The list is a list of those who DON"T believe in LS. And that is true. If he included Mormons and J.W.'s there would be nothing wrong with that, for they also don't believe in LS. He is not condoning those in the list. He is listing those who don't believe in LS. Whether you agree with those ministries of the ones he posted is an entirely different topic, isn't it?
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Look. You can't even define "trinity" from the Bible. So we look to other sources for definitions. What specific text are you referring to? There is no one text that defines LS. There is actually a history of LS, but most recently defined by MacArthur and popularized by Paul Washer. That is why I refer to them. And that is why I google them.
    I don't use Wikipedia often, but in this case it may prove to be a better source because it is neutral.
    Here is their definition:
    Note that it defines LS, and then gives the opposing view's objection to it. It is not something you find in the Bible.

    The link is here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation


    It gives a short history of this "doctrine."


    That depends on your definition of it.
    According to the definitions of MacArthur and Washer yes it is a works based salvation. Before their time no it wasn't. It has been redefined.
    That article will show you how.
    Whatever happened to sola fide? One cannot believe in LS and sola fide at the same time. A denial of sola fide in practice makes LS a heretical view. Would you agree with that? I never questioned salvation. One can believe in a heresy and still be saved. I believe that "speaking in tongues," as we know it today is a heresy, but I don't believe all in the Charismatic movement are unsaved.
    There is a poster here that does not believe in the depravity of man. I don't believe in the Calvinistic view "Total Inability," but I do believe we all have a sin nature. But to believe that all are born totally innocent like Adam, IMO, is a heretical view. Yet I don't question that person's salvation. I could give many other examples.
    I do understand progressive salvation. We are talking past each other.
    We both have different views of LS. Until you come to an understanding of what is meant by LS, we will continue to speak past each other.
     
  4. Reformed

    Reformed Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,960
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A plethora of words that equal one enormous dodge of the questions placed to you.
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It must be that you are too lazy to read the post and do your homework. For in my post, I have answered your questions, as far as I can tell.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Reformed,
    That you may understand the definition of LS, here is another outspoken critic of the modern definition of LS
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Lordship Salvation/lordship.htm
     
  7. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    6
    It is not my site DHK, its a page from your site, the one your giving so much credence to. And yes it is a list of people he believes to be heretics. If you hover over the names it says they believe in LS. There are many on the list that I believe to be false teachers due to prosperity gospel, mysticism, or something else. But there are many solid Bible teachers listed there as well. Although you may disagree with them on Calvinism or LS does not mean they are heretics.

    The guy is a fundy nut job and basically implying that any of us who believe in LS are heretics. And in my opinion your implying the same.

    http://expreacherman.com/2014/06/22/lordship-salvationists-are-not-disciples/

    Then you top it off by posting a link to another fundy nut job.

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...n/lordship.htm

    If I was a betting man (and I'm not since I'm a good Baptist), but if I was I'd bet that less than 5% of the BB population would take anything from either of these sites seriously, and that according to these guys the same 95% of BB would also be heretics for one reason or another,
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    There are plenty of other sources. I have posted a couple.
     
  9. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    6
    umm, wiki?? :rolleyes:
     
  10. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Can you explain Romans 6:6
     
  11. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What I believe ....

    Sanctification is a two fold process.

    1) we are saved and sanctified, with the word sanctified here meaning "set aside!"

    2) We then go through the process of sanctification. The process begins at and after our justification, and ends once we reach glorification, or heaven.


    OUR ROLE in the process is two fold. We must first be obedient to come to Him in repentance and be saved, and then out of continued obediance, walk in the Spirit, grow in the Spirit, and allow the Spirit to reign within us and to yield to the Spirits direction for our life!
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.

    This is a continuation of the picture of baptism:
    Romans 6:3 Or don't you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
    4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
    5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection;

    Verses 4 and 5 picture our baptism. We are buried with him through baptism to death.
    If we have become united with him in the likeness of his death...

    Our baptism is a picture. It is symbolic of our death to our sinful life and our resurrection to a new life in Christ. We do not believe in baptismal regeneration. It is purely symbolic. There is nothing that actually happened here. It is symbolic.
    What did the water do? It made you wet! It didn't make you any more holy or save you.

    Immediately after is verse 6:
    Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.
    --Knowing this (the meaning and significance of our baptism),
    that our old man is crucified with him (symbolically, as in baptism). Literally, the old man was crucified together with Christ. But the old man, that is, the old nature, was not eradicated. It is you, the person. It was rendered powerless at the cross because Christ gained the victory over sin.
    --that the body of sin might be done away with: not the human body, but the old nature that controls. It remains powerless at the cross. But we see in chapter 7 that it is still active; still present; still has power.

    So that we no longer be in bondage to sin.
    This is not a given. This is his will. Victory is ours as long as we look to the cross. Look to what our baptism signifies. If we have died to sin we have risen with Christ, then freed from sin. That is the picture. Can we act like it? It is not a picture of an eradicated sin nature.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...