June 1, 2007

How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

To All:

Nathan Busenitz is the personal assistant to Dr. John MacArthur. In late 2006 Nathan invited me to enter a series of what grew into protracted discussions at the Pulpit Magazine web site over the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. (John MacArthur’s Grace to You ministry operates Pulpit Magazine)

As for Nathan personally, I have never met him, but he is one of the most pleasant men I have ever sharply disagreed with doctrinally. It was refreshing to debate the Lordship Salvation issue with Nathan at his site. I believe Nathan and I gave an object lesson on how men can disagree sharply, and yet charitably.

At the height of our discussions I encouraged Nathan to expand our discussion to other important and related doctrines, but he was not very interested in discussing anything other than repentance. That was a little frustrating because the Lordship interpretation touches on numerous Bible doctrines. The repentance question, however, became a very important and revealing discussion because it is with repentance that the Lordship advocate takes some of his most serious doctrinal missteps. Through my interaction with Nathan we get a clearer picture of Lordship’s view of repentance, salvation.

During our on line discussion Nathan stated,

Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance. It includes a willingness to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ…. Lordship Salvation defines sin as rebellion or ‘lawlessness’ (which is how 1 John 3:4 defines it). To turn from (or forsake) one’s rebellion is (by definition) to begin submitting.”

If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God).”
Nathan’s definition of repentance (representative of the Lordship position) requires a lost man to be inclined (i.e., make a decison) to stop sinning and “start obeying” to receive the gift of eternal life. This is to tell a lost man that he must turn over a new leaf to be born again. Nathan’s repentance is telling a lost man that he must make a commitment to change his behavior, which is telling a lost man he must repent toward good works. I am certainly not suggesting that a lost man who thinks he can pray for salvation, while at the same time is determined to continue his sinful ways, can be genuinely born again.

For the record here, and in my book,
I strongly object to the reductionist Crossless gospel associated with Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. Nathan’s repentance, however, demands a commitment for reformation of life to receive the gift of eternal life.


Lordship Salvation’s repentance confuses sanctification (growth of a believer) with justification, (God declaring/making a sinner righteous). For Lordship advocates anything short of a commitment to obedience is not repentance, and would leave the lost man dead in his sins, no matter he believed about his guilt before God or the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Upfront commitment to the kind of behavior expected of a spiritually mature Christian is the Lordship advocates definition of repentance.

Referring back to Nathan’s comment above he wrote,
Lordship sees repentance as more than just a change in dependence. It is also a change of allegiance.”
As soon as I saw Nathan’s use of “allegiance” in his definition of repentance I had an immediate concern. I followed up with two questions for Nathan based from a passage of Scripture.

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (John 12:42-43).

The Bible says they were not open about, and would not confess a “change of allegiance.” Did they biblically repent; were they believers?

I posted the above twice to Nathan’s attention at Pulpit Magazine, but he never replied to it. It is a question Lordship advocates cannot answer! Lordship’s repentance, which calls for commitment, submission, and allegiance infringes on the finished work of Christ. A commitment to do what is right is misplaced dependence. That is depending on behavior for salvation. That is works dependence!

Nathan also wrote,
Lordship teaches that repentance includes a turning from lawlessness and rebellion, which necessarily means a willingness to surrender, and a turning to God.”
This is where Calvinism’s regeneration before faith is a key issue. Nathan’s order is wrong! Lost man cannot turn from sin, but he can turn to God to deliver him from sin and Hell. To be saved, must a man depend on a commitment to and promise of righteous living, or must he depend on the finished work of Christ? Must a lost man make a decision to stop sinning and commit to obedience and allegiance for salvation? To be born again, a man cannot trust both a personal commitment and the finished work of Christ.

Salvation comes by the total unconditional transfer of a man's dependence to God alone through Christ's atoning sacrifice and resurrection, and occurs apart from any personal upfront commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mature born again child of God.

A proper understanding of repentance can only be drawn out of a study of its precise theological usage in the New Testament, and must be based upon its primary meaning, a change of mind.


LM

The above is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment or discussion of the doctrine of repentance. I have posted Nathan's opinion on repentance, which is representative of most Lordship advocates. The revised and expanded edition of my book is nearly complete. In the book there are numerous pages dedicated to a thorough discussion of repentance.

24 comments:

  1. Hey Lou,

    I'm very much looking forward to the release of your updated book. I had been so confused about Repentance because I had only ever been given the Lordship position definition of it. I spent SO much time in the Bible trying to figure out what each instance of the word was referring too. Thank God a good friend told me to read H.A. Ironside's "Unless You Repent!" which has shown me that Repentance truly is just a change of mind. It's coming into agreement with God that you are a sinner worthy of Hell, and dependence on Christ to have paid the price.

    The whole confession deal homo logos. Is to agree with His Word, His description of our position.

    Loving your blog. Wish I would have found it sooner.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Kev:

    Thanks for stopping by. Glad you are enjoying my blog.

    If not for the reaction/response to my book I never would have gotten into this blogging business. Since starting I have found it to be very beneficial in some ways. I do try to make it look half-way decent for my guests. The Snap It feature seems to have crashed, I'll have to see what gives with that.

    I have not had the opportunity to read Ironside's book. I may get a copy. Glad to hear you found Ironside helpful.

    My book will NOT be under a new cover or title. I decided to just update the exisiting. I did toy with a new title, Another Defense of the Gospel. But the changes are minor and did not warrant a new book all-together.

    Thanks for visiting.



    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kev:

    I'll visit more of your blog later this weekend. Thanks for linking my site. I hope to do the same for yours. My IT helper is away for a few days. She does the technical stuff for me.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Lou, thanks. My blog is mostly rambling about whatever I'm learning at the time. :)

    It's amazing how Blogging makes you have to figure out what you really believe on a subject. I doubt I'd be learning half as much if I weren't doing it.

    I see you link to Middletown Bible Church. I thought I was a literalist but some of their studies exposed that I was "spiritualizing" some parts of the Word without even knowing it. The Internet might be filled with a lot of bad stuff, but God has used it to be a great blessing as well.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevl:

    Yes, I too have found the blog motivates me to seek the highest possible level of precision. This means more than the usual study, mediatation and comparison.

    When people comment/criticize what I write I will then look again to make I have not dropped the theological ball somewhere. This is what lead to my doing a mild revision to the book. Sharpening and tighenting portions as a result of some helpful discussions on the blogs.

    More...


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  6. As for Middeltown's site- Pastor Zeller has done some very good work on a variety of issues including Calvinism and Lordship Salvation.

    He and I have spoken several times, and I included two appendix entries from him in my book.

    Good to hear you find him helpful.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lordship would also have a hard time explaining Nicodemus. Well thought out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Anon:

    Yes, you are right. I do have some notes on the Nicodemus incident and it is a similarily difficult situation for the LS advocates.

    I'd appreciate it if you'd take a stab at sharing how you believe the scene with Nicodemus is a problem for Lordship theology. I want you to feel free to post some thoughts. OK?

    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Lou,

    Yup I love it when someone challenges what I believe - because one of two things is always going to happen. I'm going find out I was wrong and learn the True thing. OR I'm going to be come that much more well versed in the Truth of what I've already been shown in the Word.

    I hope the anonymous poster does come back to share some thoughts on Nic

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kevl:

    Thanks for the note. Challenges drive us back to the Scriptures, as it should. I also like to cross-check myself with the work from various commentators.

    Have great Lord's Day.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >>Nathan’s definition of repentance (representative of the Lordship position) requires a lost man to be inclined (i.e., make a decison) to stop sinning and “start obeying” to receive the gift of eternal life. This is to tell a lost man that he must turn over a new leaf to be born again.

    That, Lou, is a straw man.

    Consider Zaccheus' conversion. He announced his intention to restore what he had gotten unjustly. He had not actually made a single restitution -- but he had repented.

    Living out one's repentance is possible only by the empowerment of the Spirit provided to God's children. The willingness / inclination so to do is a much smaller thing ...

    None I have ever heard will tell the drunkard he has to be sober for 30 days before he can be saved. But telling him that he must be willing or inclined to abandon his sin ... that is another thing entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel,

    I'm curious. Do you think a lost person needs to be willing to give up specific sin, or merely sin in general? Is this "willingness" an emotion (e.g. sorrow) and/or words that express the same, or is there more involved?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorrow is not repentance, but is intended to lead us to repentance (2 Cor 7 -- I looked it up since you got me on the last one I failed to!).

    Repentance is an act of the will, not an emotion. We usually observe it accompanied by or even brought about by the emotion of sorrow, but they are not the same.

    Specific or general ... I'm not aware that the Bible answers that question definitively. We have specific examples like Zaccheus. We have David and others making the simple statement "I have sinned" and changing course thereafter. In David's most notable case, he had in mind a specific sin even if he didn't speak it (Psalm 51).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daniel:

    It is no “straw man” when I cite the very terms they use to describe their own position.

    I have had dozens of hours of personal interaction with the LS advocates and 19 years of reading their works on the subject. I am always careful to quote them fairly and accurately.

    You wrote, “None I have ever heard will tell the drunkard he has to be sober for 30 days before he can be saved.”

    Neither have I, but the LS gospel requires an upfront commitment to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mature disciple of Christ for the reception of eternal life.

    So, the drunkard will have to make a commitmet to “stop sinning” (drinking) or he cannot be saved, according to LS.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  16. Usually the term "turn over a new leaf" is used to refer to actually, in practice, getting one's life cleaned up. That goes beyond "an upfront commitment". Perhaps you used the phrases as synonyms instead. If you did mean living out the changed to which one committed prior to regeneration, then that is a straw man. No one will espouse that doctrine for no one could defend it.

    All right, then, an "upfront commitment to good works" ... does that sound difficult? To the slave of sin certainly! One may as well tell a lame man to take up his bed and walk as tell a sinner to commit to stop sinning.

    But then, the One Who calls the sinner to take His yolk upon him did tell the lame man to walk. And why not? We deal not with some teacher or inspirational speaker, but with Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth and all that in them is, who spoke and the worlds were formed.

    And what saith the Scripture of the power to be a child of God? John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

    Oh believe it in all this rich fullness, brethren! Do not for an instant join them who, having a form of godliness deny the power thereof!

    "Power to become the sons of God" ... oh what power that takes, for the fullness of that miracle is such that "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (I John 3:9)!

    Glory be to the name of Jesus! He breaks the power of canceled sin! He sets the prisoner free! If any be in Him, he is a new creation: old things are passed away, behold all things are become new! Hallelujah!

    The miracle of the once-lame man walking pales in comparison to this, the miracle of the once-sinful man living holy!

    How I remember the complete inability to do right! How true was Romans 8:8, "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." But thank God for verse 9! "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

    Praise the Lord!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am posting the following on behalf and request of Phil Evans, a regular contributor here.


    Daniel Wilson said:

    "Specific or general ... I'm not aware that the Bible answers that question definitively. We have specific examples like Zaccheus. We have David and others making the simple statement "I have sinned" and changing course thereafter. In David's most notable case, he had in mind a specific sin even if he didn't speak it (Psalm 51)."

    I know this is an aged article, but wanted to point out the flaw in Daniel's reasoning nonetheless.

    First of all, the issue here concerning repentance is the conversion from lost to saved. You cannot therefore use Psalm 51 and the example of David. Here is David crying out to God for forgiveness (familial not judicial)as a child of God who had already been saved for many years.

    Even Zaccheus cannot be used to support Daniel's use of the term "repentance". The fruit and the root of repentance are not the same thing. The root of Zaccheus' repentance was recognizing his sinful condition and placing his trust in Christ. Now, as a saved man, he produced the fruit from that repentance, namely, the repayment of money to anyone he had previously defrauded.

    "Lordship Salvation" advocates will state that if visible fruit does not exist, then the root doesn't exist either. However, God sees the heart. Some people do get saved and are content to be non-growing Christians. Some do grow, but then fall back to the world again. Another name for them is carnal Christians. Evidence for their existence is clear in Scripture.

    By denying the existence of truly born-again saints that are carnal, the LS crowd conveniently gives itself great leeway to self-righteously judge those who are not living right, as having never been saved.

    This is their corrupt fruit that grows from the corrupt root of their false doctrine.

    Another fruit of their doctrine is the shaking of the faith of weak and immature saints, making it difficult for them to recover, since now they are doubting their salvation because they haven't been "committed" enough.

    PE

    ReplyDelete
  18. So Zaccheus could have repented in his heart ... and not returned the defrauded money? Perhaps he could have continued to defraud ... even though he repented?

    >>the LS crowd conveniently gives itself great leeway to self-righteously judge

    Self-righteous judgment is, by definition, wrong. And the arrogance that produces it comes too easily to those of any theological persuasion. It is a temptation of which all must be wary.

    But proclaiming the liberty from sin that is in Christ ... why do you so oppose this? You would surely contend that every one that nameth the Name of Christ ought to depart from iniquity.

    The warnings that one cannot belong to Jesus at the same time he continues in sin are so numerous and stated in so many different ways by so many of the New Testament writers, that they are truly hard to miss.

    Surely you do not want to give a hell-bound sinner false assurance ... and leave him hurtling toward hell! Surely you do not wish to water down God's warnings, echoing the serpent's hiss ... "ye shall not surely die!"

    ReplyDelete
  19. "So Zaccheus could have repented in his heart ... and not returned the defrauded money? Perhaps he could have continued to defraud ... even though he repented?"

    Zaccheus indeed could have sincerely repented in his heart by recognizing his sinfulness and trusting Christ alone for mercy, and then once born-again, he could have used what all saints still possess (their free will), and made choices that would lead to his failure to follow through on his promises.

    Did not our brother and sister Ananias and Saphira not follow the Lord in holy living after they were saved, by their shenanigans with their land sale? Their love of money and willingness to lie to the Holy Spirit led to the chastisement of an early grave.

    If all truly born-again saints recover themselves out of sin before they die, as Calvanist teachers state or strongly imply, then why the existence of such chastisement? I would hope that you would not attempt to argue that they were not truly saved, for why would fear fall on the early Church if such punishment only happened to the lost? Or perhaps Ananias and Saphira were merely one-time exceptions in the Calvinist paradigm?

    Or the example of Simon the Sorcerer. Right after getting truly born again, he desired to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit with money, no doubt to make an even better profit off the people than he had done before with his sorcery.

    Or certain people who believed in Jesus, but were afraid to publicly commit to him, for they desired the praise from men more than from God.

    >>the LS crowd conveniently gives itself great leeway to self-righteously judge

    “Self-righteous judgment is, by definition, wrong. And the arrogance that produces it comes too easily to those of any theological persuasion. It is a temptation of which all must be wary.”

    But look at which theological persuasion better accommodates viewing others as lost, based on a subjective judgment that one could make as to the Christian quality of the other person's lifestyle, not withstanding the lack of ability to see what transpired in their heart at some point in their past. “Lordship Salvation” or Free Grace?

    What of the LS individual observing a person claiming to believe in Christ and serving God faithfully for twenty years. The LS person would claim in a heartbeat that they are observing a truly saved person. Now when that person falls into sin, and then dies without being recovered back into Christian living, what will the LS individual state then, that the person was never truly saved? Such convenience in order to maintain a theological position! Not to mention arrogance.

    “But proclaiming the liberty from sin that is in Christ ... why do you so oppose this?”

    I don't oppose that truth at all. Look at the Apostle Paul's struggles against the power of sin in his flesh in Romans. Do you think he saw himself completely free from the power of sin? If so, then why the heartache about the struggle? Does Christ set us completely free from sin or not? Yes, of course He does. But let's not get things tangled up here.

    First of all, at the moment of conversion from lost to saved, we are instantly and eternally set free from the penalty of sin (past tense element of salvation), but while still in our mortal bodies we are in a process of being saved from the power of sin as we yield in obedience to God (present tense element of salvation). Failure to do such yielding will not nullify our eternal salvation that has already been sealed, but will rob us of peace and joy in this life, and eternal reward in God's Kingdom. Even in this life sin's authority is broken, and it is not possible for it to enslave us, unless we use our will to choose to be its slave. (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  20. So you see, being free from sin's authority does not mean that a saint could not choose to become enslaved again. For if a saint can sin even though the authority of sin is nullified, that is proof that the saints still possess their free will to make choices to serve God or not. This is Paul's message in Romans 6 and 7. The encouragement in Romans 6 and 7 to live holy lest we be enslaved is not to the lost, for they are natural slaves to sin's authority. But it's to the saints, who can only be enslaved by yielding themselves to their former master.

    Paul called the power of sin that is still in our mortal flesh the “body of death”. He looked forward to when he would no longer have to contend with this body of death, for it severely burdened him. By the way, he was eluding to a practice of the Romans, who would sometimes tie a dead body to a person as punishment for a crime, and they would have to carry it wherever they went. Truly a gruesome weight!

    “You would surely contend that every one that nameth the Name of Christ ought to depart from iniquity.”

    Now you are making my point. Exactly, all saints ought to depart from iniquity and live holy, but not all do. Do you recall Jesus' healing of the ten lepers, but only one returned thanks? Many born-again likewise truly healed people today are among the nine instead of the one.

    “The warnings that one cannot belong to Jesus at the same time he continues in sin are so numerous and stated in so many different ways by so many of the New Testament writers, that they are truly hard to miss.”

    I don't recall seeing that in Scripture. Please give me what you consider to be the top two of such warnings, and we can discuss them if you like.

    What is the currency that buys our pardon, the blood of Christ, or our efforts at non-continuing in sin?

    Does the free will of a saint only function some of the time, or all of the time? No saint will forever continue in sin regardless, for thank God our salvation also has a future-tense element. For we will one day shed these mortal bodies that will one day be made new and glorified, and we will no longer have this “body of death”, and will also be free from the very presence of sin, something that we are not free from now.

    Has Christ truly set us free? Yes, but we will not experience the full fruit of such freedom until then. Hence, the exhortations to the saints in Scripture to live holy in this life, for freedom from the authority of sin does not automatically guarantee that we will do so. Do children automatically obey their parents? Likewise with God's children.

    “Surely you do not want to give a hell-bound sinner false assurance ... and leave him hurtling toward hell! Surely you do not wish to water down God's warnings, echoing the serpent's hiss ... 'ye shall not surely die!'”

    I don't offer assurance to anyone unless they know that they have trusted Christ as the crucified and risen Savior. Surely people of a sufficient mental capacity as to be accountable for their sins also possess the faculties to know whom they have placed their trust in for eternal life, wouldn't you agree? Unlike hardened Calvinists [not putting you in that category unless you want to be :-) ] who don't believe a person can absolutely for certain know that they are born-again until they step into the Throne Room, I rather like to claim the promise of First John 5:13.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  21. >>Ananias and Saphira ... Simon the Sorcerer ... certain people who believed in Jesus, but were afraid to publicly commit to him ... claiming to believe in Christ and serving God faithfully for twenty years

    You've cited anecdotal evidence opposing Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints -- and that is valid. We don't really know much about Ananias & Saphira, but the other examples stand.

    More direct opposition to the TULIP's "P" comes from our Lord's teaching that "He that endureth to the end shall be saved" and "If ye continue", Paul's "Stand fast" and "Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith", the Hebrew writer's "Let us take heed", and similar passages.

    So fear falling on the whole church when Ananias & Saphira fell makes perfect sense -- because anyone else could have fallen likewise.

    Paul himself discussed a concern that after he had preached to others he could become disqualified / disapproved ("castaway" in the KJV doesn't quite catch the meaning in today's sense of the term).

    >>hardened Calvinist

    No, not precisely :) More like "aspiring Methodist".

    Top 2 warnings ... I'll try to pick 2-3 from the multitude before the day is out.

    >>I rather like to claim the promise of First John 5:13

    Certainly. We ought to know that we know Christ, that we have eternal life. And how?
    "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." (I John 2:3)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Daniel, in answer to some of your points, I'll post some quotes from my book "Eternal Security Proved! within brackets.

    >>Ananias and Saphira ... Simon the Sorcerer ... certain people who believed in Jesus, but were afraid to publicly commit to him ... claiming to believe in Christ and serving God faithfully for twenty years

    "You've cited anecdotal evidence opposing Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints -- and that is valid. We don't really know much about Ananias & Saphira, but the other examples stand."

    Anecdotal? I thought I had submitted Scriptural evidence.

    "More direct opposition to the TULIP's 'P' comes from our Lord's teaching that 'He that endureth to the end shall be saved' and 'If ye continue', Paul's 'Stand fast' and 'Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith', the Hebrew writer's 'Let us take heed', and similar passages."

    LOL, I found your sarcasim above humorous, fully believing you didn't use it meanspiritedly. It's good to smile sometimes while in a strong debate. :-)

    Please think about the implications of the way you are understanding these passages. If they are warnings to the lost, number one, it doesn't make sense, for the lost have no faith, and are not enduring at all to begin with, much less to the end.

    Secondly, for born-again children of God to understand these as not applying to them does them a disservice, for these are exhortations to hold fast lest they be chastised, and ultimately lose their eternal reward in God's Kingdom if they don't recover themselves, notwithstanding, they are still eternally children of God who will never perish.

    {All Christians are hid in Christ (Col 3:3), but not all will partake (be a fellow sharer with) of Him and His glory in the sense of reward (ruling and reigning with Him).

    Don't misunderstand the word “salvation” in Heb. 6:9 to be referring to saving from hell. Look at the context. It's about working diligently to inherit the promises, which is the reward of faithfulness. Don't be deceived my brothers and sisters in Christ, only those who are faithful to the end receive the promises (reward). This is the same salvation Jesus referred to when He said:

    “And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, emphasis mine)}

    Obviously, the world does not hate its own, but it hates those who belong to the Lord! (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  23. {Another verse that Calvinist/Reformed use is the following:
    “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.” (II Cor. 13:5)

    “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?” (II Cor. 13:5, NASB)

    I’ve included two different translations to help better show what Paul is talking about. Many people misunderstand this verse as meaning that Christians should examine themselves to see if they are really saved or not. They then reason that since our ability to self-examine ourselves is not absolutely perfect, that we could not be absolutely sure that we are truly born again. To believe this is to believe that a child of God must always have at least a small amount of doubt that God is their Heavenly Father! Ask yourself: Is this what God truly desires for His children? I certainly have no desire that my son have any doubt at all concerning the fact that he is my child! Does God love us any less?

    Back up two verses and you’ll see that the Corinthians were doubting whether Paul was speaking the words of Christ. This is not a case of them doubting whether he was saved! If Paul was speaking the truth in Christ, it would have indicated that he was approved by Christ as walking properly in the faith. Paul was urging the Corinthians to examine themselves to see if they were thusly approved (in the faith). If they could know that they were, then by default they would also know that Paul was approved. They would then not challenge his authority.

    This is not a test to see if they had ever placed their faith in Christ and been saved, but whether they were living according to the faith. If they were living according to the faith, they would recognize that Christ is in them. If they were not living according to the faith, they would be spiritually sleepy and not recognize that Christ is in them. Their failure to recognize Christ in them certainly would not mean that Christ had left! If my son falls asleep next to me and no longer recognizes that I am there, it does not mean that I am no longer next to him.

    "So fear falling on the whole church when Ananias & Saphira fell makes perfect sense -- because anyone else could have fallen likewise."

    You mean any of the truly born-again could have fallen and been punished in the same manner? You're again making my point that truly saved people don't necessarily endure to the end. Now, either they are still saved (which Scripture proves), or they have lost their eternal salvation.

    "Paul himself discussed a concern that after he had preached to others he could become disqualified / disapproved ('castaway' in the KJV doesn't quite catch the meaning in today's sense of the term)".

    You really mean Paul had a concern that he could have been never been truly saved? Or that he could lose his eternal salvation and miss Heaven?

    {Look at the words of the Apostle Paul, “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.” (ICor.9:24)

    Obviously, the unsaved do not run in this race. They have not qualified for it by faith. Once you do qualify to run it, you should run as any dedicated competitor out to win the prize (eternal reward). Just three verses later, the Apostle Paul himself showed concern that he might not possibly win the prize. However, he was not concerned with whether he might become lost and no longer be a child of God!
    (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  24. The only way anyone enters the Kingdom of Heaven is by grace through faith. Entrance there is not a prize that anyone can say that they’ve won because of their worthiness or faithfulness. However, faithfulness will grant you an abundant entrance (II Peter 1:11) into the Kingdom of Heaven. You will not merely enter there, but will enter there as an honored member who will rule and reign with your Savior.}

    >>hardened Calvinist

    "No, not precisely :) More like 'aspiring Methodist'."

    I understand why you're an asprining Methodist. You see, the Calvinist position undermines personal assurance of salvation. The next logical step from there is a small one to come to the position that eternal salvation could be lost.

    "Top 2 warnings ... I'll try to pick 2-3 from the multitude before the day is out."

    >>I rather like to claim the promise of First John 5:13

    "Certainly. We ought to know that we know Christ, that we have eternal life. And how?"
    'And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.' (I John 2:3)

    I think the "how" is right there in I John 5:13. But if you agree with me that you can know you have eternal life according to this verse...drumroll...do you also KNOW that you will endure to the end? If not, why not? Do you see the contradictions of your beliefs, and how something has got to give? I think you do, hence, your drift towards "lose your salvation" doctrine.

    But to answer your misapplication of I John 2:3 -

    {Could a child of God say with all honesty that they truly have an experiential knowledge of Christ, that they have
    fellowship with Him, and reflect His character in their lives without keeping His commandments? Of course not. Only
    those that are keeping His commandments can know that the love of God is completed and fulfilled within them. If
    you are claiming to abide in Christ, then you should walk as He walked. All of this is precisely what this passage is
    teaching us.

    Those who use this Scripture as justification for teaching that eternal life is obtained and/or kept by keeping all of
    Christ’s commandments use “know Him” in the very narrow sense of “know Him as your Savior”. They then
    conclude that if you don’t keep His commandments, that you no longer know Him as your Savior, and are therefore
    lost.

    Since this passage is obviously about fellowship, the burden of proof is on those who assert that this narrow
    usage of the phrase “know Him” is what is in view here. So far I have not seen them present any such proof.}

    Phil

    ReplyDelete