Featured The Doctrine of Repentance

You figured that one out?

 

Probably because you fail to understand the arguments made in its defense.

 

Yet you use The Way of the Master which is heavy on Lordship salvation?

 

Count me among the confused. I simply don't get it.

 

What you are saying is irrational as well as completely unbiblical. You admit they are in unbellief and you admit they do respond to the gospel but there is no change from unbelief to belief. Yet the gospel calls unbelievers to believe - "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever BELIEVETH on him shall not perish...."

YOu claim to believe one comes "under conviction" but there is NO CHANGE from embracing, loving sin! What kind of conviction is that???? Conviction of what??? You deny it is a conviction that produces any kind of CHANGE in the person - no change from unbelief to faith, no change from love of sin to love of righteousness! What kind of conviction is it then?

You never responded to Luke 24:27 that repentance and remission of sins is commanded by Christ to be preached to "ALL NATIONS"! You simply ignored it. Ignoring it does not change what it says. You ignored it because your theory contradicts it.

Another irrational response! If resistance by the will to gospel does not change but that person is still saved, then all in hell will also be saved as they too are resistant to the gospel. What is the point for Jesus saying "whosoever will" in the gospel if the will does not change but remains resistant to the gospel??? Your theory is simply unbiblical as well as irrational.

Another irrational and unbiblical response! If you are "lost in sin" prior to being saved, then what kind of salvation do you preach that does not save that which is lost??? Confess what? It can't be a confession of being a sinner needing to be saved, as that is a CHANGE of heart, change of mind, change of will and you deny that. So what does the sinner need salvation for, salvation from what? You are preaching "another gospel" that does not save anyone from anything as there is no CHANGE made by your gospel that saves anyone from anything. You are simply preaching pie in sky rather than SALVATION.

 

I understand it very well. It's weakness is that it demands perseverance in works instead of perseverance in saving faith and character fruit. So, I do not believe in perseverance of the saints except in saving faith and character fruit of the Spirit. The difference is between Lot and Abraham. Lot did not persevere in MANIFEST good works before men, but he did persevere in saving faith. If such works were present, they were not noted. Sure there was a contrast between his spiritual weakness and their manifest wickedness, but there was also a world of contrast between his manifest spiritual weakness and Abraham's manifest spiritual strength. It is a failure to understand the nature of works. Not all works are visibly manifest as in the case of Lot, the only works manifest was those seen by God "his righteous heart was vexed" and yet he was willing to turn over his own daughters for sexual abuse. Progressive sanctification is not the same in all, nor is its rate of change the same, nor is its manifestation the same. Grant it, there is change being made, there is progress but there is no manifest STANDARD of that progress except perseverance in saving faith and character fruit which is sometime only seen in attitude rather than in actions. Lot is an example that one can be saved and yet almost entirely void of any external manifestation sanctification.

In direct contrast is the view by the person claiming there is no CHANGE in a person who is saved. That is equally wrong.

The bottom line is that the elect vary in degree of manifest sanctification according to the measure of grace and faith given. However, there is no minimum STANDARD of sanctification that is provided by Scripture. Unbelievers are manifest by their unbelief and wickedness. However, some genuine believers are living the life of Lot where greed, immorality and the works of the flesh are manifested in the life more than their progressive sanctification. These are the type that Jude says we are to pull out of the fire having mercy upon.

 

Such as if the person professing to have been saved as not yet fullt surrendered to Lordship of jesus, still acting in a sinful manner, really might not be saved?

 

No one who supports LS has ever made that argument. It is sad that you guys are so incompetent that you cannot make even the slightest smidgen of an argument opposing it so you have to create false caricatures of it in order to demonize it.

 

Acts 20:21

 

Acts 17:30

 

I would think that Acts 3:19 should settle for anyone. Seemingly a kindergarten kid could read that and understand it, but I am not sure about the BB.

 

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

In Acts 17:30 he is directly addressing PAGAN GENTILES on Mars hill in Athens.

In Luke 24:47 he is giving the Great Commission and defining preaching the gospel to include preaching "repentance and remission of sins" AMONG ALL NATIONS.

These scriptures simply nail the coffin and bury the FREE GRACE movement which denies Gentiles need to repent in order to believe in the gospel.

However, these scriptures do not support the LS doctrine either as both are speaking about GOSPEL repentance rather than progressive sanctification. Gospel repentance is a change of mind from unbelief to belief in the gospel, change of affections from the love of sin and enmity against God to love and submission to God, and change of will from resistance to the gospel to submission to the gospel.

After gospel conversion, repentance continues throughout the life of a believer in regard to revealed truth in areas of their lives as they progress in sanctification but this repentance is not always visibly manifested, as much occurs below the manifest surface within the heart and minds, whereas the manifest practice depends upon winning the battle within between indwelling sin and the indwelling new man by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.

 

Except that there is the full implication within that position that if one has not come to the p;ace of a full surrendering to the Lordship of jesus, then doubts as to if a real salvation!

 

LS ay extreme levels comes close to Catholic doctrine, as both seem to affirm togetehr that while salvation is free, that we must have a lifestyle that merits us being worthy and in a right condition to get saved and kept by God...

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Actually, Rev, I can see Y1's point. There are two posters here on BB that stand rather staunchly in support of LS and they both seem to imply the position that if one does not openly embrace LS then their salvation is actually in question.

For example:

That sounds an awful lot like questioning the salvation of anyone who does not admit to being a Lordship Salvationist.

Granted, those are only the words of one person. If there is an official definition out there that speaks a differing point of view, I welcome a link to it. But it does seem to be the position of some LS'ers that you are not saved unless you buy in part and parcel to LS in the first place.

 

I don't know how you define Lordship Salvation but it seems to me that Ephesians 2:10 demands the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Of course if you define Lordship Salvation as Judith does then I don't believe that either.